Quotes of the Day:

“Without courage we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can’t be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest.”

– Maya Angelou

“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”

–Viktor E. Frankl

“Men do not care how nobly they live, but only how long, although it is within the reach of every man to love nobly, but within no man’s power to live long.”

– Seneca

Note: I will be traveling overseas through November 22d so my messages will be somewhat erratic and off schedule.

1. Philippines pivots from battling militants to projecting power at sea

2. Axis of Deception (book review essay)

3. Vivek Ramaswamy wants to start DOGE cuts by eliminating funding for unauthorized programs - including veteran healthcare

4. Mao's Mastery of Irregular Warfare: Lessons from the Revolution

5. The Need for Irregular Warfare Principles: Lessons from History

6. Trump transition team compiling list of current and former U.S. military officers for possible courts-martial

7. Australia-Japan-United States Trilateral Defense Ministers' Meeting November 2024 Joint Statement

8. Elite GSDF troops to regularly deploy for drills in Australia

9. Trump’s Push for Ukraine Peace Finds Growing Acceptance in Europe

10. Russia Launches 120 Missiles, 90 Drones in Sunday Attack on Ukraine – Zelensky

11. China’s Heavyweight Coast Guard Ships Bring Muscle to Sea Disputes

12. 2.3 Million Jobs: The Federal Workforce, in Charts

13. Trump Signals a ‘Seismic Shift,’ Shocking the Washington Establishment

14. Xi vows to work with Trump team as he meets Biden in Peru

15. Google’s Gmail Decision—Why You Need A New Email Address

1. Philippines pivots from battling militants to projecting power at sea

It has been a long fight against the internal threats in the Philippines. Is it now paying off? And what kind of resources can the Philippines bring to bear to defend itself from China? In 2001 when we deployed to the Philippines to conduct the strategic assessment to develop the campaign plan to advise and assist the Armed Forces of the Philippines, it was interesting that China was not mentioned in any of their strategic documents. China was not on the Philippines radar in 2001.

Philippines pivots from battling militants to projecting power at sea

Philippine leaders say they can turn their attention to the South China Sea because they’ve secured peace with separatist rebels. But the situation is precarious.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/11/16/philippines-south-china-sea-mindanao/?utm

By Rebecca Tan

November 16, 2024 at 2:00 a.m. EST

ZAMBOANGA, Philippines — For a half-century, Philippine soldiers deployed on the southwestern edge of the country have been dedicated to squashing separatist movements led by Islamist rebels. Now, the troops here are being retrained to confront what their leaders see as a different and urgent threat: China.

Chinese forces in the South China Sea, a strategic waterway claimed in part by the Philippines and six other governments, have become increasingly assertive, not only posing a threat to Philippine security but also challenging a Western-led effort to contain China’s power in the wider region, according to Philippine leaders and Western security analysts.

The Philippine military must overhaul its capabilities after decades of focusing on internal guerrilla wars, military analysts say. Recently, Philippine lawmakers, for the first time, allocated the biggest share of a military modernization budget to the navy. After spending billions of dollars to fight in jungle battlegrounds, the government is now increasing purchases of missiles, fighter jets and warships.

Philippine leaders say they can make this pivot because the country has secured relative peace with the rebels in the southern islands. Money that had been funneled into counterinsurgency campaigns can be reallocated to air and naval patrols, these leaders say. The Philippine marine corps can be retrained to fight foreign forces, rather than militants.

But while violence in Muslim-majority Mindanao has ebbed from its peak, the situation is more precarious than Philippine leaders have indicated, according to data from conflict-monitoring groups and interviews in seven cities and towns in the area, which is rarely visited by international journalists.

“The whole idea of the Philippines re-posturing toward territorial defense, it doesn’t work unless you have real, sustainable peace in Mindanao,” said Brian Harding, a Southeast Asia analyst at the U.S. Institute of Peace who has called for Washington to be more engaged with peacemaking efforts in the south. “It’s in Mindanao where the rubber hits the road.”

Following World news

Following

The Muslim Moro people of Mindanao, a minority in an overwhelmingly Catholic country, have fought outside domination for centuries, first against Spanish and American colonizers, then against the Philippine military. Radical Moro groups linked to the Islamic State and to al-Qaeda have carried out kidnappings, beheadings and bombings.

In 2019, a peace deal and plebiscite paved the way for part of Mindanao to be ruled semiautonomously by its largest separatist group, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), ushering in a period of calm. Tens of thousands of rebels have laid down their arms, the national government says. Towns where the fiercest clashes took place have been declared “insurgency free.”

But in Mindanao, locals say insecurity is again on the rise, fueled by Moro infighting and frustration over unfulfilled promises of new jobs and development.

Some rebels who ostensibly surrendered have returned to secluded hilltop bases with their guns. Government efforts to decommission hundreds of thousands of firearms have been underfunded and severely delayed. In half the provinces in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), conflict was higher between 2021 and 2023 than in the previous three years, reversing a decade-long decline, according to Climate Conflict Action, a Philippine watchdog group.

This creeping violence bears on the international contest over the Pacific, said navy Capt. Cesar Pangan Jr., who is assigned to the Western Mindanao Command headquarters in Zamboanga. To mount a credible defense against China, the Philippines cannot afford to be spending money fighting its own citizens, he said.

Think of the Philippines like a house, Pangan added. “How can you deal with an intruder in your backyard,” he asked, “if you have a fire in your living room?”

The naval forces of the Western Mindanao Command have long supported the Philippine army in fighting the rebels. But in July, military leaders replaced the command’s task force on counterterrorism with a new one on maritime security, placing the navy in charge for the first time.

Called Joint Task Force-Poseidon, its mission is to tighten control over waters surrounding the island provinces of Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, and specifically over the Basilan Strait and Sibutu Passage — two key channels linking the South China Sea to the western Pacific. To lead the effort, the military tapped the deputy commander on the island of Palawan, close to the disputed reefs where there have been repeated collisions between Chinese and Philippine vessels.

The Basilan Strait is within Philippine territorial waters but open under international law to foreign vessels making “innocent passage” — in other words, passing in a peaceful fashion. In 2024, a total of at least 10 Chinese naval ships passed through the strait on three separate occasions, according to the Philippine navy, which shared data that has not been previously reported.

The Chinese ships have not violated international law, but Rear Adm. Francisco Tagamolila Jr. said he has been “aggressive” in monitoring the strait and has expanded surveillance by upgrading undersea radar systems. Officers at the command are attending lectures on when foreign vessels can legally be stopped and searched under international law. Training exercises that used to concentrate on chasing down rebels in small speedboats are now focusing on boarding large hostile vessels.

In the coming years, the military plans to add “forward operating bases” on Basilan and other islands that will support an increased presence at sea, commanders said. And instead of buying rifles and grenades, which it did for years to fight the militants, the command will stock up on weapons that help the Philippines assert its maritime claims and resist intruders, said Col. Allen Van Estrera, head of operations.

The shift toward what Manila calls the West Philippine Sea has drawn sharp criticism from China, which has warned the Philippines against “playing with fire” in the disputed waters and vowed to “crush hostile encroachment.”

In a statement, the spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, Liu Pengyu, said China has the right to “enjoy freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea in accordance with international law” and blamed the maritime tensions on Philippine provocation. “Every time the maritime disputes between China and the Philippines escalate, it is caused by the Philippine side’s infringement and provocation,” Liu said.

Locals traverse the Basilan Circumferential Road that connects the cities and municipalities on the island. Road travel on Basilan was an unheard-of endeavor for residents in the past because of the likelihood of being ambushed or getting caught in crossfire.

The densely forested island of Basilan is the birthplace of Abu Sayyaf, considered by many as the most extreme of the Moro separatist groups. As recently as five years ago, the black flags of the Islamic State flew over much of the island. Philippine helicopters, aided by American drones, carried out airstrikes on secretive bases.

Today, Abu Sayyaf has been reduced to a handful of militants camped out in the wilderness, authorities say. Former rebels in new, government-issued uniforms carry out joint patrols with members of the Philippine military and police officers. Probably before the end of the year, officials say, the entire island will be declared “insurgency free.”

But local residents said in interviews that there are swaths of the island still too dangerous to visit. Some personally know of rocket launchers and machine guns stashed in the mist-covered hilltops. In August, hours after the hamlet of Tipo-Tipo, a former Abu Sayyaf stronghold, held celebrations to declare itself rid of the organization, two bombs were set off outside municipal buildings. Ibrahim Fernandez, 45, a former Abu Sayyaf commander from the area, said it was Abu Sayyaf. “It was a message,” Fernandez said, “to say they’re still around.”

Wiry with a hunched back from two decades of combat, Fernandez surrendered in 2017. Fighters like him were promised amnesty, jobs, housing and health care, but little of that has materialized, he said. He knows insurgents who have returned to their old bases, frustrated. He has stuck it out, taking security jobs to support his family as he searches for more lucrative work. “I am a very patient man,” Fernandez said with a tight smile. “Not everyone can wait like me.”

In Marawi, a city in central Mindanano where the Philippine military waged a months-long battle against Islamic State-linked militants in 2017, frustration is mounting among residents waiting to be compensated for the destruction of their homes. In Cotabato, seat of the BARMM leadership, violence is surging among rival Moro groups, some of whom don’t believe the war for autonomy is finished.

Naguib Sinarimbo, a prominent Moro leader, has long advocated for the military to reduce its presence in Mindanao. But speaking in September from Cotabato, amid a spate of political killings carried out by Moro assailants, Sinarimbo, 52, said the military cannot step back if instability keeps increasing. Without the military, he said, the police will not be able to handle the violence that could accompany the election campaign scheduled for next year.

These concerns about instability stand to make the military’s pivot more difficult. Just in recent months, two Black Hawk helicopters that were to help monitor sea lanes were instead deployed inland near Cotabato, commanders said, to look for enemies there.

Bobby Lagsa contributed to this report.

Share

28

Comments

By Rebecca Tan

Rebecca Tan is the Southeast Asia Bureau Chief, covering 12 countries in a rapidly evolving part of the world. She was a Livingston Award finalist for her reporting on conflict in Myanmar and was previously part of the team that won the Pulitzer Prize in public service for coverage of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. follow on X @rebtanhs

2. Axis of Deception (book review essay)

Excerpts:

Yet what Applebaum is most worried about is our failure “to regulate social media, with negative consequences for politics around the world.” She thus urges democracies to work “in coalitions, to promote transparency, to create international standards [specifically regarding AI], to ensure that autocracies don’t set the rules and shape the products.” She labels such a coalition “Democrats United” on the model of the newly-established World Liberty Congress, whose members are fellow Americans and also “people who share their values inside autocracies.” For “they need one another, now more than ever, because their democracies are not safe. Nobody’s democracy is safe.”

So dualism is back after all: autocratic kleptocracy vs. progressive “democracy;” amoral cynics vs. enlightened idealists; mostly-right-wing peddlers of conspiracy theories vs. selfless-antiracist champions of “reliable” reporting. Ideology 1.0 is dead, long live ideology. History is back. Except this time, the evil axis cuts right through our own society. It divides us down the middle, weakening our self-confidence and sowing distrust.

She ends her book by observing that few free societies have ever survived for long. “They can be destroyed from the outside and from the inside, too, by division and demagogues.” It remains a mystery why she herself contributes, whether she knows it or not, to that suicidal effort.

Book Review November 15, 2024

Axis of Deception – Juliana Geran Pilon

Juliana Geran Pilon

Anne Applebaum’s new book fails to understand the nature of America’s enemies.

 Buy this title

Reviewed

Autocracy, Inc.

by Anne Applebaum

lawliberty.org · by Juliana Geran Pilon

Making sense of the geopolitical landscape after 1989 would be hard enough without the self-inflicted fantasy that ideology, and thus history, had reached its final resting place. Once the infamous Iron Wall pulverized into the dustbin of history, Western intellectuals fed on a steady diet of dialectics proclaimed the emergence of a new consensus. The new world no longer needed to be brave: it was becoming flat.

Although the lion and lamb didn’t start exchanging parenting tips, a sigh of popular relief was reflected in the 1995 National Security Strategy: “The end of the Cold War, the central security challenge of the past half century—the threat of communist expansion—is gone.” The remaining dangers were comparatively minor: ethnic conflict, rogue states threatening stability in several regions of the world, nuclear proliferation, drug trafficking, and environmental degradation. Militarily unchallenged, America would employ its “extraordinary diplomatic leverage to reshape existing security and economic structures and create new ones.”

The potent soporific of self-deception having induced a virtual strategic coma, it took a literal bolt from the sky to jolt us into reality. As the Twin Towers smoldered, it fell to George W. Bush to take a first stab at trying to explain the nature of America’s enemy. He called it the “Axis of Evil,” consisting of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, thus echoing the eponymous World War II alliance of Germany, Italy, and Japan. It was inspired rhetoric: fascism being routinely used as shorthand for Satan, it resonated fear and loathing.

But partisan politics inevitably intrudes to muddy the conceptual waters. In 2018, Princeton economist Paul Krugman thundered, “There’s a new axis of evil: Russia, Saudi Arabia—and the United States.” Declining to endorse the United Nations’ climate study at a UN Conference notoriously reflected the standard progressive premise that America bears a disproportionate responsibility for the world’s ills. National security requires at least a modicum of strategic clarity and bipartisanship.

Journalist Anne Applebaum seems qualified for that task, given her credibility with conservatives earned on the strength of Gulag: A History (2004) and recent progressive turn. She attempts it in her new book, Autocracy, Inc., but fails.

The term “autocracy” being value neutral—literally meaning rule by one person, whether a benevolent philosopher-king or a ruthless tyrant—may apply to regimes with different historical roots, goals, aesthetics, and languages. Don’t be fooled by mere labels: “Some [autocrats] call themselves communists, monarchists, nationalists, and theocrats,” writes Applebaum. But “unlike military or political alliances from other times and places, this group does not operate like a bloc.” It consists primarily of political leaders, but also features “an agglomeration of companies, bound not by ideology but rather by a ruthless, single-minded determination to preserve their personal wealth and power.”

Post-ideological autocrats’ “bonds with one another, and with their friends in the democratic world, are cemented not through ideals but through deals—deals designed to take the edge off sanctions, to exchange surveillance technology, to help one another get rich. The purpose of their crass cabal is simple: keeping and wielding power.” How distant is the brief moment when the Berlin Wall fell and freedom had been expected to triumph. At that time, “nobody imagined that autocracy and illiberalism would spread to the democratic world instead.”

Yet surely any impartial observer unburdened by détente-era fantasies could have seen the former Soviet kleptocracy dismantling during the 1990s. The turn into “a mafia state built and managed entirely for the purpose of enriching its leaders” was no mere “transition” to free markets and rule of law. Were the Western elites, businessmen, and Sovietologists lurking about Moscow just kidding themselves, or were they in on the joke? Either way, “from the beginning of this story to the end, Western cooperation was essential.” This was especially true for money laundering purposes, but also for plain old-fashioned profits.

While Applebaum’s examples of greedy, lying, and (mostly) murderous dictators who systematically destroyed economic, political, and cultural institutions come mostly from the totalitarian world (also, strangely, Hungary and Poland), she underscores their often-intimate relationship with CEOs of transnational mega-companies. This is especially dangerous given “the democratic world’s dependence on China, Russia, and other autocracies for minerals, semiconductors, or energy supplies … poses more than just an economic risk.” Chinese businesses are notoriously aggressive in collecting, and stealing, data and information that may be used to wage cyberwarfare. Russian, Chinese, and other oligarchic money in real estate distorts property prices, harming the local population.

History is back. Except this time, the evil axis cuts right through our own society.

But the specific examples she selects to illustrate how anonymous shell companies purchase condominiums are singularly one-sided, as are the other examples of globalized kleptocracy. Her purpose is unabashedly partisan. She could have referenced at least one of Peter Schweitzer’s impeccably researched books on this topic, such as Red-Handed: How American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win. But most of his targets are Democrats, which doesn’t fit Applebaum’s narrative. She never mentions the Clinton Foundation and its “nonprofit” recipients, or the Biden family saga, never mind the Soros and Tides Foundation networks.

Above all, she distrusts social media platforms that are “among the wealthiest and most influential companies in the world,” predictably singling out Elon Musk for opposing online censorship. She also accuses “many politicians, especially on the far right … [of] having shifted the legitimate political debate about online platform regulation into an argument about ‘bans’ and ‘free speech.” This is at the expense of “the academics and other researchers” who allegedly want nothing more than to explore how the online world “could be made more transparent. [Read: be regulated.]” Noting, moreover, that modern autocrats—specifically from Russia and China—spend lavishly “on television outlets, local and national newspapers, [and] troll networks,” she commends the State Department’s Global Engagement Center’s efforts to combat disinformation. Not a word about the Congressional report documenting GEC’s violating its mission by itself engaging in partisan censorship. Nor does she discuss the perils of academic institutions being subsidized by Qatar, China, and other autocratic regimes.

Instead, Appelbaum urges that “the United States and its allies,” to protect the public, “may need to join forces with one another and with media companies to make Reuters, the Associated Press, and other reliable outlets the standard source of global news.” But who decides what is a “reliable” news source? Politicians and media moguls? According to a 2023 University of Chicago survey, 45 percent (of Americans polled) have little to no confidence in the media.

AP is a case in point. A controversy followed after it announced the death of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah with a headline describing him as “charismatic and shrewd.” But what did one expect when its journalists had joined their fellow “reliable source” correspondents working in Gaza to celebrate Hamas’s “Day of Loyalty to the Palestinian Journalist,” hosted by the Government Media Office on September 29, 2024? Since the GMO’s aim is to align the media with Hamas’s agenda, sympathetic coverage by pliable Western press is a given. If any business sector should be singled out as cynically disseminating selective information that endangers not only Israel but America and its allies, it is the mainstream media.

Yet what Applebaum is most worried about is our failure “to regulate social media, with negative consequences for politics around the world.” She thus urges democracies to work “in coalitions, to promote transparency, to create international standards [specifically regarding AI], to ensure that autocracies don’t set the rules and shape the products.” She labels such a coalition “Democrats United” on the model of the newly-established World Liberty Congress, whose members are fellow Americans and also “people who share their values inside autocracies.” For “they need one another, now more than ever, because their democracies are not safe. Nobody’s democracy is safe.”

So dualism is back after all: autocratic kleptocracy vs. progressive “democracy;” amoral cynics vs. enlightened idealists; mostly-right-wing peddlers of conspiracy theories vs. selfless-antiracist champions of “reliable” reporting. Ideology 1.0 is dead, long live ideology. History is back. Except this time, the evil axis cuts right through our own society. It divides us down the middle, weakening our self-confidence and sowing distrust.

She ends her book by observing that few free societies have ever survived for long. “They can be destroyed from the outside and from the inside, too, by division and demagogues.” It remains a mystery why she herself contributes, whether she knows it or not, to that suicidal effort.

lawliberty.org · by Juliana Geran Pilon

3. Vivek Ramaswamy wants to start DOGE cuts by eliminating funding for unauthorized programs - including veteran healthcare

If this is a fact then yes these programs need to be cut. If Congress has not authorized the funding then we are not upholding our Constitutional principles? We have to ask why there are programs that Congress has not authorized? However, his appears to be a deliberate attempt to discredit the DOGE (though I remain very skeptical of it) by saying that it is going after veterans' benefits. The truth is it is not going after veteran's benefits because all veteran's benefits have to be authorized by Congress. It is more correct to say that it is going to go after unauthorized programs (or programs where the authorization has expired) and again we should be asking why there are programs, to include one for veterans benefits, that are not authorized by Congress.

Excerpt:

Congressional Budget Office report reveals over 1,200 programs receiving $516 billion annually despite lacking current authorization, prompting Ramaswamy to call for defunding programs no longer authorized by Congress.

Vivek Ramaswamy wants to start DOGE cuts by eliminating funding for unauthorized programs - including veteran healthcare

Yahoo

https://www.yahoo.com/news/vivek-ramaswamy-wants-start-doge-223626905.html

Kelly Rissman

Thu, November 14, 2024 at 5:36 PM EST3 min read

Key Takeaways

• Vivek Ramaswamy proposes defunding federal programs without current congressional authorization, including veterans' health care, NASA, and early education.
• Ramaswamy's newly-created Department of Government Efficiency, operating outside of government, aims to cut wasteful expenditures and restructure federal agencies by targeting programs with expired authorizations of appropriations.
• Congressional Budget Office report reveals over 1,200 programs receiving $516 billion annually despite lacking current authorization, prompting Ramaswamy to call for defunding programs no longer authorized by Congress.

Vivek Ramaswamy, who was picked to lead the newly-created Department of Government Efficiency, proposed defunding federal programs that no longer have congressional authorization - which includes money for veterans’ health care, NASA and early education.

The new office, nicknamed DOGE after co-leader Elon Musk’s favorite meme, will operate “outside of government” and will aim to “cut wasteful expenditures and restructure Federal Agencies.” Two days after being nominated, Ramaswamy suggested deep cuts to federal funding, starting with a list of expired authorizations of appropriations.

Some congressional funding was approved with a set time before authorization expired. However, they continue to receive funding. A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office found more than 1,200 programs at more than $516 billion a year. When an authorization expires, Congress can extend the program through new legislation or by providing new appropriations, according to CBO.

Ramaswamy took to X earlier this week to write about his first steps.

“We shouldn’t let the government spend money on programs that have expired. Yet that’s exactly what happens today: half a *trillion* dollars of taxpayer funds ($516 B+) goes each year to programs which Congress has allowed to expire. There are 1,200+ programs that are no longer authorized but still receive appropriations,” he wrote.

“This is totally nuts. We can & should save hundreds of billions each year by defunding government programs that Congress no longer authorizes. We’ll challenge any politician who disagrees to defend the other side.

Social media users were quick to point out some of the programs that received funding despite lacking current Congressional authorization. One is the Veterans’ Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, which helps provide funding for veterans’ medical care. The authorization expired in 1998, but still receives about $120 billion in funding.

Vivek Ramaswamy speaks during the fourth Republican presidential primary debate. Days after being tapped to lead the Department of Government Efficiency, he proposed cutting unauthorized federal programs, which includes veteran healthcare (AFP via Getty Images)

It was hardly the only notable agency that could see a funding stream tried up. Others included a bill that helped NASA and the International Space Station. Another area was tied to Head Start, which helps provide early childhood education to low-income students.

It’s unclear if Ramaswamy knew the specific programs that he could potentially cut or if he would exempt any.

He later doubled down on his thoughts.

“If it doesn’t advance the interests of American citizens, we’re putting it on the chopping block. Amazingly, there are a number of programs whose authorization from Congress has *already expired* yet $$$ still flows out the door. That needs to end next year,” the one-time presidential candidate wrote.

Both Ramaswamy and Musk have been tasked to lead the Trump-created agency that will look to curb government spending. Musk has estimated that $2 trillion can be axed from the federal payroll.

“We are very grateful to the thousands of Americans who have expressed interest in helping us at DOGE,” the agency wrote on X on Thursday. “We don’t need more part-time idea generators. We need super high-IQ small-government revolutionaries willing to work 80+ hours per week on unglamorous cost-cutting. If that’s you, DM this account with your CV. Elon & Vivek will review the top 1% of applicants.”

Musk admitted that the working conditions at DOGE aren’t exactly typical.

“This will be tedious work, make lots of enemies & compensation is zero,” he wrote on X. “What a great deal!”

Yahoo

4. Mao's Mastery of Irregular Warfare: Lessons from the Revolution

Mao is still very much worth studying. There are many lessons to be learned. He codified many concepts that go back at least to the American Revolution and many concepts that are really timeless.

Mao's Mastery of Irregular Warfare: Lessons from the Revolution

STRATEGY CENTRAL

https://www.strategycentral.io/post/mao-s-mastery-of-irregular-warfare-lessons-from-the-revolution?utm

For Practitioners, By Practitioners

By Monte Erfourth – November 16, 2024

Introduction

The People's Republic of China, a powerful nation whose rise to global prominence commands significant international attention, was not forged through conventional means. Instead, its foundation was built through a series of calculated, asymmetric maneuvers, a style of warfare that Mao Zedong perfected in his struggle against the Kuomintang (KMT) during the Chinese Civil War. The roots of China's current embrace of irregular warfare (IW) as a critical part of its national defense strategy can be traced back to Mao’s revolutionary tactics. Mao's emphasis on the combination of irregular and conventional warfare and his belief in winning over the population provides a framework that helps to explain how and why the modern People's Liberation Army (PLA) is so adept at irregular strategies today.

The Foundations of Mao's Irregular Warfare

Mao Zedong’s approach to irregular warfare was deeply rooted in his understanding of China’s socio-political landscape and the realities of its military capabilities. From 1927 to 1949, China was engulfed in an intense civil conflict that saw Mao’s Communist Party of China (CPC) pitted against the numerically and technologically superior forces of Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang. Recognizing the disparity between the CPC and the KMT, Mao embraced irregular warfare, shifting away from large, direct engagements and instead prioritizing guerilla tactics.

The early development of Mao’s IW philosophy began with the Autumn Harvest Uprising in 1927. Despite initial failures, Mao realized that the strength of the Communist movement lay not in direct confrontation but in embedding the fighters among China’s vast rural population. Mao utilized tactics of harassment, sabotage, and ambush—targeting KMT supply lines, disrupting communication networks, and striking swiftly before retreating into the safety of the countryside. His success rested on several core principles: flexibility, mobility, and the ability to blend into the broader population—traits that have been the cornerstone of guerilla warfare throughout history but perfected by Mao.

A central element of Mao’s IW strategy was his belief that irregular warfare could weaken an enemy through attrition and transform a weaker force into one capable of undertaking decisive conventional operations when conditions became favorable. For Mao, irregular warfare was not merely a strategy of necessity but one of opportunity, providing a means to erode the enemy’s morale and logistical capabilities while simultaneously rallying popular support for the Communist cause.

The Yan'an Era and Consolidation of IW Tactics

Perhaps the most significant period for developing Mao’s irregular warfare doctrine came during the Yan'an era (1935-1945). After the Long March, a grueling retreat that covered over 9,000 kilometers and decimated Communist forces, Mao established a stronghold in the remote region of Yan'an. Here, he laid the ideological and practical foundation for Communist guerilla operations. Mao combined political indoctrination with military training, ensuring that both fighters and civilians understood their role in the larger struggle against the KMT and the Japanese forces occupying parts of China at the time.

In Yan'an, Mao stressed the importance of understanding the dynamics of the conflict. His famous dictum, "The enemy advances, we retreat; the enemy camps, we harass; the enemy tires, we attack; the enemy retreats, we pursue," highlighted the fluid nature of guerilla warfare. Mao saw irregular warfare as an art of patience and persistence—never directly challenging the KMT on their terms but always maneuvering to control the tempo of engagement. This principle became one of the most notable examples of asymmetry in modern conflict, where time, terrain, and people's will were as valuable as guns and ammunition.

Case Studies of Mao's Irregular Warfare Success

Two key examples of Mao's use of irregular warfare during his struggle against the Kuomintang highlight the effectiveness of his approach.

The first example was the Battle of Pingxingguan in September 1937, fought in collaboration with Chinese nationalist forces against Japan. Though nominally aligned with Chiang Kai-shek, Mao’s forces utilized classic guerilla tactics—attacking an unsuspecting Japanese supply convoy in a narrow mountain pass, inflicting heavy casualties, and seizing valuable supplies. This operation was notable not just for its immediate military success but for its symbolic value in bolstering morale among Communist fighters and the local population, proving they could fight back against the mighty Japanese army. Mao’s strategy showcased the strength of the Communists’ ability to select favorable ground, strike at the opportune moment, and disappear before an organized counterattack could be mounted. For Mao, the Pingxingguan victory demonstrated how smaller, agile forces could outmaneuver technologically superior adversaries using unconventional means.

A second and perhaps more consequential example was the Hundred Regiments Offensive (1940), which involved the cooperation of multiple Communist guerilla units. This campaign aimed to disrupt Japanese control by targeting northern China's key railways, bridges, and supply depots. Mao’s forces successfully sabotaged over 600 miles of railway, demonstrating the potency of guerilla tactics in cutting enemy supply lines and reducing their ability to project power over extended areas. Though the Japanese responded with brutal countermeasures, the offensive helped solidify popular support for the Communist forces by showing that they were actively fighting against foreign occupation, thereby building Mao's political capital as the true defender of Chinese sovereignty.

Why Mao Believed He Achieved Victory

Mao’s ultimate victory over the Kuomintang in 1949 stemmed from his unwavering commitment to his guerilla warfare doctrine, a deep understanding of the socio-political environment, and the careful fostering of civilian support. One of Mao’s most significant realizations was that to defeat a more powerful enemy; a movement had to become part of the people themselves. Mao's "mass line" approach, which emphasized maintaining close contact with the peasantry, converting their needs and demands into policy, and involving them in the revolutionary cause, proved essential in sustaining Communist forces.

Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang, despite its military superiority and backing from the United States, struggled to maintain popular support, particularly in rural areas. KMT forces were viewed as corrupt, disconnected, and often brutal in their treatment of the local population. Mao capitalized on these failings by ensuring that his fighters operated amongst the people and gained their trust and loyalty by offering security, land reforms, and protection against landlords and foreign invaders. This ideological and practical alignment with the populace effectively turned China’s vast rural regions into an invaluable support base that fed and protected the Communist forces. Mao’s ability to transform irregular warfare from a tactic into a comprehensive, people-driven movement is perhaps the greatest testament to his success.

Lessons From Mao's Approach

Mao Zedong’s irregular warfare doctrine offers several enduring lessons about asymmetric conflict—lessons that continue to be relevant today. Mao demonstrated that irregular warfare could be a viable strategy not only for survival but also for strategic success against a more powerful opponent. His approach emphasized understanding the adversary's strengths and weaknesses and tailoring tactics to exploit those vulnerabilities. By operating in a manner that did not require direct confrontation, Mao created space for the Communist forces to grow stronger while simultaneously weakening the enemy’s resolve and reach.

A key insight into the effectiveness of Mao's IW approach is the critical role of popular support. Mao viewed the population as a "sea" in which guerilla fighters could swim—a powerful metaphor that underscores the inseparability of IW success from the people who surround it. In Mao’s estimation, the ability to win—or even to sustain a movement—depended not on the size of the military force but on the depth of political and social integration with the population. Mao believed that any attempt at guerilla warfare would be destined for failure without the people.

Mao’s tactics of mobility, attrition, and psychological warfare can be effective under particular conditions: where a weaker force is willing to be patient, avoid direct engagements, and exploit the political weaknesses of an opponent. The rise of guerilla movements throughout the 20th and 21st centuries—from Fidel Castro’s revolution in Cuba to the Viet Cong’s struggle against the United States in Vietnam—bears witness to Mao’s enduring influence. His approach demonstrated that conventional superiority can be countered by understanding local conditions, carefully managing public perception, and exploiting every opportunity to strike at an adversary’s most vulnerable points.

Today, China’s strategic thinking still incorporates elements of Mao’s IW doctrine, albeit in a more complex and modernized form. The ongoing emphasis on political warfare, information operations, strategic patience, and a robust civil-military relationship echoes Mao's conviction that victory does not necessarily require conventional dominance. Instead, asymmetry and adaptation—whether in the form of guerilla tactics or through information warfare—remain at the core of effective resistance and resilience strategies.

Mao Zedong's irregular warfare strategy was not only a blueprint for military operations but a social and political movement that embodied the aspirations of a marginalized population. Through an astute combination of guerilla warfare, socio-political integration, and psychological resilience, Mao achieved what many thought impossible—the defeat of a vastly superior adversary. His insights on warfare still resonate, reminding us that the strength of a force lies not merely in its size but in its relationship with the people it represents and the clarity of purpose that drives it.

Bibliography

1. Mao Zedong. On Guerrilla Warfare. Translated by Samuel B. Griffith. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000.

2. Fairbank, John K., and Merle Goldman. China: A New History. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2006.

3. Peers, David, and Ralph Halliday. Chinese Communists and Guerrilla Warfare. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

4. Van Slyke, Lyman P. Enemies and Friends: The United Front in Chinese Communist History. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1967

5. The Need for Irregular Warfare Principles: Lessons from History

As an aside, when the USAJFKSWCS was developing the 1990 version of FM 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces Operations. MG Barrato wanted to publish a set of principles for low integrity and unconventional warfare. Of course the Army disapproved of that because the argument was that the principles of war were already established and applied to everything.

But that did not deter (retired) Special Forces COL Glenn Harned who was the primary author. He interviewed many Special Forces icons and synthesized their input into what became known as the special operations imperatives. Please review the special operations imperatives following this article. Like most Special Forces and special operations concepts (such as "through, with, and by" or the 5 SOF truths) they are not exclusive to SOF and can be applied to all military forces.

I drafted the Eight Points of Irregular Warfare/Special Warfare as well. They are pasted below the special operations imperatives.

The Need for Irregular Warfare Principles: Lessons from History

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/need-irregular-warfare-principles-lessons-from-history-sal-artiaga-jt9pc/?trackingId=b%2FJJFaAd9YgJBfs8hcq8Jg%3D%3D

Sal Artiaga

Irregular Warfare & Latin America National Security Commentator

November 16, 2024

Irregular warfare (IW) plays a key role in military and political strategy throughout history. It involves unconventional tactics, asymmetric dynamics, and non-linear engagements. However, IW lacks a unified set of accepted principles to guide practitioners and policymakers. This contrasts with conventional warfare, which relies on proven doctrines and strategies. IW's adaptable and fluid nature makes creating guiding principles both difficult and necessary. A framework of principles for IW would boost its effectiveness, incorporate historical insights, and offer a strategic roadmap for today's conflicts. This paper makes a case for setting up official principles for IW, lays out what these guidelines should include, and backs them up with examples from history. It stresses the importance of being flexible, having legitimacy, working together, understanding different cultures, and keeping up influence over time, all key factors for winning long-term in non-traditional conflicts.

Why We Need Clear Principles for Irregular Warfare

When IW lacks clear guiding principles it often leads to the use of inconsistent plans and lost chances to reach key goals. Unlike regular warfare, IW takes place in settings where military, political, and social aspects blend. This mix creates challenges that call for a well-organized yet flexible way to make decisions. Without solid guidelines, forces might fail to grasp key inputs from their environment, push away local players, or use methods that go against their big-picture objectives. History shows many examples of IW campaigns that worked or didn't work because they followed or didn't follow some basic principles. From the guerrilla fights in the American Revolution to the efforts to stop insurgents in Vietnam, these conflicts teach us lasting lessons about how IW works. Turning these lessons into clear principles would help practitioners fight on the ground and also give policy makers a better idea of how to make sure their plans match what's happening.

Principles for Irregular Warfare

Principle 1, Adaptability

IW has to adapt all the time to changing environments, tactics, and enemies. Unlike normal wars where organized formations and doctrines rule, IW changes as it happens. Enemies in unconventional conflicts, like insurgents, resistance fighters, or criminal groups, often don't have a central command, are hard to predict, and come up with new ideas.

Historical Justification

In the Vietnam War, the Viet Cong showed how well they could adapt by switching between guerrilla tactics and bigger operations when needed. Their ability to respond to new situations, including the massive firepower of the United States, let them keep fighting for many years. On the other hand, the U.S. military at first relied on usual tactics, like big search-and-destroy missions, which didn't work well against the changing nature of the fight.

Principle 2, Legitimacy

IW's success depends on legitimacy—both from the local population and the global community. Gaining the support of the people often matters more than winning battles. IW efforts must put ethical conduct, openness, and long-term stability first to keep their legitimacy. This approach helps to win over the "hearts and minds" of the local people.

Historical Justification

The British campaign against insurgents during the Malayan Emergency (1948–1960) shows how important legitimacy is. The British made reforms, dealt with complaints, and kept civilian deaths low. This cut off insurgents from those who supported them. On the other hand, the French used cruel methods in the Algerian War of Independence. This turned local people against them and hurt their efforts in the end.

Principle 3, Unity of Effort

IW campaigns often involve many players such as military forces, spy agencies, local governments, and non-government groups. These entities must work together to use resources well and to prevent conflicting goals from harming the mission.

Historical Justification

In Afghanistan, the U.S. faced challenges to create unity of effort among NATO allies, various government agencies, and local partners. This lack of unity slowed progress, as different strategies and goals often clashed. In contrast, during World War II, the teamwork between resistance movements and Allied forces in occupied Europe, led by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), showed how unity of effort can boost the success of IW campaigns.

Principle 4, Cultural Intelligence

To grasp the social, cultural, and political elements of the operating environment is key in IW. Cultural intelligence allows forces to build trust with local populations, predict enemy actions, and steer clear of moves that could worsen conflicts.

Historical Justification

The Philippine-American War (1899–1902) saw U.S. forces struggle at first to grasp the cultural and political goals of Filipino rebels, which made the conflict last longer. But later, steps to build infrastructure and work with Filipino leaders helped change the course of the war. In a similar way, T.E. Lawrence succeeded in rallying Arab tribes against the Ottoman Empire during World War I because he had a deep grasp of their cultural and political drives.

Principle 5, Sustained Influence

IW has a long-term nature needing ongoing dedication to achieve worthwhile results. Quick wins don't suffice if people don't follow them with hard work to tackle the root causes of the conflict.

Historical Justification

The U.S. stint in Iraq shows what happens when influence fades. The 2003 invasion succeeded at first, but the failure to set up a stable legit government led to uprisings and later, ISIS popping up. On the flip side, the U.S.'s longtime pledge to rebuild Germany and Japan after the war proves how keeping influence going can bring lasting stability and win big in the long run.

Challenges in Establishing Principles

The importance of IW principles is obvious but putting them into practice poses difficulties. IW's situation-specific nature makes it hard to establish general rules for all cases. Every conflict has its own political, social, and cultural forces that need custom-fit solutions. What's more, military organizations that focus on regular warfare often push back against making IW principles official. The focus on combat operations and having the best technology can overshadow the subtle, people-focused strategies that IW needs. To fix this, the military must make IW education and training a top priority, making sure that both decision-makers and those on the ground grasp its complexities.

Integrating SOF and Conventional Forces

Putting IW principles into action needs SOF and regular forces to work hand in hand. SOF excel at unconventional tactics and connecting with different cultures, so they often lead IW efforts. But they can't do it alone. Regular forces are responsible for crucial support, like supplies, firepower, and sustain presence. To boost teamwork, the U.S. military should put money into joint training that stresses IW ideas. These programs ought to zero in on helping forces get each other to work well together and get ready to operate in various environments. Also, bringing in new tech like cyber tools, AI, and drones can make both SOF and regular forces pack more punch in IW.

The Future of Irregular Warfare Principles

As global security keeps changing, IW will stay crucial in national defense plans. The principles we discussed help navigate IW's ambiguous paths. But we need to keep adapting these principles based on what we learn from current fights and new tech. These IW principles should shape more than just military actions. They should guide U.S. foreign policy too. By lining up military, diplomatic, and economic efforts, the U.S. can tackle the roots of instability and cut down on future fights. This big-picture approach needs teamwork across government organizations, partnerships with allies abroad, and local key players.

Conclusion

Creating principles for irregular warfare isn't just a theory exercise, it's a must-do in practice. By writing down history lessons and tweaking them for today's challenges, these principles can give us a roadmap to reach strategic goals in challenging unpredictable situations. From Vietnam's jungles to the Middle East's deserts, IW has shown it can change how conflicts go and shift who's in power. By using principles like being flexible, having legitimacy, working together, understanding cultures, and keeping influence for the long-term, the U.S. military and its partners can handle IW's complex ins and outs and make sure things are more stable and safer down the road.

The Special Operations Imperatives as outlined in FM 31-20: Doctrine for Special Forces Operations (1990) emphasize critical principles necessary for the planning and execution of successful special operations missions. These imperatives serve as a guide to ensure mission success, minimize risks, and achieve strategic objectives.

Here is the complete description of the Special Operations Imperatives from the 1990 manual:

1. Understand the Operational Environment

  - Description: A thorough understanding of the operational environment is essential. This includes geography, politics, social structure, economy, and cultural nuances. Success in special operations often depends on exploiting the enemy’s vulnerabilities within this context while leveraging local support.

2. Recognize Political Implications

  - Description: Special operations have political ramifications that must be considered at all levels. Commanders must align military actions with political objectives and ensure operations support broader national goals. Actions should aim to influence not just the enemy but also neutral and friendly populations.

3. Facilitate Interagency Activities

  - Description: Special operations often require coordination with other government agencies, allied forces, and non-governmental organizations. Successful operations demand cooperation, information sharing, and integration across these entities to achieve unified objectives.

4. Engage the Threat Discriminately

  - Description: Special operations forces (SOF) must apply force selectively, targeting specific objectives while minimizing collateral damage. Precision and restraint are key to preserving legitimacy, winning local support, and achieving strategic objectives.

5. Consider Long-Term Effects

  - Description: The outcomes of special operations often extend far beyond the immediate mission. Commanders must anticipate the second- and third-order effects of their actions, ensuring that operations contribute to enduring stability and long-term strategic success.

6. Ensure Legitimacy and Credibility

  - Description: The legitimacy of operations is crucial for maintaining support from the host nation, local populace, and international community. SOF must operate within the bounds of legal and ethical norms, ensuring credibility and trustworthiness in the eyes of allies and neutrals.

 7. Anticipate and Control Psychological Effects

  - Description: Special operations can have significant psychological impacts on both enemy forces and friendly populations. Commanders must plan to exploit these effects to weaken the enemy’s resolve, strengthen alliances, and bolster the morale of friendly forces.

 8. Operate with and Through Others

  - Description: Success in special operations often depends on working alongside or through host-nation forces, resistance movements, or other local entities. Building their capacity and fostering trust are critical to achieving shared objectives.

 9. Develop Multiple Options

  - Description: Flexibility is vital in special operations. Commanders must develop and maintain multiple courses of action to adapt to changing circumstances and exploit unforeseen opportunities during the mission.

 10. Ensure Long-Term Engagement

  - Description: Special operations often require sustained efforts to achieve enduring success. SOF must maintain engagement to support host-nation development, stabilize the region, and reinforce gains achieved through initial operations.

 11. Provide Sufficient Intelligence

  - Description: Intelligence is the foundation of all special operations. Commanders must ensure timely, accurate, and actionable intelligence to guide decision-making and support operational planning at all levels.

 12. Balance Security and Synchronization

  - Description: Special operations require a balance between operational security and the coordination of activities. While protecting sensitive information is crucial, synchronization across forces and agencies ensures unity of effort and prevents unintended conflicts.

These imperatives are designed to guide commanders in the complex, multidimensional nature of special operations, ensuring they align with broader military and political objectives while maintaining operational effectiveness and legitimacy..

Eight Points of Irregular Warfare

maxoki161.blogspot.com · by Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners · July 16, 2018

Eight Points of Irregular Warfare:

Special Warfare is the execution of activities that involve a combination of lethal and nonlethal actions taken by a specially trained and educated force that has a deep understanding of cultures and foreign language, proficiency in small-unit tactics, and the ability to build and fight alongside indigenous combat formations in a permissive, uncertain, or hostile environment.

–If there is an indigenous solution or an indigenous contribution to the solution for a complex political military problem conduct special warfare – the essence of which is “through, with, and by” as developed by Mark Boyatt

1. Instead of an end state must determine the acceptable, durable, political arrangement that can be achieved. (per LTG James Dubik) Without this clearly articulated and understood there is no way to achieve unity of effort or to judge mission success. I think Congress must demand this from the Administration.

2. Eliot Cohen & John Gooch: Military Misfortune: All military failures are a result of a failure to learn, failure to adapt, and failure to anticipate. We must learn to anticipate and that is done through thorough and ongoing assessments and heeding the expert practitioners on the ground. Look at Mali and Yemen. Did we anticipate the Turegs and the Houthis? I would submit that SOF on the ground reported on the growing threats to Mali and Yemen yet our myopic focus on CT blinded us at the strategic level.

3. Larry Cable (the discredited COIN theorist who wrote Conflict of Myths) The three P’s: Presence, Patience, Persistence. You have to be present to make a difference. You have to be patient because it takes a long time to influence indigenous forces and develop indigenous capabilities. You must have cultural respect without going native and you must have an aptitude and desire for living and working in a foreign culture. It takes persistence because mistakes will be made, every operation will include discovery learning and we will have to learn and adapt.

4. Assessment - must conduct continuous assessment to gain understanding - tactical, operational, and strategic. Assessments are key to developing strategy and campaign plans and anticipating potential conflict. Assessments allow you to challenge assumptions and determine if a rebalance of ways and means with the acceptable, durable, political arrangement is required. Understand the indigenous way of war and adapt to it. Do not force the US way of war upon indigenous forces if it is counter to their history, customs, traditions, and abilities.

5. Ensure US and indigenous interests are sufficiently aligned. If indigenous and US interests are not sufficiently aligned the mission will fail. If the US has stronger interest than the indigenous force we can create an “assistance paradox” - if indigenous forces believe the US mission is "no fail” and the US forces will not allow them to fail and therefore they do not need to try too hard. They may very well benefit from long term US aid and support which may be their objective for accepting support in the first place.

6. Employ the right forces for the right mission. US SOF, conventional, civilian agency, indigenous forces. Always based on assessment and thorough understanding of the problem and available resources and capabilities. Cannot over rely on one force to do everything.

7. Learn how to operate without being in charge. If we usurp the mission indigenous forces will never be successful on their own. You cannot pay lip service to advising and assisting. This is why operations in Colombia and the Philippines achieve some level of success.
 This is not “leading from behind.” This is the appropriate understanding of the relationship between USSF/SOF and indigenous forces in a sovereign nation or indigenous forces seeking self-determination of government.

8. Campaigning - We have to develop the campaign plan based on Design thinking to determine the resources and authorities - and then execute the campaign - we have to get good at campaigning and it has to be more than a military campaign. (USSOCOM Design: Appreciate the context, understand the problem, and develop an approach). While disrupting terrorist attacks and attacking terrorist networks and their finances and auxiliaries are important they are not a strategy. They can be part of a strategy and campaign but they are not sufficient. We have to campaign beyond counter-terrorism with a campaign focused on attacking the enemy’s strategy. This requires deep understanding to include especially understanding the enemy’s political objectives. Once we understand the enemy, ways and means can be employed to counter the enemy’s strategy and his political objectives. Campaigning is important because it will orchestrate all the activities to achieve the strategic objectives or the acceptable, durable political arrangement we seek. Campaigns identify the resources necessary (forces, bases, funding). Campaigns identify the authorities necessary. Although many in the military and government desire blanket authorities that is not the right way to operate. However, establishing programs and funding lines such as 1206, 1207, 1208, and 1209 and now 127E are not effective either. Authorities need to be specifically applied to each campaign. And with an approved campaign plan Congress can more effectively provide oversight rather than managing funding programs. Campaigns must also account for transitions (and demobilization in UW) when working with indigenous forces because we cannot advise and assist and provide support indefinitely. Focusing on effective campaigning can discipline the application of the military instrument of power. Of course it would useful for other elements of national power to be able to “campaign” as well. We perhaps need to take another look at the 1997 PDD 56 which was for the management of complex contingency operations in the interagency – a disciplined process to orchestrate US government agencies and harmonize the instruments of power.

· A Principle of Special Warfare: "Go early, go small, go local, go long” LTG(R) Charles T. Cleveland remarks at NDU November 30, 2015

· Understanding indigenous forces: ”Potential allies always start as at least unproven. It is hard work that starts with assessments and making the best of who you have, seeking to improve your position (and your partners’) over time.” LTG (R) Charles T. Cleveland, email January 18, 2016 (Note: This can apply to resistance in nK)

· Frank Hoffman's Principle of Understanding. I am a supporter of Dr. Frank Hoffman’s idea that we need a new principle of war called understanding. Although that seems like a no-brainer – as far back as Sun Tzu we have been told that we must know our enemies and know ourselves to be victorious. We all know we need to understand war and warfare, the conditions that give rise to conflict, and the politics that lead to and end conflict. Yet even though the need for understanding is so obvious that we think we do not need to even mention it, it is surprising how so many of our failures can be traced to our lack of understanding. SOF, through its various assessment capabilities and engagement with indigenous populations can make a key contribution to understanding.

maxoki161.blogspot.com · by Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners · July 16, 2018

6.Trump transition team compiling list of current and former U.S. military officers for possible courts-martial

​The first civil military crisis?

Trump transition team compiling list of current and former U.S. military officers for possible courts-martial

All of the officers were involved in the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, which independent reviews have blamed on both the Trump and Biden administrations.

NBC News · by Courtney Kube, Carol E. Lee, Vaughn Hillyard and Mosheh Gains · November 17, 2024

The Trump transition team is compiling a list of senior current and former U.S. military officers who were directly involved in the withdrawal from Afghanistan and exploring whether they could be court-martialed for their involvement, according to a U.S. official and a person familiar with the plan.

Officials working on the transition are considering creating a commission to investigate the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, including gathering information about who was directly involved in the decision-making for the military, how it was carried out, and whether the military leaders could be eligible for charges as serious as treason, the U.S. official and person with knowledge of the plan said.

“They’re taking it very seriously,” the person with knowledge of the plan said.

The Trump transition team did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Matt Flynn, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for counternarcotics and global threats, is helping lead the effort, the sources said. It is being framed as a review of how the U.S. first got into the war in Afghanistan and how the U.S. ultimately withdrew.

A military transport plane launches while Afghans who cannot get into the airport to evacuate are stranded in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 2021.Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times via Getty Imag

President-elect Donald Trump has condemned the withdrawal as a “humiliation” and “the most embarrassing day in the history of our country.”

It is not clear, though, what would legally justify “treason” charges since the military officers were following the orders of President Joe Biden to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

A 2022 independent review by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction blamed both the Trump and Biden administrations for the chaotic U.S. withdrawal in 2021.

Trump first reached an agreement with the Taliban in 2020 to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan, roughly 13,000 troops, and release 5,000 Taliban fighters from prison. The Biden administration then completed the withdrawal and badly overestimated the ability of Afghan government forces to fight the Taliban on their own.

Trump’s choice for secretary of defense, Fox News personality Pete Hegseth, has criticized the withdrawal, saying the U.S. lost the war and wasted billions of dollars.

In his book “The War on Warriors,” Hegseth wrote, “The next president of the United States needs to radically overhaul Pentagon senior leadership to make us ready to defend our nation and defeat our enemies. Lots of people need to be fired. The debacle in Afghanistan, of course, is the most glaring example.”

Afghan applicants crowd into a cafe seeking help applying for the Special Immigrant Visas program in 2021 in Kabul, Afghanistan.Paula Bronstein / Getty Images file

Hegseth calls the withdrawal a “humiliating retreat” and says leaders at the Pentagon were not held accountable for the deadly attack at Abbey Gate, which killed 13 U.S. service members and roughly 170 Afghan civilians. Nor were they held accountable for a subsequent U.S. airstrike in Kabul that officials thought would kill the Islamic State group leader behind the suicide attack but instead killed 10 innocent Afghans, including seven children, he wrote.

“These generals lied. They mismanaged. They violated their oath. They failed. They disgraced our troops, and our nation. They got people killed, unnecessarily,” he wrote. “And, to this moment, they keep their jobs. Worse, they continue to actively erode our military and its values — by capitulating to civilians with radical agendas. They are an embarrassment, with stars still on their shoulders.”

The transition team is looking at the possibility of recalling several commanders to active duty for possible charges, the U.S. official said.

It’s not clear the Trump administration would pursue treason charges, and instead could focus on lesser charges that highlight the officer’s involvement. “They want to set an example,” said the person with knowledge of the plan.

Taliban fighters storm into the Kabul International Airport, wielding American supplied weapons, equipment and uniforms after the United States Military have completed their withdrawal, in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Aug. 31, 2021.Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images file

Speaking to NBC News days before the election, Howard Lutnick, one of the two advisers leading the transition, said Trump learned after his first administration that he had hired Democratic generals, and he would not make that mistake again.

Former officials who worked in Trump’s first administration have said they advised Trump against policies they thought would weaken U.S. national security, such as withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria. And they advised against actions that they thought might violate the Constitution or inflame tensions domestically, such as deploying active-duty U.S. troops to quell protests after the 2020 police killing of George Floyd.

NBC News · by Courtney Kube, Carol E. Lee, Vaughn Hillyard and Mosheh Gains · November 17, 2024

7. Australia-Japan-United States Trilateral Defense Ministers' Meeting November 2024 Joint Statement

Release

Immediate Release

Australia-Japan-United States Trilateral Defense Ministers' Meeting November 2024 Joint Statement

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3967118/australia-japan-united-states-trilateral-defense-ministers-meeting-november-202/

Nov. 16, 2024 |   

Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence Richard Marles, Japanese Minister of Defense Nakatani Gen, and United States Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III convened the fourteenth Trilateral Defense Ministers' Meeting (TDMM) on 17 November 2024 in Darwin, Australia.

Through this fourteenth meeting, we affirm the longevity and enduring commitment of our partnership. Grounded in shared values, deep trust, and our unbreakable commitment to strengthening collective deterrence, our cooperation continues to evolve. We acknowledge significant progress made to implement activities and practical areas of cooperation set forth in our 2023 and May 2024 Joint Statements.

We are united in our steadfast commitment to a peaceful, stable, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region, where the rule of law is upheld, sovereignty is respected, and nations can make decisions free from coercion or threats of force.

We reaffirm our consistent and unwavering support for ASEAN centrality and unity, ASEAN-led regional architecture, and look forward to a successful ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus) in Lao PDR this week. We reinforce our commitment to work with partners, including Canada, France, Germany, India, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom to increase engagement with Southeast Asian partners and support the region's security priorities.

We recognize the criticality of backing Pacific-led responses to Pacific-security challenges, consistent with the Pacific Island Forum's 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent. We commit to coordinate our defense engagement with Pacific counterparts, including capacity-building, Women, Peace and Security activities, and working through and with Pacific-led architecture such as the Joint Heads of Pacific Security and the South Pacific Defense Ministers' Meeting, of which Australia is a member and Japan and the United States are observers.

We reiterate our serious concern about destabilizing actions in the East and South China Seas, including dangerous conduct by the People's Republic of China (PRC) against Philippines and other coastal state vessels. We reiterate our strong opposition to any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion. It is important that all states are free to exercise rights and freedoms consistent with international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, including freedom of navigation and overflight and other lawful uses of the sea. We reaffirm the need for all states to pursue the peaceful resolution of disputes in accordance with international law and that the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Award is final and legally binding upon the parties to those proceedings.

We emphasize the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and call for the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues.

We strongly condemn North Korea's destabilizing activities, including its series of reckless launches using ballistic missile technology, and its intercontinental ballistic missile test on 31 October 2024. These are

serious violations of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions and pose a grave threat to international peace and stability. We reaffirm our continuing commitment to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, consistent with UNSC resolutions. We express serious concern for Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic security following reports of the transfer of ballistic missiles and other materiel to Russia from third countries to sustain its aggression against Ukraine, and the deployment of North Korean troops to Russia. We urge Russia to immediately, completely, and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine. We concur in the importance of continuing to remind third countries, including the PRC, of their duty to uphold international law and in no way to validate, support, or condone Russia's attempts to acquire territory by force, in violation of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. These developments have destabilising consequences for the Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic regions.

To support regional stability and collective deterrence, we commit to enhancing our defense cooperation under the following four pillars:

Expanding trilateral operational cooperation

• Recognizing the critical role the trilateral partnership plays to uphold regional stability, we commit to trilateral policy coordination and to consult each other on regional security issues and contingencies. We announce the establishment of the “Trilateral Defense Consultations” to support alignment of policy and operational objectives of the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF), the Australian Defense Force (ADF), and the United States forces from peacetime to contingency.
• We welcome Japan's increased participation in Australia-United States force posture cooperation activities by increasing trilateral interoperability with the ADF and United States through:
• Annual trilateral amphibious training among the ADF, the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force's Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade, and United States Marine Rotational Force – Darwin in northern Australia and the Indo-Pacific region from 2025, beginning with TALISMAN SABRE 2025.
• Increasing Japan's contribution to Exercise SOUTHERN JACKAROO and Exercise TALISMAN SABRE in Australia, including more complex scenarios in order to increase trilateral interoperability from 2025.
• We reaffirm our commitment to trilateralize key Japan-United States exercises in Japan such as Australia's inaugural participation in Exercise ORIENT SHIELD from 2025, and enhance the ADF's participation in exercises such as Exercise YAMA SAKURA, KEEN EDGE, and KEEN SWORD.
• We continue to grow trilateral intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region as a priority, including Australian personnel's participation in the Japan-United States Bilateral Information Analysis Cell (BIAC). We work towards further commitment of Australian intelligence and capabilities for the BIAC.
• We intend to enhance trilateral air interoperability enabled by the Australia-Japan-United States Memorandum of Intent signed at Exercise PITCH BLACK 2024. We continue to explore future opportunities to increase trilateral cooperative activities, including reciprocal deployments of air assets such as fighter and transport aircraft, to all three countries from 2025, through Exercise COPE NORTH, Exercise BUSHIDO GUARDIAN, and Exercise PITCH BLACK.

Building advanced capabilities together

• We acknowledge progress and expanded cooperation under the trilateral Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Projects Arrangement, particularly collaboration on composite aerospace materials and autonomous systems.
• We commend steady progress of discussion in the area of collaborative combat aircraft and autonomy and commit to find cooperative opportunities in this area.
• Our countries intend to continue to work together to strengthen regional deterrence, including through cooperating on a networked air and missile defense architecture to counter the growing range of threats throughout the Indo-Pacific. We continue to make progress on our regional architecture through deepened information sharing to improve each country's ability to respond to threats. We continue to cooperate through various activities including trilateral training, exercises, and exchanges. The inaugural trilateral regional air and missile defense live-fire event at Exercise TALISMAN SABRE 2027 will be a key milestone.
• We welcome progress on Japan's consultation with AUKUS partners under AUKUS Pillar II, with the initial focus to improve interoperability with Japan's maritime autonomous systems.
• AUKUS partners welcome Japan's October 2024 participation as an observer in Exercise AUTONOMOUS WARRIOR under the AUKUS Pillar II Maritime Big Play series, an important step in our practical collaboration. AUKUS partners look forward to continued consultations with Japan to determine projects for future cooperation under AUKUS Pillar II.
• In order to promote trilateral defense industrial cooperation, we concur in further collaboration, including within the Partnership for Indo-Pacific Industrial Resilience (PIPIR), a multilateral forum of allies and partners aimed at strengthening defense industrial resilience in the Indo-Pacific region, and welcome increased opportunities for interaction between Australian, Japanese, and United States defense industries such as holding the Australia-Japan-U.S. Unmanned Aerial Systems Defense Symposium in Tokyo this October.

Planning together

• We welcome bilateral initiatives that will improve trilateral operational coordination, planning and information sharing between respective command centres, such as
• Commencement of the first Japanese Joint Staff Liaison Officer in Australia's Headquarters Joint Operations Command (HQJOC) in November this year, while acknowledging the commitment to send an ADF liaison officer to JSDF Joint Operations Command (JJOC) once established in 2025.
• The United States-Japan Security Consultative Committee ('2+2') announcement to reconstitute U.S. Forces Japan as a Joint Force Headquarters, which will serve as an important JJOC counterpart.

Demonstrating our presence in the region

• We welcome greater defense cooperation between Australia, Japan, the Philippines, and the United States in the South China Sea, including through regular Maritime Cooperative Activities to support regional maritime security and uphold international law.
• We welcome the success of our maritime patrol aircraft collaboration activity with India on the sidelines of Exercise KAKADU in September 2024.
• We commit to enhancing Australia-Japan-India-United States maritime domain awareness in the Indo-Pacific from 2025, acknowledging India's leadership role in conceptualizing the idea of closer collaboration in maritime surveillance.
• We intend to deepen cooperation with Pacific island countries, including through Australia, Japan, and United States contribution to Exercise PUK PUK in Papua New Guinea in 2025 and future iterations of Operation RENDER SAFE.

8. Elite GSDF troops to regularly deploy for drills in Australia

Elite GSDF troops to regularly deploy for drills in Australia

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/11/17/japan/politics/japan-us-australia-defense/?utm_

Troops from the Ground Self-Defense Force's Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade take part in a marine landing drill as a part of the country's nationwide 05JX military exercises in Kagoshima Prefecture in November of last year. | REUTERS

By Kathleen Benoza

Staff writer

 SHARE/SAVE

Nov 17, 2024

Listen to this article4 min

Japan will regularly deploy the Ground Self-Defense Force’s marine unit to Australia, the two countries’ defense chiefs said Sunday, in a boost for trilateral cooperation alongside Washington that is intended to send a strong signal of deterrence to China and North Korea.

The announcement that Japan would regularly deploy the GSDF’s elite Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade to Australia came during a joint news conference following a trilateral meeting of the U.S., Japanese and Australian defense ministers in Darwin, the capital of Australia’s Northern Territory, on Sunday.

The U.S. military maintains a Marine Rotational Force, a unit that regularly rotates in and out of the region as part of a broader defense cooperation, in Darwin. Around 2,000 U.S. Marines and sailors are stationed in the city for half of the year amid mounting concerns in Washington and among allies over China's growing military assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region.

Japan’s Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade will regularly be deployed alongside the Australian Defense Force (ADF) and U.S. Marines during these rotations from next year as the three countries aim to “build interoperability,” Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles said.

In an interview earlier in the day with Sky News, Marles called the move “a really fantastic opportunity.”

The choice of making the announcement in Darwin was especially symbolic of the partners’ closer trilateral ties, since the city, which was a major base for allied forces during World War II, was heavily bombed by the Japanese military.

The three countries form “the core of a partnership between like-minded nations,” Japanese Defense Minister Gen Nakatani said during the news conference, adding that it is important to steadily enhance the joint capabilities of the Self-Defense Forces, the U.S. military and ADF in order to ensure “effective cooperation in all situations, from daily operations to emergencies.”

“Australia is a country with which we have built close cooperation, second only to the U.S.,” Nakatani said. “We recognize it as the most promising framework for practical defense cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region.”

Nakatani also said he had proposed the establishment of the so-called Trilateral Defense Consultations (TDC) mechanism between the three nations, which was agreed upon by Marles and U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and which aims to enhance the effectiveness of trilateral defense cooperation through three key components — regular ministerial-level meetings for strategic direction, follow-ups through policy and operational-level discussions and tabletop exercises focused on regional emergencies.

By utilizing the newly established mechanism, Japan aims to build a strong foundation of trust and cooperation with the next U.S. administration, Nakatani noted.

The Japanese defense chief also said that the three officials had agreed to discuss sharing missile-defense information in response to North Korea’s repeated ballistic missile launches.

For Japan and Australia, defense officials have said the next 18 to 24 months will see the quasi-allies not only increase military deployments to each other’s territories — a move facilitated by a visiting-forces pact that entered into force in August last year — it will also allow for the testing and sharing new technologies and capabilities.

During their last trilateral meeting in Singapore in June, the three nations voiced deep concerns over security in the East China Sea and stated their opposition to "any destabilizing and coercive unilateral actions" in the area.

That same month, Tokyo protested to Beijing after Chinese vessels, apparently carrying cannons, entered its waters around the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea. The islets, known as the Diaoyu in China, are also claimed by Beijing.

Staff writer Jesse Johnson contributed to this report

9. Trump’s Push for Ukraine Peace Finds Growing Acceptance in Europe

​Excerpts:

Where concerns remain deep in Europe, however, is over the degree to which the Trump administration will deny Ukraine agency over the shape of a diplomatic settlement. European leaders also worry about which Russian demands the president-elect is willing to accept as part of a cease-fire or peace agreement.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has praised Trump and expressed hope that his tough talk about American power can force Moscow to make peace. But Zelensky has also raised concerns about the risks of talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

...

If Ukraine is kept out of NATO, European officials say Ukraine must be provided with sufficient military support so that it can fend off future Russian attacks—and the officials want to see the U.S. continue to support those efforts. They also want to ensure that both Ukraine and Europe have a seat at the table in deciding the fate of the conflict and Europe’s future security.

Some senior European diplomats have told their capitals they also need to be prepared for a possible Trump push for European troops to provide security guarantees for Ukraine and to monitor the cease-fire on the Ukrainian side of a contact line, which could stretch hundreds of miles. 

Any such decision could be politically challenging for European governments, including Europe’s nuclear powers, Britain and France. Doing so without any U.S. involvement or pledge of support if Russia resumes the war in future would make such a step even riskier. 

Trump’s Push for Ukraine Peace Finds Growing Acceptance in Europe

With U.S. support for Kyiv in doubt, many European officials see diplomacy as the best option for Ukraine

​https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/trumps-push-for-ukraine-peace-finds-growing-acceptance-in-europe-8252f368?st=9NrqvQ&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

By 

Laurence Norman

Follow

 in Berlin, Alexander Ward

Follow

 in Washington and Jane Lytvynenko in Kyiv

Updated Nov. 17, 2024 12:01 am ET

Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed hope that Donald Trump’s tough talk about American power can force Moscow to make peace. Photo: Ukraine Presidency/Zuma Press

President-elect Donald Trump’s push for peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine is finding growing acceptance among Ukraine’s European allies, who increasingly worry that time isn’t on Ukraine’s side in the war.

While European leaders have started discussions to see whether they could fill any funding gap for Kyiv if the incoming Trump administration cuts off support, officials in many capitals recognize that an off-ramp to the conflict appears increasingly necessary. They note how Russia is gaining ground as Ukraine struggles for troops and weapons.

The increased alignment between Europe and the Trump administration over the openness for talks is a sharp turnaround from even six months ago. Back then, European officials looked in dread at the Trump team’s pledge to end the war with swift negotiations amid fears that the former president would cut a deal with the Kremlin at Ukraine’s expense.

Where concerns remain deep in Europe, however, is over the degree to which the Trump administration will deny Ukraine agency over the shape of a diplomatic settlement. European leaders also worry about which Russian demands the president-elect is willing to accept as part of a cease-fire or peace agreement.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has praised Trump and expressed hope that his tough talk about American power can force Moscow to make peace. But Zelensky has also raised concerns about the risks of talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

After German Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke with Putin on Friday, Zelensky said the call risked opening a “Pandora’s box” in that it could lead to further calls amounting to “just a lot of words.”

“This is exactly what Putin has wanted for a long time: It is crucial for him to weaken his isolation, Russia’s isolation,” Zelensky said in his evening video address. “And to engage in negotiations, ordinary negotiations, that will lead to nothing. As he has been doing for decades.”

Still, the Trump transition is increasingly confident that Ukraine is more amenable to holding peace talks with Russia than it acknowledges in public. Trump and his senior advisers believe that Ukraine, given battlefield setbacks, will soon have little choice but to sit at the negotiating table.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, right, spoke by phone Friday with Vladimir Putin. Photo: steffen kugler/Reuters

Ukrainian officials publicly affirm that their aim is still to liberate the nearly 20% of their territory that Russia is occupying. That position is broadly supported by Ukrainians, but acceptance of potential territorial concessions is growing as Russia is moving forward slowly but steadily on the main eastern front despite heavy losses.

A poll conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology in October showed 32% of respondents were ready to give up some territory in return for an end to the war and preservation of the country’s independence. That was up from 14% a year earlier, while the majority are still against any acknowledgment of lost land.

Zelensky’s own “victory plan,” presented in recent weeks in Western capitals, focuses on securing weapons and security guarantees for Ukraine that would deter Russia from further attacks. A real peace, Zelensky has said, can’t be a temporary cease-fire that would allow Russia to rearm and then launch a fresh invasion.

Foreign officials and advisers who have spoken with Ukraine’s leadership say Kyiv is nervous about Trump but fear that a Harris administration would have continued the slow suffocation. Trump at least brings uncertainty, including to Moscow, which Kyiv feels it can exploit.

The big question that remains is how Trump will proceed—and whether Putin will engage in good faith negotiations. His advisers have come up with various plans, all of them significantly breaking from the Biden administration’s “as long as it takes” approach. The proposals, if adopted into a final Ukraine-Russia deal, could see Ukraine refrain from joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for 20 years while it accepts more weapons to deter a renewed Russian invasion.

Hungary’s Viktor Orban has urged Europe to shift to Trump’s strategy of seeking a swift end to the war. Photo: Attila Kisbenedek/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

While the current German government has made clear it is against Ukraine’s entry into NATO in coming years, it is unclear if other European allies would go along with that, however, even if they agree that there is a need to start end-of-war talks.

Scholz spoke with Putin on Friday, a spokesman for the German leader said, the first time the two men had spoken in almost two years. 

While Scholz condemned Moscow’s continued war on Ukraine and urged Putin to withdraw his troops, reiterating Germany’s longstanding position on the war, according to the spokesman, the call was notable in marking the resumption of direct contacts between Putin and the West.

During the exchange, Scholz urged Putin to enter negotiations with Ukraine aimed at achieving a just and durable peace, the spokesman said. Scholz reiterated Germany’s determination to continue supporting Ukraine against Russia’s aggression.

After the call, the Kremlin said Moscow had long been ready to negotiate an agreement to end the conflict and that “should take into account the security interests of the Russian Federation, proceed from the new territorial realities and…address the root causes of the conflict.”

Kyiv residents took shelter in a subway station last month. Photo: Anatolii Stepanov/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

The statement alluded to Russia’s position that Ukraine should recognize Russia’s territorial gains in Ukraine and give assurances of neutrality going forward.

At a summit in Budapest last week, European leaders discussed for the first time what to do if the U.S. shut off assistance to Ukraine after Trump takes office in January.

However, after a series of phone calls with the president-elect, European officials struck a somewhat more optimistic note, saying that while Trump appeared determined to seek a diplomatic end to the fighting, he was receptive to warnings that he must extract real concessions from Putin and that showing weakness in Ukraine could encourage Moscow’s ally China to be more aggressive in its region.

In most capitals, the formal message remains that Europe will support Ukraine as long as necessary. That is a view firmly supported in some countries such as Poland, the Baltic states and Scandinavian states. But there was caution from French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in the Budapest discussions about whether Europe could provide the military, budget and humanitarian assistance Ukraine needs if Trump cuts U.S. funding. 

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has long been calling for Europe to shift to Trump’s strategy of seeking a swift end to the war. His argument that Europe lacks a realistic strategy for achieving what it says it wants—a Ukrainian victory recovering its territory—is being echoed even in countries that are far more supportive of Kyiv.

Indeed, even in some of Europe’s more supportive capitals, the hope now is that Ukraine can prevent Russia from winning the war despite the huge cost to Moscow in human and economic terms. That would preserve an independent Ukraine, even if territory has to be ceded for now. An earlier end to the fighting appears more likely to secure that goal, some diplomats say.

Yet there are real concerns in Europe as well.

There is uncertainty about what the president-elect will settle for in talks if Putin doesn’t engage seriously in negotiations and seeks to tighten Moscow’s grip on Ukraine, a scenario that senior U.S. and European officials believe is likely.

If Ukraine is kept out of NATO, European officials say Ukraine must be provided with sufficient military support so that it can fend off future Russian attacks—and the officials want to see the U.S. continue to support those efforts. They also want to ensure that both Ukraine and Europe have a seat at the table in deciding the fate of the conflict and Europe’s future security.

Some senior European diplomats have told their capitals they also need to be prepared for a possible Trump push for European troops to provide security guarantees for Ukraine and to monitor the cease-fire on the Ukrainian side of a contact line, which could stretch hundreds of miles. 

Any such decision could be politically challenging for European governments, including Europe’s nuclear powers, Britain and France. Doing so without any U.S. involvement or pledge of support if Russia resumes the war in future would make such a step even riskier. 

Bertrand Benoit contributed to this article.

Write to Laurence Norman at laurence.norman@wsj.com and Alexander Ward at alex.ward@wsj.com

10. Russia Launches 120 Missiles, 90 Drones in Sunday Attack on Ukraine – Zelensky

​Consider this as you go to church and watch football today and talk about how the President-elect is going to impose a ceasefire and peace agreement on Putin's War in Ukraine.

Russia Launches 120 Missiles, 90 Drones in Sunday Attack on Ukraine – Zelensky

kyivpost.com · by Kyiv Post · November 17, 2024

The Ukrainian president said in his Sunday morning address that Ukraine managed to down more than 140 aerial targets thanks to air defense groups and jets, including the F-16s.

by Kyiv Post | November 17, 2024, 11:29 am

Fireman extinguishing the fire in Odesa following Russia’s Sunday massive attack. Photo: Telegram/State Emergency Service of Ukraine

• Armed Forces of Ukraine
• US

Russia launched 120 missiles and 90 drones against Ukraine on Sunday, where Ukrainian troops downed more than 140 of them, said President Volodymyr Zelensky.

In a statement at around 10 a.m., Zelensky also thanked various forces for countering the attack – including pilots of the F-16 fighters that Ukraine received from its Western partners this year.

Zelensky said Russia used various types of missiles against Ukraine’s energy facilities.

“A massive combined strike on all regions of Ukraine. During that night and morning, Russian terrorists used drones of various types, in particular ‘Shaheds.’ Cruise, ballistic and aeroballistic missiles: ‘Zirkons,’ ‘Iskanders,’ ‘Kinzhals.’ In total, about 120 missiles and 90 drones. Our air defense forces destroyed more than 140 air targets,” Zelensky said in his statement.

He added that debris from the drones and missiles has caused damages and casualties in various cities.

“The enemy’s target was our energy infrastructure throughout Ukraine. Unfortunately, there is damage to objects from hits and falling debris. In Mykolaiv, as a result of a drone attack, two people were killed and six others were injured, including two children,” Zelensky said, adding that energy workers are working to restore power to the country.

Other Topics of Interest

Russia Strikes Ukraine’s Energy Grid Yet Again – The Implications

With winter already approaching, the latest attack renewed discussions about a potentially unforgiving winter for Ukrainians and what the future might hold under the upcoming US administration.

Earlier, Ukraine’s Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko said energy generation and transmission facilities were targeted in the attack and added that urgent shutdowns were introduced, leading to blackouts across the country.

Thermal power plants were also damaged in the attack, according to DTEK, one of Ukraine’s energy providers, though it did not specify the location nor severity of the damage dealt to its facilities.

As per an earlier report, Russia launched a massive attack using dozens of drones and missiles against Ukraine on Sunday morning, which persisted intermittently over multiple hours with explosions heard in multiple cities.

kyivpost.com · by Kyiv Post · November 17, 2024

11. China’s Heavyweight Coast Guard Ships Bring Muscle to Sea Disputes

​Photos and map/graphic at the link.

China’s Heavyweight Coast Guard Ships Bring Muscle to Sea Disputes

Two 541-foot vessels expand branch’s role as enforcer of Beijing’s claims from South China Sea to Taiwan

https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-coast-guard-pacific-sea-disputes-09f535c0?st=5Djvqk&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

The Haijing 5901 at anchor near the Sabina Shoal in the South China Sea, in a photo released by the Philippine coast guard. Photo: Philippine Coast Guard

By Austin RamzyFollow

Nov. 16, 2024 9:00 pm ET

HONG KONG—As China faced off with its Pacific neighbors this year, two ships provided an intimidating presence: The world’s longest coast guard patrol ships. One hundred and twenty-three feet longer than their American equivalents, they have become floating symbols and enforcers of Beijing’s territorial ambitions.

One of the pair, the Haijing 5901, came to be known this year in the Philippine media as the “monster” after it showed up during and after clashes near tiny shoals claimed by both countries in the South China Sea.

Its sister ship, the Haijing 2901, played a starring role in Chinese military drills around Taiwan last month that Beijing cast as a warning to Taiwan’s new president over his rejection of China’s claims to the self-ruled island. It was an unusual deployment for a military branch that in other countries typically focuses on law enforcement and rescue.

China’s transformation of its coast guard into a force that can take the lead in open-water confrontations is a vital and telling piece of Beijing’s strategy to dominate a swath of the Pacific, a mission against which the U.S. is committing significant resources.

The coast guard has expanded beyond any of its rivals over the past decade, bolstered by a shipbuilding spree that has also built up China’s navy and maritime militia—a state-sponsored force rooted in the country’s fishing fleet. Together they help press Beijing’s claims to Taiwan, most of the South China Sea and Japanese-held islands in the East China Sea.

The coast guard must “resolutely defend our country’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests,” Chinese leader Xi Jinping said during a visit to its East China Sea command last year, where he watched video of one of the cutters.

Coast-guard cutters are traditionally responsible for stopping smugglers, enforcing fishing regulations and conducting rescues. The need for speed and maneuverability has generally placed limits on their size.

But as China’s emphasis on its territorial claims has grown, so too have its largest cutters. 

Ship positions in 2024

Haijin 2901

Haijin 5901

China

China

Matsu

Islands

In October, the Haijing 2901 led a group of Chinese coast guard ships participating in mass drills around Taiwan.

40 miles

In February, the Haijing 2901 sailed near the Matsu Islands, a Taiwanese archipelago, as tensions between China and Taiwan escalated.

Taiwan

Taiwan

Vietnam

Philippine Sea

LaoS

Philippines

South China Sea

Thailand

Cambodia

In June and July, the Haijing 5901 repeatedly appeared around shoals in the South China Sea claimed by the Philippines and China .

SPRATLY ISLANDS

PALAWAN (PHILIPPINES)

Second

Thomas

Shoal

Sabina Shoal

25 miles

Note: Ship positions as of Oct. 16

Sources: MarineTraffic (ship positions); Sentinel-2 cloudless 2020 by EOX IT Services GmbH (satellite images)

Emma Brown/WSJ

At 541 feet, they are nearly twice the size of the biggest ships in the Philippine coast guard. That ensures they would prevail if ramming Philippine vessels—as often happens in standoffs in the South China Sea—and allows them to function as command-and-control centers for groups of smaller vessels.

They each have a 76mm cannon, remote-control water cannons, a helicopter landing pad and an estimated range of more than 17,000 miles—making them capable of sailing more than halfway around the world on one fueling. They represent a shift to a more confrontational role in territorial disputes, analysts say. 

“The only reason to have a coast-guard ship that large is essentially to enforce a claim or to make a claim—it’s intimidation,” said Ray Powell, director of the SeaLight project at Stanford University, which tracks Chinese maritime activity. “There’s no reason a coast guard needs a ship that large to rescue fishermen and enforce border security.”

The giant coast guard ships, officially referred to as Zhaotou-class patrol cutters, were launched in 2014 and 2016. China’s coast guard is the world’s largest maritime law enforcement fleet, with more than 150 regional and oceangoing patrol vessels, the Pentagon estimated last year. The U.S. has about 80 coast guard cutters of a comparable type.

In October, China’s coast guard, which counts former navy ships among its fleet, carried out its first joint patrol with Russia in the Arctic.

As it has grown in strength, it has taken a more muscular approach. “The Chinese have somewhat mainstreamed the idea that the coast guard could be used for more assertive patrolling, much more coercive movements like ramming into ships,” said Collin Koh, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

When China’s military carried out its largest exercises yet in the air and sea around Taiwan in early October, Chinese state television showed the Haijing 2901 leading a flotilla, while the coast guard posted an image on its website of the ship beside Taiwan which depicted the vessel as the same size as the island.

“This is very fierce—it’s so huge,” the post read.

A photomontage shared by the Chinese coast guard shows the Haijing 2901 beside the island of Taiwan. Photo: China Coast Guard

“Whether it is endurance, collision resistance, seaworthiness, et cetera, the ship has a greater advantage over the law enforcement ships in the surrounding areas,” said the state-run Xinhua News Agency. 

Officials in Taiwan took note of the substantial coast guard presence, calling it a pressure tool to advance China’s claim that the self-ruled island is its territory.

“We are particularly concerned. We have never seen so many coast guard vessels around Taiwan,” a senior Taiwanese security official said.

The Haijing 2901 and its fleet were spotted off the island’s eastern coast, which faces away from the mainland, suggesting China might use coast guard vessels as part of a blockade of Taiwan, the official said.

Tracking data from maritime analytics provider Marine Traffic indicate the ship was dispatched in February to the Matsu Islands, a group of Taiwan-controlled islands near the Chinese mainland, as tensions flared over the deaths of two Chinese men whose boat was being pursued by Taiwan’s coast guard around another Taiwanese archipelago, Kinmen.

You may also like

0:00

Paused

0:04

/

6:34

Tap For Sound

China’s fleet of warships is eclipsing the U.S. As tensions between the two global powers grow, the U.S. is looking to South Korea, one of its biggest allies in Asia, to help increase its battleship supply. Photo: HD Hyundai Heavy Industries

The Haijing 5901 made its presence known in the South China Sea this summer in testy encounters with the Philippines over islands claimed by both countries. When a Chinese boat rammed a Philippines boat in June, severing the thumb of a Filipino sailor, the cutter headed to the site, then sailed onward in the following days past several Philippine islands.

It then spent most of July and early August at Sabina Shoal, where a group of Chinese vessels had surrounded a single Philippine coast guard boat for months.

The Philippine ship had been tasked with trying to prevent Chinese reclamation activities, in which reefs and islets are built up into more permanent islands. In August, the ship was rammed by a Chinese coast guard vessel. When it returned to port in September, four of its crew were stretchered to shore.

Japan says Chinese coast guard ships make regular patrols near the Senkaku islands, which are administered by Japan but also claimed by China, which calls them the Diaoyu islands. The Haijing 2901, based in the East China Sea, didn’t appear to join the patrols this year, according to the tracking data from Marine Traffic.

A Philippine vessel is hit by water cannons from two Chinese ships near the contested Second Thomas Shoal, in the South China Sea. Photo: Aaron Favila/Associated Press

Japan said this year that it would build an even larger coast-guard vessel, expected to be about 650 feet in length. Unlike China’s, the Japanese ship will be unarmed.

While Japan says it is building the ship to help move people and supplies to respond to natural disasters, China is also likely a factor, analysts said. In the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Japan could need to evacuate residents from Japan’s Yonaguni island, about 70 miles off northern Taiwan.

“We would need to use a large ship to do that,” said Kentaro Furuya, a professor at Japan’s Coast Guard Academy.

Japan previously boasted the world’s largest coast guard patrol ships, 492-foot vessels built to escort shipments of spent nuclear fuel.

Those ships appear to have inspired China after a confrontation in which Japan—with one of its large cutters present—raised a North Korean spy boat that sank in Chinese jurisdictional waters. Chinese law-enforcement ships were unable to budge Japan from the site, wrote Ryan Martinson, an assistant professor at the U.S. Naval War College, in 2015.

After that incident, as the first Zhaotou-class cutter was being built, it was celebrated in China as a ship that would intimidate neighbors.

“Not just small countries but even Japan will be in awe,” a Chinese shipbuilding journal declared.

Chinese coast guard ships sail in formation in the South China Sea. Photo: Wang Yuguo/Xinhua/Zuma Press

Joyu Wang in Taipei contributed to this article.

Write to Austin Ramzy at austin.ramzy@wsj.com

12. 2.3 Million Jobs: The Federal Workforce, in Charts

The DOGE target (s).

​Fascinating charts and data at the link: https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs/2-3-million-jobs-the-federal-workforce-in-charts-6b490ad3?st=bNZ4uc&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

​Please go to the link as these charts will not come through in email. The public link above should work for everyone.

So if 70% of civilian workers are in military related agencies how will that square with improvising our military capabilities? Do we think the civilians are not necessary? If these are all GS employee numbers I wonder about the contractor numbers. Are they going to go after contractors as well? Or will contractors be exempt because they work for businesses? ANd will contractor employees increase to make up for the shortfall in the government service workforce?

2.3 Million Jobs: The Federal Workforce, in Charts

Trump and Musk want to slash government employees; 70% of civilian workers are in military-related agencies

Employment at cabinet-level agencies and military branches, net change from a year earlier

100,000

workers

G.W. BUSH

OBAMA

TRUMP

BIDEN

75,000

50,000

25,000

0

–25,000

–50,000

2001

’05

’10

’15

’20

’24

Note: Graphic shows change in cabinet-level agency and military-branch employment from a year earlier. Based on September level for each year, except 2024, which is as of March.

Source: U.S. Office of Personnel Management

By Lauren Weber

Follow

, Peter Santilli

Follow

 and Inti Pacheco

Follow

Nov. 17, 2024 5:30 am ET

There are 2.3 million Americans working for the federal government in civilian jobs, a tally that has steadily climbed as control of the White House has shifted between parties and presidents. 

They constitute less than 2% of the total U.S. workforce. They work as everything from nurses in Veterans Affairs hospitals and park rangers in Yellowstone to guards in federal prisons and the 19 employees of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. About 80% of them work outside of the Washington, D.C., region.

Many of the jobs could become targets of the proposed Department of Government Efficiency, the entity President-elect Donald Trump has said will trim costs under the direction of billionaire industrialist Elon Musk and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. Musk has told people—possibly in jest—that more than half of the government’s employees should be fired.

Roughly 70% of the civilian roles are in military- or security-related agencies. Veterans Affairs has the most civilian workers, mainly because it operates hundreds of hospitals and clinics. Homeland Security, created in 2002, is now the third largest. The Education Department, with 4,425 workers, is the smallest.

Civilian employment by cabinet-level agency or military branch

Stacked in size order

MARCH 2024

Note: Yearly data as of

September of each year,

except 2024, which

is as of March.

Source: U.S. Office of

Personnel Management

Veterans

Affairs

486,522

employees

Veterans Affairs

Homeland

Security

222,539

Army

Army

221,037

Navy

Navy

216,537

Homeland Security

Air Force

168,505

Air Force

Defense

156,803

Justice

Justice

116,614

Defense

Treasury

108,869

Agriculture

Agriculture

92,072

Treasury

HHS

91,058

Health and Human Services

Energy

Interior

Labor

Transportation

State

Commerce

HUD

Education

2000

2010

2020

2024

This chart shows civilian employees only and excludes active military personnel or reservists of the Army, Navy and Air Force. It also excludes the Postal Service, which has more than 500,000 workers but whose operations are self-funded, and temporary U.S. Census Bureau jobs, which spike each decade.

The amount spent on annual payroll for federal civilian workers was about $213 billion as of March 2024, according to an analysis of data from the Office of Personnel Management. Workers in the Education Department had a median salary of $118,000—the highest. The lowest median salary—below $60,000—was in the Treasury Department, which has many clerical jobs. 

The most common occupations are in the medical field, accounting for about 15% of the total. There are more than 360,000 physicians, nurses and other public-health workers. Another 15% of federal workers are in administrative or clerical roles. Roughly 6% are in engineering roles, and another 5% are accounting.

Median salary

Education

$118,410

116,854

Energy

Transportation

114,035

Housing and Urban Development

111,990

State

109,596

Health and Human Services

103,880

Commerce

103,088

Labor

97,293

Justice

88,050

Homeland Security

88,050

Navy

81,324

Defense

77,545

Army

72,521

Interior

71,593

Air Force

70,860

Veterans Affairs

69,060

Median,

all agencies:

$97,024

Agriculture

65,778

Treasury

59,557

Source: U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Musk and Ramaswamy have a year and a half to complete their work, Trump has said.

The Tesla founder, who slashed 80% of Twitter employees after he bought the social-media platform now known as X, previously said he hopes to cut federal spending by at least $2 trillion. In fiscal 2024, the government spent roughly $6.8 trillion.

Write to Lauren Weber at Lauren.Weber@wsj.com, Peter Santilli at peter.santilli@wsj.com and Inti Pacheco at inti.pacheco@wsj.com

13. Trump Signals a ‘Seismic Shift,’ Shocking the Washington Establishment

​Shock therapy. Hopefully it will be good for us (America). The consensus of the comments I receive from people is that the Wshington estaqblishment needs a shakeup and a seismic shift. That which does not kill me makes me stronger. (Nietzsche) .

One strategy I read speculated that all these early announcements are designed to create controversy. When these names are withdrawn as unconfirmable, the President-elect will be able to more easily get the people he really wants in his cabinet confirmed.

​But I think he is going to be forever known as the Dirsuptor in Chief (DIC or DinC)

Trump Signals a ‘Seismic Shift,’ Shocking the Washington Establishment

The president-elect’s early transition moves amount to a generational test of a system as he seeks to rewrite the balance of power and install lieutenants to blow up key parts of government.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/politics/trump-signals-a-seismic-shift-shocking-the-washington-establishment.html

President-elect Donald J. Trump nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a skeptic of vaccines and fluoride, for secretary of health and human services.Credit...Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York Times

By Peter Baker

Reporting from Washington

Nov. 17, 2024, 5:02 a.m. ET

Somehow disruption doesn’t begin to cover it. Upheaval might be closer. Revolution maybe. In less than two weeks since being elected again, Donald J. Trump has embarked on a new campaign to shatter the institutions of Washington as no incoming president has in his lifetime.

He has rolled a giant grenade into the middle of the nation’s capital and watched with mischievous glee to see who runs away and who throws themselves on it. Suffice it to say, so far there have been more of the former than the latter. Mr. Trump has said that “real power” is the ability to engender fear, and he seems to have achieved that.

Mr. Trump’s early transition moves amount to a generational stress test for the system. If Republicans bow to his demand to recess the Senate so that he can install appointees without confirmation, it would rewrite the balance of power established by the founders more than two centuries ago. And if he gets his way on selections for some of the most important posts in government, he would put in place loyalists intent on blowing up the very departments they would lead.

He has chosen a bomb-throwing backbench congressman who has spent his career attacking fellow Republicans and fending off sex-and-drugs allegations to run the same Justice Department that investigated him, though it did not charge him, on suspicion of trafficking underage girls. He has chosen a conspiracy theorist with no medical training who disparages the foundations of conventional health care to run the Department of Health and Human Services.

Image

Mr. Trump appeared on “Fox & Friends” with Pete Hegseth, a co-host of the show, at the White House in 2017.Credit...Andrew Harnik/Associated Press

He has chosen a weekend morning television host with a history of defending convicted war criminals while sporting a Christian Crusader tattoo that has been adopted as a symbol by the far right to run the most powerful armed forces in the history of the world. He has chosen a former congresswoman who has defended Middle East dictators and echoed positions favored by Russia to oversee the nation’s intelligence agencies.

Nine years after Mr. Trump began upsetting political norms, it may be easy to underestimate just how extraordinary all of this is. In the past, none of those selections would have passed muster in Washington, where a failure to pay employment taxes for a nanny used to be enough to disqualify a cabinet nominee. Mr. Trump, by contrast, has bulled past the old red lines, opting for nominees who are so provocative that even fellow Republicans wondered whether he is trolling them.

The message to Washington is simple, according to Roger Stone, the longtime Trump friend who relishes his own reputation as a political dirty trickster. “Things are going to be different,” he said by text.

To say the least. “There is something in this city, in the imperial capital, that’s changed over the last 48 hours,” Stephen K. Bannon, the self-styled agitator and former Trump White House strategist, said on his podcast last week. “It is a sense that there’s been a seismic shift in the political culture. And, hey, I think they know we’re not going back.”

Mr. Trump, of course, made no secret of his desire to smash the status quo of Washington during his campaign. It was part of his appeal. Many of his supporters agree with his argument that the system is fundamentally broken and needs to be burned down. Business as usual, in this view, has benefited the privileged class at the expense of the broader American public. The government has been thoroughly corrupted and turned against conservatives and their way of life.

Karoline Leavitt, his incoming press secretary, said Mr. Trump had won “a mandate” to change Washington and that his nominations reflect that. “President Trump will continue to appoint highly qualified men and women who have the talent, experience, and necessary skill sets to make America great again,” she said.

At least some in Washington fooled themselves into assuming that Mr. Trump would not go as far as his campaign trail rhetoric. They sighed in relief when he named Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, to be secretary of state instead of Richard Grenell, a combative conservative who argued earlier this year that it was necessary to have “a son of a bitch as the secretary of state.”

But then came the nominations of Matt Gaetz for attorney general, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for secretary of health and human services, Pete Hegseth for defense secretary and Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence. Republicans gasped out loud at news of Mr. Gaetz’s selection. Even the editorial board of Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post called Mr. Kennedy “nuts on a lot of fronts.” And the Trump camp was surprised to learn that Mr. Hegseth paid a woman who accused him of sexual assault as part of a settlement agreement, although he insists it was a consensual encounter.

David Marchick, a co-author of “The Peaceful Transfer of Power,” a history of presidential transitions, and dean of the Kogod School of Business at American University, called the collection of choices unlike any before.

Image

Tulsi Gabbard, Mr. Trump’s choice to oversee the intelligence agencies, has echoed positions favored by Russia.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times

“This is like the ‘Star Wars’ bar scene of nominees,” he said. Mr. Trump’s camp has made clear, he added, that “it’s a serious strategy to blow out the government as an institution because of their belief that it’s become too big, too powerful and represents the deep state.”

Don Baer, a former White House communications director under President Bill Clinton, said Mr. Trump was challenging the foundations of the American system. “This is a huge moment for Washington, in all sorts of ways,” he said.

Mr. Trump, he added, is amplifying the populist resentment that has grown since the days of the financial crash of 2008 rather than trying to ameliorate it. The eruption in Washington is a goal as he tries to tear down the system, not something to tamp down. “What he’s doing now with these appointments is, ‘You all jump up and down and tear your hair out, but you know what? These are the people I’m going to do it with and I like that it aggravates you,’” Mr. Baer said.

Amid all the hair-tearing-out, other consequential moves by Mr. Trump have attracted less attention. In tapping Elon Musk to head a new Department of Government Efficiency along with Vivek Ramaswamy, Mr. Trump has handed vast influence over the federal government to a billionaire who profits from billions of dollars in government contracts.

And while heads turned at Mr. Gaetz’s nomination, Mr. Trump tapped three of his own defense lawyers from his various criminal cases to take other top Justice Department positions, pretty much guaranteeing that he never has to worry about scrutiny from federal prosecutors over the next four years.

It is a mark of how much has changed since Mr. Trump’s first term that appointees who once generated uproars are now slipping by without much protest. He has learned how to move the spectrum of outrage.

When Mr. Trump first tried to appoint John Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican congressman, as director of national intelligence in his previous term, Senate Republicans deemed him too partisan and forced him to withdraw. Mr. Trump responded by making Mr. Grenell the acting intelligence director, which horrified establishment Republicans so much that they eventually confirmed Mr. Ratcliffe after all. Now Mr. Ratcliffe has been chosen for C.I.A. director and is seen as a relatively reassuring pick compared to the others.

Similarly, some in Washington took umbrage when Mr. Trump tried to replace Geoffrey S. Berman as the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, a particularly sensitive position whose jurisdiction includes Mr. Trump’s onetime business base, with Jay Clayton, who was then chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. Clayton was assumed to be more pliant, and his appointment was thwarted. Now Mr. Clayton has been chosen for the same U.S. attorney position with little objection.

Indeed, some Republicans assume that Mr. Trump put forward some of the more contentious nominees to draw attention from the others, making Mr. Gaetz, for instance, a possible sacrificial lamb who can be blocked while the rest slip through. Mr. Gaetz has denied wrongdoing, but he hopes to prevent the release of a House Ethics Committee report into his past.

“Gaetz won’t get confirmed. Everybody knows that,” former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, the Republican from California toppled last year by Mr. Gaetz and other G.O.P. insurgents, said on Bloomberg Television on Friday. He added that “it’s a good deflection from others.”

Others disagreed. “That’s not what’s happening,” Sarah Matthews, a former deputy White House press secretary for Mr. Trump who broke with him, said on MSNBC. “He is drunk on power right now because he feels like he was given a mandate by winning the popular vote.”

In fact, it is not much of a mandate. While Mr. Trump won the popular vote for the first time in three tries, he garnered just 50.1 percent nationally, according to the latest tabulation by The Times, just 1.8 percentage points ahead of Vice President Kamala Harris. When the slow-counting blue giant of California finally finishes tallying its votes, that margin is likely to shrink a bit more. The Cook Report already calculates that his percentage has fallen below 50 percent, meaning he did not win a majority.

Wherever it eventually falls, Mr. Trump’s margin of victory in the national popular vote will be one of the smallest in history. Since 1888, only two other presidents who won both the Electoral College and the popular vote had smaller margins of victory: John F. Kennedy in 1960 and Richard M. Nixon in 1968. (Both Mr. Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in 2000 won the Electoral College, and therefore the presidency, without winning the popular vote.)

Mr. Trump can boast that he increased his margin in the Electoral College, winning 312 votes this year to the 306 he garnered eight years ago. But according to nearly complete totals, he secured his most recent victory by just a cumulative 237,000 votes in three states that, had they gone the other way, would have meant victory for Ms. Harris.

Moreover, Mr. Trump won with modest coattails, unlike, say, Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 or Ronald Reagan in 1980, who each swept dozens of their fellow party members into Congress.

By comparison, Mr. Trump helped Republicans gain four seats in the Senate, enough to take control of the chamber, certainly a major victory. But he failed to bring with him Republican Senate candidates in four of five battleground states where he campaigned the most and won. Moreover, with races still to be called, Republicans held onto the House but did not build on their razor-thin majority.

One of Mr. Trump’s superpowers, however, has been acting as if he were more popular than he really is. Despite his modest margins, he has exhibited more dominance of his own party than any president in modern times. And his Senate recess demand will test just how far that dominance will go.

The recess appointment power in the Constitution was designed to let a president temporarily fill vacancies while Congress was out of town in an era when it took weeks or months to travel to Washington. But Mr. Trump wants to use the power to sidestep the Senate’s constitutional duty to advise and consent to appointments.

14. Xi vows to work with Trump team as he meets Biden in Peru

​We will have to see. Actions speak louder than words.

Xi vows to work with Trump team as he meets Biden in Peru

17 Nov 2024 12:51AM

(Updated: 17 Nov 2024 11:40AM)

channelnewsasia.com

LIMA: Chinese President Xi Jinping on Saturday (Nov 16) vowed to work with the incoming US administration of President-elect Donald Trump as he held his final talks with outgoing President Joe Biden on key conflicts from cyber crime to trade, Taiwan and Russia.

Biden met Xi for about two hours at a hotel where the Chinese leader was staying, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Lima, Peru, for their first talks in seven months.

"China's goal of a stable, healthy and sustainable China-US relationship remains unchanged" following the election, Xi said, acknowledging "ups and downs" between the countries.

"China is ready to work with the new US administration to maintain communication, expand cooperation and manage differences."

Biden told Xi that the two leaders haven't always agreed but their discussions have been "frank" and "candid".

The talks come two months before Trump assumes office. He has vowed to adopt blanket 60 per cent tariffs on US imports of Chinese goods as part of a package of "America First" trade measures.

Beijing opposes those steps.

The Republican president-elect also plans to hire several hawkish voices on China in senior roles, including US Senator Marco Rubio as secretary of state and Representative Mike Waltz as national security adviser.

Biden has aimed to lower tensions with China, but Washington is incensed by a recent China-linked hack of the telephone communications of US government and presidential campaign officials, and it is anxious about increasing pressure by Beijing on Taiwan and Chinese support for Russia.

Taiwan President Lai Ching-te is planning to stop in the US state of Hawaii and maybe Guam on a sensitive visit that is sure to anger Beijing in the coming weeks, Reuters reported on Friday.

Meanwhile, Taiwan's former economy minister Lin Hsin-i met Biden at the summit on Friday and invited him to visit Taiwan in the near future.

China views democratically governed Taiwan as its own territory. The US is Taiwan's most important international backer and arms supplier, despite the lack of formal diplomatic recognition.

Biden also wants China's help with North Korea, whose deepening ties with Russia and deployment of troops in the war with Ukraine has worried Washington.

CHINA'S ECONOMIC HIT

At the same time, Beijing's economy is taking a stiff hit from Biden's steps on trade, including a plan to restrict US investment in Chinese artificial intelligence, quantum computing and semiconductors and export restrictions on high-end computer chips. All of those topics are expected to figure into the talks, US officials said.

China routinely denies US hacking allegations, regards Taiwan as internal matter and has protested American statements on Sino-Russian trade. A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington declined to comment.

"When the two countries treat each other as partner and friend, seek common ground while shelving differences and help each other succeed, our relationship would make considerable progress," Xi said as he met with Biden, according to a simultaneous translation.

"But if we take each other as rivals or adversary, pursue vicious competition, and seek to hurt each other, we would roil the relationship or even set it back."

On Wednesday, Biden national security adviser Jake Sullivan described the transition as "a time when competitors and adversaries can see possibly opportunity." Biden is stressing with Xi the "need to maintain stability, clarity, predictability through this transition between the United States and China."

Shen Dingli, a Shanghai-based international relations scholar, said China wants the meeting to ease tensions during the transition period. "China definitely does not want relations with the United States to be thrown into turmoil before Trump formally takes office," said Shen.

Pacific Rim leaders gathered at the APEC summit are assessing the implications of Trump's return to power as US president on Jan 20. The South American summit offers new signs of the challenges to the United States' power in its own backyard, where China is on a charm offensive.

Xi, who arrived in Lima on Thursday, plans a week-long diplomatic blitz in Latin America that includes a refurbished free-trade agreement with Peru, inaugurating the massive Chancay deep-water port there and being welcomed in Brazil's capital next week for a state visit. China also announced plans to host the APEC summit in 2026.

China is seeking Latin America's metal ores, soybeans, and other commodities, but US officials worry they may also be looking for new US-adjacent military and intelligence outposts. Chinese state-backed media has called those accusations a smear.

A US official said Washington's commitment to the region was strong and that Chinese infrastructure investment overseas has declined in recent years due to domestic challenges and problems with the projects.

But Ryan Berg, director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, said Xi would meet with a good reception in the region.

"Biden's trip will be overshadowed very clearly by all of the things that Xi Jinping will be up to when he visits APEC," he said.

"When Xi meets with Biden part of his audience is not – it's not solely the White House or the US government. It's about American CEOs and continued US investment or trying to renew US investment in China and get rid of the perception that there's a hostile business environment in China."

channelnewsasia.com

​15. Google’s Gmail Decision—Why You Need A New Email Address

​Excerpt:

Bottom line—when this new Gmail email cloaking makes it onto your device—and clearly there’s no confirmation on timing as yet, make sure you use it.

Google’s Gmail Decision—Why You Need A New Email Address

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/11/17/googles-update-decision-this-completely-changes-gmail-on-your-phone/?utm

Zak Doffman

Contributor

Zak Doffman writes about security, surveillance and privacy.7

Nov 17, 2024,03:52am EST

Updated Nov 17, 2024, 04:08am EST

Gmail is about to change foreverNurPhoto via Getty Images

Updated on November 17 with new 2025 AI-driven mobile threat warning.

Google’s ongoing campaign to narrow the security and privacy gap between Android and iPhone, as well as the wider Google and Apple ecosystems has just taken its latest twist. For 2 billion Gmail users, this could completely change how you use email.

Apple’s Hide My Email feature lets users keep their personal email addresses private, away from the information brokers who sell lists of email addresses and phone numbers that drive the global scourge of spam and cold calling.

Now it seems Google has decided to follow suit—a surprise decision no-one saw coming and which was not touted with the other privacy and security updates this year. Per Android Authority, “sure, Gmail is an absolute champ at filtering out spam, but every time you share your email with someone even a little bit shady, do you feel like you’re playing with fire and risking a whole bunch of unwanted contact? Google may just have a solution in the works, at least by the looks of our latest teardown.”

Forbes

Microsoft’s Update Mistake—New Warning For Millions Of Windows PC Owners

By Zak Doffman

“With Hide My Email,” Apple explains, “you can generate unique, random email addresses that forward to your personal email account, so you don’t have to share your real email address when filling out forms or signing up for newsletters on the web, or when sending email.”

MORE FOR YOU

Gmail Alert—Leak Reveals New Email Addresses Coming For 2.5 Billion Users

Dana White Should Never Book Former Champion For Another Fight

Today’s NYT Mini Crossword Clues And Answers For Sunday, November 17th

While this enables users to forward these ghost email addresses to any email address associated with their iCloud account, it really comes into its own when used with Apple’s own Mail and Safari apps. This allows you to send messages directly from those shielded addresses, and also offers the option to easily create a ghost email address whenever you’re asked for an email address within a form on Safari.

Forbes Daily: Join over 1 million Forbes Daily subscribers and get our best stories, exclusive reporting and essential analysis of the day’s news in your inbox every weekday.

Sign Up

By signing up, you agree to receive this newsletter, other updates about Forbes and its affiliates’ offerings, our Terms of Service (including resolving disputes on an individual basis via arbitration), and you acknowledge our Privacy Statement. Forbes is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Tearing down the new 24.45.33 APK release of Google Play Services, “and upon cracking it open,” the website explains it has found “a whole boatload of strings referencing and in support of something called ‘Shielded Email’.”

00:00

03:36

Read More

This system “to create single-use or limited-use email aliases that will forward messages along to your primary account.” And while “we could imagine that something like this might be pretty useful in Chrome,” which would mirror Apple’s approach, this current reveal is focused instead on “specifically addressing apps that ask for your email address,” which is why it’s been found in a Play update.

Again, just as with Apple and iPhone, while this likely won’t be restricted to Gmail, Google will only have full control over its functionality and the use of such shielded emails where it controls the email platform itself, which does mean Gmail.

Forbes

New Google Play Store Warning—Do Not Leave These Apps On Your Phone

By Zak Doffman

This is a laudable move on Google’s part, and if it catches on as Apple’s Hide My Email has done, then it is a huge improvement for Android users, most of which will have one or more Gmail addresses associated with their accounts.

As noted by 9to5Google, “the experience looks to be integrated with Android’s autofill and presumably the Google Password Manager… It remains to be seen whether Google will charge for Shielded Email. Besides encouraging people to sign-up for Google One, making it paid could be a way to make sure functionality isn’t abused.”

Coming on the back of live threat detection and spam call warnings, it’s clear that the security and privacy gap is now narrowing. The only question for Android users remains how fast these updates rollout, and which device OEMs will get them. But given what we’ve seen already this week, it’s likely this new update will come to Pixels first, another concern for Samsung users currently in the queue for new features.

For now, unlike Apple’s alternative this leaked update appears mobile only—this is for Android users and there’s no news as yet as to whether this will make its way into desktop Gmail and other Google services accessed via Chrome. But once this is available, it would make sense to mimic the application of Apple’s Hide My Email across the full Google/Gmail ecosystem, not just apps.

There are also third-party apps that do the same, whether that’s one-time cloaked email addresses or a universal email address for use on websites and other services where you fear scam or you’re details making their way onto nefarious lists

The fact this is mobile only is unsurprising—your mobile device is fast becoming the largest threat to your data security and privacy, which extends to your work if you bring your device into the office or connect to company systems as most of us now do.

Forbes

Samsung’s Android 15 Delay—2 New Questions For Galaxy S24 And S23 Owners

By Zak Doffman

Zimperium’s Nico Chiaraviglio has just warned of “a strategic evolution in mobile security – evasive cyberattacks are now the new normal, as cybercriminals are becoming more sophisticated in their mobile phishing attacks.” This is clear in the weekly reports of new mobile malware campaigns. Almost all such attacks begin within phishing lures, which come via social media messaging apps or email.

Chiaraviglio now predicts that by next year ‘mishing,’ or mobile phishing, attacks “will become so sophisticated and evasive that modern tooling won’t be able to detect it. We will see the rise of AI-driven mobile malware capable of mimicking user behavior, making it far harder to detect using traditional methods.” Not only is the mobile phone central to this treat, but Android is more vulnerable than iPhone, making defenses on Google’s platform more critical.

Bottom line—when this new Gmail email cloaking makes it onto your device—and clearly there’s no confirmation on timing as yet, make sure you use it.

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. 

Zak Doffman

Follow

Zak Doffman has covered security, surveillance and privacy on Forbes since 2018, focusing on the latest updates from the... Read More

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