Quotes of the Day:

“War throughout history has taken many forms. Let us know to hear that its essence is fighting, but that not all fighting involves physical violence, at least not at all stages. The threat of violence can be an act of war, indeed, the absence of violence, as in the case of a state failing to act within its own jurisdiction, against terrorists attacking citizens, in property of another state, can be an act of war. Gifts, concealing violence, such as the Trojan horse, are clearly acts of war. Gifts innocuous in themselves, when offered with hostile intent, or commonly described as acts of war. To limit the concept of war to ask a violence conducted within a framework of formal military organization may be bureaucratically satisfying, but it is analytically weak. It is a poor guide to the policy maker. War is power applied with hostile intent. Now, and throughout history, war has been pursued to channels intended to conceal or blunt that simple fact concealment of that fact, is one aspect of political war.”

– Paul A. Smith, Jr., On Political War

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA233501

“It follows then as certain as that night succeeds the day, that without a Decisive Naval force we can do nothing definitive, and with it everything honorable and glorious.” 

–George Washington

"The practical success of an idea, irrespective of its inherent merit, is dependent on the attitude of the contemporaries. If timely, it is quickly adopted; if not, it is apt to fare like a sprout lured out of the ground by warm sunshine, only to be injured and retarded in its growth by the succeeding frost." 

– Nikola Tesla

1. Army Special Operations Command Innovates for Next War

2. Recap: Highlights from the US Army’s annual conference in Washington

3. After Sinwar’s Death, Israel Has Stark Choice: Declare Victory or Keep Fighting

4. Ukraine Has Resisted Russia in One Key Town for Months. Its Hold Is Starting to Break.

5. Surprise Battlefield Encounter Led to Hamas Leader’s Death

6. U.S. Wrestles With Aiding Allies and Maintaining Its Own Weapons Supply

7. Zelensky brings ‘victory plan’ to NATO, but invite seems out of reach

8. A US-China science pact has expired after 45 years. How is the world poorer for it?

9. Ukraine president says Russia to deploy 10,000 North Korean troops

10. US sanctions Chinese, Russians over attack drones used in Ukraine

11. Sinwar’s Death Will Hasten the End of the War

12. Beyond Deterrence: U.S. Indo-Pacific Command’s Strategic Shift

13. As Ukraine builds better drones, do American firms still have a role?

14. The Pentagon Wants to Use AI to Create Deepfake Internet Users

15. Army about to formalize 'micro-high altitude balloons' as a new requirement for surveillance ops

16. SOF and Influence Activities

17. In Countering the Houthis, America Should Lead From Behind

18. Do We Need a Hero? Building Heritage and Culture in the U.S. Space Force

19. His Country Trained Him to Fight. Then He Turned Against It. More Like Him Are Doing the Same

20. Opinion: I won the Nobel Peace Prize. Now I'm asking the US to send missiles to Ukraine.

21. Understanding Security Cooperation

22. A Vocabulary of Escalation​: A Primer on the Escalation Literature for Military Planners

23. In the Crucible of Decision: Judgment is the Ultimate Virtue

1. Army Special Operations Command Innovates for Next War

But we must also innovate for the war we are fighting today and will continue to fight for as nations exist, irregular, unconventional, and political war.  While Army SOF must innovate to be prepared for the big fight as the rest of the military is preparing for, we must not lose sight of the fact that during that big fight, irregular, unconventional, and political warfare will still be an integral part of that big fight. Army SOF must focus on the two SOF trinities as these are the best ways to contribute to the current and sustained fight as well as the big fight that we hope to deter but must be prepared for as well.

The Two SOF "trinities"

1) The three SOF "warfares:"

Irregular Warfare

Unconventional Warfare

Support to Political Warfare

2) The Comparative advantage of SOF:

Influence

Governance

Support to indigenous forces and populations

While sustaining exquisite capabilities for the no fail CT and CP national missions

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/two-special-operations-trinities

Army SOF must also sustain an unconventional warfare mindset because it is unconventional warfare that informs who SOF thinks about, prepares for, and executes operations across the spectrum of competition and conflict.

An Unconventional Warfare Mindset

The Philosophy of Special Forces Must be Sustained

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/unconventional-warfare-mindset-philosophy-special-forces-must-be-sustained

We must not lose sight of the importance of the above fundamentals as we try to innovate for the future.

​Excerpts:

Technology is easy to acquire, and the advantage in warfare will belong to the entity that can optimize and adapt it quickly, whether it’s one-way attack drones, electromagnetic interference, coding, 3D printing or engineering, Braga said, pointing out that innovation is playing out on battlefields from the Middle East to Europe every day.

...

Army Special Operations Command, he said, is “not resting on any laurels.” Rather, the command is learning from others and changing its formations, schoolhouses, doctrine and institution. This includes creating a technical warrant officer position, new courses in robotics and unmanned systems integration, and a new special operations robotics detachment.

“Every facet of Army special operations is changing because warfare is changing,” Braga said.

Army Special Operations Command Innovates for Next War

ausa.org · October 16, 2024

Photo by: U.S. Army/Capt. Kevin M. Lindow

Wed, 10/16/2024 - 13:26

The side that adapts and innovates first will win the next war, said Lt. Gen. Jonathan Braga, commander of Army Special Operations Command.

The key to achieving that is adopting a collective mindset, he said.

“Innovation is a mindset. It's not a thing, it's not a widget, it's not an end state. It's a perpetual process, and what I'm asking here is really a call to arms for the innovation cycle,” Braga said Oct. 15 during a Warriors Corner presentation at the Association of the U.S. Army’s Annual Meeting and Exposition in Washington, D.C.

Responsibility for the innovation cycle does not belong to one entity nor solely to the military, he said. Innovation can come from academia, coalition partners, the defense industrial base, lawmakers or policy makers, and whether it’s a new idea or someone else’s idea, “it’s not always the one with the first idea.”

“The adaptation of that idea, the employment of that idea on the battlefield, in the domain against the adversary, the lessons learned from that employment and the rapid innovation for the next phase of that and how tightly you can get that, I argue is going to be the winner of the next war,” Braga said, adding that it is “something we need to work on collectively.”

Technology is easy to acquire, and the advantage in warfare will belong to the entity that can optimize and adapt it quickly, whether it’s one-way attack drones, electromagnetic interference, coding, 3D printing or engineering, Braga said, pointing out that innovation is playing out on battlefields from the Middle East to Europe every day.

“The speed of innovation is only getting faster. … We are not talking months and years and programs of record. You're talking hours and days from idea to concept to operator to engineer to building it, to flying it and getting it to the front line to make a difference in someone's life,” Braga said. “We must challenge the status quo, we must look at new technology, or old technology perhaps deployed in a new way, … and it's going to be inherent that we work together as a coalition.”

Army Special Operations Command, he said, is “not resting on any laurels.” Rather, the command is learning from others and changing its formations, schoolhouses, doctrine and institution. This includes creating a technical warrant officer position, new courses in robotics and unmanned systems integration, and a new special operations robotics detachment.

“Every facet of Army special operations is changing because warfare is changing,” Braga said.

— Gina Cavallaro

AUSA Books Program

The AUSA Book Program offers quality books about Army heritage, military theory and policy, and security in the modern world. One of its goals is to foster an understanding of the emerging security environment. This program permits AUSA members to purchase these titles at a discounted rate.

Visit AUSA Books Program

THE ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY

2425 Wilson Blvd.

Arlington, VA 22201

Phone: 703-841-4300

Member Services: 1-855-246-6269

Email: membersupport@ausa.org

© 2024 Association of the United States Army

Footer menu

• Privacy Policy

ausa.org · October 16, 2024

2. Recap: Highlights from the US Army’s annual conference in Washington

A useful rollup. This seems to have been a very good event this year. All reports I have heard from the many people I know who attended have been positive.

Recap: Highlights from the US Army’s annual conference in Washington

Defense News · by Defense News staff · October 17, 2024

WASHINGTON — The Association of the United States Army rolled out its annual exposition from Oct. 14-16 in Washington, with defense industry officials, lawmakers and military personnel from around the globe huddling to discuss the future force — and what threats may await just over the horizon.

As in previous years, the service continues its aggressive modernization push, with efforts focused on next-gen weaponry and vehicles, personnel training, long-range artillery, unmanned systems, defense capabilities, network domains and much more.

Such efforts, meanwhile, continue to be influenced by evolving conflicts abroad.

Russia’s prolonged invasion of Ukraine is dragging toward another brutal winter as manned and unmanned innovations reshape the region’s tumultuous front lines. Tensions endure in the Middle East, where regional attacks by Iranian proxies remain a looming threat to U.S. troops and allies. And arsenal developments and troop movements throughout the Indo-Pacific region continue to unfold in response to increasingly bold territorial assertions out of Beijing.

Army officials attending the conference emphasized the service’s need for flexibility and quick adaptation as the technologies, policies and spending at the core of these conflicts intersect with all corners of the globe.

Defense News and Army Times covered these discussions — and much more — from the show. Catch up on all of our top stories from this year’s AUSA conference and be sure to read more of our latest coverage at defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa.

Jump to a section:

Sponsored By: Rheinmetall

Modernization

The Family of Weapons Sights-Sniper allows soldiers to see thermal signatures and shoot farther. (Fred Shear/U.S. Army)

All the high-tech gear the Army is bringing to soldiers

As technology advances, the gear soldiers use to survive on the battlefield and accomplish their missions becomes more sophisticated. As the epicenter of all things soldier gear, Program Executive Office-Soldier works with Army laboratories, research and development commands to deliver ready-to-field kit to troops, with gear ranging from soldiers’ boots to advanced targeting and night vision.

Army Times spoke with experts at PEO Soldier ahead of this year’s Association of the U.S. Army’s Annual Meeting and Exposition in Washington, D.C, about some of the more high-tech equipment they’re developing and fielding. Read more here.

Trial by fire: How the Army banks on frontline units to test new gear

When learning recently that a prototype of the Army’s new air and missile defense radar was performing significantly better in tests than the old Patriot radar, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George had an idea.

Why not send the Raytheon-made Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor, or LTAMDS, to units stationed in the Pacific, the Middle East or Europe to get a sense of how the new equipment works in field, he suggested.

The process would essentially outsource service test and evaluation procedures currently confined to controlled environments in the United States to what the Army calls the “tactical edge,” one step in a wider transformation initiative that prizes change driven by the deployed. Read more here.

How the Army’s chief of staff plans to modernize the service

The U.S. Army will ramp up its efforts to transform its formations with next-level technology including capabilities to counter drone threats much faster, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George said.

“We have to buy smart and fast,” George said in a speech at the annual Eisenhower luncheon. “Our budget is tight, our numbers are lean and that requires us to prioritize and make informed investments.”

When George became Army chief a year ago, he announced he would focus on using units in the field to transform the service “in contact,” putting capability into the hands of soldiers in realistic operational environments to advance things that work and scrap what doesn’t. Read more here.

When will the Army embrace hybrid-electric vehicles?

The Army has long tinkered with the idea of making some of its vehicles electric or hybrid, and while the technology has become commonplace in the commercial vehicle industry, the service has yet to jump on the bandwagon.

As officials hedge their bets, companies have continued to put technology in front of the service in order to show the purported benefits, arguing that the technology is ready for prime time in the Army’s modernization plans. Read more here.

Take notes, a formation like this could be coming to your unit soon

In the piney woods of Louisiana, one brigade’s new approach to reconnaissance recently illustrated the Army’s plan to undertake more complex and demanding missions with new tech and fewer soldiers. The 2nd Mobile Brigade Combat Team, or MBCT, with 101st Airborne Division carried out their rotation at the Joint Readiness Training Center in August, the culmination of months of planning, new equipment training and restructuring.

The brigade is one of three selected by the Army chief of staff to be the focus of his “Transformation in Contact” initiative, which seeks to deliver new equipment to units as they increase their readiness and prepare for deployments. Read more here.

Jump to a section:

Sponsored By: Rheinmetall

Training

A paratrooper provides perimeter security during CBRN training in Hohenfels, Germany. (Sgt. Luke Michalski/Army)

Fighting ‘dirty’ — The Army’s plan to survive, and win, a doomsday war

Daring moves by U.S. adversaries foreshadow the return of sinister nuclear, chemical or biological weapons as technological advances promise to bring new tools of destruction to strike soldiers on future battlefields. A soldier’s new best friend may not be a rifle, or altogether new weapons, but instead a gas mask, gloves and a protective suit.

As threats evolve, the Pentagon, and specifically the Army, is reimagining how units may have to fight large-scale combat in deadly, contaminated environments. But experts in Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) defense, must also fight complacency that’s existed for generations and bureaucratic red tape. Read more here.

From CamoGPT to life skills, the Army is changing how it trains troops

As the Army has adjusted its doctrine and modernized how it prepares soldiers for leadership and combat, the service’s Training and Doctrine Command touches nearly every aspect of those initiatives. Over the past year, new programs and updates to existing training have flowed across the force.

Army Times spoke with Gen. Gary Brito, head of Training and Doctrine Command, about some of these areas and what they mean for new and career soldiers. Brito took over his current command in 2022 after serving as the Army’s deputy chief of staff over personnel. Read more here.

Soldiers exposed to new combat realities with expanded training

A new approach to training brand new recruits in large-scale combat aims to prepare soldiers for future conflicts as the Army readies the force for a potential slugfest against foes like the Russian or Chinese militaries.

In March, the service launched “Forge 2.5,” another update to “The Forge,” which began as a concept in 2016 with a 96-hour field exercise for week-seven trainees. The Forge has been in place since 2018 as a regular feature of basic training. The event closely mirrors “The Crucible,” which the Marine Corps instituted in its recruit training in the 1990s. Read more here.

How the Army is improving care in the field to keep soldiers alive

The Army is revamping how it provides lifesaving care in the field, including new hospital setup gear, ways to preserve blood on the front lines and a new combat-ready respirator to keep wounded soldiers breathing. Over the past year, Program Executive Office-Soldier added medical devices to its portfolio of all things soldier, which includes clothing, weapons, body armor and a host of other items.

The 1945th Medical Detachment is slated to stand up in late 2025 and will hold three Prolonged Care Augmentation Detachments, or PCADs, officials said. Early work on the PCADs began as all U.S. service branches acknowledged that large-scale combat operations would mean wounded soldiers might have to wait longer for care. Read more here.

Training changes on the horizon for Army Guardsmen

The Army National Guard must find new ways to train in a limited number of days each year so that their formations are ready to fight large-scale combat operations when called, Army National Guard Director Lt. Gen. Jonathan Stubbs said Tuesday at the annual Association of the U.S. Army conference.

Guardsmen are generally restricted to serving 39 days each year, and in that time, soldiers must practice everything from physical training and small arms marksmanship to knocking down aerial threats or planning how to move a brigade across the globe. Read more here.

Why Army divisions must prepare to get dirty

During this past year the Army sent a division headquarters and its enablers into a large-scale, on-the-ground exercise to learn how these personnel groups will approach surviving the next war.

It was the first time in decades that division headquarters and the myriad units it would go into combat with — a combat aviation brigade, sustainment, air defense brigade and division artillery — trained together in person. But it certainly will not be the last. Read more here.

Jump to a section:

Sponsored By: Rheinmetall

Personnel

101st Airborne soldiers conduct forward arming and refueling point operations, August 2024. (Spc. Parris Kersey/Army)

What ‘Transformation in Contact’ means for the enlisted soldier

Over the past year, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George and his top generals have merged two constant Army initiatives: readiness and modernization. Keeping soldiers ready to fight when called and delivering them new gear, updated doctrine and time to train on their equipment and tactics is a balancing act.

Although the Transformation in Contact initiative is part of an Army-wide effort, three brigades have been selected to test out many of the on-the-ground changes, including 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division out of Fort Campbell, Kentucky; 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division out of Hawaii; and 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division out of Fort Drum, New York.

The brigades are buying commercial equipment and reconfiguring their unit structures to find out what they’ll need for a future fight. Read more here.

US Army sets ambitious new recruiting goal following years of struggle

The U.S. Army is aiming to recruit 61,000 new soldiers in the coming year, an ambitious goal that is building off of the service surpassing its goal with 55,000 new recruits in fiscal 2024 after several dismal recruiting years, Army Secretary Christine Wormuth announced Monday at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference.

The Army recruited 55,000 new soldiers in FY24. The service’s Delayed Entry Program goal for FY25 is 10,000, which is twice the number as FY24, Wormuth said. The delayed entry program allows enlistees to sign up but leave for initial training later, often so that they can complete high school or college.

“This goal is ambitious but we believe it is achievable,” she said. Read more here.

How saving soldiers’ lives influenced the Army’s new kit options

While new night vision and advanced drones often attract a lot of attention, soldiers know that much of their comfort and survival in training and combat often depends on what they wear. Everything from boots and weapons to first aid pouches, new bomb suits for explosives specialists and even cold weather gear comes out of Program Executive Office-Soldier.

Such items — whether it’s the new Greens uniform, a better hot-weather boot, poncho or the beloved “woobie” — are all part of what soldiers wear. Army Times spoke with gear experts at PEO Soldier ahead of the Association of the U.S. Army’s Annual Meeting and Exposition about some of the items soldiers wear that are being fielded, developed or improved. Read more here.

Army wants all troops on new fitness program by 2032. How’s it going so far?

The Army recently announced that its all-around health and fitness program will now expand beyond a select 111 brigades to the entire Army. Since its inception in 2018 with a pilot program, the Holistic Health and Fitness program, or H2F, has sought to educate and improve soldier performance in physical, mental, nutrition, spiritual and sleep domains.

To that end, the force has built brigade-level civilian teams of nearly two dozen contracted staff members, which include an H2F program director; nutrition, injury control and mental health directors; registered dietitians; physical therapists; athletic trainers; strength coaches; cognitive performance specialists and occupational therapists. Read more here.

How Project Polaris is gearing up the brigade by targeting the squad

The home for all things soldier gear is partnering with a host of Army entities on a project to build a better infantry brigade by working from the bottom up at the soldier and squad level. Army Times spoke with Maj. Gen. Christopher Schneider, commander of Program Executive Office-Soldier, ahead of the annual Association of the U.S. Army’s Annual Meeting and Exposition about the “Project Polaris” initiative.

Coordinating the Army’s many groups that encompass all the parts of a brigade requires significant effort. The coordination between Schneider’s command and others is now considered the service’s Close Combat Integration Enterprise, or CCIE, Schneider said.

“We have never been as aligned as we are today,” Schneider added. Read more here.

Soldiers will get $240 a month for operational deployments

Soldiers deployed for more than 60 days in an Army operation will now receive an extra $240 each month. For those already deployed, the cash benefit is retroactive to Oct. 1, said Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth.

The new benefit, dubbed “operational deployment pay,” is specifically for operational deployments and does not cover exercises at the combat training centers, Wormuth said. For example, the pay is intended for brigades and battalions who’ve deployed to Europe for Operation Assurance, she said. Read more here.

Jump to a section:

Sponsored By: Rheinmetall

Industry

A Ukrainian serviceman fires towards Russian positions using a M777 howitzer at the frontline in Donetsk region, Ukraine, August 2024. (Evgeniy Maloletka/AP)

Army races to widen the bottlenecks of artillery shell production

The U.S. Army has started diversifying its supplier base for 155mm artillery shells, moving away from the bottleneck of a single source that has endangered the flow of fresh ammo, according to a top service official. The service is racing toward a goal of shoring up all major single sources that provide parts or materials for 155mm munitions by the end of 2025.

“There’s going to be a lot of ribbon cuttings between now and the end of the year,” Doug Bush, the Army’s acquisition chief, told Defense News.

The Pentagon is investing billions of dollars to increase the capacity of 155mm munition production as it races to replenish stock sent to support Ukraine’s fight against the Russian invasion, which began in early 2022, and to ensure the U.S. has what it might need should conflict erupt across multiple theaters at once. The Army planned to spend $3.1 billion in FY24 supplemental funding alone to ramp up production. Read more here.

Why the Army is looking abroad to close a widening artillery gun gap

More than two years into observing an artillery war play out in Ukraine, the U.S. Army finds its own gun technology options lacking. The service’s current arsenal is either old, as is the case of the towed M777, or lacking the desired range for future conflicts against near-peer armies, exemplified by the latest version of the Paladin self-propelled howitzer, made by BAE Systems.

The recent cancellation of an effort to mount an unwieldly long barrel on a Paladin body — length determines range, generally speaking — has forced the service to start from square one yet again. The Army quietly halted the yearslong prototyping effort, dubbed the Extended Range Cannon Artillery, or ERCA, a year ago, announcing only this March that “engineering challenges” had turned out to be insurmountable, as acquisition chief Doug Bush put it. Read more here.

US Army quits plan for next-gen Patriot missile replacement

The U.S. Army has decided to back off an effort to replace its Patriot missile with a next-generation interceptor, according to Maj. Gen. Frank Lozano, program executive officer for missiles and space.

“We are not going to move forward on what we were calling a Lower-Tier Future Interceptor,” Lozano told Defense News in an interview at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference, adding that those scrapped plans would have been “a very expensive endeavor.”

The effort would have completed the final piece of the puzzle in a new Integrated Air and Missile Defense System. Already the service has fielded its command-and-control system, and is developing and will soon field a new radar capable of detecting threats from 360 degrees. Read more.

What the Army is planning for its vehicle-protection push

The U.S. Army wants to pursue a more layered approach to protecting combat vehicles and formations, a step away from the singular push over the last decade to outfit them with active protection systems, Army officials in charge of ground combat modernization told Defense News.

Army Futures Command has been working on a Formation Layered Protection requirement and is releasing what it calls a “characteristics of need” statement to industry. The Army is looking for ways to protect dismounted soldiers, vehicles and full formations from a variety of threats. Potential approaches include masking vehicles or hardening them with both active and passive protection tactics. Read more here.

GM Defense pitches silent-drive vehicle as heir to the Humvee

Emerging rapidly out of dense foliage, a truck swings around a bend on a washboard gravel road, but the only sound is the crunch of gravel beneath tires and the occasional ping of a rock hitting its underside.

The truck is a new hybrid vehicle that GM Defense has developed to show the Army what is possible for a Humvee-type capability that meets the needs of modern warfare. The Army does not yet have a requirement for a new Humvee, or High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, or something else to replace the 40-year-old vehicle with 50-year-old technology. Read more here.

How the Army’s upgrading ammo to destroy targets large and small

From pistol rounds to artillery shells, the Army is developing a host of new ways to destroy targets large and small. The service is working on one-way tracer rounds for current standard rifle ammunition and reduced-range training rounds for some of the same cartridges.

Additionally, the service is testing proximity fuses for grenade launcher rounds that would help defeat enemies behind barriers and blast drones out of the sky. Meanwhile, on the larger end of the caliber spectrum, Army scientists are building new rounds for the 120mm tank rounds they expect will be needed to defeat enemy armor. Read more here.

Jump to a section:

Sponsored By: Rheinmetall

International

Gen. Charles Flynn attends Exercise Balikatan 24 at Fort Magsaysay, Philippines, April 2024. (Capt. Jordan Balzano/U.S. Army)

One on one with US Army Pacific Command chief Gen. Charles Flynn

The Army has spent the last year increasing the complexity and breadth of its exercises in the Pacific while trying out new capabilities that will soon be a part of formations in the theater. Relationships with Pacific nations have grown amid continuing tensions with China, and U.S. Army Pacific chief Gen. Charles Flynn has staked out a role for land forces in a region associated primarily with air and naval power.

Defense News sat down with Flynn prior to the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference. Here are edited excerpts of the conversation. Read more here.

US Army Pacific to absorb new units under ‘transformation’ mantra

The U.S. Army command for the Indo-Pacific finds itself at the front of the service’s transformation initiative, incorporating new unit types created to facilitate rapid adaptation to adversary tactics, according to U.S. Army Pacific Command chief Gen. Charles Flynn.

Several units in the Pacific, from Hawaii to Alaska, were chosen as part of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George’s initiative, dubbed “Transforming in Contact,” Flynn said in an interview ahead of the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference.

“But there’s a whole other transformation in contact that’s going on out here at the operational and theater level.” That transformation has to do with absorbing new organizations and capabilities designed to facilitate the quick incorporation of new tactics and technologies in the field. Read more here.

Project Convergence to plant a flag in the Pacific

The military’s massive experimentation event, Project Convergence, will plant a flag in the strategically vital Pacific region next year, the first time that U.S. and allied forces will kick the tires of the Pentagon’s latest warfighting concepts at the edge of America’s sphere of influence.

“Our large experiments need to be concept-informed, and the concepts we’re talking about are the sets of capabilities and relationships that we think we’re going to need to win in the operating environments we are going to face in the future,” said Army Brig. Gen. Zachary Miller, who heads the Joint Modernization Command at Fort Bliss, Texas. “And the priority theater for the Department of Defense is the Pacific.”

The joint force has simulated Pacific scenarios in the United States during previous iterations of the exercise, which began as an Army-only event in 2020 at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona. But the experimentation campaign has never been held forward in relevant theaters aside from some peripheral activities at the Army Pacific headquarters level earlier this year. Read more here.

How the US Army is helping Ukraine with front line repairs

It starts with a message on the secure messaging app Signal.

Front line units in Ukraine see an issue with their equipment and send notes to translators, who soon share those with the U.S. military. Then, operating from one of seven stations in Poland, American forces schedule video calls with the Ukrainians to help them repair the weapons.

This is the process for the Army’s virtual repair mission to help keep equipment working as long and as close to the front line as possible in Ukraine. Read more here.

Sending THAAD to Israel adds to strain on US Army, leaders say

The deployment of a U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense battery to Israel and roughly 100 soldiers to operate it will add to already difficult strains on the Army’s air defense forces and potential delays in modernizing its missile defense systems, Army leaders said Monday.

The service’s top two leaders declined to provide details on the deployment ordered by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin over the weekend. But they spoke broadly about their concerns as the demand for THAAD and Patriot missile batteries grows because of the war in Ukraine and the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah and Hamas militants. Read more here.

Army weighing sending missile defense prototypes forward into theater

Tasked by the Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George, the service’s missiles and space shop is examining the possibility of sending new air and missile defense capabilities still in the prototype phase into theater, the program executive officer told Defense News.

“The chief has challenged us and has asked us to look at opportunities, present some options, by which we would accelerate [the Integrated Battle Command System] to the field, accelerate [the Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor] to the field and accelerate some of the [Indirect Fire Protection Capability] capabilities to the field,” Maj. Gen. Frank Lozano said in an interview ahead of the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference.

Both the Raytheon-developed LTAMDS and Leidos’ Dynetics-made IFPC have experienced successful test events over the past year. Read more here.

Jump to a section:

Sponsored By: Rheinmetall

Unmanned Tech

A Ukrainian soldier of the 71st Jaeger Brigade prepares a FPV drone, Donetsk region, March 2024. (Efrem Lukatsky/AP)

As Ukraine builds better drones, do American firms still have a role?

In mid-September, massive explosions erupted in Toropets, a city in eastern Russia near the border with Belarus. Ukraine had struck a military warehouse, igniting bombs and missiles in what Pentagon officials later said was Russia’s largest loss of Russian ammunition during the war — hundreds of thousands of rounds destroyed.

Almost as important, though, was how Ukraine conducted the strike. Toropets is more than 300 miles from the Ukrainian border, outside the range of western weapons Kyiv wants permission to fire deep into Russia. Instead, Ukraine used drones it built alone. Read more here.

How the Army plans to remove soldiers from the deadly breach

If a collection of soldiers and scientists are successful, troops may never again have to run, on foot, into a breach, swinging a grappling hook in a scene resembling medieval foot soldiers breaking through enemy fortifications.

Instead, soldiers of the future may pilot explosives-laden drones and robotic bulldozers into the tangle of concertina wire, steel barricades and landmines. Over the past nine months, the 264th Engineer Clearance Company, with the 20th Engineer Brigade at Fort Liberty, North Carolina, began its third phase of human-machine teaming experiments. Read more here.

Make counter-drone training as routine as marksmanship: Army general

Soldiers recently deployed to the Middle East often had less than a minute to decide how to take down an incoming drone. A unit detecting, intercepting and destroying a drone often took less than four minutes, said Maj. Gen. Scott Naumann, commander of the 10th Mountain Division.

To meet that threat, the two-star is working with his unit and using a soldier-created tool to prepare troops to counter drones more effectively.

“Training [counter-drone] should be as routine as drawing our rifles, going to the range and honing our marksmanship skills,” Naumann said. Read more here.

Army closes in on autonomous boats to ferry supplies into battle

The Army is developing requirements to distribute supplies to troops on the battlefield in a contested environment using a network of autonomous boats and aircraft, according to the general in charge of logistics modernization.

“Our focus is an ecosystem looking at how we improve the supply chain, but also ensuring that we could keep that supply chain in motion — given a peer adversary like China — [when] we’re not able to [establish] fixed sites and keep them there for long periods of time,” Brig. Gen. Shane Upton, the Contested Logistics Cross Functional Team lead within Army Futures Command, told Defense News. Read more here.

For Replicator 2, Army wants AI-enabled counter-drone tech

The Army is eyeing a mix of existing and new technology to potentially scale through the second iteration of the Pentagon’s Replicator initiative, including systems that use artificial intelligence and machine learning to target and intercept small-drone threats.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced last month that Replicator 2 would center on countering threats from small drones, particularly those that target “critical installations and force concentration,” he said in a Sept. 29 memo. DOD plans to propose funding as part of its fiscal 2026 budget request with a goal of fielding “meaningfully improved” counter-drone defense systems within two years. Read more here.

Jump to a section:

Sponsored By: Rheinmetall

Share:

Defense News · by Defense News staff · October 17, 2024

3. After Sinwar’s Death, Israel Has Stark Choice: Declare Victory or Keep Fighting

Victory can be declared when the political objective is achieved. What is the durable acceptable political arrangement that will serve, protect, and advance Israeli interests?

Excerpts:

“Now it’s clear to everyone, in Israel and in the world, why we insisted on not ending the war,” Netanyahu said. “Why we insisted, against all the pressures, to go into Rafah, the fortified outpost of Hamas in which Sinwar and many of the murderers hid.”

Sinwar’s death is an important symbolic event, but it doesn’t mean Israel can end the war now, said Yaakov Amidror, a former national security adviser under Netanyahu and a fellow with the Jewish Institute for National Security of America in Washington. Rather, he said, it shows that Israel’s strategy of continuing to apply military pressure throughout the Gaza Strip is working.

Hamas remains strong enough to attack any alternative government in Gaza, Amidror said. “We have to continue to degrade its military capabilities, to make Hamas irrelevant, not just as a threat to Israel, but to everyone who might come in as a substitute,” he said.

Amidror said it took Israel four years to suppress the bloody uprising known as the second Intifada in Jenin, a city in the occupied West Bank. He predicted at least another year of fighting in Gaza.

The killing of so many Hamas leaders also could make it harder to find anyone with the authority to negotiate and uphold a deal, a problem Israel is also potentially facing with Hezbollah after assassinating most of its leading echelon.

With Israel’s military accumulating tactical wins against Hamas and Hezbollah and preparing to strike their backer Iran, the question is whether Netanyahu wants to stop. He and other Israeli leaders haven’t said how the war ends without a cease-fire-and-hostage deal.

After Sinwar’s Death, Israel Has Stark Choice: Declare Victory or Keep Fighting

Netanyahu suggests the war will continue as the U.S. and Israel’s military argue for a cease-fire in Gaza

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/sinwars-death-gives-israel-a-choice-to-pursue-war-or-peace-ac8f834a?mod=hp_lead_pos7

By Marcus WalkerFollow, Shayndi RaiceFollow and Alexander WardFollow

Updated Oct. 17, 2024 4:56 pm ET

TEL AVIV—The death of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar creates an opportunity for Israel to declare victory and wind down the war in the Gaza Strip.

For now, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is keeping his options open.

“The war isn’t over,” Netanyahu declared late Thursday in a televised address that suggested he might treat Sinwar’s scalp as vindication for his policy of relentless military pressure in Gaza, and carry on.

His speech, however, included hints that he might shift Israel’s focus from annihilating what’s left of Hamas to bringing home the 101 Israeli hostages still held in Gaza by the U.S.-designated terrorist group.

Netanyahu is already coming under pressure from the U.S. to treat Sinwar’s elimination as a pivotal moment and revive the stalled effort to reach a cease-fire that frees the hostages—a preference shared by Israel’s military and intelligence services.

Such a deal with Hamas wouldn’t go down well with the Israeli premier’s right-wing coalition and many of his voters.

While Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar is dead, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the war in Gaza wasn’t over. Photo: eduardo munoz/Reuters

How he decides could determine the fate of the wider war in the Middle East, the hostages in Gaza, Israel’s frayed global relations and Netanyahu himself.

Whatever comes next, Thursday’s confirmation that Sinwar had been killed by Israeli tank fire represents a moment of catharsis for many Israelis and a heavy blow to Hamas.

Here are the two paths Netanyahu could follow. 

Take the win

Killing Sinwar, the mastermind of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack that triggered the war, is Israel’s most tangible win in a year of fighting in Gaza. Israel has mauled the militant group and devastated the Palestinian enclave, but its declared war aims of destroying Hamas and freeing the hostages remain unfulfilled.

Israel has now eliminated virtually all of Hamas’s top leaders in Gaza, apart from Sinwar’s brother Mohammed, who oversees the group’s day-to-day military operations and could potentially become its head now. On the other hand, many of Hamas’s fighters are still alive and have been regrouping and recruiting new members in some areas of Gaza.

A person views a collage at a memorial where relatives and supporters of Israeli hostages gathered. Photo: john wessels/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Israel’s military-and-security establishment has argued for months that fully annihilating Hamas is unrealistic and that a cease-fire is the only way to save the hostages who are still alive. 

Throughout this year, Sinwar resisted a cease-fire on terms that Israel could live with, Israeli and U.S. officials have said. Hamas’s exiled political leadership in Qatar is more pragmatic about such terms than Sinwar was, and more susceptible to pressure from Qatar and Egypt, which, along with the U.S., have been trying all year to broker a deal to end the war.

Top U.S. officials on Thursday signaled their view that Sinwar’s demise leaves an opening to secure the release of hostages and end the war.

“There is now the opportunity for a ‘day after’ in Gaza without Hamas in power, and for a political settlement that provides a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike,” President Biden said.

“This moment gives us an opportunity to finally end the war in Gaza,” Vice President Kamala Harris said during a campaign event in Wisconsin. She said the hostages should be released, civilian suffering in Gaza should end and Palestinians should live in self-determination. Just days earlier, the Biden administration had urged Israel to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza or risk U.S. arms sales.

Sinwar wasn’t the only obstacle to a cease-fire-and-hostage deal, but he was one of the biggest, U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters. “We believe this is a renewed opportunity we would like to seize,” he said.

Israel’s opportunity to dial down its multi-front war goes beyond Gaza, said Tamir Hayman, former head of Israeli military intelligence and executive director of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.

Israel should now tell Iran that, if it wants to avoid a direct war with Israel and save what’s left of its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah, it should pressure Hamas to come to the negotiating table, Hayman said. 

Many supporters of Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition are strongly opposed to any cease-fire deal that lets Hamas survive, however.

“It needs some form of leadership and courage from Netanyahu,” Hayman said. “He will be criticized from his base.”

Fight on

For the past year, Netanyahu has shown he is willing to defy the Biden administration—despite Israel’s dependence on U.S. military support—and resist pressure from Israel’s security establishment.

The conflict in Gaza has helped Netanyahu to recast himself as a leader determined to crush Israel’s enemies, rather than the incumbent on whose watch Israel suffered its worst-ever security disaster.

Streets are lined with rubble in Khan Younis, in the southern Gaza Strip. Photo: bashar taleb/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Opinion polls suggest he still would probably lose elections if they were held today but that he is making a steady recovery with Israel’s right-wing voters, thanks in part to Israel’s series of recent military blows against Lebanese militia Hezbollah, also a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. It isn’t clear that a pivot to a cease-fire deal would do the same.

Netanyahu said Thursday that Sinwar’s death vindicated his decision earlier this year, in the teeth of U.S. objections, to invade Gaza all the way down to its southern Rafah area, where the Hamas leader was killed Wednesday night.

“Now it’s clear to everyone, in Israel and in the world, why we insisted on not ending the war,” Netanyahu said. “Why we insisted, against all the pressures, to go into Rafah, the fortified outpost of Hamas in which Sinwar and many of the murderers hid.”

Sinwar’s death is an important symbolic event, but it doesn’t mean Israel can end the war now, said Yaakov Amidror, a former national security adviser under Netanyahu and a fellow with the Jewish Institute for National Security of America in Washington. Rather, he said, it shows that Israel’s strategy of continuing to apply military pressure throughout the Gaza Strip is working.

Hamas remains strong enough to attack any alternative government in Gaza, Amidror said. “We have to continue to degrade its military capabilities, to make Hamas irrelevant, not just as a threat to Israel, but to everyone who might come in as a substitute,” he said.

Amidror said it took Israel four years to suppress the bloody uprising known as the second Intifada in Jenin, a city in the occupied West Bank. He predicted at least another year of fighting in Gaza.

The killing of so many Hamas leaders also could make it harder to find anyone with the authority to negotiate and uphold a deal, a problem Israel is also potentially facing with Hezbollah after assassinating most of its leading echelon.

With Israel’s military accumulating tactical wins against Hamas and Hezbollah and preparing to strike their backer Iran, the question is whether Netanyahu wants to stop. He and other Israeli leaders haven’t said how the war ends without a cease-fire-and-hostage deal.

Write to Marcus Walker at Marcus.Walker@wsj.com, Shayndi Raice at Shayndi.Raice@wsj.com and Alexander Ward at alex.ward@wsj.com

Appeared in the October 18, 2024, print edition as 'Israel’s Options: End War or Fight On'.

4. Ukraine Has Resisted Russia in One Key Town for Months. Its Hold Is Starting to Break.

Ukraine Has Resisted Russia in One Key Town for Months. Its Hold Is Starting to Break.

The loss of Chasiv Yar would provide a route for Russia to the rest of the Donetsk region

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukraine-has-resisted-russia-in-one-key-town-for-months-its-hold-is-starting-to-break-7b71a4b5?mod=hp_lead_pos5

By Alistair MacDonaldFollow and Ievgeniia Sivorka

Updated Oct. 18, 2024 12:41 am ET

DRUZHKIVKA, Ukraine—Looking at a map, a Ukrainian infantry captain zeroed in on a quarter-mile-wide strip of land that has become one of the most dangerous places on the front line.

“This is the Achilles’ heel of Russian tactics,” said Rostyslav Kasyanenko, pointing to a no-man’s-land of scorched earth and flattened buildings that stands between Moscow’s forces and the strategic town of Chasiv Yar. 

For six months, Kasyanenko’s company and other units have stopped Russian troops from advancing into the buffer zone to reach the town that offers a route to the rest of the Donetsk region. 

This week, though, Moscow’s forces broke through, mounting an assault across two points on the canal that acts like a moat to the east of Chasiv Yar. Their progress, which might be repelled, may mark a significant move by Russia toward capturing the town. 

Rostyslav Kasyanenko describes the daily experiences of the troops he commands in Chasiv Yar in Ukraine. SVET JACQUELINE FOR WSJ

Russian forces, at heavy cost to troops and morale, have eaten away at Ukraine’s eastern edge, taking village after village in a campaign to conquer the whole of the region already declared by the Kremlin as its own. 

Now Kasyanenko and his men must stop Russian troops from establishing a position within the buffer zone to prevent a full assault on Chasiv Yar. 

Along with logistics hub Pokrovsk, the town is key to Moscow’s efforts to seize a line of cities in the Donetsk region that would be much harder to defend if those two towns were taken, according to analysts. They add that the Russians are racing to capture them before the leaves fall—depriving their troops of vital cover—and ahead of the stultifying winter rain and mud.

Russia has assaulted Chasiv Yar with drones, artillery and glide bombs and sent waves of troops to gain a foothold in the town.

Russian forces

Kharkiv Oblast

M03

Slovyansk

220 ft.

Kramatorsk

370 ft.

Siverskiy Donets Canal

H20

Chasiv Yar

765 ft.

Kostyantynivka

270 ft.

Bakhmut

282 ft.

Toretsk

650 ft.

Horlivka

722 ft.

Siverskiy Donets Canal

Note: As of Oct. 14.

Source: Institute for the Study of War and AEI's Critical Threats Project

Carl Churchill/WSJ

“All it takes is one mistake and Chasiv Yar could fall in days,” Kasyanenko said.

Kyiv needs to show it can defend towns such as Chasiv Yar to convince both its own people and Western backers that Ukrainian forces are capable of holding strategically important territory and fending off a larger and better-equipped army.

Ukraine’s forces have been aided in their steadfast defense by some natural advantages. The town commands the highest ground for miles. The canal, which runs north-south, has until this week been a tripwire to Russian troops. Kasyanenko’s unit and others like it have dug in and are now fighting to keep Russian soldiers away from the town proper in a brutal urban battle. 

Doing so is coming at a steep cost. Kasyanenko’s company has lost 30 men, or about a quarter of its current strength, in defense of the town, and around 70 soldiers from other units have been killed fighting with them. Troops there now scavenge Russian weaponry, a sign of how overstretched and underarmed Ukrainian troops are.

A soldier inspects explosive shells in the town of Chasiv Yar in Ukraine.

Maria Senovilla/Shutterstock

After taking nearby Bakhmut in a bloody 10-month battle that ended in May last year, the Russians reached the canal that slices through Chasiv Yar’s easternmost edge, about 6 miles away, a year later. Their forward movement stalled there and Russia, after a failed armored assault in the summer, changed tactics.

Russian forces now focus on using attack drones to target Chasiv Yar’s entry points, making it harder for Kyiv to resupply and reinforce or to get the injured out, soldiers there say. The carcasses of Ukrainian military vehicles fringe the roads into the town. One soldier, in a unit separate to Kasyanenko’s, showed a brief video in which three drones targeted his vehicle as it sped into Chasiv Yar to rescue injured men. 

Russian troops have clambered along cables stretched across the canal before sprinting in small groups into the buffer zone, said Kasyanenko, a mustachioed career soldier now with the 21st Separate Motorized Infantry Battalion. 

Chasiv Yar situation

Ukrainian forces in Russia

Russian forces in Ukraine and Kursk region

M03

Kyiv

UKRAINE

Area of detail

Bakhmut

Chasiv Yar

T0504

Kostyantynivka

3 miles

3 km

Note: As of Oct. 14

Source: Institute for the Study of War and AEI’s Critical Threats Project

Andrew Barnett/WSJ

In one typical assault, a group of 10 Russian soldiers crossed the canal and regrouped into smaller units before dashing across the buffer zone. Ukrainian artillery and drones bombarded them as they struggled through the ruins across the 1,300-foot divide. 

Those left were “finished off” by Ukrainian infantry, leaving eight dead and two severely wounded, said one of the company’s lieutenants, who uses the call name Hulk.

The Russian soldiers got as close to Ukrainian troops as 33 feet, he said. But other assaults have now broken through the Ukrainian defenses. Russian troops have been kicked out from the Western side of the canal before. The risk, said Kasyanenko, is that they establish a toehold in the buffer zone that they can then reinforce with other troops, building pressure on Ukraine’s positions.

Equipment at Rostyslav Kasyanenko's base in eastern Ukraine. Kasyanenko outside of Chasiv Yar.

SVET JACQUELINE FOR WSJ

The fighting is at such close quarters, according to one piece of Ukrainian footage of another incident, that a soldier crept to within 20 feet of two Russian soldiers before tossing a grenade at them.

Russia’s Ministry of Defense didn’t respond to requests for comment. 

Ukraine’s stubborn defense of Chasiv Yar has prompted Russia to probe for weaknesses elsewhere on the front line, most notably in a recent breakthrough just south in Toretsk, said Tom Røseth, an associate professor at the Norwegian Defence University College.

Ukrainian soldiers defend Chasiv Yar’s buffer zone in shifts of five to seven days, where they are stationed in basements of pummeled buildings.

“We just sit in the rubble,” said Hulk, whose call sign is a nod to his size.

Members of Rostyslav Kasyanenko’s company, including a lieutenant, who uses the call name Hulk, in the center. Photo: Svet Jacqueline for WSJ

Few, if any, buildings remain intact. The windows are all smashed and the roads leading to the town are pitted with large craters.

Soldiers here especially fear Russian glide bombs, which are modified with cheap wings and satellite navigation systems that can be fired from a distance. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said recently that Russia was deploying around 100 glide bombs a day. 

“If a glide bomb hits nearby, it’s goodbye and your soul goes to God,” said Kasyanenko.

Still, Russia is likely also paying a steep price as it employs the costly “meat wave” tactics it used to eventually overrun Bakhmut. Kasyanenko says the Russians assault his positions up to five times a day and his group often kills 20 Russian soldiers a day. 

Many of Russia’s troops pressing toward Chasiv Yar are convicts recruited from jails on the promise of eventual freedom. 

A Russian private, who was captured around 15 miles outside of the town, said he was jailed several years ago for theft. After arriving at a training ground in July, his documents and phone were taken away before he was trained to run at positions.

“I realized then that this trip was a one-way ticket,” he said. In September, he deserted his unit, where he said morale was low, when Ukrainian drones attacked. His comrades fired on him as he fled, wounding him in the shoulder.

The Russian army still overwhelms Ukraine with larger numbers of troops, ammunition and equipment. Its forces recently took the town of Vuhledar after months of resistance.

Kasyanenko’s unit uses several captured Russian vehicles, including an infantry-fighting vehicle. They say they lack effective electronic warfare capabilities to disrupt drone attacks. 

“Everything is hard,” said Stanislav Makoviy, 41, a junior sergeant in the company.

He recalls being trapped farther along the front line with few provisions and under bombardment by tanks and drones for 11 days. Each evening, he watched through night-vision goggles, fascinated as an owl and a cat ignored the bombardments and hunted for mice in a nearby field.

“The hardest thing is to remain a human being,” he said.

Stanislav Makoviy at the base in eastern Ukraine. The under-fire city of Pokrovsk in Ukraine.

SVET JACQUELINE FOR WSJ

James Marson contributed to this article.

Write to Alistair MacDonald at Alistair.Macdonald@wsj.com

Appeared in the October 18, 2024, print edition as 'Ukraine Defense of Strategic Town Falters'.

5. Surprise Battlefield Encounter Led to Hamas Leader’s Death

Passion, reason, and chance. Chance of the province of the military.

But this is why all forces need to be trained and ready to execute their assigned missions no matter how seemingly "routine" (though nothing is routine in combat). As throughout history it is the infantryman who makes the difference when he or she closes with and destroys the enemy.

Surprise Battlefield Encounter Led to Hamas Leader’s Death

Although Yahya Sinwar was a major target of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, the soldiers who killed the militant chief had not expected to run across him, Israeli officials said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/17/world/middleeast/hamas-sinwar-gaza-israel.html

By Ronen BergmanAaron BoxermanRaja AbdulrahimPatrick Kingsley and Michael Levenson

Oct. 17, 2024

阅读简体中文版閱讀繁體中文版

It was a routine patrol for a unit of Israeli soldiers in the southern Gaza Strip. Then a firefight erupted and the Israelis, backed by drones, destroyed part of a building where several militants had taken cover, Israeli officials said.

When the dust cleared and they began searching the building, the soldiers found a body that bore a striking resemblance to someone they had not expected to find, a man their country had been hunting for since Oct. 7, 2023: Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas.

For more than a year, as tens of thousands of Gazans were killed, Mr. Sinwar had eluded the full force of Israel’s military and security establishment, which had dedicated every means at its disposal to finding and killing him. Many believed he was hiding underground in Gaza and had surrounded himself with hostages taken from Israel.

In the end, the Israeli officials said, he was killed above ground on Wednesday, alongside two other militants, with no sign of hostages nearby. The Israeli authorities said they had confirmed his death on Thursday, using dental records and fingerprints. His DNA was also tested for confirmation, according to one Israeli official and the White House.

Mr. Sinwar’s death was the most severe blow to Hamas’s leadership after more than a year of escalating violence in the Middle East, and it immediately plunged the war in Gaza into a new and uncertain phase. It came less than three weeks after Israeli forces killed the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, in an airstrike south of Beirut, the Lebanese capital.10 mi.

While some hoped Mr. Sinwar’s death might signal an end to the Israeli invasion, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu indicated that the offensive would not stop just because the engineer of last year’s deadly surprise attack on southern Israel had been killed.

“Today, evil took a heavy blow — the mission ahead of us is still unfinished,” Mr. Netanyahu said in a statement. He said that Israel remained determined to free the hostages still in Gaza, calling it an “obligation.”

He told Gazans that whoever “sets aside their weapons and returns our hostages — we will allow them to leave and live.” But he warned that anyone who harmed Israeli hostages would pay with their lives.

Israeli leaders have long said they would not stop their offensive in Gaza until they had crushed Hamas as a military and political force and had freed the hostages seized on Oct. 7. About 1,200 people were killed in the attack and 250 were taken to Gaza as hostages. Of the 101 hostages remaining in Gaza, at least a third are believed to be dead.

Hamas’s assault reshaped the Middle East, setting off a devastating Israeli counterattack in Gaza that has killed more than 42,000 Palestinians, turned much of the territory into ruins, and left hundreds of thousands of Gazans facing hunger and deprivation.

Image

Demonstrators supporting the families of Israeli hostages held in Gaza rallying outside the Defense Ministry in Tel-Aviv on Thursday.Credit...Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times

The Oct. 7 attack also led to fighting between Israel and other groups that, like Hamas, are backed by the Iranian government, and between Israel and Iran itself. They include Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.

Hezbollah started firing rocket barrages from Lebanon into Israel a day after the Oct. 7 attack, prompting a year of cross-border fire. Last month, Israeli forces began a heavy bombing and ground campaign in Lebanon in an attempt to stop the attacks and dismantle Hezbollah. Israel has killed many of its top commanders, in addition to Mr. Nasrallah. Thousands in Lebanon have been killed in the ongoing assault, and about a million displaced.

Yahya Sinwar, Leader of Hamas, Is Dead

Mr. Sinwar climbed the ranks of the Palestinian militant group to plot the deadliest attack on Israel in its history.

Oct. 17, 2024

In Gaza, the soldiers who unexpectedly encountered Mr. Sinwar on Wednesday were part of a unit training to be squad commanders. After the firefight killed Mr. Sinwar and two other fighters, the Israelis found the area littered with explosives and approached the bodies cautiously. They found money and weapons, according to one Israeli official.

Photographs obtained by The New York Times, some of which later circulated online, show the body of a man with facial features strongly resembling Mr. Sinwar’s. The body had severe wounds, including to the head and leg.

Middle East Crisis: Live Updates

Updated Oct. 18, 2024, 4:46 a.m. ET1 hour ago

• Here are the latest developments.
• The I.C.C. prosecutor sought warrants for 3 Hamas leaders. All are now dead.
• Israeli military drone footage claims to show Sinwar shortly before he was killed.

Mr. Sinwar died after Israeli soldiers and intelligence agents had spent months trying to locate him, finding clues but never managing to trap him, an Israeli military spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, told reporters. Mr. Sinwar’s DNA had been found at one point in a tunnel a few hundred meters from where the bodies of six Israeli hostages were found six weeks ago, Admiral Hagari said. Israel collected DNA information from Mr. Sinwar during his decades-long incarceration inside Israeli jails.

The news that Mr. Sinwar had been killed led to celebrations in Israel, as people gathered on rooftops and streets to cheer and wave Israeli flags, and drivers honked their horns.

For some of the hostages’ families, it was a moment of both satisfaction and trepidation. Many worried that their relatives might now be in greater danger.

Einav Zangauker, whose son, Matan Zangauker, was kidnapped from Kibbutz Nir Oz, made a direct plea to Mr. Netanyahu in a video on social media: “Don’t bury the hostages.”

“You have your victory image,” she said. “Now bring a deal.”

Orna and Ronen Neutra, the parents of Omer Neutra, a hostage who grew up on Long Island, in New York, and later joined the Israeli military, urged that “all attention” should turn to securing the release of the captives.

As word of Mr. Sinwar’s death traveled through Gaza, many were stunned. At a makeshift cafe on the side of a road in Khan Younis, where Mr. Sinwar was born in 1962, people stopped to watch the news on television.

Another resident of the southern city, Rayan Raef Hamdan, 20, said she would wait until Hamas confirmed the news and was hoping it was false, like previous reports of his demise.

“Since the beginning of the war, we have heard many of these rumors,” she said, adding: “We hope that God will prolong his life and save him from death.”

Image

Destroyed buildings in Khan Younis, in the southern Gaza Strip on Thursday.Credit...Bashar Taleb/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Other Gazans welcomed Mr. Sinwar’s death, blaming him for the hunger, unemployment and homelessness the conflict had caused.

“He humiliated us, started the war, scattered us and made us displaced, without water, food or money,” said a 22-year-old named Mohammed, who has been repeatedly displaced and asked that his last name not be used for fear of reprisals from Hamas.

“He is the one who made Israel do this,” Mohammed said, calling Mr. Sinwar’s death “the best day of my life.”

Rezeq el-Sabti, a 44-year-old father who was sheltering with his family in a tent in central Gaza, said he hoped that Mr. Netanyahu would now declare victory.

“Netanyahu will say to his people that ‘We killed Sinwar, who waged war on us,’” Mr. el-Sabti said, “and this gives us hope that the war will end.”

Still others said little would change with Mr. Sinwar’s death. “Many preceded him,” said Rehab Ibrahim Odeh, 64. “And he is no better than those who have passed away before.”

Iranian state news media portrayed Mr. Sinwar’s death as “martyrdom” and praised him for dying while fighting Israel on the battlefield in Gaza.

American officials immediately seized on Mr. Sinwar’s death to try to renew stalled negotiations aimed at achieving a truce in Gaza that would free the hostages there and allow more aid into the enclave.

President Biden told reporters in Berlin that he had congratulated Mr. Netanyahu and would send the secretary of state, Antony J. Blinken, to Israel in the next four or five days. “Now is the time to move on,” Mr. Biden said, calling for a cease-fire in Gaza.

“It’s time for this war to end and bring these hostages home,” he said.

Mr. Netanyahu’s office said in a statement that he had spoken to Mr. Biden and had “agreed that there is an opportunity to advance a deal to free the hostages and they will work together to achieve that goal.”

Image

Mr. Sinwar on a TV screen at a barbershop in the West Bank city of Bethlehem, on Thursday.Credit...Mahmoud Illean/Associated Press

Reporting was contributed by Ephrat Livni, Bilal Shbair, Aric Toler Riley Mellen, Christiaan Triebert, Ameera Harouda, Iyad Abuheweila, Isabel Kershner, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Farnaz Fassihi and Abu Bakr Bashir.

Ronen Bergman is a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, based in Tel Aviv. His latest book is “Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations,” published by Random House. More about Ronen Bergman

Aaron Boxerman is a Times reporting fellow with a focus on international news. More about Aaron Boxerman

Raja Abdulrahim reports on the Middle East and is based in Jerusalem. More about Raja Abdulrahim

Patrick Kingsley is The Times’s Jerusalem bureau chief, leading coverage of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. More about Patrick Kingsley

Michael Levenson covers breaking news for The Times from New York. More about Michael Levenson

A version of this article appears in print on Oct. 18, 2024, Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Hamas Leader Who Planned Oct. 7 Is Dead. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

See more on: Yehya Sinwar, Israel-Hamas War News, Hamas

6. U.S. Wrestles With Aiding Allies and Maintaining Its Own Weapons Supply

What is the state of our defense industrial base? Are we prepared for one major theater war let alone multiple ones that could be simultaneous or near simultaneous? I fear the answer to my rhetorical question.

U.S. Wrestles With Aiding Allies and Maintaining Its Own Weapons Supply

Pentagon officials discuss whether the flow of assistance could be hurting the military’s ability to respond to a new conflict.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/17/us/politics/us-weapons-israel-ukraine.html

A THAAD antiballistic missile system in Guam last year. The United States has announced plans to send a similar system to Israel.Credit...Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

By Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt

Reporting from Washington

Oct. 17, 2024

Nearly every week for months, the Biden administration has announced that it is sending another shipment of arms to Ukraine or the Middle East.

And nearly every week, Pentagon officials discuss whether the flow of weapons could be hurting the U.S. military’s ability to respond to a new conflict, particularly one in the Pacific.

That dynamic resurfaced in recent days after the Biden administration announced that it was sending an advanced missile defense system to Israel, along with 100 American troops to operate it.

The THAAD system, short for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, is an advanced mobile defensive apparatus that can knock short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles out of the sky. Israel needed one because it may be planning to attack Iran in retaliation for an Iranian assault last month, which was itself retaliation for an Israeli attack. The Iranian barrage of nearly 200 ballistic missiles, which did little damage, prompted American officials to send more defenses to Israel.

But the United States is believed to have seven of these THAAD batteries, including the one delivered to Israel and another that was sent to the region earlier this year to protect American troops from possible attack by Iranian-backed militias. The Pentagon does not usually disclose where the batteries have been moved, for operational security reasons, but South Korea is believed to have one as well.

What is certain: The deployments have made a dent in the American supply.

“Everybody wants U.S. Army air defense forces,” Gen. Randy George, the Army chief of staff, said at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference this week. “This is our most deployed formation.”

Christine E. Wormuth, the Army secretary, was more blunt: “The air defense, artillery community is the most stressed,” she said at the same event. She cautioned that the Army must be careful about overextending itself and its weaponry, but added that “in a world this volatile, you know, sometimes we have to do what we have to do.”

A bristling array of U.S. weaponry has made its way across the Atlantic over the past two and a half years. The United States has sent more than $61 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. This has included Patriots and other air defense systems, long-range missile systems like ATACMS and HIMARS, tactical Army vehicles, Javelin antitank weapons, Stinger antiaircraft missiles and ammunition.

After Hamas attacked Israel a year ago, the Pentagon increased defenses for Israel, a few other Middle East allies and American troops and bases in the region.

The United States has an amphibious assault ship and three guided-missile destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean. The aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman left Virginia in late September for a previously scheduled exercise in northern Europe. But U.S. officials warn that they may need to divert the warship if fighting in the region boils over.

The Navy has several guided missile destroyers in the Red Sea, according to the U.S. Naval Institute. The aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln is in the Gulf of Oman monitoring Iran, with its attendant strike group of guided missile destroyers and fighter squadrons. Two weeks ago, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III extended its deployment by two months.

But the buildup of American firepower has raised concerns among senior U.S. military officials. Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has questioned the impact of the U.S. military’s expanded presence in the Middle East on its ability to respond quickly to a crisis if needed.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine, senior Pentagon leaders have wrestled with how to maintain U.S. military “readiness” — essentially, its ability to fight right now — while supporting allies abroad.

The conflicts in Ukraine and Israel, happening as they are at the same time, have brought that tension into stark relief.

The relative scarcity of U.S.-made ATACMS is one reason President Biden has said no to Ukraine’s requests to use the weapon to strike deep inside Russia. Pentagon officials say they simply cannot supply more of them to Ukraine without dipping into stockpiles reserved for American troops to use in possible conflicts in the Middle East and Asia.

Other air defense systems, like the Patriot, are in high demand in Ukraine to help knock down Russian missile barrages against the electrical grid as another winter approaches.

But that comes at a price on the American end, as constant deployments threaten to wear down the crews that operate the systems and prevent the Army from bringing them home for periodic overhauls to upgrade their technology, Ms. Wormuth said this week.

“We’re trying to lay that out for Secretary Austin so that he can weigh those risks, essentially current versus future risks, as he makes recommendations to the president about whether to send a Patriot here or there,” Ms. Wormuth said.

Most significantly, Defense Department officials are worried that the Middle East conflict — and Ukraine, to a lesser extent — will draw resources away from the Pacific region, where the military is trying to shift more of its attention, in the event that China invades Taiwan or a dispute over territory in the South China Sea leads to something bigger.

“There’s a need to have a range of equipment and munitions for deterrence in Taiwan and the South China Sea, and if deterrence fails, we’ve got to fight,” said Seth G. Jones, a senior vice president with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “But we’re not thinking about that right now.”

The United States, he added, “is operating as if it’s a peacetime environment and it’s not.”

Gen. Charles A. Flynn, the commander of U.S. Army Pacific, said in an interview on Wednesday that the military has to figure out how to prioritize Asia.

“We’ve got a limited regional war going on Europe,” he said. “We’ve got another limited regional war going on in the Middle East. It’s like, this strategy of exhaustion that’s going on.”

Successive U.S. administrations have tried to extricate the American military from the Middle East and “pivot” — as the Obama administration put it — to Asia for more than a decade.

“We remain focused on the Indo-Pacific,” Sabrina Singh, the deputy Pentagon press secretary, told reporters on Tuesday, using the bureaucratic term for Asia.

But the rest of the news conference largely focused on weapons and troop deployments to the Middle East.

Helene Cooper is a Pentagon correspondent. She was previously an editor, diplomatic correspondent and White House correspondent. More about Helene Cooper

Eric Schmitt is a national security correspondent for The Times, focusing on U.S. military affairs and counterterrorism issues overseas, topics he has reported on for more than three decades. More about Eric Schmitt

A version of this article appears in print on Oct. 18, 2024, Section A, Page 17 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S. Balances Aiding Allies While Preserving Its Arsenal. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

See more on: Israel-Hamas War News, Russia-Ukraine War, Defense Budget, Lloyd Austin, President Joe Biden, Charles Q. Brown Jr.

7. Zelensky brings ‘victory plan’ to NATO, but invite seems out of reach

Zelensky brings ‘victory plan’ to NATO, but invite seems out of reach

The Ukrainian president pitched his plan for ending the war with Russia, but many European and NATO leaders approached it with caution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/10/17/zelensky-nato-victory-plan/

6 min

219

Zelensky pitches his 'victory plan' to E.U. leaders

1:15

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky presented his "victory plan" to the European Union on Oct. 17, and pushed for an unconditional invitation to join NATO. (Video: Reuters)

By Ellen Francis

Updated October 17, 2024 at 3:35 p.m. EDT|Published October 17, 2024 at 7:55 a.m. EDT

BRUSSELS — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky tried to drum up support for his “victory plan” at NATO on Thursday, but a key part of it, an invitation to join the military alliance, appeared elusive.

Zelensky is pitching an immediate and unconditional invitation to NATO as his No. 1 ask in a multi-point plan that he says will put Ukraine in a strong position as it negotiates a just end to the war with Russia.

“Our soldiers hold their front lines with weapons” from NATO countries, he said, standing alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at the Brussels headquarters Thursday. “And it would be wrong, of course, to leave Ukraine politically outside the alliance when, in practice, Ukraine is already part of NATO.”

Zelensky noted that this isn’t the first time Kyiv’s requests have triggered extended debates and fears of an escalatory risk and that, in previous instances, allies have later relented, as happened with the provision of F-16 fighter jets and advanced rocket systems. “Always debates, but here we are,” he said.

While selling his victory plan at a summit of European Union leaders earlier in the day, he acknowledged that while actual NATO membership “might come after the war,” the sooner talks start the better.

Following World news

Following

But NATO officials said they did not expect to extend an invitation anytime soon, especially with the United States absorbed in the final weeks of the presidential race and many European leaders watching to see how the outcome may alter the transatlantic relationship.

Ahead of Zelensky’s arrival, U.S. Ambassador to NATO Julianne Smith told reporters Wednesday that NATO was “not at the point right now where the alliance is talking about issuing an invitation in the short term.”

Rutte said during Thursday’s news conference, “I look forward to the day that Ukraine is here as a member of this alliance.” Yet the NATO chief seemed noncommittal when asked by reporters Wednesday about his support for Zelensky’s victory plan. He said he was confident Ukraine would “one day” join, but that “doesn’t mean that I here can say I support the whole plan. That would be a bit difficult, because there are many issues, of course, we have to understand better.”

The plan also includes requests to use weapons from allied countries to conduct strikes inside Russia and for Ukraine’s neighbors to conduct joint air defense operations to protect Ukraine’s skies.

Zelensky has visited the United States and toured European capitals in recent weeks to get their endorsement for the victory plan, but the flurry of trips has elicited muted public declarations of support and made little apparent progress.

The Ukrainian president told reporters at the E.U. summit that he discussed the plan with President Joe Biden; Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee; and Republican nominee Donald Trump on his U.S. trip. He noted some U.S. concern that a NATO commitment to Ukraine “has the potential of dragging the United States into the war.”

“So there are certain red lines, even in inviting Ukraine to NATO, but in my view, this is not so,” he said.

He said Trump had “agreed with my arguments” when the two spoke about an invitation to NATO, without elaborating on the former U.S. president’s views.

Trump has repeatedly suggested Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine would not have happened if he had still been president. In comments in a podcast interview published Thursday, Trump blamed Zelensky, saying he “should never have let that war start.”

With the prospect of diminished U.S. backing during a second Trump presidency, Ukrainian officials are focusing their lobbying on the last stretch of Biden’s presidency, hoping that while thinking about his legacy he might be willing to lock in long-term U.S. support.

  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky with other leaders during the European Union summit in Brussels on Thursday. (Olivier Hoslet/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

“Zelensky might feel that now there’s a momentum,” a NATO diplomat said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue.

Baltic nations, staunch allies of Ukraine gripped by their own fears of becoming targets of Russia, have voiced some of the strongest support for a NATO invitation to Ukraine. Lithuanian Defense Minister Laurynas Kasciunas said it should happen now. He said Thursday that an invite to Ukraine would be “a real irreversibility, a point of no return.”

Membership in NATO would give Ukraine security guarantees in the case of future attacks.

Even with an invitation, however, Ukraine could still be a long way from actually joining the Western military alliance, with drawn-out accession talks expected.

NATO leaders agreed at their July summit in Washington to support Ukraine “on its irreversible path” to membership, but even that wording took weeks of intense negotiation.

A senior NATO official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to comment on sensitive discussions, said he would not expect Ukraine’s accession — and the security guarantees enshrined in NATO’s mutual-defense clause that come with it — before the conflict ends “and whatever line of demarcation we have then is stabilized. It won’t happen before.”

In Brussels, Zelensky called again for permission to use longer-range weapons for strikes inside Russia.

He said that he got “positive signals” in some capitals, but that “these countries want to achieve unanimity” and that he hoped the United States, as the main supplier, “will be more decisive.”

Washington has so far rebuffed that request, worried that approving it would translate into a bigger risk of escalation and even deeper involvement in the war.

Zelensky’s push is also happening against the backdrop of a difficult battlefield situation.

Seeking to solidify their position before winter comes, Russian forces have made steady advances in eastern Ukraine, including taking the town of Vuhledar that Ukrainian forces fought to defend for two years. And the outcome of Ukraine’s gamble to invade Russia’s Kursk region remains unclear, as Russian forces are counterattacking.

The state of play has fueled worries that Russian advances in Ukraine would continue and “add up,” a second NATO official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to give an assessment of the battlefield.

The official said Russia had to divert some additional forces for the Kursk counterattack, which appears to have had a “morale impact” but may not be generating the results Kyiv had hoped for.

Siobhán O’Grady and Anastacia Galouchka in Kyiv and Beatriz Ríos in Brussels contributed to this report.

• Share
• 219
• Comments
• Understanding the Russia-Ukraine conflict
• HAND CURATED
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• View 3 more stories
• 
  
• By Ellen Francis
• Ellen Francis is The Washington Post’s Brussels bureau chief, covering the European Union and NATO.

8. A US-China science pact has expired after 45 years. How is the world poorer for it?

A US-China science pact has expired after 45 years. How is the world poorer for it?

Signed in 1979, a landmark scientific cooperation treaty between the US and China has endured the ups and downs of the bilateral relationship for 45 years - until now. Can both sides rebalance the equation and find a way forward?

Lee Gim Siong

18 Oct 2024 06:00AM

channelnewsasia.com

SINGAPORE: A scientific slowdown - not just between the United States and China, but the wider world - is on the cards, warn analysts, as the two superpowers let a landmark science and technology treaty slip away without renewal for the first time in 45 years.

Climate research and public health are at particular risk from the recent expiry of the longstanding bilateral pact which yielded breakthroughs across the decades, experts note, potentially hurting the global fight against existential threats to humanity.

“These areas rely heavily on international collaboration to address global challenges like climate change and pandemics,” said Associate Professor Jonathan Ping from Bond University, who specialises in China studies.

“The loss of joint efforts could slow progress in developing solutions and sharing critical data,” he told CNA.

Observers believe the agreement’s lapse is likely due to Washington stonewalling negotiations, driven by national security concerns and geopolitical tensions.

Amplifying the already strained situation is the closely-fought US presidential election, they point out, where being perceived as soft on China could cost much-needed votes.

Analysts expect meaningful discussions on a possible revival of the pact to only come - if at all - after the dust settles on the Nov 5 poll.

WORKING TOGETHER FOR GOOD

The US-China Science and Technology Agreement (STA) was signed in 1979.

It was the first bilateral pact signed between the two powers after Washington granted full diplomatic recognition to the People’s Republic of China that same year, coming as Beijing enacted sweeping opening-up reforms.

The accord provides crucial access and protections for both American and Chinese researchers participating in joint scientific collaborations, serving as a foundational framework and catalyst for their efforts, said Dr Alejandro Reyes, senior fellow at the Centre on Contemporary China and the World at the University of Hong Kong (HKU).

This undated photo courtesy of Drew University in Madison, New Jersey shows Dr William Campbell, Nobel Laureate, as he works one-on-one with a Drew undergraduate student from China on real-world, scientific research as part of a programme, through which senior scientists work directly with students in the lab. (Photo: AFP/Drew University)

For example, under the pact, US scientists gain access to valuable data, including in restricted areas like social sciences, as well as large research pools and long-term health studies.

This is meant to allow them to collaborate openly and freely with their Chinese counterparts, especially in sensitive fields, without facing suspicion of data theft or hidden agendas.

Initially focused on fields like agriculture, sectors like space, health and energy have since found their place as the scope of the agreement expands with the times.

An early major achievement under the STA’s umbrella came in 1999. Joint research showed that folic acid consumption by mothers could help prevent certain birth defects in developing embryos.

Another tie-up through the 2000s in the wake of the SARS outbreak contributed to the development of rapid diagnostic tests for influenza strains.

A CATALYST FOR SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS

The US-China bilateral accord has logged various scientific cooperation milestones since coming into force 45 years ago.

A number of them have led to actual change on the ground, benefiting not just both countries, but the rest of the world. Here are some notable examples:

Birth defects study

Launched in 1985 and continuing through the 2000s, it became one of the largest cohort studies globally, involving around 250,000 pregnant women and their babies.

It demonstrated the effectiveness of folic acid in preventing neural tube defects, leading to its widespread inclusion in foods across the US and worldwide, preventing millions of stillbirths and lifelong birth defects.

Tracking influenza

Launched in 2004, the joint project significantly expanded China's flu surveillance network from just a few dozen sites to over 30,000.

The tie-up also enabled China to elevate its laboratory to the status of a World Health Organization coordinating centre.

As a result, global flu monitoring has greatly improved, providing better data for the development of annual flu vaccines and enhancing the world’s ability to detect potential pandemic influenza strains.

Clearing the air

Support from the US Environmental Protection Agency has been pivotal in helping China tackle local air pollution, particularly in reducing harmful PM2.5 particles and emissions from heavy metals like mercury.

Beyond China, the collaboration has also reduced pollution drifting to regions across the Pacific and beyond.

Collapse Expand

The accord was routinely renewed every five years. But longstanding practice was disrupted last year amid frayed bilateral relations. Both nations could only agree to a six-month extension, with the US State Department stating its intent to “amend and strengthen” the terms of the agreement.

Another six-month extension was agreed on in March this year, which subsequently expired on Aug 27.

A spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated on Aug 30 that "both sides remain in communication" regarding the expired agreement.

Neither Beijing nor Washington has provided any updates on the progress of the negotiations to date.

The lapsing of such a longstanding pact is “not ideal”, as it creates uncertainty for researchers, Dr Reyes told CNA, pointing to issues like visa restrictions and limited access for scientists travelling between the two countries.

“When participants in a research programme don’t know if they can meet and communicate, it compromises their ability to collaborate effectively.”

HUMANITY FACES “LOSE-LOSE” SITUATION

When asked whether the breakdown in the STA would hit the US or China harder, analysts CNA spoke to didn’t differentiate.

Instead, they unanimously agreed that both sides would experience substantial setbacks in achieving research breakthroughs, cautioning at the same time that overall scientific progress would suffer.

“This is a lose-lose situation for … the entire world, not just China and the US,” said Mr Rahul Pandey, a PhD candidate at Jawaharlal Nehru University with a research focus on Chinese affairs.

He pointed out how innovations over at least the past three centuries - mobile phones, the internet, televisions, cars, aeroplanes and now electric vehicles, for example - have become shared goods, improving life for people all over.

“The scientific advancements made in any country do not serve only that nation; they benefit the entire global community,” Mr Pandey told CNA.

Analysts warn that research into the climate and public health could be particularly hampered by the STA’s termination due to how these fields rely heavily on international cooperation. This in turn could spell trouble for global efforts to tackle climate change and pandemics.

Climate change is already being increasingly felt on multiple fronts, while the latest pandemic - COVID-19 - claimed millions of lives, and experts have warned that future outbreaks of such scale are a matter of when and not if.

On public health, Dr Reyes noted that China, as the world’s second-most populous country with 1.4 billion people, provides a vast population sample size, particularly valuable for research targeting Asian populations.

Losing access to this data would significantly impact pharmaceutical companies, which have historically depended on it for clinical trials, he said.

“This could slow down breakthroughs in drug efficacy … without that resource, achieving meaningful results will become far more challenging," Dr Reyes cautioned.

An employee checks the quality of electronic components at a factory in southwestern China's Chongqing municipality. (Photo: STR/AFP)

The reality is that the US and China are intertwined in the global economy, “whether we like it or not”, said Dr Roger Pielke, a non-resident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and professor at the University of Colorado Boulder.

“While we may want to adjust the terms of this relationship, there is no scenario in which the two countries do not depend on one another,” he told CNA.

The STA’s breakdown could potentially lead to duplication of research efforts too as American and Chinese researchers talk and collaborate less, which could ultimately impede scientific advances, noted Mr Pandey from Jawaharlal Nehru University.

“In contrast, renewing the STA could promote stability and cooperation, facilitating ongoing joint research and data sharing that benefits critical areas such as energy and healthcare,” he emphasised.

RIVALRY AND POLITICS AT PLAY

Analysts note that STAs are a widely used tool in science diplomacy.

The US maintains over 60 STAs with countries worldwide, while a 2021 study showed that China had 52 STAs and 64 other similar agreements with countries around the world.

Amid dozens of similar, routine agreements with other countries, why did the Sino-US pact fall through?

Observers point to the looming US presidential election on Nov 5 and its lead-up over the past year or so as a primary obstacle to renewal. Current US Vice-President Kamala Harris and rival Donald Trump are neck and neck in the race for the top office.

While Ms Harris has offered few specifics on her China policy, analysts have said she, if elected, is likely to continue the policies of her predecessor Joe Biden. Meanwhile, Mr Trump has pledged to get tough with tariffs again if elected, raising the spectre of another bruising trade war.

At the same time, many Americans view Beijing negatively. A survey by the Washington DC-based think tank Pew Research Center conducted in April found that for the fifth year in a row, about eight in 10 Americans report an unfavourable view of China.

Analysts say such sentiments, coupled with a divisive political climate, mean the current US leadership has to tread carefully in its actions towards China during the presidential hustings.

“Announcing a renewal (of the STA) at this time could potentially lead to political fallout, arguably benefiting the Republican candidate Donald Trump,” Dr Reyes from HKU explained.

“His camp has been disseminating significant amounts of information undermining the merits of strengthening ties with China, and it’s not difficult to see how that narrative - fair or not - could influence voting decisions.”

Both nations are likely waiting for the election to conclude before making decisions regarding the science pact, said Assoc Prof Ping from Bond University.

“National security concerns surrounding intellectual property and technological advancements remain a significant issue, adding another layer of complexity,” he explained.

The academic and commercial exchanges fuelled by the STA helped China advance its technology and military capabilities over the decades. But the agreement has come under scrutiny in recent years amid growing concerns over Beijing's alleged theft of US scientific and commercial innovations - accusations China has repeatedly rubbished.

While a slowdown is likely, restricting research collaborations is unlikely to significantly hamper an opponent’s progress as completely blocking the transfer of knowledge is all but impossible in this interconnected era, pointed out Dr Reyes, adding that it might lead to an unintended consequence.

“Denying China access to this knowledge might actually enhance its capacity for innovation and creativity, given its extensive resources and flexibility for experimentation - particularly now that it has established a strong foundation for reverse engineering,” said Dr Reyes.

AN ALREADY TROUBLED LANDSCAPE

Even before the STA lapsed, US-China scientific cooperations were already heading towards troubled waters as geopolitical tensions escalated, say analysts.

Dr Reyes said US-China scientific partnerships have generally declined and entered what he described as a "cold-storage period".

Research findings bear this out. The proportion of Sino-American joint publications, relative to US research alone, peaked at 13.9 per cent in 2019 before dropping to 11.7 per cent in 2023, according to a paper published in February this year by Professor Tang Li from the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Fudan University.

Similarly, the share of US-China collaborative research compared to all Chinese articles saw a sharp decline, falling from 12.2 per cent in 2017 to 5.7 per cent in 2023.

This overall trend had already been spotlighted in another research paper, co-published in February 2022 by professors at Ohio State University in the US and Yangzhou University in China.

“The drop in China-USA cooperation can be seen beginning in 2019, before the (COVID-19) pandemic ... the patterns suggest that political tensions, more than the pandemic, influenced the drop in China-US cooperation,” the paper stated.

A trigger point came in 2018 when the Trump administration in the US launched the so-called China Initiative, say analysts. The programme targeted scientists suspected of connections to Beijing, probing potential breaches of national security related to leaks of sensitive scientific information.

A 2022 study by lawyer and law professor Andrew Chongseh Kim revealed that cases involving Chinese professors under the Economic Espionage Act were more likely to be publicised and met with harsher punishments compared to non-Asians.

The study also found that up to one in three Asian scientists were falsely accused, with charges either being dropped before trial or dismissed by juries and judges due to lack of evidence.

The China Initiative was officially ended by the Biden administration in early 2022. A senior US Justice Department official stated the focus on China had been “too narrow”, and the new approach would be a broader, “threat-driven” strategy targeting Russia, Iran and North Korea as well.

Still, analysts say there has been a lingering impact. HKU’s Dr Reyes told CNA that based on his interactions with academics in the US and globally, universities over the past two years have been extra careful to avoid running afoul of the law when it comes to collaborations involving Chinese scientists.

“It’s a difficult position for institutions,” he said, “because nearly every field of research could potentially be viewed as a legal risk or repurposed by China for hostile use.”

A study published by the Stanford Center on China’s Economy and Institutions in July revealed that the number of Chinese-born scientists leaving the US has surged by 75 per cent since the launch of the China Initiative, with two-thirds of them moving to China.

The federal government is the largest single source of funding for basic research in the US. However, the study found that 45 per cent of researchers with federal grants prefer to avoid applying for them.

Among this group, 84 per cent cited concerns about potential legal liability due to errors in forms and disclosures, while 65 per cent expressed worries that their collaborations with Chinese researchers or institutions might place them under suspicion.

Collapse Expand

BREAKING THE IMPASSE?

Despite escalating geopolitical tensions and competition, experts interviewed by CNA are optimistic that the world’s two largest economies will be able to find a way forward and renew their science and tech partnership.

“Even during the height of the Cold War, scientific collaborations between the US and the Soviet Union continued unabated. Many in the scientific community believe that competition and cooperation can coexist and overcome differences,” noted Mr Pandey from Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Observers say breaking the impasse boils down to the political will of the US and China’s’ top leadership.

Dr Pielke highlighted the intricate complexities surrounding academic exchanges, particularly relating to technology transfer, industrial competition, intellectual property, and trade.

“These issues are well above the pay grade of the scientific community and will require the engagement of the nations’ leaders,” he said.

Assoc Prof Ping proposed several measures for fostering US-China collaboration amid the deadlock.

He suggested establishing neutral platforms through international organisations to mediate and facilitate joint projects, focusing on global challenges like climate change and public health where cooperation can yield mutual benefits.

“(There should) also be increased transparency by implementing clear guidelines to protect intellectual property and ensure data reciprocity,” he added.

Whether both sides manage to iron out the kinks in the way of the STA, analysts stress that what’s most important is maintaining dialogue to resolve differences.

“It is best that we keep talking. Science and technology agreements are low-hanging diplomatic fruit, by design. We should remember that,” Dr Pielke remarked.

channelnewsasia.com

9. Ukraine president says Russia to deploy 10,000 North Korean troops

Would they be better than the Wagner Group? (if these reports that the north is deploying troops are accurate)

Ukraine president says Russia to deploy 10,000 North Korean troops

18 Oct 2024 12:47AM

(Updated: 18 Oct 2024 07:11AM)

channelnewsasia.com

BRUSSELS: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Thursday (Oct 18) he had intelligence reports that North Korea was training 10,000 soldiers to support Russia in its fight against Kyiv.

"They are preparing on their land, 10,000 soldiers, but they didn't move them already to Ukraine or to Russia," Zelenskyy said after meeting NATO defence ministers.

He made the claim about the 10,000 North Korean soldiers earlier Thursday after meeting EU leaders in Brussels - without initially making clear where they were being trained.

Speaking alongside NATO chief Mark Rutte, Zelenskyy said there were already an unspecified number of "tactical personnel" and "officers" from North Korea in "occupied" Ukrainian territory held by Russia.

Rutte told their press conference that the alliance had "no evidence that North Korean soldiers are involved in the fight, but we do know that North Korea is supporting Russia".

Western officials said they were treating the reports with caution at this stage.

"We are tracking the possible deployment of North Korean troops to Russia," one official told reporters.

"North Korea has for quite some time now provided significant artillery munitions to Russia to support the war. And this is a new body of reporting that we're tracking."

The official said the reports concerned between 2,000 and 12,000 North Koreans but that - if verified - "it's probably towards the lower number".

"In terms of the veracity, it is a little bit too early to tell, to get some ground truth behind actually what is happening here," the official said.

Zelenskyy earlier qualified North Korea's move as "the first step to a world war", noting that Iran was also backing Russia with "drones and missiles", a claim that Tehran has repeatedly denied.

He said Russian President Vladimir Putin was "counting" on the North Korean soldiers because he was "afraid of mobilisation".

Zelenskyy held talks with EU leaders and NATO ministers to press for support for his "victory plan" to end the war against Russia.

He conducted a whirlwind tour of Western capitals earlier this month including Washington, Paris, Berlin, Rome and London to promote his initiative.

Experts have long said North Korean missiles are being deployed in Ukraine by Russian forces. Moscow and Pyongyang have denied this.

Putin made a rare visit to Pyongyang in June, when he signed a mutual defence agreement with leader Kim Jong Un.

Officials also claim Pyongyang has sent thousands of containers of weapons to Russia for use in Ukraine.

Moscow and Pyongyang have been allies since North Korea's founding after World War II and have become closer since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

channelnewsasia.com

10. US sanctions Chinese, Russians over attack drones used in Ukraine

US sanctions Chinese, Russians over attack drones used in Ukraine

18 Oct 2024 07:59AM

channelnewsasia.com

WASHINGTON: The United States on Thursday (Oct 17) sanctioned two Chinese companies and a Russian affiliate involved in making and shipping attack drones and warned the two countries to halt cooperation boosting the Ukraine war effort.

New sanctions target a Chinese company, Xiamen Limbach Aircraft Engine Co Ltd, that makes the engine powering Russia's Garpiya series long-range unmanned aerial vehicles, the US Treasury Department said.

The measures also hit China-based Redlepus Vector Industry Shenzhen Co Ltd for its role in the drones' shipment and an affiliated Russian person and company.

The drones are believed to have been used against military and civilian targets in Ukraine, damaging critical infrastructure and inflicting both civilian and military casualties. Reuters wasfirst to report last month that the new Russian drones were being made using Chinese engines and parts.

"While the United States previously imposed sanctions on [People's Republic of China] entities providing critical inputs to Russia's military-industrial base, these are the first US sanctions imposed on PRC entities directly developing and producing complete weapons systems in partnership with Russian firms," said State Department spokesman Matthew Miller.

A senior Biden administration official said the actions by the Chinese companies were at odds with what the Chinese government has said privately about its intentions.

The Chinese embassy spokesperson in Washington, Liu Pengyu, repeated China's opposition to sanctions and said it was handling the export of military products responsibly.

"The US makes false accusations against China's normal trade with Russia, just as it continues to pour unprecedented military aid into Ukraine," the spokesperson said. "This is (the) typical double standard, and extremely hypocritical and irresponsible."

The Chinese companies could not be immediately reached out of office hours and the Russian government also could not be immediately be reached for comment.

The moves come as deepening cooperation between Russia and other countries, including China, has thwarted Washington's effort to disable Russia's war effort in Ukraine, which grinds on as Moscow's forces advance in the east.

US President Joe Biden is headed to Germany for talks with European allies set to include discussion of Ukraine's war strategy. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is pushing a "victory plan" that he hopes will end Russia's more than 2-1/2-year-old invasion.

Biden has sought to ease tensions with China even while rebuking its government for supporting Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping are expected to meet on the sidelines of the Oct 22-24 BRICS summit in Russia, and Washington is watching for signs of further cooperation, according to senior Biden administration officials.

Source: Reuters/ec

channelnewsasia.com

11. Sinwar’s Death Will Hasten the End of the War

Israel has to press the fight to achieve sustained decisive results.

Sinwar’s Death Will Hasten the End of the War

The Hamas leader started this fight. Now Israel can finish it.

https://www.thefp.com/p/sinwar-death-gaza-rafah

By Matti Friedman

October 17, 2024

• Like
• Comment
• Share

On May 14, 2018, the Hamas government in Gaza tried to engineer a breach of the Israeli border at multiple points under the cover of mass protests known as the “March of Return.” The event was heavily covered by the world press. One of the most striking figures caught on camera at the border was a man screaming in Arabic at followers to cross the border and “tear out the hearts” of Israelis. Most reporters either ignored this call for violence, or decided it was some kind of colorful metaphor. The man was Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas commander who’d become the terror group’s new Gaza chief the previous year—and who was killed by Israeli soldiers on Wednesday, in the rubble of Gaza, just over a year into the war he started. 

That day in May 2018 was my first concrete memory of Sinwar: I remember thinking he seemed maniacal even for the commander of a terror group. When thousands of Palestinian civilians and fighters answering his call proceeded to storm the fence, Israeli soldiers guarding the border held them back, killing 60; Hamas claimed 50 as their members, Islamic Jihad another three, but as usual, Israel was still condemned for using disproportionate force. The border held. 

Five and a half years later, on October 7, 2023, we Israelis weren’t so lucky. At dawn that day, Sinwar’s plan to invade Israel and trigger a regional war caught the Israel Defense Forces off guard. Following Sinwar’s orders, Hamas terrorists killed more than 1,200 people that day. Israelis, Palestinians, and many others in the region and beyond are now living with the consequences of the attack.

Sinwar was the man responsible more than any other for this war, but his death in a booby-trapped house in Rafah—he was reportedly found with a rifle, ammo, cash, a pack of Mentos, prayer beads, and a passport under someone else’s name—doesn’t mean it’s over. He’ll quickly be replaced as Hamas’s leader, probably by his brother and accomplice Mohammed. The organization is in tatters but hasn’t collapsed. His death, however, does bring the end of the fighting closer in Gaza. 

Watch drone footage released by the IDF that shows Yahya Sinwar moments before he was killed.

Following the assassination of Sinwar’s counterpart from Hezbollah—the shrewder and more prominent Hassan Nasrallah—less than three weeks ago, it’s clear that Israel has successfully brought the war to a turning point. 

For me, this moment evokes another from almost exactly 51 years ago, on October 15, 1973. That’s when the Israeli army, after ten days of catastrophe and retreat following a surprise attack by Egypt and Syria in the Yom Kippur War, regrouped and carried out a daring strike across the Suez Canal, changing the course of events. The crossing of the canal didn’t mean the war was won yet. But it was the moment Israel regained the initiative. 

Will Israel seize this moment? It now has a chance to begin to orchestrate the end of the Gaza operation after a year of bloodshed; to allow the people of Gaza to start rebuilding what Sinwar, his henchmen, and their deluded supporters have destroyed; and to return the 100 hostages still held by Hamas, dozens of whom are thought to be alive. 

The killing of Sinwar shows that Israel’s patience in prosecuting this war—despite the high price in the lives of our soldiers, and the constant fear of civilians under rocket fire from a half-dozen enemies—is yielding results. And so, it must be said, is Israel’s attitude toward the often hysterical and misguided advice of its allies, who have repeatedly sought to force a ceasefire that would leave Hamas and Hezbollah on their feet. We’ve heard repeatedly, from Western officials who have never fought wars, that military force is counterproductive and that Hamas is an “idea” that can’t be defeated. It was just this spring, amid a broad international pressure campaign to keep the Israeli army out of Rafah, that Vice President Kamala Harris said a major incursion into Rafah would be a “huge mistake.” 

Rafah is not only the lifeline of Hamas weapons from Egypt, and the city where Israeli soldiers uncovered the bodies of six hostages in a dank tunnel at the end of August. (According to reports Thursday in the Israeli press, the six, including the American citizen Hersh Goldberg-Polin, may have served as Sinwar’s personal human shields before they were murdered.) It’s also the city where the elusive Sinwar himself was just found. 

It may indeed be impossible to defeat ideas. But the tank crewmen who just settled Israel’s account with this terrorist mastermind have illustrated why it’s sometimes necessary to kill the monsters who act on them.

Matti Friedman is a Jerusalem-based columnist for The Free Press. Read his most recent piece, a dispatch from the evacuated north of Israel, and read all of his work for us here.

12. Beyond Deterrence: U.S. Indo-Pacific Command’s Strategic Shift

No instrument of national power is effectively employed in isolation. There must be the powerp integration of all the elements of power to national security objectives.

Excerpts:

To address these concerns, INDOPACOM leadership must ensure that the “prevail” directive includes clear crisis avoidance measures and emphasizes negotiation as a primary tool for resolving disputes, even if that benefits China in some cases. Working closely with U.S. embassies on strategic messaging will also be crucial to mitigating apprehensions about American activities in Asia, as will maintaining direction communication channels with the Chinese military. Fortunately, Paparo understands this imperative and has recently held discussions with his counterpart at the People’s Liberation Army’s Southern Theater Command.

Admiral Paparo’s “prevail” concept represents a bold evolution in U.S. military operations in the Indo-Pacific. As China continues to assert its influence, the United States must be prepared not only to deter but to win conflicts decisively if necessary. However, for this model to succeed, it must be paired with diplomatic finesse and careful communication with regional partners to ensure that military readiness does not come at the cost of long-term stability.

Beyond Deterrence: U.S. Indo-Pacific Command’s Strategic Shift

Admiral Paparo’s “prevail” concept would be more effective if it were paired with with diplomatic finesse and careful communication with regional partners.

The National Interest · by Jeffrey Reeves · October 16, 2024

Under Admiral Samuel Paparo, the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) has embraced a command directive to “prevail,” emphasizing greater readiness and the ability to deny and defend against adversarial actions in the Indo-Pacific. Moving beyond integrated deterrence, this framework highlights the need for U.S. forces to be prepared to win any conflict decisively, particularly in the face of growing challenges from China. The “prevail” framework marks a shift in INDOPACOM’s prior strategic and operational direction, signaling a heightened tolerance for risk in the pursuit of regional stability. It also reflects a hardening of the Biden administration’s approach to China and a significant departure from previous INDOPACOM commanders’ projections of U.S. military power.

Conceptually, the “prevail” approach builds on the foundation laid by former Commander Admiral John Aquilino’s “Seize the Initiative” program. Aquilino prioritized proactive deterrence, integrating alliances, and enhancing operational flexibility across multiple domains (air, land, sea, cyber, and space). His approach sought to shape the regional security environment before threats fully materialized, ensuring U.S. forces could stay ahead of adversaries.

INDOPACOM leadership has further developed this approach by prioritizing the enhancement of U.S. joint forces’ lethality, increasing readiness to respond to and win any crisis or conflict, and facilitating interoperability with U.S. allies and partners. The “prevail” focus ensures that the United States and its allies are not just positioned to deter aggression but are prepared to respond decisively to any regional threat. To this end, Paparo and INDOPACOM leadership have urged regional states to choose between supplication or military preparedness—“arming to the teeth” being the recommended path.

This approach is particularly focused on the prospect of conflict with China, a state Paparo has described as “revanchist, revisionist, and expansionist.” Accordingly, INDOPACOM is preparing actionable responses to Chinese aggression that go beyond mere deterrence. INDOPACOM leadership has challenged the widely held belief that the U.S. would struggle in a limited regional conflict with China, particularly in the Taiwan Strait, expressing confidence that the United States and its allies would ultimately prevail. The emphasis on military superiority, operational resilience, and coordination with allies reflects a commitment to achieving victory rather than merely maintaining the status quo.

Notably, the “prevail” concept is a natural evolution of U.S. strategy in the Indo-Pacific, particularly regarding China. Over the past few years, the Biden administration has demonstrated a greater willingness to risk conflict with China over issues ranging from technology and trade to maritime activities, as well as its support for Russia and its posture toward Taiwan. As Combatant Commander, Paparo’s approach aligns with and reinforces the Biden administration’s Asian strategy while shaping U.S. military policy in the Indo-Pacific.

Four months into Paparo’s tenure, INDOPACOM leadership has used this framework to redefine U.S. engagement with its allies and push back against Chinese activities in East and Southeast Asia. In July 2024, INDOPACOM supported the expansion of the U.S.-Japan alliance by agreeing to establish a joint forces headquarters in Japan. When operational, the new headquarters, commanded by a three-star officer but directly overseen by the INDOPACOM Commander, will collaborate with Japan’s self-defense force to strengthen security cooperation, enhance command integration, and facilitate greater interoperability in joint operations.

The reconstitution of U.S. Forces Japan into a joint headquarters will bolster U.S.-Japan military capabilities, particularly in response to increased Chinese incursions into Japan’s territorial waters and airspace. INDOPACOM leadership has committed to Japan’s defense, making it clear that should deterrence fail, U.S.-Japan joint forces will respond decisively to Chinese aggression.

INDOPACOM’s “prevail” model was also visible during Paparo’s recent trip to the Philippines, where he reaffirmed the combatant command’s role as a security partner. His pledge to strengthen interoperability with the Philippine Armed Forces and his suggestion that U.S. ships could escort Philippine vessels in the South China Sea underscores INDOPACOM leadership’s willingness to use U.S. military power to shape regional security dynamics, even at the risk of direct conflict with China. This is an offensive posture aimed at asserting dominance, not merely deterring aggression.

INDOPACOM leadership has also hinted at what a “prevail” approach to Taiwan could look like, describing a scenario in which thousands of unmanned vessels, submarines, and aircraft would be deployed to turn the Taiwan Strait into a “hellscape” in the event of a Chinese invasion. This aggressive tactic would counter the U.S.’s “tyranny of distance” by buying time to deploy assets and fight off Chinese forces, even potentially involving strikes on the Chinese mainland.

While the “prevail” approach has injected urgency into U.S. military operations, it has also raised concerns among Asian states. Many Southeast Asian countries do not share INDOPACOM’s willingness to confront China and view Beijing as a stabilizing force in the region. States like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore increasingly perceive the United States, not China, as a destabilizing actor. Additionally, non-English language polling in the region suggests a growing disconnect between how the United States and non-allied Asian states view China and security issues. Even in the Philippines, there is concern that U.S. military support could escalate tensions in the South China Sea.

Uncertainty remains regarding whether U.S. allies will continue to back INDOPACOM’s “prevail” strategy. While Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru supports the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement, some Cabinet members, like Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya and Defense Minister Gen. Nakatani, are more skeptical. In South Korea, opposition leader Lee Jae-myung, a 2027 presidential frontrunner, takes a less hawkish stance on China than President Yoon Suk-yeol. Even within Taiwan’s ruling DPP, concerns have been raised about INDOPACOM’s role in Taiwan under Paparo’s “hellscape” plan.

To address these concerns, INDOPACOM leadership must ensure that the “prevail” directive includes clear crisis avoidance measures and emphasizes negotiation as a primary tool for resolving disputes, even if that benefits China in some cases. Working closely with U.S. embassies on strategic messaging will also be crucial to mitigating apprehensions about American activities in Asia, as will maintaining direction communication channels with the Chinese military. Fortunately, Paparo understands this imperative and has recently held discussions with his counterpart at the People’s Liberation Army’s Southern Theater Command.

Admiral Paparo’s “prevail” concept represents a bold evolution in U.S. military operations in the Indo-Pacific. As China continues to assert its influence, the United States must be prepared not only to deter but to win conflicts decisively if necessary. However, for this model to succeed, it must be paired with diplomatic finesse and careful communication with regional partners to ensure that military readiness does not come at the cost of long-term stability.

Jeffrey Reeves is an associate professor at the Naval War College, Naval Postgraduate School, and Senior Washington Fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy. His views are his own and do not represent official government policy.

Image: FOTOGRIN / Shutterstock.com.

The National Interest · by Jeffrey Reeves · October 16, 2024

13. As Ukraine builds better drones, do American firms still have a role?

Tpo American defense forms we should ask: "Have you no shame?" Though that question was asked in a much different context, it does apply when we wonder why Ukraine can avance its drone capabilities and the American Defense firms cannot demonstrate a similar level of creativity and innovation. But as we all know, necessity is the mother of invention and that necessity to survive may be a superior motive than profit. We may simply take the best of Ukraine innovation and jack up the prices. (apologies for the depressing sarcasm).

As Ukraine builds better drones, do American firms still have a role?

Defense News · by Noah Robertson · October 17, 2024

In mid-September, massive explosions erupted in Toropets, a city in eastern Russia near the border with Belarus.

Ukraine had struck a military warehouse, igniting bombs and missiles in what Pentagon officials later said was Russia’s largest loss of Russian ammunition during the war — hundreds of thousands of rounds destroyed.

Almost as important, though, was how Ukraine conducted the strike.

Toropets is more than 300 miles from the Ukrainian border, outside the range of western weapons Kyiv wants permission to fire deep into Russia. Instead, Ukraine used drones it built alone.

Two and a half years into the war, the strike demonstrated a growing confidence in Ukraine’s own ability to design and build drones, perhaps the war’s defining weapon so far. Officials in Kyiv have said they can build weapons that are more precise and resilient than those sent by the West — an argument some American military officials dismissed in private as late as this summer, when speaking with Defense News.

Now even the Pentagon is bullish.

“The Ukrainian-made drones are doing very well,” a senior U.S. military official told reporters last week, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive assessment.

This success is forcing American firms to adapt. When Russia invaded in early 2022, U.S. drone companies sent Ukraine systems by the thousands, both to support its self-defense and to test their gear. Many firms have continued sending them, and even set up shop inside the country.

A more self-reliant Ukraine may change those relationships. American companies are finding different demands for their equipment, and in some case less demand at all. If that’s the case, American companies may struggle to refine their equipment, applying lessons from a conflict many officials say is showing the future of warfare.

“We remain in constant connectivity with the units that are using the systems that we’re providing,” said Chris Brose, chief strategy officer at Anduril, of Ukrainian soldiers. “They are our toughest critics.”

Graduation

Drones have been crucial for surveillance, targeting and strikes on the battlefield throughout the war in Ukraine. In response, its president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has become more intent on bringing them into the military.

In early October, Zelenskyy said that Ukraine can build up to 4 million drones each year and has contracts to build 1.5 million in 2024.

Many of these are small, first-person-view, or FPV, drones — not that different than what people can buy in the commercial market, said Sam Bendett, an expert at the Center for Naval Analyses who studies the use of drones in the Ukraine war.

Still, he said, Ukraine is also developing more high-end equipment that can take on more daring missions, as shown by the strike on Russia’s ammunition depot.

This spring, Ukraine started attacking oil fields deep into Russia in an attempt to pinch a key source of revenue for the Kremlin. While Kyiv was using its own drones to do so, the targets were civilian, rather than military, and had less intense jamming around them to stop incoming attacks.

American officials now say Ukraine has graduated past that level.

“There certainly are capability enhancements that have happened very rapidly,” the senior military official said. “Also, they are getting more sophisticated in their tactics, techniques and procedures.”

With that success, though, Ukraine needs fewer drones built by foreign partners. And American companies are noticing.

“They’re probably going to do a better job of meeting their own requirements than nations are going to be able to do for them,” Brose said of the small drones Ukraine is building in high volumes.

Instead, Brose argued that firms like Anduril are better placed to help Ukraine with “complementary capabilities” that can help make drones built in the country survive longer. He didn’t specify what those weapons could be but argued they could help protect drones against Russian jamming — which is only getting more intense as Moscow also invests in drones and electronic warfare.

‘Open market’

This is not to say that Ukraine no longer wants or needs American-made drones.

Skydio, a California-based company on contract with the Army, says it has sent more than 1,000 drones to Ukraine in the last two years. The company has since hired a small team of engineers and other employees in the country to adjust its own equipment on a timeline closer to front line needs.

Earlier this year Ukraine requested a further 8,000 of Skydio’s top-tier drone, the X10D, though the company is still trying to get enough money from other countries to send them.

Mark Valentine, an executive at Skydio, said that his firm has noticed Ukraine needing less Western support on smaller and larger drones — ranging from commercial-style weapons to precise munitions.

That said, “the microelectronics and some of the AI capabilities that we’ve been able to integrate on a drone have not necessarily been reproduced at scale in Ukraine,” Valentine said. “I still think that is a sweet spot.”

This fall, U.S. President Joe Biden approved a $2.4 billion package of long-term aid for Ukraine, including what a senior defense official called a “significant investment in Ukraine’s drone capability.” The aid will eventually help provide thousands of aerial drones and smaller components to build more inside Ukraine.

The assistance reflects a new posture for the Pentagon and U.S. defense firms — moving from only sending Ukrainians their drones to helping them design and build them.

“Ukrainian drone companies in many different domains are going to be a global, legitimate player,” said Wahid Nawabi, head of the drone company Aerovironment, which has sent Ukraine thousands of systems during the war.

Aerovironment, Nawabi said, still has many systems in Ukraine and continues to get data from front-line soldiers using them. Even more, he said, his firm was working to partner with these counterparts to design and build drones together.

Ukrainian operators, he said, demand the best, and if home-grown firms are providing that, perhaps American ones can join them.

“It’s an open market for competition,” Nawabi said.

About Noah Robertson

Noah Robertson is the Pentagon reporter at Defense News. He previously covered national security for the Christian Science Monitor. He holds a bachelor’s degree in English and government from the College of William & Mary in his hometown of Williamsburg, Virginia.

14. The Pentagon Wants to Use AI to Create Deepfake Internet Users

I imagine this will cause quite a stir.

It is amazing what can be found in unclassified requests for proposal and contracting and R&D documents. 

Read this:

Technical Interest Item#: 651.1 LeadOrg: INTEL 

Title: (U) User-Generated Content Support (Imagery, Video, and Voice)

 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25224425-jsoc-stylegan-personas

​Here is the debate over these capabilities:

The offensive use of this technology by the U.S. would, naturally, spur its proliferation and normalize it as a tool for all governments. “What’s notable about this technology is that it is purely of a deceptive nature,” said Heidy Khlaaf, chief AI scientist at the AI Now Institute. “There are no legitimate use cases besides deception, and it is concerning to see the U.S. military lean into a use of a technology they have themselves warned against. This will only embolden other militaries or adversaries to do the same, leading to a society where it is increasingly difficult to ascertain truth from fiction and muddling the geopolitical sphere.”

Both Russia and China have been caught using deepfaked video and user avatars in their online propaganda efforts, prompting the State Department to announce an international “Framework to Counter Foreign State Information Manipulation” in January. “Foreign information manipulation and interference is a national security threat to the United States as well as to its allies and partners,” a State Department press release said. “Authoritarian governments use information manipulation to shred the fabric of free and democratic societies.”

SOCOM’s interest in deepfakes is part of a fundamental tension within the U.S. government, said Daniel Byman, a professor of security studies at Georgetown University and a member of the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board. “Much of the U.S. government has a strong interest in the public believing that the government consistently puts out truthful (to the best of knowledge) information and is not deliberately deceiving people,” he explained, while other branches are tasked with deception. “So there is a legitimate concern that the U.S. will be seen as hypocritical,” Byman added. “I’m also concerned about the impact on domestic trust in government — will segments of the U.S. people, in general, become more suspicious of information from the government?”

The Pentagon Wants to Use AI to Create Deepfake Internet Users

The Department of Defense wants technology so it can fabricate online personas that are indistinguishable from real people.

The Intercept · by Sam Biddle · October 17, 2024

The United States’ secretive Special Operations Command is looking for companies to help create deepfake internet users so convincing that neither humans nor computers will be able to detect they are fake, according to a procurement document reviewed by The Intercept.

The plan, mentioned in a new 76-page wish list by the Department of Defense’s Joint Special Operations Command, or JSOC, outlines advanced technologies desired for country’s most elite, clandestine military efforts. “Special Operations Forces (SOF) are interested in technologies that can generate convincing online personas for use on social media platforms, social networking sites, and other online content,” the entry reads.

The document specifies that JSOC wants the ability to create online user profiles that “appear to be a unique individual that is recognizable as human but does not exist in the real world,” with each featuring “multiple expressions” and “Government Identification quality photos.”

In addition to still images of faked people, the document notes that “the solution should include facial & background imagery, facial & background video, and audio layers,” and JSOC hopes to be able to generate “selfie video” from these fabricated humans. These videos will feature more than fake people: Each deepfake selfie will come with a matching faked background, “to create a virtual environment undetectable by social media algorithms.”

Last year, Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, expressed interest in video “deepfakes,” a general term for synthesized audiovisual data meant to be indistinguishable from a genuine recording. Such imagery is generated using a variety of machine learning techniques, generally using software that has been “trained” to recognize and recreate human features by analyzing a massive database of faces and bodies. This year’s SOCOM wish list specifies an interest in software similar to StyleGAN, a program released by Nvidia in 2019 that powered the globally popular website “This Person Does Not Exist.” Within a year of StyleGAN’s launch, Facebook said it had taken down a network of accounts that used the technology to create false profile pictures. Since then, academic and private sector researchers have been engaged in a race between new ways to create undetectable deepfakes, and new ways to detect them. Many government services now require so-called liveness detection to thwart deepfaked identity photos, asking human applicants to upload a selfie video to demonstrate they are a real person — an obstacle that SOCOM may be interested in thwarting.

Related

U.S. Special Forces Want to Use Deepfakes for Psy-Ops

The listing notes that special operations troops “will use this capability to gather information from public online forums,” with no further explanation of how these artificial internet users will be used. The disclosure comes one year after SOCOM revealed in last year’s wish list that it hoped to soon use deepfake videos for online propaganda and information warfare campaigns.

This more detailed procurement listing shows that the United States pursues the exact same technologies and techniques it condemns in the hands of geopolitical foes. National security officials have long described the state-backed use of deepfakes as an urgent threat — that is, if they are being done by another country.

Last September, a joint statement by the NSA, FBI, and CISA warned “synthetic media, such as deepfakes, present a growing challenge for all users of modern technology and communications.” It described the global proliferation of deepfake technology as a “top risk” for 2023. In a background briefing to reporters this year, U.S. intelligence officials cautioned that the ability of foreign adversaries to disseminate “AI-generated content” without being detected — exactly the capability the Pentagon now seeks — represents a “malign influence accelerant” from the likes of Russia, China, and Iran. Earlier this year, the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit sought private sector help in combating deepfakes with an air of alarm: “This technology is increasingly common and credible, posing a significant threat to the Department of Defense, especially as U.S. adversaries use deepfakes for deception, fraud, disinformation, and other malicious activities.” An April paper by the U.S. Army’s Strategic Studies Institute was similarly concerned: “Experts expect the malicious use of AI, including the creation of deepfake videos to sow disinformation to polarize societies and deepen grievances, to grow over the next decade.”

“There are no legitimate use cases besides deception.”

The offensive use of this technology by the U.S. would, naturally, spur its proliferation and normalize it as a tool for all governments. “What’s notable about this technology is that it is purely of a deceptive nature,” said Heidy Khlaaf, chief AI scientist at the AI Now Institute. “There are no legitimate use cases besides deception, and it is concerning to see the U.S. military lean into a use of a technology they have themselves warned against. This will only embolden other militaries or adversaries to do the same, leading to a society where it is increasingly difficult to ascertain truth from fiction and muddling the geopolitical sphere.”

Both Russia and China have been caught using deepfaked video and user avatars in their online propaganda efforts, prompting the State Department to announce an international “Framework to Counter Foreign State Information Manipulation” in January. “Foreign information manipulation and interference is a national security threat to the United States as well as to its allies and partners,” a State Department press release said. “Authoritarian governments use information manipulation to shred the fabric of free and democratic societies.”

SOCOM’s interest in deepfakes is part of a fundamental tension within the U.S. government, said Daniel Byman, a professor of security studies at Georgetown University and a member of the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board. “Much of the U.S. government has a strong interest in the public believing that the government consistently puts out truthful (to the best of knowledge) information and is not deliberately deceiving people,” he explained, while other branches are tasked with deception. “So there is a legitimate concern that the U.S. will be seen as hypocritical,” Byman added. “I’m also concerned about the impact on domestic trust in government — will segments of the U.S. people, in general, become more suspicious of information from the government?”

Contact the author:

Sam Biddle sam.biddle@theintercept.com @sambiddle.99 on Signal @sambiddle.bsky.social on Bluesky @samfbiddle on X

Join The Conversation

The Intercept · by Sam Biddle · October 17, 2024

15. Army about to formalize 'micro-high altitude balloons' as a new requirement for surveillance ops

Balloons date back to the US Civil War. Just saying. What is old is new again.

Army about to formalize 'micro-high altitude balloons' as a new requirement for surveillance ops - Breaking Defense

The new effort for microHABs is being led by the Army's Program Executive Office for Aviation, Andrew Evans, director of the Army's ISR Task Force, told Breaking Defense, which for the moment is the primary acquisition shop overseeing the service's pursuit of systems that can operate at the upper edges of the stratosphere — roughly between 60,000 and 100,000 feet, and just below orbital space. 

breakingdefense.com · by Theresa Hitchens · October 16, 2024

The Army said micro–High-Altitude Balloons (microHABs) completed a Continuous Uninterrupted Relay Transmission Aerial Intelligence Network over a large distance as part of the Vanguard 24 exercise in September 2024. (PEO IEW&S via LinkedIn)

AUSA 2024 — The US Army is about to approve a new requirement for small high-altitude balloons for sensing deep inside enemy territory, according to a senior official.

“You’ll see it as mHABs, a micro-high altitude balloon. Those are smaller and they carry less payload, but they’re more transportable, so they’re a little bit more tactical in nature,” Andrew Evans, director of the Army’s Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Task Force, told Breaking Defense today on the margins of the annual Association of the US Army Conference.

“So, imagine them being man-portable, potentially easier to launch from field conditions, potentially requiring less logistic support,” he said.

A formal requirement paves the way for official acquisition of a new capability. According to an Army Space and Missile Defense Command fact sheet on high-altitude platforms [PDF], the land service is looking for a wide range of capabilities to suit both its own needs and help support multi-domain operations across the joint force. In particular, the service has been exploring stratospheric craft to undertake ISR missions for the past couple of years.

The new effort for microHABs is being led by the Army’s Program Executive Office for Aviation, Evans said, which for the moment is the primary acquisition shop overseeing the service’s pursuit of systems that can operate at the upper edges of the stratosphere — roughly between 60,000 and 100,000 feet, and just below orbital space.

“The only way to get there is with balloons or ultra-light, solar-powered vehicles,” Evans said. “Airplanes and things that have big motors can’t get that high.”

The Army in July issued a request for information designed to provide the service with market research on small, light electronic intelligence, communication intelligence, and radar payloads for “microHABs,” described as weighing under 15 pounds. Those are relatively “micro” compared to, say, the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS) system that involved lumbering blimps.

The Army’s Program Executive Office for Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors has been playing with microHABs and said two weeks ago that some systems “completed a Continuous Uninterrupted Relay Transmission Aerial Intelligence Network over a large distance as part of the Vanguard 24 exercise” in September.

“Although similar to the larger HABs, the microHABs will provide different capabilities due to its variance in size,” the office posted on LinkedIn. “Project Director Sensors-Aerial Intelligence is currently working hard to mature the microHAB to serve as an Army capability that will be readily available to Soldiers.”

Evans explained that the Army’s plans for high-altitude balloons of different sizes aren’t yet set in stone, with the service also still experimenting with other types of platforms, such as solar-powered aircraft. For example, the Army in 2022 undertook a series of experiments with the spindly Airbus-made Zephyr long endurance drone.

He noted that the first funding for the service’s High Altitude Platform for Deep Sensing program will appear in the fiscal 2025 budget — although Army budget documents do not break out an amount.

“It’s all very nascent. So, we just haven’t fully figured out what this is going to be. What we all universally agree on is that we need to do it. We just don’t know to what scale and exactly what the solution will be,” Evans said. “And whether it’ll be a balloon, a solar glider, what we’re fully sold on is we got to exploit the stratosphere.”

breakingdefense.com · by Theresa Hitchens · October 16, 2024

16. SOF and Influence Activities

​A 44 minute podcast on influence that is worth listening to.

https://irregularwarfare.org/podcasts/sof-and-influence-activities/

We can (and must) learn from our allies.

I wonder if there is any relation between Professor Kitson to General Frank Kitson.

SOF and Influence Activities - Irregular Warfare Initiative

irregularwarfare.org · by Adam Darnley-Stuart, Don Edwards · October 18, 2024

Episode 116 of the Irregular Warfare Podcast explores the role of Special Operations Forces (SOF) in influence activities, featuring insights from Professor Martin Kitson and Major General Ron Smits. The guests discuss the value proposition of SOF in influence operations, emphasizing their ability to integrate various capabilities for maximum effect. They delve into the importance of understanding local environments, the challenges of conducting influence campaigns across different cultural and legal contexts, and the evolving role of European SOF in global operations. The conversation highlights the need for specialized training, diverse skill sets within SOF units, and the importance of adapting to new forms of warfare, including resistance operations in highly urbanized and cyber environments. The episode provides valuable perspectives on the future of SOF and their critical role in addressing complex security challenges in the 21st century.

Martijn Kitzen is a Professor and the Chair of Irregular Warfare and Special Operations, Netherlands Defence Academy (NLDA) in the Netherlands, and formerly served in the Royal Netherlands Army and Air Force. He Co-Edited The Conduct of War in the 21st Century (Routledge, 2021), and has written dozens of articles on coalition operations, counterinsurgency, and asymmetric conflict, to include serving as academic advisor for the revision of NATO’s AJP 3.4.4 (Counterinsurgency).

Major General Ron Smits was the Commander of Netherlands Special Operations Command. Notable positions include Head of the Manoeuvre Division within the Directorate of Operational Policy, Requirements and Plans; Chief of Staff with 43rd Mechanised Brigade; Commander of Training Command in Ahmersoort; Commander of 11th Air Mobile Brigade; and Special Operations Commander from 2021 to 2024.

Adam Darnley-Stuart and Don Edwards are the hosts for this episode. Please reach out to Ben and Matt with any questions about this episode or the Irregular Warfare Podcast.

The Irregular Warfare Podcast is a production of the Irregular Warfare Initiative (IWI). We are a team of volunteers dedicated to bridging the gap between scholars and practitioners in the field of irregular warfare. IWI generates written and audio content, coordinates events for the IW community, and hosts critical thinkers in the field of irregular warfare as IWI fellows. You can follow and engage with us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, or LinkedIn.

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter for access to our written content, upcoming community events, and other resources.

17. In Countering the Houthis, America Should Lead From Behind

Excerpts:

Strengthening Yemen’s peace process requires Saudi involvement. Saudi Arabia has the most at stake in both the Red Sea and Yemen. It shares a long border with Yemen, making it uniquely vulnerable to Houthi strikes. Additionally, much of Saudi Arabia’s ambitious 2030 agenda is based on building up economic activity along its Red Sea coast. Saudi Arabia also enjoys the greatest leverage due to Riyadh’s influence with Yemen’s internationally recognized government, which depends heavily on Saudi economic and military support. As a result, the Saudis have significant sway over the terms of a Yemeni peace process. More important, Saudi Arabia is the dominant player in the Arabian Peninsula. Even as they present themselves as belligerents uncowed by geopolitical powers, the Houthis understand that they will need to deal with the Saudi government long after their attacks on commercial shipping cease and international interest in Yemen wanes.

The Saudis have not yet used their leverage to help stop the Houthi maritime threat because they have another priority: avoiding renewed Houthi attacks on their territory, which have largely stopped since the 2022 truce. If the Houthis were to resume attacks on Saudi territory, Saudi leadership could quickly find itself on what many Saudis assess to be the wrong side of a war in support of Palestinians. In addition to opening a dangerous new front in the regional conflict, renewed hostilities could create domestic instability at a time when Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is still attempting to enact sweeping economic and social reforms.

De-escalation in Gaza is likely a precondition for progress on a more productive peace process in Yemen. It would weaken the Houthis’ position by diminishing the political legitimacy the group gains from attacking Israel and maritime shipping, and it would give Saudi Arabia the space necessary to adopt a more assertive posture. But preparation by Riyadh and its partners must begin now, including by reaching a consensus that Yemen’s peace process road map must be broadened to include an enforceable Houthi commitment to ceasing maritime attacks. The Houthis will likely respond to these new conditions with renewed attacks on Saudi Arabia, as they seek to test their opponents’ steadfastness. Mediators such as the UN and regional actors such as Oman can help ensure this does not trigger an escalatory spiral. The United States should play a supporting role in this effort, first and foremost by helping secure some form of de-escalation in Gaza.

The Houthis will likely be a perpetual source of instability in Yemen and the region. Foreign-backed ground campaigns have not succeeded in the past and risk further bolstering the Houthis’ support in the country. The resilience of their military arsenal to airstrikes will dull the impact of any air campaign. Returning to a peace process in Yemen can help constrain Houthi behavior, but only if it forces the Houthis to choose between their goals inside Yemen and their regional aggression. Just as the Houthis have capitalized on instability in the Middle East to assert themselves as new leaders of the axis of resistance, Saudi Arabia and its partners should seize the opportunity to establish new guardrails on Houthi behavior.

In Countering the Houthis, America Should Lead From Behind

Political and Economic Pressure From Saudi Arabia Can Rein In the Group Better Than U.S. Military Action

By Allison Minor

October 18, 2024

Foreign Affairs · by Allison Minor · October 18, 2024

The latest round of U.S. strikes on Yemen in October have brought back to the fore an inconvenient truth for Washington and its allies: the Houthi threat is not going away any time soon. Instead, the Yemeni rebel group has continued to assert itself as the vanguard of Iran’s “axis of resistance,” a role left open by the death of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, in September. Since the Houthis began attacking commercial ships in the Red Sea in November 2023, the United States and its allies have tried to reestablish deterrence through repeated airstrikes, sanctions, and a major defensive naval campaign. These efforts have failed to stop the Houthis, who continue to hold the Red Sea hostage and disrupt global maritime commerce, forcing shipping companies to avoid the Suez Canal and take much longer routes around Africa. Red Sea traffic accounts for a third of global container shipping, and its disruption will further exacerbate global inflation and dampen global GDP, in addition to snarling supply chains. The Houthis also remain capable of launching attacks on Israel, as they did in October. Most of these attacks, which number over 200, have missed their targets or been intercepted, but a few have managed to evade Israel’s air defenses, including a July drone attack on Tel Aviv that killed one Israeli.

The Houthis have styled their attacks as acts of defiance against Israel’s war in Gaza, claiming that the strikes will continue as long as the territory remains under siege.But it is unlikely that a cease-fire in Gaza on its own would put an end to the Houthi threat to global maritime commerce. The group seeks to cement its control of northern Yemen amid a decade-long civil war and harbors larger designs to assert itself as a major regional player. It has realized that attacks against commercial shipping are an effective and hard-to-counter way to achieve both goals.

Despite their apparent resilience, however, the Houthis are far from invulnerable. A more effective response to the Houthi threat is possible, but it will not be led by the United States, which has much less influence within Yemen than do many neighboring countries. Instead, Saudi Arabia and its partners must leverage the Houthis’ greatest vulnerability—the long-term economic viability of their regime—and convince the group that addressing its financial woes and protecting its interests inside Yemen require reining in its aggression.

UNDETERRED

The United States and its partners have used three tools in response to Houthi attacks: economic sanctions; airstrikes against Houthi missile and drone sites, such as the ones earlier this month; and a naval campaign to defend ships in the Red Sea. U.S.-led naval operations against the Houthis—the largest naval battle waged by the United States since World War II—have been successful in a vacuum, with dozens of Houthi drones and missiles shot down. But it is extremely difficult to defend against every single drone, missile, and small boat attack across hundreds of miles in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, and the Houthis continue to cause enough damage to make passage through these waters unacceptably risky for most commercial shippers. This is precisely why the maritime attacks are so effective, even in the face of the United States’ vast military capabilities: the Houthis can fail 90 percent of the time and still succeed.

After withstanding an aggressive seven-year-long Saudi-led air campaign that followed the outbreak of civil war in 2014, the Houthis have learned how to protect their military assets against airstrikes and rapidly replenish missileand drone stocks. The group benefits from an Iranian-supported smuggling network and the development of domestic weapons manufacturing capabilities. The ground campaigns of the Saudi-led coalition that has fought against the Houthisover the last decade have not registered major battlefield gains since 2018. The Houthis are much stronger than they were then, having reinforced their control inside northern Yemen after turning on its former ally, Yemen’s longtime dictator, Ali Abdullah Saleh, co-opting his ample military and financial assets, and seizing government institutions. During this time, the Houthis further honed their military capabilities with Iranian help. Yemeni troops backed by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates did manage to seize some territory from the Houthis shortly before the UN negotiated a truce in April 2022, demonstrating that military pressure may help compel the Houthis to negotiate. The truce inside Yemen has largely held since, even with the last year’s turmoil in the region. As the past year has made clear, however, military action by itself will not stop the Houthis from lashing out.

The group doesn’t seem to mind absorbing blows. Even when strikes on Houthi targets are successful, the political legitimacy the group gains by appearing to be the victims of U.S. and Israeli bombardment offsets any loss of military capabilities. Houthi control inside Yemen depends largely on the widespread belief that the group is fending off foreign aggression and standing up to the region’s (and the world’s) most powerful countries. Direct conflict with the United States and Israel greatly bolsters this narrative: in a recent speech, Houthi leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi asserted that the Yemeni people are proud to be confronting the United States and Israel, vowing to continue the fight. It’s no surprise, then, that Israeli airstrikes on the port of Hodeidah, one of the most significant economic and humanitarian sites in Houthi-controlled Yemen, have failed to establish deterrence. Instead, they have further inflamed Houthi rhetoric and prompted a new round of attacks against Israel.

Nor are U.S.sanctions likely to turn the tide. Unlike Iran’s economy, which depends heavily on global oil exports, Houthi revenues come primarily from domestic and illicit sources, including aggressive and sometimes arbitrary taxation of the Houthi-controlled Yemeni economy and 100 percent tariffs on goods coming from the government-controlled south; diversion of profits from confiscated assets and state-owned companies, such as the still lucrative telecommunications sector; and drug trafficking, according to seizures by Saudi authorities. This makes it hard for a sanctions regime meant to isolate offending countries from global commerce to have much effect. The group also relies on donated Iranian fuel, obscured through false shipping records and complex front companies, further insulating it from the world market. And by grinding commercial shipping to a halt, the Houthis have shown they are more interested in disrupting the global financial system than participating in it.

As long as Yemenis believe the Houthis are defending Palestinians and Yemen from the United States and Israel, the Houthis will not need to worry about placating a restive population. Prior to October 7, the group did face growing pressure from business leaders and popular protests over its economic mismanagement, the lack of basic services in the territory it controls, and unpaid public sector salaries. But those complaints evaporated after the Houthis made common cause with the Palestinians and began attacking Israel and the United States. The Houthis also benefit from the low expectations of those they rule: the ongoing civil war and the accompanying humanitarian crisis, one of the world’s largest, have been the status quo for a decade, and Yemenis do not make great demands of their leaders as a result. In these circumstances, Yemeni dissidents struggle to channel discontent into active political opposition. The Houthis effectively reign uncontested over northern Yemen, having established a firm grip on all government, religious, economic, and social institutions in the areas they control. To really pressure the Houthis at home, influential business, tribal, and political groups must believe that there is a viable alternative to the Houthis’ repression and poor governance.

SHOW THEM THE MONEY

The Houthis’ economic posture, not their military posture, is their greatest vulnerability. Although most Yemenis live under Houthi rule, Yemen’s hydrocarbon resources, including its modest oil resources and a more lucrative natural gas project that is currently paused, fall outside their control. A few years ago, the UN estimated that annual Houthi revenues were only $1.8 billion—hardly enough to govern 25 million people and satisfy influential business and tribal groups while maintaining a war chest. This meager revenue is unlikely to lead to the group’s collapse any time soon, but the Houthi regime is not viable over the long term unless it secures significant, durable new sources of funding soon. The Houthis spent years trying to seize Yemen’s oil and gas fields militarily and, with a recent surge in recruits, may revisit this effort.

The Houthis’ economic weakness is further exacerbated by their lack of formal international legitimacy. This soft spot became clear over the summer, when Yemen’s internationally recognized government—the Houthis’ rival in the decade-long civil war—began to use its authority to cut commercial banks in northern Yemen off from the international financial system, a move that could have jeopardized the imports and remittances that are crucial to the economy in Houthi-controlled territory. The consequences of the Yemeni government’s measures would have been much greater than the effect of existing U.S. sanctions, as the measures broadly targeted the banks inside northern Yemen, rather than the murky, rapidly changing networks the Houthis use to channel weapons and money from outside the country. The Houthis were able to forestall this action only because they threatened renewed attacks on Saudi Arabia, which pressed the Yemeni government to withdraw its decision.

Economic woes were a major factor in the Houthis’ decision to pursue the April 2022 truce with the Yemeni government and coalition forces and subsequent UN negotiations toward a road map for a peace process. The road map, to which the parties tentatively agreed in December 2023, requires that the Houthis adhere to a cease-fire in exchange for economic inducements, such as access to hydrocarbon revenues, followed by a political process that would ostensibly require the Houthis to share political power with other Yemeni parties. The future of the process is uncertain given the region’s current instability, but its basic framework still provides the most viable path to a negotiated solution that constrains Houthi behavior, since it leverages the economic resources the Houthis need most; provides the kind of sustained, sovereign resources they prioritize; and formally resolves the question of legitimate political control in the country. If the Houthi’s maritime threat is not sufficiently addressed in this framework, it is difficult to imagine any other arrangement that could convince the Houthis to refrain from future attacks.

It will be difficult to convince the Houthis to agree to new, stronger terms for a peace process given their current emboldened posture, but it is necessary to ensure its viability, and to realize the kind of economic recovery the Houthis say they are seeking. One of the most significant dividends from a peace process would be the potential resumption of liquified natural gas production and export. But TotalEnergies and other major shareholders in Yemen’s liquid natural gas project will not agree to resume gas exports as long as ships near the export terminal on Yemen’s southern coast remain at risk of being bombed by the Houthis. A peace process that allows the Houthis to turn Red Sea access on and off whenever they please will doom Yemen to a slow economic death.

NEW TERMS, NEW PEACE

Strengthening Yemen’s peace process requires Saudi involvement. Saudi Arabia has the most at stake in both the Red Sea and Yemen. It shares a long border with Yemen, making it uniquely vulnerable to Houthi strikes. Additionally, much of Saudi Arabia’s ambitious 2030 agenda is based on building up economic activity along its Red Sea coast. Saudi Arabia also enjoys the greatest leverage due to Riyadh’s influence with Yemen’s internationally recognized government, which depends heavily on Saudi economic and military support. As a result, the Saudis have significant sway over the terms of a Yemeni peace process. More important, Saudi Arabia is the dominant player in the Arabian Peninsula. Even as they present themselves as belligerents uncowed by geopolitical powers, the Houthis understand that they will need to deal with the Saudi government long after their attacks on commercial shipping cease and international interest in Yemen wanes.

The Saudis have not yet used their leverage to help stop the Houthi maritime threat because they have another priority: avoiding renewed Houthi attacks on their territory, which have largely stopped since the 2022 truce. If the Houthis were to resume attacks on Saudi territory, Saudi leadership could quickly find itself on what many Saudis assess to be the wrong side of a war in support of Palestinians. In addition to opening a dangerous new front in the regional conflict, renewed hostilities could create domestic instability at a time when Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is still attempting to enact sweeping economic and social reforms.

De-escalation in Gaza is likely a precondition for progress on a more productive peace process in Yemen. It would weaken the Houthis’ position by diminishing the political legitimacy the group gains from attacking Israel and maritime shipping, and it would give Saudi Arabia the space necessary to adopt a more assertive posture. But preparation by Riyadh and its partners must begin now, including by reaching a consensus that Yemen’s peace process road map must be broadened to include an enforceable Houthi commitment to ceasing maritime attacks. The Houthis will likely respond to these new conditions with renewed attacks on Saudi Arabia, as they seek to test their opponents’ steadfastness. Mediators such as the UN and regional actors such as Oman can help ensure this does not trigger an escalatory spiral. The United States should play a supporting role in this effort, first and foremost by helping secure some form of de-escalation in Gaza.

The Houthis will likely be a perpetual source of instability in Yemen and the region. Foreign-backed ground campaigns have not succeeded in the past and risk further bolstering the Houthis’ support in the country. The resilience of their military arsenal to airstrikes will dull the impact of any air campaign. Returning to a peace process in Yemen can help constrain Houthi behavior, but only if it forces the Houthis to choose between their goals inside Yemen and their regional aggression. Just as the Houthis have capitalized on instability in the Middle East to assert themselves as new leaders of the axis of resistance, Saudi Arabia and its partners should seize the opportunity to establish new guardrails on Houthi behavior.

• ALLISON MINOR is a recent Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Foreign Affairs · by Allison Minor · October 18, 2024

18. Do We Need a Hero? Building Heritage and Culture in the U.S. Space Force

Excerpts:

Finally, examples of positive leadership can always serve as a common cultural touchstone. General Saltzman referenced the bold and sometimes defiant actions of the Space Force’s spiritual founder, Gen. Bernard Schriever, in promoting the importance of space in military operations. Schriever gave a speech on “space superiority” in which he focused on the need to build and achieve space superiority in order to maintain national security. For his efforts, he was reprimanded by the secretary of defense and told never to use the word “space” again. As this speech preceded the Soviet launch of Sputnik by eight months, it wound up being prophetic and visionary. Needless to say, the Department of Defense did an about-face and became very interested in Schriever’s ideas for the future.

It was no accident that Saltzman made the call back to Schriever’s comments. Rather, it was a deliberate move to connect the past — heritage — to the present and future. General Saltzman wanted guardians to see the actions taken by General Schriever and the positive impact they had on the development of America’s space capabilities to serve as an example of how guardians needed to “evolve … take risks … and solve problems.” He cast General Schriever in the same role as defiant aviation advocate Billy Mitchell, who is one of the spiritual fathers of the United States Air Force.

Because leadership occurs at all levels, from a general officer commanding an entire service to a noncommissioned officer or company-grade officer leading a small flight, detachment, or office, using examples of leadership like Schriever’s can serve as a common touchpoint for all guardians to rally around. When leaders choose to deliberately accept risk by, for example, opting to place more trust and authority in lower echelon units or members, making a strong public showing of such decisions can demonstrate both a courageous and independent leadership model and a junior corps that has more autonomy and responsibility. In turn, those decisions, repeated and publicized, can build an image of a service with its own traits and characteristics particular to its needs.

Space may be largely empty, but it is not a true vacuum. Likewise, the Space Force does not truly lack for heritage or examples of courageous leadership if one knows where to look and how to present them. By using these existing examples, the Space Force can build its own unique culture, tailored toward its mission needs, and motivate its guardians with idealized examples of leadership and performance under pressure.

Do We Need a Hero? Building Heritage and Culture in the U.S. Space Force - War on the Rocks

warontherocks.com · by Nicholas Mahanic · October 18, 2024

Our military services are steeped in tradition built out of real-life heroics of our predecessors: George Washington and his soldiers fearlessly crossing a frozen Delaware river; Marines raising the flag atop Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima; the harrowing contests in the air over Europe by the Tuskegee Airmen and the 100th Bomb Group; James Lawrence’s final cry admonishing his men, “Don’t give up the ship!” Over time, each of the services has taken the real accomplishments of its servicemembers and mythologized them to great effect in setting a high standard to be aimed for by other servicemembers as well as an emblem to the general public of what it means to be a soldier, sailor, marine, or airman.

What then of the newest service, the United States Space Force? How does one create and build heritage in a way that motivates its members and creates an understanding and embrace of the mission in the popular imagination? The Space Force has a number of promising options available. First, leaders should highlight the decisive role of specific guardians in completing missions and protecting their fellow soldiers. They should also be more open in discussing the military’s role in space, while also promoting historic examples of officers who took professional risks to advance American security in space.

Become a Member

The Role of Heroes

Idealized images of heroes have existed for as long as history has been written down, or even carved into clay tablets. Fragments from the “Epic of Gilgamesh” have been found in clay tablets approximately 4,000 years old. Biblical stories such as David slaying Goliath, or Samson bringing down a temple atop himself and his enemies, have been depicted in artwork over and over through the generations.

Heroes exist both as a reflection of a culture’s values and as a target to give people something to emulate. Recognition of heroes inside an organization contributes to creating a strong sense of shared values and a common culture by illustrating and exemplifying the organization’s philosophy. Research has demonstrated that groups with a shared social identity have enhanced social collaboration and further allow leaders of such groups to exert more influence in shaping its direction and effectiveness. Building a shared repository of heroes and the ideals they represent is one way to create an identity and culture within the Space Force, which in turn can serve as a significant force multiplier by enhancing organizational motivation and cohesiveness.

In more practical terms, heritage may play a tangible role in creating a bond between the public and the institution, increasing support. The importance of this may best be summed up by an inversion of a quote from The Right Stuff. In that movie about the early space program, the prospective astronauts noted that they needed funding to get to space, hence “No bucks, no Buck Rogers.” But it just as easily could be said in reverse, as the characters in the film and book acknowledge. Public relations and celebrity are needed to drive public opinion to generate pressure for more funding from Congress. No Buck Rogers, no bucks.

The Marine Corps faced the threat of being folded into the Army after World War II, but survived in part due to many congressional supporters citing its heroic deeds and, in the words of President Harry Truman, a skeptic of the Corps, “a propaganda machine almost the equal of Stalin’s.” The purpose of building a Space Force culture is not simply to lobby and influence public officials. But maintaining a link between the service’s mission and the general public that it serves is vital to maintaining support for that mission, both in dollars and cents, and in less tangible moral support. In any society, and especially in a democracy, support from the public for its governmental institutions is a vital component of success for those institutions. Educating, persuading, and winning the support of the public can have important tangible effects, from influencing potential recruits to join to encouraging more congressional support for programs to narrowing the military-civilian divide in communities with military bases. Using heritage and heroes is one powerful and simple method of making that connection.

Challenges

The Space Force suffers from several limitations in creating tradition. The first is time. Heritage, as the word denotes, signifies a legacy handed down from generations past. With a service that is less than five years old — barely long enough for a guardian to have completed one initial enlistment—all of the deeds of guardians past aren’t far enough in the rearview mirror to be given the veneer of legend that helps in creating and shaping a mythos and, with it, a culture.

Of course, the Space Force is not America’s first foray into military space activities. Air Force Space Command, which stood up in 1982, is the forerunner of the present Space Operations Command, a field command of the Space Force. Further, U.S. Space Command, the combatant command stood up in 2019 whose area of responsibility is outer space, existed in a previous iteration from 1985 to 2002. Just as the Air Force grew out of the Army Air Corps and had a legacy to draw on in its early days as a service in World War II, the Space Force can point to heroes from the past several decades, even if they weren’t part of the same organization. Space capabilities began to emerge during the Cold War, when the space race and nuclear capabilities became critical, proved vital in combat operations during the Gulf War, and then became an everyday necessity and fact of life in the “Global War on Terror.”

But the question remains, what heroes? This brings up the second limitation of developing space heritage. The stories that capture our imagination are feats of heroism in the face of danger. The Marine Corps underwent a defining battle when it faced relentless gunfire in the Battle of Belleau Wood, while the feats performed on shores of Tripoli are sung in the Marines’ Hymn to this day. Soldiers earned immortality by holding off surrounding German forces in subzero temperatures at Bastogne, with their commander famously refusing a suggestion of surrender with the short reply, “Nuts!” Sailors in tin can destroyers sailed directly toward far more powerful Japanese surface vessels to give their carriers time to escape at the Battle of Samar, many losing their lives but ultimately prevailing in what was called by author and historian James D. Hornfischer as the greatest upset in naval history. Airmen can point to the Berlin Airlift at the dawn of the Cold War, where relentless crews saved Berlin from starvation and capitulation by running round-the-clock operations that, at their height, had a plane landing every thirty seconds. In combat operations, they can point to the tense dogfights between F-86 Sabres and Soviet-built MiG-15s battling for control of the airspace over the Korean Peninsula or the risky Wild Weasel suppression of enemy air defense campaigns in Vietnam.

Death and danger go hand in hand with the military. But what do you do when you have a force that is primarily digital? Space operations consist of operating satellites, radar systems, and the ground stations and communications systems that allow them all to work and interact with the broader array of defense networks to provide militarily useful information and capabilities. Most of the personnel working on the space domain are not astronauts pushing the frontiers of human space travel, but technicians operating satellites, analysts reviewing data those satellites capture, scientists developing and testing new systems, or program managers working to bring new programs online. Plugging away at a keyboard from an operations center in Colorado Springs to send commands to a satellite — however important its mission — lacks the elements of a great story of bravery and panache. This is important work, but at a glance, it seems remote from Seal Team Six infiltrating Osama bin Laden’s compound.

Even if these stories were relatable, when could they be told? Space activities are heavily classified. Department of Defense leadership has taken steps to reduce the high level of classification given to many space programs. But one cannot expect to hear explicit, play-by-play details about any close encounters between blue and red space objects outside of a sensitive compartmented information facility any time soon.

Three Ways Forward

So how can the Space Force link its work to an idealized standard to strive for, and one that will resonate with the broader public? Three avenues are available. First, focus on the efforts of specific guardians and units in saving lives and accomplishing the mission. Second, be more open about talking about space military activities. And third, be willing to own and publicize risky decisions to solve problems.

First, the Space Force does not need to “create” heroes. It already has them. In response to the U.S. strike killing Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in January 2020, Iran launched missiles at Erbil and al Asad airbases in Iraq. When Iran launched the missiles, the 2d Space Warning Squadron, part of Space Delta 4, Missile Warning, at Buckley Space Force Base, sprang into action. Utilizing the space-based infrared system, the warning officer and team determined that a launch had occurred, where it came from, and where it was going, and released warning messages in a very short window of time. Absent that quick action, “We would be talking about dead Americans,” observed then-Space Force Vice Commander Lt. Gen. David Thompson. Linking and highlighting the key role played by guardians in saving hundreds of American lives provides a model for other guardians to work toward.

The need to highlight these stories brings up the second issue: being more open about military activities in and concerning space. Publicity about these activities suffers from two critical limiting factors. First, as mentioned above, space activities tend to be highly classified. This is understandable and expected, but in some ways counterintuitive in that satellites — the primary vehicle for space activity — are observable, often to amateurs on the ground, and tend to travel in very predictable orbits. Indeed, there are numerous websites dedicated to the task of identifying space objects, their roles, and their orbits. Adversaries with reasonably advanced capabilities are aware of many activities in outer space, so attempting to obscure some of them may have limited strategic value, while serving to lower public awareness of the value provided by the Space Force. Second, the fact that space is often seen as a peaceful domain that war has not yet sullied has contributed to a reluctance to talk about space warfare, at least in some circles. The stand-up of the Space Force created concern among some that such militarization would create a “space arms race.”

While outright aggressive militancy should be avoided, it is beneficial to acknowledge the reality that space is militarized and always has been. As the then-USSPACEOM J3, now the Space Operations Command Commander, Lt. Gen. David Miller, said, “We’ve got to … stop debating if [space is] a warfighting domain, stop debating whether there are weapons, and get to the point of how do we responsibly, as part of the joint and combined force, deter conflict that nobody wants to see, but if we do see it, demonstrate our ability to win.” Similarly, the push by Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman to win the competition in space while avoiding — and countering — debris generation both acknowledges the reality of the situation in space while championing a position that promotes the U.S. role in maintaining a stable and safe environment. This openness to discussing the realities of competition and conflict in space should continue in order to make the public more comfortable with and more understanding of what guardians do and why their mission is so critical.

To that end, being more open about bringing stories of guardians and the space systems they operate to the forefront would serve many useful functions. It would normalize the role played by guardians among the general public. Additionally, more widespread discussion would make other members of the armed forces more familiar with the critical role played by the smallest force in enabling operations for everyone. This could have a unifying effect both across the armed forces — in bringing the services together in achieving a better understanding of what everyone does — and within the Space Force — by taking more opportunities to celebrate success in a shared enterprise. Shaking off our reluctance to talk about military activities in space and instead embracing the work that guardians do in protecting the American people is an important step in building culture and heritage.

Finally, examples of positive leadership can always serve as a common cultural touchstone. General Saltzman referenced the bold and sometimes defiant actions of the Space Force’s spiritual founder, Gen. Bernard Schriever, in promoting the importance of space in military operations. Schriever gave a speech on “space superiority” in which he focused on the need to build and achieve space superiority in order to maintain national security. For his efforts, he was reprimanded by the secretary of defense and told never to use the word “space” again. As this speech preceded the Soviet launch of Sputnik by eight months, it wound up being prophetic and visionary. Needless to say, the Department of Defense did an about-face and became very interested in Schriever’s ideas for the future.

It was no accident that Saltzman made the call back to Schriever’s comments. Rather, it was a deliberate move to connect the past — heritage — to the present and future. General Saltzman wanted guardians to see the actions taken by General Schriever and the positive impact they had on the development of America’s space capabilities to serve as an example of how guardians needed to “evolve … take risks … and solve problems.” He cast General Schriever in the same role as defiant aviation advocate Billy Mitchell, who is one of the spiritual fathers of the United States Air Force.

Because leadership occurs at all levels, from a general officer commanding an entire service to a noncommissioned officer or company-grade officer leading a small flight, detachment, or office, using examples of leadership like Schriever’s can serve as a common touchpoint for all guardians to rally around. When leaders choose to deliberately accept risk by, for example, opting to place more trust and authority in lower echelon units or members, making a strong public showing of such decisions can demonstrate both a courageous and independent leadership model and a junior corps that has more autonomy and responsibility. In turn, those decisions, repeated and publicized, can build an image of a service with its own traits and characteristics particular to its needs.

Space may be largely empty, but it is not a true vacuum. Likewise, the Space Force does not truly lack for heritage or examples of courageous leadership if one knows where to look and how to present them. By using these existing examples, the Space Force can build its own unique culture, tailored toward its mission needs, and motivate its guardians with idealized examples of leadership and performance under pressure.

Become a Member

Maj Nicholas Mahanic is a Judge Advocate in the United States Air Force, presently serving as Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, 88th Air Base Wing, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. He previously served as the Chief of Space and Operations Law at Space Operations Command, Peterson Space Force Base, Colorado. He has an LLM in Air and Space Law from McGill University, a juris doctor from the University of Michigan Law School, and a B.A. in history and political science from the University of Michigan.

The views in this article are his personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect policy or the views of the Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force, or the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps.

Commentary

warontherocks.com · by Nicholas Mahanic · October 18, 2024

19. His Country Trained Him to Fight. Then He Turned Against It. More Like Him Are Doing the Same

Troubling.

Excerpts:

A psychological workup found no evidence of mental illness, but did cite likely war trauma as a factor in Arthur’s paranoia. Still, the conclusion was that Arthur did not need “acute mental health treatment.”

Dever, also a veteran, told Arthur that his specialized military training in explosives and other warfare techniques made his conduct that much more serious.

“You took the oath that all of us who served took,” Dever told Arthur. “You know better.”

But Arthur is unrepentant.

In messages to AP from a federal prison in Tennessee, he said he is a target of “political warfare.”

“I’m a political prisoner,” he wrote, echoing the language former President Donald Trump and others have used to minimize the crimes committed in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

In Arthur’s view, the imprisonment of “vets and patriots” like himself and the attempted assassination of Trump in Pennsylvania prophesy the civil war he has long argued is coming.

“This is happening,” he wrote. “All the signs are there.”

His Country Trained Him to Fight. Then He Turned Against It. More Like Him Are Doing the Same | Military.com

Associated Press Jason Dearen Michelle R. Smith Aaron Kessler

Published October 17, 2024 at 9:21am ET

military.com

MOUNT OLIVE, N.C. — The U.S. military trained him in explosives and battlefield tactics. Now the Iraq War veteran and enlisted National Guard member was calling for taking up arms against police and government officials in his own country.

Standing in the North Carolina woods, Chris Arthur warned about a coming civil war. Videos he posted publicly on YouTube bore titles such as “The End of America or the Next Revolutionary War.” In his telling, the U.S. was falling into chaos and there would be only one way to survive: kill or be killed.

Arthur was posting during a surge of far-right extremism in the years leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. He wrote warcraft training manuals to help others organize their own militias. And he offered sessions at his farm in Mount Olive, North Carolina, that taught how to kidnap and attack public officials, use snipers and explosives and design a “fatal funnel” booby trap to inflict mass casualties.

While he continued to post publicly, military and law enforcement ignored more than a dozen warnings phoned in by Arthur’s wife’s ex-husband about Arthur’s increasingly violent rhetoric and calls for the murder of police officers. This failure by the Guard, FBI and others to act allowed Arthur to continue to manufacture and store explosives around young children and train another extremist who would attack police officers in New York state and lead them on a wild, two-hour chase and gun battle.

Arthur isn’t an anomaly. He is among more than 480 people with a military background accused of ideologically driven extremist crimes from 2017 through 2023, including the more than 230 arrested in connection with the Jan. 6 insurrection.

At the same time, while the pace at which the overall population has been radicalizing increased in recent years, people with military backgrounds have been radicalizing at a faster rate. Their extremist plots were also more likely to involve weapons training or firearms than plots that didn’t include someone with a military background, according to an Associated Press analysis of domestic terrorism data obtained exclusively by the AP. This held true whether or not the plots were executed.

While the number of people involved remains small, the participation of active military and veterans gave extremist plots more potential for mass injury or death, according to data collected and analyzed by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or START, at the University of Maryland. START researchers found that more than 80% of extremists with military backgrounds identified with far-right, anti-government or white supremacist ideologies, with the rest split among far-left, jihadist or other motivations.

In the shadow of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — led in part by veterans — and a closely contested presidential election, law enforcement officials have said the threat from domestic violent extremists is one of the most persistent and pressing terror threats to the United States. However, despite the increasing participation in extremist activity by those with military experience, there is still no force-wide system to track it. And the AP learned that Defense Department researchers developed a promising approach to detect and monitor extremism that the Pentagon has chosen not to use.

As part of its investigation, the AP vetted and added to the data and analyses provided by START, and collected thousands of pages of records and hours of audio and video recordings through public records requests.

Free of scrutiny in Mount Olive, Arthur stockpiled weapons, some with the serial numbers scratched off to make them untraceable. He trained a pack of Doberman pinschers as guard dogs. He rigged his old farmhouse, where he lived with his wife, their three kids and two children from her previous marriage, with improvised explosives, including a bomb hidden on the front porch and wired to a switch inside.

As early as 2017, his wife’s former husband had reported concerns about his children's safety to military, federal and local authorities, according to call records and police reports.

All the while, Arthur continued growing his business and connecting with more like-minded individuals.

In early 2020, a man with a raging hatred for police and an interest in building a militia in Virginia came to the farm, eager to learn.

A festering problem

Service members and veterans who radicalize make up a tiny fraction of a percentage point of the millions and millions who have honorably served their country.

However, when people with military backgrounds “radicalize, they tend to radicalize to the point of mass violence,” said START’s Michael Jensen, who leads the team that has spent years compiling and vetting the dataset.

His group found that among extremists “the No. 1 predictor of being classified as a mass casualty offender was having a U.S. military background – that outranked mental health problems, that outranked being a loner, that outranked having a previous criminal history or substance abuse issues.”

The data tracked individuals with military backgrounds, most of whom were veterans, involved in plans to kill, injure or inflict damage for political, social, economic or religious goals. While some violent plots in the data were unsuccessful, those that succeeded killed and hurt dozens of people. Since 2017, nearly 100 people have been killed or injured in these plots, nearly all in service of an anti-government, white supremacist or far-right agenda.

A month after people in tactical gear stormed up the U.S. Capitol steps in military-style stack formation on Jan. 6, the new defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, addressed the long-festering problem. He ordered a force-wide “stand down” to give time to local military commanders to discuss the issue with personnel. He empaneled the Countering Extremist Activity Working Group to study and recommend solutions. Among the group’s eventual recommendations was to clarify what was prohibited under the military’s ban on extremist activity. The revised policy, released in December 2021, now specifies that anti-government or anti-democratic actions are violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, federal laws that apply to all service members.

Some applauded the changes, but military and political leaders had been concerned about extremism in the ranks for years after a wakeup call in 1995 when Army veteran and white supremacist Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing. And the Pentagon, Department of Homeland Security and a research arm of the U.S. Justice Department have all funded START’s research.

Bishop Garrison, a U.S. Army veteran and former senior advisor to Austin, led the working group to address extremism following Jan. 6 and the widespread unrest in 2020 amid the COVID pandemic and a racial reckoning.

“We believe the vast majority of people who serve do so honorably, and this is a small group of individuals having an outsized impact,” Garrison told the AP. “But we also still need to analyze data to ensure that our hypothesis is correct and supported by fact.”

Yet a chief hurdle cited by Pentagon officials has been a lack of data – how to understand the scope of extremism in the ranks when there are millions of active-duty service members across all of the branches?

“What’s vexing about this is we don’t have a great sense of the scope of the problem,” then-Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told CNN in the weeks after Jan. 6. “Many of these people … work very hard to conceal their beliefs. We can’t be the thought police.”

The Pentagon did develop at least one way to detect extremist incidents across military branches and among civilian defense contractors. But it isn’t using it.

The method was revealed in a research memo published the summer after Jan. 6 that, until now, has not been released publicly. American Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog group, obtained the memo through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit it brought against the Pentagon and shared it with the AP.

In a project that began in September 2020 and lasted into 2021, DoD researchers studying “insider threats” and other security issues in the workforce developed a way to mine data from a DoD security clearance database to identify white supremacist and extremist incidents. This database included details from security incident reports filed about people who held security clearances — a wide swath of the military population, civilians and contractors included.

The operation identified hundreds of reported incidents of white supremacy and anti-government and other extremist activity over 20 years — the kinds of internal red flags that could identify issues with service members.

The researchers, whose names were redacted, wrote that the results were a first step toward developing a way to identify incidents of extremism, and that the method could be used in other DoD databases.

And while the research was shared among some departments in the DoD after Jan. 6, it never made it to Garrison, who was leading the Pentagon’s extremism working group, he told the AP. He called the oversight “problematic” given his, and the working group’s, mission.

“I am very surprised by the existence of the report.”

A defense official did not address why the report was not sent directly to the working group. In a statement, the official said the DoD is “committed to understanding the root causes of extremism and ensuring such behavior is promptly and appropriately addressed and reported to the proper authorities,” and that the department has enhanced its ability to track extremism allegations.

‘Very violent and very ugly’

Arthur’s young children sat atop a blue plastic tub on his farmhouse’s porch in Mount Olive, their feet dangling as their older sister tied their shoes. In the tub was an improvised bomb that Arthur had wired to a switch inside the house, according to evidence presented at Arthur’s trial.

“They would swing their feet as kids do and pop holes in it. I wasn’t very careful around (the explosives),” the older sister, the daughter of Arthur’s wife and her ex-husband, told the AP. The AP is not naming the children interviewed for this story because they are minors.

As an Army cavalry scout who served two tours in Iraq, Arthur learned more specialized skills than an average soldier, such as how to rig improvised explosives. He left the National Guard in 2019 to focus full-time on Tackleberry Solutions, his military tactics business where he sold access to this deadly expertise. Tackleberry was Arthur’s nickname in the Army, after the gun-loving veteran in the “Police Academy” films known for using inappropriately aggressive military tactics in civilian contexts.

After leaving the Guard, he also turned his attention to local politics. Arthur, a former deputy sheriff himself, backed a “constitutional sheriff” candidate who believed sheriffs, not federal or state law enforcement, held ultimate authority in the U.S. He tried to enlist county officials, according to court documents, to aid in creating a militia to guard against the “tyrannical government.”

“You’re gonna have to secure your smallest municipality and governing body first, that means townships or cities will have to be conquered immediately through force,” Arthur said in a video posted just after he left the Guard.

“Whatever you do, it has to be very violent and very ugly.”

Arthur’s videos had become increasingly unhinged, said Ben Powell, who was hearing from his children that there were explosives hidden throughout the farm. Powell’s son said he often used a hand-cranked wringer in the “bomb shed” to dry his clothes. The wringer sat near a barrel of the explosive Tannerite and Arthur’s storage area for his homemade grenades and pipe bombs.

“The older I get, the more screwed up I see the stuff is,” the son, now in his teens, said.

Powell drove a truck as a civilian DoD contractor at the Tooele Army Depot in Utah. He said he felt a professional responsibility to report Arthur after watching the videos, and hearing stories from his kids about the goings on at the farm.

“That’s kind of what I’m supposed to do, is report if there’s issues, especially if it’s an inside threat, like a guy in the military,” he said.

He called an Army “I Salute” hotline set up to receive “suspicious activity” reports, and an intelligence hotline.

“I called and said, ‘You guys need to do something before somebody gets hurt. He’s talking about killing cops. He’s talking about killing the FBI.’”

He’d called the North Carolina National Guard previously with his concerns, and not seen any action. So Powell told his supervisor at the Utah Army depot about Arthur, and showed some of the videos. Still, there was no response. The North Carolina National Guard and the U.S. Army said they did not have any records of discipline involving Arthur. Heather J. Hagan, an Army spokeswoman, would not comment on the particulars of Arthur’s case but said “we do forward all information to our law enforcement partners when appropriate.”

Things continued to escalate quickly. Arthur and his wife pulled the kids from the public school and began home-schooling them, with no input from Powell.

In March 2020 Powell spoke with the Duplin County Sheriff’s Department, where Arthur had worked briefly as a deputy in the 2000s before he joined the Army. Powell had not spoken with his children since Christmas, and was worried.

He asked for officers to make contact with the children to check their welfare. The sheriff did not respond to a request for comment, but provided records showing that a deputy reported seeing the children at the farm in March 2020. The deputy determined the children “appear to be well taken care of” and took no further action.

That same month, a man came for an extended stay at Arthur’s farm.

Joshua Blessed slept on a cot in the kitchen and refused to talk to Arthur’s wife or children. During the day, he would disappear with Arthur for long training sessions in wartime tactics.

The fatal funnel

Weeks later, Blessed raced his tractor trailer down a rural highway between Buffalo and Rochester in upstate New York, firing a pistol out his window at the parade of police cars behind him.

The sleepy evening in LeRoy, New York, in May 2020 had been disrupted when an officer pulled Blessed over for speeding. After a brief verbal exchange, Blessed drove away with the officer still standing on the truck’s running boards, forcing him to jump off the moving rig.

Blessed, a 58-year-old truck driver and former security guard from Virginia, had spent years posting conspiracy-laden videos that vilified law enforcement.

Now he was leading more than 40 officers on a high-speed chase and gun battle, ramming multiple squad cars that tried to slow him down.

The FBI’s office in Richmond, Virginia, had looked before at Blessed, who also went by Sergei Jourev. In April 2018, they’d learned that he was attempting to organize a militia extremist group in preparation for “The Army of God, for the upcoming Civil War.”

Blessed eventually found Arthur and traveled to his farm to learn about improvised explosives and other deadly warfare tactics. The two had continued texting in the weeks before Blessed’s trip to New York about the technical details of gunpowder, igniters and how to make Claymore mines, which spray shrapnel.

“Unfortunately, he knew what he was doing,” said Livingston County Undersheriff Matthew Bean, who was among those involved in the response.

Midway through the chase, Blessed stopped his rig, blocking a narrow highway onramp and trapping pursuing vehicles behind him. He’d also turned the truck’s cab at a slight angle to see the patrol cars behind him.

Then he opened fire, his bullets pelting the pursuing cruisers.

It was a “fatal funnel,” the tactic Arthur taught that was meant to make single combatants facing a much larger force more deadly.

However, during the gunfire an officer managed to make their way around to the truck’s passenger side, surprising Blessed, who drove off. Police vehicles forced him from the interstate onto a road that crossed through farms. Officers waiting there fired their weapons as Blessed’s truck roared by.

Finally, the truck crashed into a ditch off the road. The bullet-scarred cab pulsed with police lights as rattled officers approached cautiously on foot. Inside, Blessed was slumped over dead, shot in the head.

It was “divine intervention” that no officers were hit by the truck or Blessed’s bullets, Bean said. Ammo struck at least five law enforcement vehicles, according to police reports; a forensics report found a bullet lodged in an officer’s backpack on the passenger seat next to him.

“All 40 men and women who responded had some kind of post-traumatic stress disorder from that incident,” said Bean. Two left law enforcement because of it, he said.

Investigators figured that Blessed had been planning a much larger attack.

A few months later, on Jan. 6, Arthur’s apocalyptic visions of the future began to play out when many like-minded men and women stormed the U.S. Capitol. Arthur wasn’t in Washington, D.C., he said, but the aftermath found him almost immediately.

Federal agents were knocking on the doors of his fellow militia members in North Carolina, he said, and his own actions would come under tighter scrutiny.

In Blessed’s truck, investigators had found two how-to explosives and military tactics manuals for which he had paid $850 from Arthur’s Tackleberry Solutions. They would find $125,000 in cash, 14 live pipe bombs, an AK-47 with a scope, a .50-caliber rifle, a sniper rifle and tens of thousands of dollars in ammunition.

Years had passed since Powell reported Arthur to multiple military, local and federal law enforcement agencies. Powell said he called the U.S. Army, FBI, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and others so many times that he lost count.

“And there was nothing,” Powell said. “There was no response.”

When asked about Powell’s reports, an FBI spokesperson in Charlotte said the agency would not provide information beyond what was published in court records. An ATF spokesperson in North Carolina said there was no record of them opening a case.

Indeed, federal law enforcement agencies have a questionable recent history assessing domestic terrorism threats accurately. The FBI assessment of domestic violent extremists written before the Jan. 6 attacks reported, incorrectly, the participants’ “low willingness to take action in response to a disputed election result” and “those who are interested lack the capability to carry out anything beyond a simple attack.”

And before the white supremacist “Unite the Right” violence in Charlottesville in 2017 that killed a woman and left others severely injured, the Department of Homeland Security had focused much of its threat assessment on the dangers posed by far-left counterprotesters.

After years of missed opportunities, the FBI was investigating Arthur. “It takes over 100 rounds and Joshua Blessed is shot and killed,” Powell said. “It takes cops getting shot at on public roadways during a high-speed chase with a 40,000-pound truck. That’s what it takes before anybody even looked into this.”

‘Buckshot’

On May 5, 2021, Michael Thompson drove to a wartime tactics training session in Mount Olive. He pulled his truck up to the small, single-story farmhouse Arthur’s grandfather had built.

It was a year after Blessed’s rampage in upstate New York and just a few months after Jan.6. Thompson had contacted Arthur through the Tackleberry webpage.

They approached each other warily.

With a chuckle, Arthur assured Thompson that he wasn’t a cop.

“You never know man, these days,” Thompson said.

“No you don’t.… And the thing is, that half the cops are good guys, and half are the bad guys,” Arthur said. “But if I don’t know who’s good and who’s bad, I’m just gonna walk in and clean house.”

As the two men became acquainted, Arthur claimed to have built a local militia with other highly trained veterans including a Navy SEAL, an Army Ranger and a couple of Marine veterans in the area. One of his military buddies he called “Priest” stayed at the farm and trained too, according to both children who spoke to the AP.

“Every night at about 10:30, (Arthur) would go out into the shed and open up his radios and would just call out and touch bases with a whole bunch of other people. To kind of bring together the militia that come together and exchange information,” said Powell’s daughter, who often sat with Arthur during these communications when she couldn’t sleep.

Thompson had contacted Arthur saying he needed to prepare for battle against federal agents. ATF agents confiscated some of his guns while he was out and his wife was home with their children alone, he said. They were coming back. This time he wanted to be ready.

Arthur and Thompson discussed using hidden, improvised explosive devices, and how Thompson could transform his house into a “spider web” of fatal booby traps meant to kill raiding federal agents.

Thompson was wearing a wire for the FBI under the code name “Buckshot.”

“I want to show you something called a spider web,” Arthur said. “This was something I built for a fellow recon buddy of mine.”

“It is a freakin’ death box.”

Thompson and Arthur talked for hours, eventually settling into seats in the house with Arthur’s kids swirling around. Then talk turned to assassination; using snipers and hidden explosives against well-guarded politicians, according to the recordings.

Arthur said such killings will be necessary in the coming civil war — and that snipers are most effective, in many cases.

“I know if I can put a round right there in the base of the windshield where it meets the dashboard. I’ll hit him. So is the sniper hit better? Yes.

“Say it’s a whole walled-off gated house … The governor’s mansion. Alright, how do I attack him? Well, he’s going to have to leave to go to the Capitol at some point, right?” Arthur said, his wife and children nearby talking about school and working in the garden.

It is these targeted attacks that the data show people with military backgrounds are making more successful. Those include the 2020 murders of a federal security officer and a sheriff’s deputy in California by an active-duty Air Force staff sergeant and the 2018 attack by a former Army soldier who shot six women at a Florida hot yoga studio, killing two, before he killed himself.

When military members are involved, the plots are more likely to seek and inflict mass casualties — and in an election year it is this kind of attack that worries people who are studying how military expertise is influencing extremist action. A mass casualty attack is defined as one that kills or injures four or more people.

“My primary concern is not a march on the Capitol or any other government building. It’s that somebody with the skills that were imparted on them by the military to be extremely lethal uses those skills,” said START’s Jensen.

“And they go out and attack civilians and have a real impact on public safety.”

Armed with Thompson’s recordings, FBI agents planned for a way to arrest Arthur safely — a threat assessment of the farm had determined it was too dangerous to try it there.

The informant told Arthur to meet him at a gun show in Raleigh. He said he had contacts there who would buy some Tackleberry manuals.

Arthur met Thompson at the event entrance and the two passed through metal detectors — Arthur wasn’t armed. A SWAT team waiting inside surprised Arthur, who initially resisted attempts to restrain him, agents said. Officers then forced Arthur to the ground, and arrested him.

At the same time, bomb disposal teams were searching Arthur’s home. They found sandbags and cans filled with Tannerite — which, if hit by gunfire from afar, can explode. The teams also discovered the pipe bomb wired to a switch on the porch.

‘You took the oath’

In May, U.S. District Judge James C. Dever III sentenced Arthur to 25 years in federal prison after a jury convicted him on charges related to teaching the FBI’s informant how to make bombs meant to kill federal law enforcement officers, as well as illegal weapons possession.

Prosecutors said they’d found improvised grenades and other “mass casualty” and “indiscriminate” weapons on Arthur’s farm.

A psychological workup found no evidence of mental illness, but did cite likely war trauma as a factor in Arthur’s paranoia. Still, the conclusion was that Arthur did not need “acute mental health treatment.”

Dever, also a veteran, told Arthur that his specialized military training in explosives and other warfare techniques made his conduct that much more serious.

“You took the oath that all of us who served took,” Dever told Arthur. “You know better.”

But Arthur is unrepentant.

In messages to AP from a federal prison in Tennessee, he said he is a target of “political warfare.”

“I’m a political prisoner,” he wrote, echoing the language former President Donald Trump and others have used to minimize the crimes committed in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

In Arthur’s view, the imprisonment of “vets and patriots” like himself and the attempted assassination of Trump in Pennsylvania prophesy the civil war he has long argued is coming.

“This is happening,” he wrote. “All the signs are there.”

___

Kessler reported from Washington, D.C. Contributing to this story were Rhonda Shafner, Michael Rezendes and Marshall Ritzel in New York, Serginho Roosblad in San Francisco, Allen G. Breed in Mount Olive, N.C., Rick Bowmer in Salt Lake City, and Michael Kunzelman, Lolita Baldor and Tara Copp in Washington, D.C.

___

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

military.com

​20. Opinion: I won the Nobel Peace Prize. Now I'm asking the US to send missiles to Ukraine.

Opinion: I won the Nobel Peace Prize. Now I'm asking the US to send missiles to Ukraine.

Authoritarian leaders such as Vladimir Putin are deliberately subverting rights and working to create a world devoid of freedom.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2024/10/17/ukraine-russia-war-us-weapons-nobel-prize/75684152007/?utm

Oleksandra MatviichukOpinion contributor

0:23

1:29

When I started my career as a human rights lawyer, I never imagined one day that I would publicly say we need weapons and missiles to protect human rights.

However, I have found since the unprovoked Russian invasion of my country that you cannot wave the Geneva Conventions in front of a Russian tank. You cannot use the United Nations Charter to stop the raping and kidnapping. You cannot defeat evil without bravery to resist it.

Global freedom and human rights are under attack, and Ukraine is the front line to protecting democracies and civil liberties across the globe. The world’s democratic countries must work together to counter increasing aggression from authoritarian regimes hellbent on suppressing freedom.

In 2023, global freedom declined for the 18th consecutive year, with a fifth of the world’s population experiencing reduced political and civil rights. To put this in perspective, only 20% live in countries where they have the freedom to vote in fair elections, freedom to practice their choice of religion and freedom to live without violence. 

I couldn't agree more with what Michael J. Abramowitz, president of Freedom House, said about the global trends we’re seeing today: “Global freedom took a big step backward in 2023. ... If democracies do not respond to these challenges, more of the global population will be denied fundamental liberties in the years ahead, ultimately affecting peace, prosperity, security, and freedom for everyone.”

Only 20% of the world's people live in free countries

Nearly 38% of the world’s people now live in countries rated “Not Free,” 42% live in “Partly Free” countries and only 20% live in “Free” countries. To break this down further, those who have the freedom to exercise their voting rights, voice their opinions, love freely and practice their choice of religions are in the minority across the globe.

Without action, access to freedom and fundamental human rights will continue to decline.

If Russian President Vladimir Putin succeeds in his vision of recreating the Russian empire, neighboring countries in Europe are next, inevitably leading to conflict with North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries, triggering Article 5 and putting U.S. troops on the ground. 

Make no mistake, the global decline of freedom and democracy is not a coincidence.

Opinion:Trump or Harris? China, Iran, North Korea and Russia are waiting.

Authoritarian leaders such as Putin are deliberately subverting rights and working to create a world devoid of freedom − a world run by despots and antidemocratic regimes. Today, autocracies outnumber democracies 74 to 63, according to the Bertelsmann Stiftung's Transformation Index.

Hear my words clearly: U.S. troops in Eastern Europe are the last thing Ukraine expects. Since Russia’s invasion in 2022, our ground forces have carried the burden of the war on their own shoulders. We just need America’s support and the weapons to defend our country against Russia’s unprovoked aggression. 

Russian troops torture and kill Ukrainian civilians

History will remember Putin as an evil narcissist and the biggest kidnapper of children in the world. His army is torturing, raping and killing innocent Ukrainian civilians, kidnapping more than 20,000 Ukrainian children and ripping families apart.

They are persecuting Christians who are not part of the Russian Orthodox Church, including evangelicals and Protestants, and torturing religious leaders.

Opinion:Russia killing and torturing Ukrainian Christians, not 'protecting' them

Global freedom is on the line, and if we don’t act swiftly, history will not look kindly at the West’s hesitation.

Ukraine desperately needs more weapons to defend itself and the world against the Russian empire. As President Ronald Reagan said, freedom is “never more than one generation away from extinction.”

I fear that if Putin succeeds in this war, Russia and its authoritarian partners in China, Iran and North Korea will be emboldened to strike their own targets. 

The reality is these countries are already working together to suppress freedom in their countries and around the world − including in Ukraine. We are doing the best we can to stop Russia’s army from advancing, but we cannot do it alone.

Arming Ukraine with the tools it needs to counter Russian aggression will allow us to continue to stand up for global democratic values and ensure that Putin knows democracies will not go down without a fight. Democracies must win wars. 

Our values are in jeopardy. It is up to countries, led by the United States, to help Ukraine protect them by standing firmly against authoritarian forces. Ukraine will never stop fighting to save our country and save freedom − we pray the rest of the world won’t either. 

Oleksandra Matviichuk is the founder and head of the Center For Civil Liberties, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022.

​21. Understanding Security Cooperation

A 124 page report from CALL can be downloaded here: https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2024/10/17/faf2497c/no-25-01-768-understanding-security-cooperation-oct-24.pdf

Understanding Security Cooperation

By Robert Schafer army.mil3 min

October 17, 2024

View Original

Foreword

This handbook would be inaccurate or incomplete without the contributions from the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command (USASAC), the U.S. Army Security Assistance Training Management Organization (SATMO), and the final review by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA). It is one thing to describe security cooperation (SC) policy and doctrine from observations alone, it is another to have experienced practitioners translate policy and doctrine into a handbook designed to inform those who desire to learn more about the U.S. SC enterprise in general.

The U.S. Army Security Force Assistance Command deserves an accolade as well. Chapter 6 of this handbook is dedicated members of those advisor teams who want a voice in expressing their challenges and victories in the daily practice of security force assistance (SFA). The competition continuum can be difficult for those who lack an understanding of the importance of training with friendly foreign forces and the imperative of making adversaries aware of the full complement of warfighting functional capabilities the U.S. Army offers to its allies and partners.

Finally, the perspectives in Appendix B from Mr. Richard C. Merrin, the policy advisor (POLAD) to U.S. Army South (USARSOUTH); and Major Matthew A. Hughes, the SC liaison to the command group at USARSOUTH, are most welcome in this handbook. In their own words, POLADs often have foreign language skills and broad cultural expertise specific to the theater Army’s area of operations. This expertise can be used to mentor members of the staff, while providing context as planners consider courses of action and second- and third-order effects of SC activities. The utility of POLADs at the theater Army is an imperative in the information space, the up-to-date domain of SC, and irregular warfare messaging in competition, crisis, and armed conflict.

Endorsement

Deliberate security assistance planning, developed in close coordination with operational and contingency plans, can prioritize foreign military sales, training, and education to provide discrete capabilities that can be employed in combined operations. Employing security assistance in this way can reduce United States force requirements while relieving pressure on the services’ generating force and reducing strategic risk for concurrent contingencies. Planning and execution require a nuanced understanding of the authorities, regulations, laws, and tools that enable security cooperation activities.

The U.S. will not go into crisis or conflict without allies or partners. A granular understanding of these nations’ military capabilities can facilitate key leader and institutional conversations about strategic investments in military capabilities.

Since Russia’s further invasion of Ukraine in February 2021, one of the conflict’s defining aspects has been the United States’ provision of military material and training to Ukraine for resisting Russian aggression. Security assistance has likely not played such a public and visible role in a contemporary conflict since the 1973 Arab Israeli War. While the scale and speed of the ongoing assistance activities are uncommon, the fiscal and regulatory authorities underwriting the United States’ military support to Ukraine are longstanding. U.S. foreign policy has always incorporated security assistance as just one of numerous means for achieving national objectives or goals. Broad economic, political, and diplomatic ties between states are often accompanied by varying degrees of military relationships.

Increasingly, the role of security assistance for geographic combatant commands and theater armies expands not only strategic access but builds capacity or capabilities with allies and partners as part of setting the theater. This is particularly true during phase zero shaping and phase one deterrence operations. Campaign planning to set the theater must account for security assistance. This includes provision of defense articles, military education and training, and military-specific construction for partner and allied nations through foreign military sales and foreign military financing. Three important areas in which security assistance activities support setting the theater is filling capability gaps, improving interoperability, and sharing logistics. A holistic approach to security assistance can ensure that allies and partners are able to provide forces that contribute to filling capability or force gaps in U.S. operational and contingency plans.

Jason B. Nicholson

Brigadier General, USA

Commander, U.S. Army Security Assistance Command

Read or download the rest of this publication here: No. 25-01 (768), Understanding Security Cooperation (Oct 24).pdf

[PDF - 17.1 MB]

Additional Resources

CALL Audiobooks

Restricted Site Access (CAC required, U.S. DoD only)

Follow Us on Social Media:

Facebook

​22. A Vocabulary of Escalation​: A Primer on the Escalation Literature for Military Planners

I am going to have to delve into this. It could be very useful especially as our current foreign policy "prime directive" is to prevent escalation at all costs.

The 28 page PDF can be downloaded here: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA1900/RRA1933-1/RAND_RRA1933-1.pdf

A Vocabulary of Escalation

A Primer on the Escalation Literature for Military Planners

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1933-1.html?utm

Andrew Radin, Alyssa Demus, Alexandra T. Evans

ResearchPublished Oct 17, 2024

Escalation is an important consideration in U.S. military activities, but U.S. Army and joint planning doctrine and manuals do not provide focused guidance on how to account for escalation risks across the competition-conflict spectrum. The academic literature on escalation does offer useful frameworks, and many of the concepts are applicable to concrete military problems at the tactical and operational levels. This report contains insights from four prominent academic schools of thought on the actions, attributes, and dilemmas that characterize escalation and deescalation processes and provides military planners and staff officers a vocabulary to describe the benefits, costs, and risks of potential military options.

Key Findings

• Academic theories of escalation offer ways to think about when, why, and how escalation may unfold.
• These theories offer additional considerations for military officers to incorporate when they develop potential courses of action or advise on military options. However, the theories are often incomplete, are difficult to apply, and suggest contradictory implications for practitioners.
• The literature on the offense-defense balance suggests that the challenges in distinguishing offensive and defensive capabilities may reduce the deterrent value of deploying offensive capabilities and lead an adversary to undertake undesired actions.
• The literature on bargaining highlights the importance of the information and signaling. Costlier military actions that reveal a state's capability and commitment can help that state prevail without conflict, for example.
• The literature on emerging domains highlights the new opportunities in such areas as cyber and space. However, because operational effects in these domains vary in scale, kind, and target, it may be difficult to calibrate proportionality or accurately convey intent. The resulting ambiguity can encourage escalation.
• The literature on psychological, organizational, and bureaucratic politics highlights how decisionmakers can misjudge situations in predictable ways. When leaders and their staffs are aware of the common ways in which humans are apt to behave nonrationally, they are less likely to make poor decisions.
• The lack of shared understanding about the operational consequences or political significance of emerging capabilities increases the risk that novel activities might lead to unintended escalation.

Recommendations

• Staff officers should consider the offensive potential of U.S. forces, as well as the distinguishability of their capabilities. The more that planners use forces that are distinguishably offensive or difficult to distinguish, the greater the risk of eliciting undesired adversary actions.
• U.S. planners should build intentional signals into military plans and strategy and determine whether there are any unrelated initiatives underway that might distort the intended message.
• Staff officers should be attuned to the possibility that adversaries' responses may be based on their perceptions of U.S. capabilities and actions and that they may misinterpret or overlook the intended U.S. signal.
• When preparing options employing novel or emerging capabilities, staff officers should account for an adversary's familiarity with the relevant domain and incorporate strategic messaging to clarify U.S. intent.
• Staff officers should consider how innate biases, bureaucratic dynamics, or institutional norms are motivating their planning and decisionmaking and should frame decision options to maximize decisionmakers' rational consideration. Incentivizing consideration of dissenting perspectives may help challenge assumptions.

​23. In the Crucible of Decision: Judgment is the Ultimate Virtue

I love the subtitle.

We cannot go wrong as long as we consider our actions in the context of supporting and defending our Constitution.

In the Crucible of Decision: Judgment is the Ultimate Virtue

The U.S. Constitution Provides a National and Military Ethos We Must Not Fail To Follow. As Long As A Premium Is Placed On Good Judgment, We Cannot Fail.

Strategy Central

By and For Practitioners

By Monte Erfourth, October 18, 2024

https://www.strategycentral.io/post/in-the-crucible-of-decision-judgment-is-the-ultimate-virtue?postId=

Introduction

Imagine if every individual in your life consistently exercised good judgment and adhered to traditional virtues such as honesty, commitment, integrity, courage, and unselfishness. Daily interactions would be marked by trust and mutual respect, as each person would strive to act with sincerity and wisdom. Conflicts would be minimized, as thoughtful decision-making would replace rash actions, and misunderstandings would be resolved with patience and critical thinking. In this environment, your personal relationships would flourish, providing a sense of trust and solidarity, as those around you would consistently make choices that prioritize collective well-being over selfish desires. The atmosphere would be one of cooperation and stability, thereby fostering a deep sense of community.

On a broader scale, good judgment and ethical behavior would elevate society as a whole. Workplaces would thrive, with individuals making decisions that balance personal ambition with the greater good, leading to higher productivity and a more positive organizational culture. Civic life would also be enriched, as people would approach political and social issues with a sense of responsibility and fairness. In such a world, problems like inequality and corruption would diminish as everyone would be committed to justice and the common good. By aligning personal actions with virtue, the collective quality of life would be significantly enhanced, leading to a more peaceful, just, and fulfilling existence for all. Good judgment is the apex of human possibility, and while not always attainable, the idea of pursuit has never lost its appeal.

Good judgment and ethical conduct are cornerstones of the founding father's efforts to found a new nation. While they understood that virtue ethics could not be achieved in mass, it would be vital for those who wield political and military power. Laws would be necessary to codify a national ethos and citizens of virtue to manage the affairs of state. 

The U.S. Constitution is not merely a legal document but a testament to the principles that define the American national ethos—a guiding set of ideals about how governmental power should be used and constrained. These principles are the foundation for American democracy, ensuring that power is held accountable, individual rights are protected, and human dignity is upheld. Despite the obvious failings in living up to this national ethos, it has provided the moral and intellectual framework for the U.S. military’s profession of arms and the virtues required to sustain its professional ethos.

Although the Founding Fathers were concerned about the dangers posed by a standing army, they would recognize the necessity of having one in today’s complex global environment. They would also insist that the military reflect and uphold the Constitution's core values. Like the government it serves, the U.S. military must be bound by ethical standards that promote the greatest good for all and are consistent with virtuous action. As long as the U.S. remains a democracy, the military must maintain the highest ethical and legal standards to protect and defend the Constitution, the Republic, and the American way of life.

 National Ethos Defined

The U.S. national ethos, derived from the principles of the Constitution, reflects a vision for how governmental power should interact with citizens and how society ought to function. This ethos emphasizes several key ideals:

• Governmental power over citizens must be constrained to allow human flourishing. The Constitution establishes limits on governmental authority, ensuring that individuals are free to pursue their own paths in life. This principle underlines the importance of personal liberty as the foundation of a thriving society.
• Power within the government must be diffused, not concentrated. The Constitution’s separation of powers and system of checks and balances ensures that no single branch of government can dominate. This diffusion of power prevents tyranny and promotes accountability.
• Minority and majority rights must be considered. American democracy functions by balancing the will of the majority with the protection of minority rights. The Constitution enshrines protections for individual liberties, preventing the majority from oppressing the minority.
• The duty to respect others' rights and dignity. The ethos emphasizes a commitment to treating all individuals with dignity and respect, recognizing that a healthy society is built on mutual regard and the protection of human rights.
• Rule of Law enables equal treatment through due process. The Constitution establishes the rule of law as a central principle, ensuring that all individuals are treated equally before the law and that justice is administered fairly and consistently.
• Produce the greatest good and do the least harm for all affected. Ethical decision-making should prioritize the well-being of all members of society, striving to produce the greatest good while minimizing harm. This utilitarian principle is essential for maintaining a just and equitable community.
• Life in community is a good unto itself. Our actions should positively contribute to that life. The national ethos recognizes that individuals do not exist in isolation. A vibrant, cooperative community is essential for the well-being of all, and every citizen has a responsibility to contribute positively to the common good.
• Ethical actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development of our humanity. The national ethos calls for behavior that aligns with virtues such as integrity, justice, and courage, fostering the moral development of individuals and the betterment of society.

While not exhaustive, these principles constitute a national ethos. The national ethos forms the basis for the U.S. profession of arms, shaping the values and virtues that service members are expected to uphold.

 Military Ethos and Constitutional Principles

The U.S. military’s profession of arms is defined by an ethos that is deeply rooted in the Constitution’s principles. At its core, the military ethos is a commitment to service, honor, and the defense of the nation. However, this ethos is not separate from the broader national ethos; it is, in fact, an extension of the same principles that govern civilian life.

The military exists to serve and protect the Constitution, which requires adherence to the principles of limited government, the rule of law, and respect for individual rights. The civilian control of the military, enshrined in the Constitution through the role of the President as Commander-in-Chief, ensures that the military remains subordinate to the will of the people and their elected representatives. This reflects the ethos that power must be diffused and that governmental authority must be constrained.

Furthermore, the military’s legal and ethical obligations, codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), mirror the Constitution’s commitment to the rule of law and due process. Service members are held to the highest standards of conduct, and their actions are governed by principles of justice and fairness, ensuring that they remain accountable for their behavior.

 The Virtues Guiding Military Behavior

The virtues that guide military behavior are not arbitrary but are deeply rooted in the national ethos and the values of the Constitution. These virtues ensure that the military remains a force for good, dedicated to the defense of the nation and the protection of the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

• Bearing: Military professionals must exhibit composure and self-control, especially in challenging situations. Bearing reflects the dignity and discipline expected of those who serve.
• Courage: Both physical and moral courage are essential for military service. Physical courage enables soldiers to face danger, while moral courage allows them to uphold ethical standards, even when it is difficult or unpopular.
• Decisiveness: Military leaders must be able to make timely and effective decisions, often in high-pressure environments. Decisiveness is a critical virtue for ensuring mission success.
• Dependability: Dependability means that service members can be relied upon to fulfill their duties, no matter the circumstances. This virtue fosters trust within the ranks and between the military and the public.
• Endurance: Endurance is the ability to withstand physical and mental hardship. It is essential for maintaining resilience in the face of adversity.
• Enthusiasm: Enthusiasm for the mission and for serving the nation reflects a deep commitment to duty and the defense of the Constitution.
• Initiative: Military personnel are expected to take initiative, demonstrating resourcefulness and a proactive attitude in the performance of their duties.
• Integrity: Integrity is the foundation of ethical behavior. Service members must act with honesty and honor, adhering to moral principles in all aspects of their professional and personal lives.
• Judgment: Good judgment is essential for making sound decisions, especially in complex and dynamic situations. It involves the careful weighing of options and consideration of the broader impact of one’s actions.
• Justice: Justice is the commitment to fairness and the protection of individual rights. Service members must ensure that their actions are consistent with the principles of equality and due process.
• Knowledge: Military professionals must possess the knowledge and expertise necessary to perform their duties effectively. Continuous learning and professional development are essential components of this virtue.
• Loyalty: Loyalty to the Constitution, to one’s comrades, and to the American people is a fundamental virtue in military service. However, loyalty must always be rooted in ethical principles, ensuring that it does not conflict with the broader national ethos.
• Tact: Tact involves treating others with respect and sensitivity, even in difficult situations. It reflects the duty to respect others' rights and dignity.
• Unselfishness: Military service requires putting the needs of the nation and the well-being of others above personal interests. This virtue is essential for fostering a sense of duty and sacrifice.

These virtues are not just ideals; they are practical principles that guide military conduct and ensure that service members act in accordance with the Constitution and the national ethos. Together, they provide the moral foundation for the military profession of arms and ensure that the armed forces remain a force for good in the service of the Republic.

The Most Important Virtue

Judgment is arguably the most important trait to cultivate because it is the foundation upon which all other virtues rely. In both personal and professional contexts, good judgment allows individuals to weigh options, consider consequences, and make decisions that align with ethical standards. Whether in military operations, leadership roles, or daily life, the ability to assess situations carefully and act with wisdom is essential for navigating complex and ever-changing circumstances. Poor judgment can lead to catastrophic mistakes, while sound judgment ensures measured, responsible actions.

Judgment takes on even greater significance in the military, as decisions often involve life-or-death consequences. Leaders must evaluate the tactical aspects of a situation and the moral and legal implications of their choices. The best leaders anticipate potential outcomes, foresee risks, and balance short-term goals with long-term objectives. Even the most courageous or skilled individuals may falter in critical moments without well-honed judgment.

Moreover, judgment is essential for maintaining trust and accountability. In a society that values transparency and fairness, individuals with strong judgment are more likely to earn the respect of their peers and subordinates. This trust is crucial, particularly in high-stakes environments, where people rely on leaders to make decisions that protect lives, uphold values, and serve the greater good. Judgment, therefore, is not just a personal asset but a vital trait that strengthens organizations, communities, and the nation as a whole.

The U.S. Military’s Ethical Standard Bearer

George Washington remains an enduring example of the national military ethos because of his steadfast commitment to civilian control of the military and his dedication to the rule of law. As Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, Washington consistently deferred to the authority of the Continental Congress, understanding that the military must serve the Republic, not wield power over it. His decision to relinquish power after the Revolutionary War and retire to private life rather than pursue political or military dominance demonstrated his respect for democratic principles. This act set a precedent for the U.S. military to remain subordinate to civilian leadership, ensuring the military serves as a protector of democracy rather than a threat to it.

Washington also embodied the virtues essential to the military ethos, such as integrity, judgment, and selflessness. He exhibited exceptional moral courage and decisiveness throughout his leadership, guiding the fledgling nation through its most perilous times with a deep sense of duty. His refusal to seize power when it was within his grasp, as seen in his rebuke of the Newburgh Conspiracy, showed his commitment to republican ideals over personal ambition. These actions reflected his belief that the military exists to serve the people and defend their rights, not to aggrandize itself or its leaders. His leadership serves as a model for military officers, who are expected to act with integrity, loyalty, and a sense of responsibility toward the nation.

Washington's legacy continues to be relevant to the U.S. military today, particularly as the institution navigates the complexities of global power dynamics while maintaining its commitment to democratic values. His example underscores the importance of maintaining the highest ethical standards, especially in an era where the military is frequently called upon to operate in morally ambiguous environments. Washington’s embodiment of the military ethos—his loyalty to the Republic, his respect for the rule of law, and his personal humility—remains a timeless standard for U.S. military leaders to emulate as they fulfill their duty to protect and defend the Constitution and the American way of life.

 Conclusion

The U.S. Constitution not only defines the principles of American democracy but also lays the groundwork for the virtues that guide the U.S. military. Among these virtues, judgment stands as the most crucial—because it serves as the foundation for all others. Applying good judgment enables military leaders and service members to navigate complex ethical landscapes, ensuring that their actions align with the Constitution's values and the American people's expectations.

Judgment is vital for individuals to balance courage with restraint, decisiveness with consideration, and loyalty with integrity. For those in the military, where decisions often hold life-and-death consequences, sound judgment is indispensable. The power to make such decisions demands a commitment to justice, fairness, and the greater good—principles enshrined in the Constitution and mirrored in the military ethos.

While more is expected of military service members, they are also offered the freedom to pursue the highest standards of human excellence. Through their service, they are given the opportunity to develop not only technical and strategic skills but also the moral virtues that form the core of both military and national character. The Constitution grants them the liberty to act, but with that liberty comes the responsibility to exercise judgment with wisdom and ethical clarity.

In wielding the power of choice—the power to defend, protect, and, at times, take life—military members must embody the virtues that safeguard the Republic. Judgment, as the ultimate virtue, allows them to act with honor, upholding the ideals of democracy, and ensuring that the military remains a force for good. The development and application of this virtue not only serve the immediate demands of national defense but also contribute to the enduring strength of the American way of life.

American armed forces members need look no further than George Washington's humility, integrity, and refusal to pursue power for personal gain to serve as a timeless model. His example reminds us that the greatest leaders are those who wield power with wisdom and restraint, grounded in the higher purpose of serving the Republic. His judgment set the standard for all who serve, emphasizing that the virtues of service and leadership are most fully realized when aligned with the ideals of democracy.

In this way, judgment unites the Constitution's and the military's ethos, empowering service members to fulfill their duty with the excellence and humanity that both the nation and its founding principles demand. Washington's legacy remains a guiding light for all who are entrusted with defending America and exercising the power of life and death in its name.

---

 Notes

1. U.S. Constitution, Preamble.

2. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 92.

3. Department of Defense, DoD Directive 5100.01, "Functions of the Department of Defense and Its Major Components," 2010.

4. Samuel Huntington, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1957).

5. George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.

6. U.S. Department of the Army, The Army Ethic, Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 1, 2015

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