Quotes of the Day:
"Good ideas are not adopted automatically. They must be driven into practice with courageous patience."
- Hyman Rickover
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something."
- Plato
"There is no such thing as a little freedom. Either you are all free, or you are not free."
- Walter Cronkite
1. Opinion | It’s Getting Dire in Afghanistan. Biden Can’t Walk Away.
2. FAST THINKING: China’s stunning military buildup
3. Xi Is Running Out of Time
4. The U.S. Navy Needs Its Own Bonds to Be Ready for China
5. Tech Advantage Critical to Prevail in Strategic Competition With China, DOD Official Says
6. White House Appoints 2021-2022 Class of White House Fellows
7. Official Says DOD Is Focused on Threats From State Actors, Terrorists
8. State Dept. names new team to oversee ‘Havana Syndrome’ response
9. ANDREW YANG: News outlets like CNN and Fox News are only making America's problems worse.
10. Plan to Draft Women is Uniting Unlikely Political Allies
11. FDD | China Consolidates Rare Earth Supply Chain
12. The Taliban’s Man in Washington
13. Opinion | President Biden, don’t help our adversaries break NATO
14. FDD | Turkish Streamers Colluded With Iran-Based Money Launderers: Amazon Subsidiary Twitch Should Take Action
15. American Defense Policy After Twenty Years of War by Jim Webb
16. FBI believes U.S. faces equal threats from domestic extremists and Islamic State -official
17. New Tech Will Erode Nuclear Deterrence. The US Must Adapt
18. Taiwan establishes task force against China’s election-meddling deepfakes
19. 'Absolute totalitarianism': China's Xi aims to cement authority and moral legitimacy
20. Joint Chiefs’ Information Officer: US is Behind On Information Warfare. AI Can Help
1. Opinion | It’s Getting Dire in Afghanistan. Biden Can’t Walk Away.
Excerpts:
For the U.S., there is a narrowing window to secure not only its interests but the welfare of the Afghan people. The Taliban are in power, but they know they need international support to hang onto it. Afghanistan’s neighbors have swept into the vacuum created by the West’s withdrawal but have rival concerns and lack the resources to lift the country out of its deepening crises. Daunted by the scale of the challenges, there’s a sense of buyer’s remorse settling in among the Chinese, Iranians, Russians and Pakistanis — creating openings for greater U.S. involvement. There is a need for a robust multilateral approach on common concerns, including counterterrorism, the humanitarian situation and human rights.
Right now, there is a ruinous standoff. The Taliban have only partially let girls return to school, in about a third of Afghanistan’s provinces, and women face restrictions on work in the public sector. In response, the U.S. and its allies have withdrawn the crucial assistance that funded those schools and paid those teachers’ salaries. But if the humanitarian situation worsens, it won’t be the Taliban who pay the price. It will be the Afghan people who have suffered so much, for so long. The Taliban can simply turn the human catastrophe to their advantage, cite it as proof of the West’s cold indifference and stoke anti-U.S. sentiment, as happens in Iran.
There is no alternative but to engage with the Taliban, but engagement is not the same as recognition. The U.S. and its partners still have a chance to rediscover their relevance and offer incentives with clear benchmarks to the Taliban — a path that ultimately could offer international recognition once firm guarantees on counterterrorism, women’s rights, freedom of expression, and a broad-based, inclusive government are established. The key is to find a balance, where assistance to the Afghan nation continues without the Taliban being able to declare outright legitimacy through this assistance. It starts by making sure no Afghans feel forced to sell their children to feed themselves this winter.
Opinion | It’s Getting Dire in Afghanistan. Biden Can’t Walk Away.
Magazine
Opinion | It’s Getting Dire in Afghanistan. Biden Can’t Walk Away.
The United States doesn’t have to recognize the Taliban to help avert humanitarian disaster.
Men wait in a line to receive cash at a money distribution organized by the World Food Program in Kabul, Afghanistan, in November 2021. | AP Photo/Bram Janssen
Opinion by SAAD MOHSENI
11/05/2021 04:14 PM EDT
Saad Mohseni is chairman and CEO of Moby Group, an emerging-markets media company in the Middle East, Africa and South and Central Asia that has built Afghanistan’s most widely watched media outlets.
In Afghanistan, young babies are now starving to death. Those parents who fear this fate are selling off their children to survive themselves. More than half of Afghanistan’s 39 million people do not have enough to eat and are “marching to starvation,” in the haunting words of the World Food Program. By next year, the United Nations warns, 95 percent of the country could be plunged into poverty.
Two months after the Taliban’s takeover, Afghanistan is reeling from the quadruple crises of conflict, coronavirus, climate change and economic collapse. Together, they have created a humanitarian situation that threatens to become more dire by the day — all of which happened under the watch of the international community. Meanwhile, international terrorist groups, like al Qaeda and the Islamic State, are reconstituting and could pose a threat to Western targets within the next year, according to counterterrorism officials. And yet, the Biden administration still has no real Afghanistan policy.
Washington has been principally focused on the evacuations of U.S. citizens and green card holders, as well as resettling Afghan allies who fled. It has paid little attention to the fate of the millions who were left behind after the withdrawal of international forces in August. Diplomatic engagement has been downgraded, with more junior officials appointed as the State Department’s special representative to Afghanistan and to head up the “Afghan affairs unit” in Doha, Qatar. The U.S. also stayed away from a recent meeting in Moscow, effectively ceding its space to the other members of the “troika plus” group on Afghanistan: Russia, China and Pakistan.
President Joe Biden may wish to forget about Afghanistan, but there’s never been a more urgent need for the U.S. to stay involved. A military withdrawal should not mean diplomatic disengagement, no matter how politically embarrassing the episode was for the White House. The crises that are consuming Afghanistan threaten to exacerbate the very problems Washington intervened to deal with in the first place. Biden does not have to formally recognize the Taliban, but neither can he wish away their control of the country. Working closely with international partners, the U.S. should ensure aid gets to those who need it most — even if that means dealing with the people they battled for 20 years.
Afghanistan’s problems never stay within its landlocked borders. The desperate economic and humanitarian situation could reignite conflict within the country, potentially destabilizing the wider region while creating space for international terrorist groups to plan new campaigns. Colin Kahl, the U.S. undersecretary of Defense, warned this week that the Islamic State in Khorasan Province and al Qaeda could be able to launch attacks on the West in anywhere from six months to two years.
Europe’s leaders could soon find themselves contending with a fresh refugee crisis and the flow of narcotics from the world’s largest source of heroin. Already, large numbers of Afghans are attempting to cross any border that is open to them, driven there by fear and hunger. They may be forced to make the journey northward, along the same route used by drug smugglers, passing through Iran and Turkey. On a continent where even centrist leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron have grown hostile to new refugees, the arrival of hundreds of thousands of Afghans on their shores could dramatically alter the political landscape.
There are clear opportunities to stave off these forbidding outcomes and create a viable future for the Afghan people with modest international assistance. There is a temptation to view Afghanistan only through the prism of the war of the past two decades and the Taliban’s triumph that brought it to an end. But this perspective overlooks the tremendous gains that were built and are now under threat. There has been a generational transformation that has seen basic literacy levels rise from below 20 percent two decades ago to now, when as many as two-thirds of Afghans under 25 can read or write. Infant mortality plunged, the media flourished, women became central to public life, infrastructure and public services reached the most remote parts of the country.
Tens of thousands of talented Afghans have left their country over recent weeks, but there are millions more who have no choice but to remain there. These include the brave young women who continue to protest on the streets for their rights, the journalists who defy restrictions to report on them, the educated women who want to return to work, and the young girls who are anxious to return to the classroom and follow their path. They all deserve a future, too.
For the U.S., there is a narrowing window to secure not only its interests but the welfare of the Afghan people. The Taliban are in power, but they know they need international support to hang onto it. Afghanistan’s neighbors have swept into the vacuum created by the West’s withdrawal but have rival concerns and lack the resources to lift the country out of its deepening crises. Daunted by the scale of the challenges, there’s a sense of buyer’s remorse settling in among the Chinese, Iranians, Russians and Pakistanis — creating openings for greater U.S. involvement. There is a need for a robust multilateral approach on common concerns, including counterterrorism, the humanitarian situation and human rights.
Right now, there is a ruinous standoff. The Taliban have only partially let girls return to school, in about a third of Afghanistan’s provinces, and women face restrictions on work in the public sector. In response, the U.S. and its allies have withdrawn the crucial assistance that funded those schools and paid those teachers’ salaries. But if the humanitarian situation worsens, it won’t be the Taliban who pay the price. It will be the Afghan people who have suffered so much, for so long. The Taliban can simply turn the human catastrophe to their advantage, cite it as proof of the West’s cold indifference and stoke anti-U.S. sentiment, as happens in Iran.
There is no alternative but to engage with the Taliban, but engagement is not the same as recognition. The U.S. and its partners still have a chance to rediscover their relevance and offer incentives with clear benchmarks to the Taliban — a path that ultimately could offer international recognition once firm guarantees on counterterrorism, women’s rights, freedom of expression, and a broad-based, inclusive government are established. The key is to find a balance, where assistance to the Afghan nation continues without the Taliban being able to declare outright legitimacy through this assistance. It starts by making sure no Afghans feel forced to sell their children to feed themselves this winter.
2. FAST THINKING: China’s stunning military buildup
FAST THINKING: China’s stunning military buildup
By Atlantic Council atlanticcouncil.org3 min
The arms race is on. The US Defense Department’s annual report on the Chinese military, released Wednesday, revealed a chilling reality: The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) could field one thousand nuclear warheads by 2030—and has the ability to deliver them. So what should the United States do to prepare for this fresh challenge from its chief geopolitical rival? Our experts weigh in.
-
Barry Pavel (@BarryPavel): Director of the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and former US Defense Department and National Security Council official
-
Matthew Kroenig (@MatthewKroenig): Deputy director of the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and former US Defense Department and intelligence official
Growing fast
- According to Matt, the report suggests that China is quickly moving to match US nuclear capabilities: “China will quintuple its nuclear arsenal at a faster pace than the Defense Department had estimated in last year’s China report—or even in statements earlier this year.”
- And it’s not just about nuclear arms. The report states the Pentagon’s concerns about China’s “dual-use” research, which could violate international bans on biological and chemical weapons, and its swift gains in military space capabilities.
-
Barry says the PLA has also shocked US defense officials with other advancements “such as the recently tested fractional orbital bombardment systems [aka hypersonic weapons] that already outpace equivalent US capabilities still under development.” He also reminds us that China already boasts the world’s largest navy.
Subscribe to Fast Thinking email alerts
Sign up to receive rapid insight in your inbox from Atlantic Council experts on global events as they unfold.
Image: Chinese People's Liberation Army celebrates the twentieth anniversary of their entrance into Macau in south China's Macao Special Administrative Region, on December 6, 2019. Photo by Zhang Jinjia/Oriental Image via Reuters Connect.
Getting real
- Anyone who thinks the Pentagon might be over-hyping the Chinese threat—or stoking a potentially dangerous arms race—doesn’t appreciate “the decades-long duration, scale, scope, and breadth” with which Beijing has been building and modernizing its military, Barry tells us.
- Reflecting on the daily intelligence briefings he used to receive during his decade-long stint in senior national-security positions starting in 1999, Barry noted, “Not a single day went by that that briefing book didn’t include specific reports on significant new advances in the PLA’s military capabilities.”
- Combined with China’s economic gains, that means the United States faces “a new and daunting circumstance,” he adds: “If such trends continue, then the ability of the US military to sustain deterrence in the Indo-Pacific will be significantly weakened.”
- What does that mean in practice? “This is all about China increasing its capabilities and therefore leverage to forcibly take Taiwan,” Barry says.
Going forward
-
The first step in pushing back against China, Matt argues, is boosting (and modernizing) Washington’s own nuclear arsenal and “maintaining a quantitative and qualitative advantage” over Beijing. In this new report for the Scowcroft Center’s Forward Defense initiative, he outlines a detailed strategy to deter a potential Chinese strategic assault on the United States or its allies.
- Matt proposes a congressional commission to study what sort of nuclear force the United States should maintain after its New START nuclear arms-reduction treaty with Russia expires in 2026—since the current limit of 1,550 warheads “seems untenable,” he says, if China continues its buildup.
- Yet given the danger, he adds, talking is important, too: “It is also increasingly urgent that the United States pursues strategic-stability dialogues with China to better understand the purpose of these new nuclear weapons and to open the door to possible arms-control arrangements.”
Further reading
Tue, Nov 2, 2021
To counter the increasing threat from China’s assertive foreign policy and growing nuclear capabilities, Matthew Kroenig outlines a strategy for Washington and allies to reliably deter Chinese strategic attack.
Mon, Oct 18, 2021
Fast Thinking By Atlantic Council
Should US defense officials be worried about the pace of Chinese military modernization? What could China do with such weapons? Our experts fire off their thoughts.
Sun, Oct 17, 2021
The United States and China represent the most significant bilateral relationship in human history—and neither side is managing their rising tensions with adequate skill or durable strategy.
3. Xi Is Running Out of Time
Perhaps we should be careful what we wish for. I wonder how much this could impact the US and global economy.
Excerpt:
These economic disruptions are fueling a general wariness about China’s outlook. Bond traders are now factoring in the rising default risks posed by China’s property firms and debating whether to shun other sectors of the economy. Financial analysts are self-censoring their research for fear of offending officials by telling a truthful but pessimistic story; this has led to mistrust and uncertainty in markets. Chinese households are spending more cautiously owing to the uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic but also because they fear that their net worth might plummet if property prices fall. In October, travel and tourism spending during the National Day holiday was below that of dismal 2020—that is, lower than during the pre-vaccine phase of the pandemic. For the first time since the global financial crisis of 2008, central bankers and other officials outside China are raising concerns about Beijing’s ability to handle its financial situation and potential spillover effects. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken went so far as to publicly express hopes that China would handle the situation “responsibly.” The CCP’s hard-won credibility on economic policy is being eroded under this drumbeat of negative economic news.
Xi Is Running Out of Time
China’s Economy Heads for a Hard Landing
November 5, 2021
How worried should observers be about China’s economy? As recently as midsummer, that seemed like an academic question geared to the long term. In recent months, observers who were already concerned were further dismayed whenever Beijing moved to reel in companies considered to be in the vanguard of the “sunrise industries” that China celebrated as the answer to future competitiveness, growth, and jobs. In response to fresh doubts about the wisdom of these policy campaigns, China’s private-sector entrepreneurs competed to demonstrate fealty to their leaders rather than complain, and many foreign investors waved away worries with the message that Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leaders knew what they were doing and should be trusted.
Writing in Foreign Affairs this past summer, I noted that Chinese President Xi Jinping seemed to believe that he has “another decade to tinker with the country’s economic model.” In reality, I pointed out, “there are at most a few years to act before growth runs out. If China’s leaders wait until the last minute, it will be too late.” Events in the past months demonstrate how the clock is running down. Property developers large and small ran out of liquidity to pay their bills, revealing the systemic risks of turning a blind eye to undisciplined property investments and causing a spillover of anxiety into bond markets at home and abroad, where investors had lent money to these firms and to indebted companies in other industries. Perceptions of the Chinese economy’s immunity to the dangers of stepping off the market reform path have changed, and concerns have grown that the CCP has missed the window for avoiding a hard landing.
SUMMERTIME BLUES
Things started to unravel in July, when Beijing launched a crackdown on an array of tech companies. Earlier in the year, China’s Academy of Cyberspace Studies trumpeted “new driving forces through informatization to promote new development”—an argument that state support would allow growth to continue in high-tech sectors. These were the dynamic parts of the economy most attractive to financial investors foreign and domestic. Suddenly, however, they have fallen out of favor. New technologies had succeeded at creating comparative advantages for entrepreneurs, resulting in profits and market power. But that led to two problems. First, the market power of tech companies created fortunes for some but contributed to growing income and wealth gaps. Deng Xiaoping, the CCP leader who inaugurated China’s “reform and opening” in the late 1970s, had warned that “some people would need to get rich first.” But the magnitude of the gaps has begun to pose a threat to social stability.
Second, and arguably more compelling, the growing influence of these private firms was having the effect of reducing the power of the state and the CCP. Arguing that “common prosperity” demanded more government regulation and that national security required that Beijing assert control of these new business giants, authorities stepped in to change the rules, declaring that going forward, for-profit education would be out-of-bounds, initial public offerings overseas would require political approval, and foreign investment in many niches would be restricted. Whether justified or not, the manner in which the CCP changed the regulatory landscape for e-commerce, ridesharing, gaming, and many other sectors lopped an estimated $1.5 trillion to $3.0 trillion off the combined stock valuations of firms.
China's local governments are at risk of defaulting.
In August, an even more crucial pillar of the Chinese economy started to crack. Beijing had waited too long to address a nationwide bubble in property values and construction volumes. China’s largest property developer, Evergrande, faced ratings downgrades as it struggled to pay debt obligations. In addition to disappointing creditors, the firm was unable to repay money borrowed from its own employees, pay vendors, or finish building apartments it had presold to customers. This led to protests and social tensions that have spilled over to other highly leveraged firms, and property buyers have noticed: September saw the worst national property sales figures of any month since at least 2014, and possibly ever. A resulting drop in land sales across the country is depriving local governments of a major source of revenue, and so they, too, are at risk of defaulting directly or through the quasi-governmental businesses they control, with potential consequences for hundreds of smaller city commercial banks that lend to these companies.
Then, in September, an energy supply crisis began. One reason was that China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) requires utility companies to offer customers fixed prices even though they face variable prices for the coal they need to produce electricity. (Beijing just announced emergency flexibility on these rules.) Disregard for this simple market reality caused many utilities to stop producing rather than suffer escalating losses and join the list of Chinese businesses going bankrupt. Other energy policy missteps followed. In September, the NDRC issued guidance to provincial officials, instructing them that their personnel evaluations would depend heavily on how they met formal energy consumption targets. Under pressure and lacking immediate options to improve energy efficiency, many of these officials ordered businesses to shut down to reduce the demand for power. Energy shortages cut industrial production, even in the thriving export industries that are the main bright spot in the Chinese economy today, including manufacturers of smartphones and automobiles. Throughout September, even residents in the wealthiest places in China such as Beijing experienced rolling blackouts. Estimates for economic growth in 2021 and 2022 have been slashed accordingly.
Financial analysts are self-censoring their research out of fear.
These economic disruptions are fueling a general wariness about China’s outlook. Bond traders are now factoring in the rising default risks posed by China’s property firms and debating whether to shun other sectors of the economy. Financial analysts are self-censoring their research for fear of offending officials by telling a truthful but pessimistic story; this has led to mistrust and uncertainty in markets. Chinese households are spending more cautiously owing to the uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic but also because they fear that their net worth might plummet if property prices fall. In October, travel and tourism spending during the National Day holiday was below that of dismal 2020—that is, lower than during the pre-vaccine phase of the pandemic. For the first time since the global financial crisis of 2008, central bankers and other officials outside China are raising concerns about Beijing’s ability to handle its financial situation and potential spillover effects. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken went so far as to publicly express hopes that China would handle the situation “responsibly.” The CCP’s hard-won credibility on economic policy is being eroded under this drumbeat of negative economic news.
A QUESTION OF CREDIBILITY
Observers have worried about China’s economy for a long time but have fretted over things that might happen far into the future. Generally, optimistic views about Beijing’s ability to maintain growth have prevailed over short-term concerns. That faith should have bought China enough time to do the hard work of reform: to shore up the efficiency of capital allocation, ensure robust competition, depoliticize corporate governance, and otherwise confirm the economy’s gradual shift to full marketization. Instead, these efforts at reform stalled and reversed after the potential consequences became apparent to leaders. After numerous failed efforts at reform, there is a limit to how long investors and other governments can maintain their faith in China’s directions.
A severe economic slowdown has therefore become a near-term worry, not a distant one. And the most recent responses to mounting threats are not turning a new page: the CCP’s moves in the past few months consisted of political campaigns rather than acknowledgments of the financial and technical reform the country needs to restore economic efficiency. Structural problems make clear what a mistake it is to delay market reforms. The promise of “nonmarket” solutions is ringing hollow, again.
4. The U.S. Navy Needs Its Own Bonds to Be Ready for China
If this doesn't work I guess we will have sailors on street corners with tin cups. (apologies for my sarcasm).
But the serious question is are we properly and sufficiently investing in our Navy to meet US national security interests? And if not how do we ensure we do so?
Excerpts:
If competitively structured naval bonds (with slightly higher returns than standard treasury securities) land in the market with a thud, then it should be a wake-up call to U.S. policymakers regarding industry’s stomach for armed competition or conflict with China. After two decades of economic entanglement, American companies have come to rely on the CCP to provide both low-cost supply chain and access to the largest consumer market in the world.
Similarly, a lack of buyers for naval bonds could indicate that the market has already priced in the erosion of the rules-based international order at sea, which would make investing in a strong U.S. Navy superfluous. In any case, a lack of interest in naval bonds should trigger a significant review and revision of America’s strategic end state with respect to China and the federal government’s relationship with industry. In full-spectrum competition, the United States cannot hope to prevail against an adversary that blurs the line between military and civil sectors as a matter of national strategy without the robust support of the whole of American society.
The naval historian Thayer Mahan argued that the Navy exists largely to safeguard the free flow of U.S. commerce upon the seas. If that commerce has decided that it makes better economic sense to pay tribute to the CCP, it is far better to know now, before spending hundreds of billions of dollars of American treasure to recapitalize the Navy, much less the expenditure of American blood in defense of the rules-based international order at sea.
The U.S. Navy Needs Its Own Bonds to Be Ready for China
A budget shortfall can be solved by a well-established financial route.
By Josh Taylor, a captain in the U.S. Navy and chief of the South Asia Division at U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.
As a period of heightened risk of conflict with China begins, the U.S. Navy faces a People’s Liberation Army Navy whose fleet has more than tripled in size since 2000, with 400 battle force ships projected by 2025. To challenge the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) erosion of the rules-based international order at sea, the 297-ship U.S. Navy must necessarily recapitalize and expand to confront the maritime coercion of its allies and partners and to deter high-end warfare at sea.
The Navy needs many things to meet this challenge—but chief among them is money. Naval bonds offer one of the few proven, practical, and politically feasible ways to make this happen in the short term. As a public-private partnership, they would allow industry and America’s wealthiest people to make a moderate return on financial investment in exchange for supporting the Navy that has underwritten the free flow of global commerce since the end of World War II and enabled their profitability.
The closest model of the peacetime recapitalization necessary for the Navy to compete with China is the 600-ship Navy initiative of the 1980s under then-President Ronald Reagan. Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the debacle of the Iran hostage crisis, Washington awakened to the need to rebuild the so-called hollow force that followed the Vietnam War in order to confront the looming threat of Soviet expansionism. Over Reagan’s two terms, the Department of Defense’s budget averaged 6.3 percent of GDP. In comparison, the department’s budget during the post-9/11 wars averaged 4.1 percent of GDP from 2001 to 2016 and actually decreased as a proportion of GDP during the supposed rebuilding of the military under former President Donald Trump—with most of it focused on the land combat in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other conflicts.
As a period of heightened risk of conflict with China begins, the U.S. Navy faces a People’s Liberation Army Navy whose fleet has more than tripled in size since 2000, with 400 battle force ships projected by 2025. To challenge the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) erosion of the rules-based international order at sea, the 297-ship U.S. Navy must necessarily recapitalize and expand to confront the maritime coercion of its allies and partners and to deter high-end warfare at sea.
The Navy needs many things to meet this challenge—but chief among them is money. Naval bonds offer one of the few proven, practical, and politically feasible ways to make this happen in the short term. As a public-private partnership, they would allow industry and America’s wealthiest people to make a moderate return on financial investment in exchange for supporting the Navy that has underwritten the free flow of global commerce since the end of World War II and enabled their profitability.
The closest model of the peacetime recapitalization necessary for the Navy to compete with China is the 600-ship Navy initiative of the 1980s under then-President Ronald Reagan. Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the debacle of the Iran hostage crisis, Washington awakened to the need to rebuild the so-called hollow force that followed the Vietnam War in order to confront the looming threat of Soviet expansionism. Over Reagan’s two terms, the Department of Defense’s budget averaged 6.3 percent of GDP. In comparison, the department’s budget during the post-9/11 wars averaged 4.1 percent of GDP from 2001 to 2016 and actually decreased as a proportion of GDP during the supposed rebuilding of the military under former President Donald Trump—with most of it focused on the land combat in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other conflicts.
In contrast, the presidential budget request for defense for fiscal year 2022 was approximately half of what it was during the Reagan administration when measured as a percent of GDP, equating to a deficit of nearly $600 billion using fiscal 2020 GDP and dollars. Given the scale of the shortfall, it is clear that the money will not be coming through the traditional budget, authorization, and appropriations process. However, there is another way.
During the world wars, Congress authorized the sale of defense debt securities, variously known as Liberty and Victory bonds, to defray the costs of rapid military mobilization, modernization, and expansion. Offering a comparable rate of return to traditional bonds, the government marketed these bonds not only as investment opportunities but also as an opportunity for individuals and organizations to demonstrate their patriotism. Series E bonds, introduced on May 1, 1941, were sold at 75 percent of face value and had a 2.9 percent interest rate, compounded semiannually and initially matured at 10 years, though higher denominations were extended to 30 to 40 years. American defense bond programs were a resounding success. During the United States’ involvement in World War I from 1917 to 1918, Liberty Bonds yielded approximately $300 billion (in fiscal 2021 dollars). Then, during World War II in the early 1940s, 85 million Americans purchased Victory Bonds (E Bonds), raising $2.7 trillion in today’s dollars.
It is important to note that recognizing the clear and present danger of the Axis powers and the extended timeline necessary for a significant military buildup, Congress authorized defense bonds before the United States’ official entry into World War II. Granted, conflict with China now is far less certain—and the U.S. public is far less engaged—than during World War II, but well-designed and well-marketed naval bonds should be able to capture at least a fraction of the capital investment that earlier defense bonds did, giving Congress a powerful new revenue stream with which to fund naval recapitalization. Given current realities of America’s strategic competition and the looming possibility of a CCP invasion of Taiwan by 2027, it’s time for members of Congress to make the same preparations their predecessors did.
While naval bonds would be open to individual small investors, pension funds, and wealthy allied and partner nations such as Saudi Arabia and Japan, the target demographic would be extremely wealthy individuals and Fortune 500 companies, such as Walmart and Lockheed Martin, whose business models and profitability depend on the free, open, and unimpeded flow of maritime commerce.
Significantly, until the adoption of the income tax in 1914, American commercial interests bore primary responsibility for funding the Navy through the payment of customs duties that constituted the bulk of federal revenues. Thus, issuing naval bonds should appeal to the conservative preference for originalism while appealing to progressive sensibilities by having big business and the rich pay more of their fair share. Additionally, by authorizing the issuance of naval bonds, progressive politicians could finally fulfill the bumper sticker slogan of holding a “bake sale to buy a bomber.”
Naval bonds, specifically earmarked for naval recapitalization, could also be a way around perennial debt ceiling brinkmanship. Such differentiated bonds are in common use by federal agencies, and Congress regularly authorized them until World War I. Additionally, states and local governments commonly issue municipal bonds to finance capital improvement projects that offer investors the opportunity to invest in specific projects based on their own interests, with the revenues often exempt from state and federal taxes. As of last year, there was an estimated $3.9 trillion in outstanding debt on municipal bonds. Naval bonds should allow conservative politicians to assent to the financing of additional public debt in a politically acceptable manner.
If Congress can find a way past the partisan gridlock paralyzing Washington to issue naval bonds, the political return on investment would be significant for both sides of the aisle. The top priority should be fully funding the long-overdue overhaul and upgrade of the Navy’s four public shipyards in Hawaii, Washington, Virginia, and Maine. However, the shipyard capacity necessary to support the scope and scale of naval recapitalization necessary would quickly exceed the capacity of the Navy’s seven prime contractor construction shipyards and would no doubt induce some of the nation’s other 447 private shipyards to compete for Navy prime, sub, and supplier contracts. This represents a potential economic and employment windfall to 41 states.
The resulting modernized capacity should not only prevent costly production breaks in naval construction but could also create a virtuous cycle of increased competitiveness for the entire industry. Once rejuvenated, attention should then focus on the recapitalization of the U.S. Merchant Marine, an irreplaceable strategic capability currently kept on life support by the Jones Act and other protectionist measures.
Additionally, large corporations, very wealthy people, and politicians know far better than the average taxpayer that the contemporary American way of life is largely dependent on the freedom of the seas, namely the cheap goods that float upon them. With real wages for the average American worker barely keeping up with inflation since the 1970s, a significant enabler of the American middle class’s ability to maintain its standard of living has been access to cheap, foreign-manufactured finished goods, transported to the United States by sea for retail via the local big-box store or Amazon fulfillment center.
As the current container shortage highlights, increased shipping costs are quickly passed on to the consumer, significantly eroding their purchasing power. If the CCP were to impede the free flow of commerce through the South China and/or East China seas, the American public would be subject to similar disruptions of product availability and unpredictable shortage-induced price spikes. Should voters start to experience these hardships, then the public would start asking hard questions and demanding solutions from industry and politicians.
If competitively structured naval bonds (with slightly higher returns than standard treasury securities) land in the market with a thud, then it should be a wake-up call to U.S. policymakers regarding industry’s stomach for armed competition or conflict with China. After two decades of economic entanglement, American companies have come to rely on the CCP to provide both low-cost supply chain and access to the largest consumer market in the world.
Similarly, a lack of buyers for naval bonds could indicate that the market has already priced in the erosion of the rules-based international order at sea, which would make investing in a strong U.S. Navy superfluous. In any case, a lack of interest in naval bonds should trigger a significant review and revision of America’s strategic end state with respect to China and the federal government’s relationship with industry. In full-spectrum competition, the United States cannot hope to prevail against an adversary that blurs the line between military and civil sectors as a matter of national strategy without the robust support of the whole of American society.
The naval historian Thayer Mahan argued that the Navy exists largely to safeguard the free flow of U.S. commerce upon the seas. If that commerce has decided that it makes better economic sense to pay tribute to the CCP, it is far better to know now, before spending hundreds of billions of dollars of American treasure to recapitalize the Navy, much less the expenditure of American blood in defense of the rules-based international order at sea.
5. Tech Advantage Critical to Prevail in Strategic Competition With China, DOD Official Says
We have to invest in people to have the best tech.
Excerpts:
Investing in technology is something China has been doing, he said, and that's where well-paying jobs are. "That's why [China is] focused on creating the standards for industries for the next 10 or 20 years with what they call 'China's standards 2035,'" he said, noting that China wants to displace the United States, Canada, and all Western countries and companies with its own capabilities.
"We don't want to live in that world," Brown said.
It's important for the United States to not sit back and become complacent and think it has a corner on technology or innovation, he said.
"If we don't invest, if we don't have the right talent, if we're not focused on the fact that this is a tech race, we're not going to be happy with the outcome," Brown said.
Tech Advantage Critical to Prevail in Strategic Competition With China, DOD Official Says
Technological capability on an ongoing basis is critical to the United States maintaining its edge against other nations, such as China, Michael Brown, director of the Defense Innovation Unit, said yesterday.
Flight Ops
A Marine from Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, flies the Black Hornet, a small unmanned aerial system during the Marine Air-Ground Task Force Integrated Experiment (MIX-16), at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, Calif., July 29, 2016. The Marines use the Black Hornet to scout ahead, while on patrol. This gives them an advantage over the enemy by increasing their knowledge of where and what equipment the enemy has.
SHARE IMAGE:
Photo By: Marine Corps Cpl. Thor J. Larson
VIRIN: 160729-M-MS007-249
At the 2021 Aspen Security Forum in Washington, D.C., Brown discussed preserving the United States' technological edge and quickly getting new technology into the hands of U.S. warfighters.
"We need technological advantage to prevail in this strategic competition with China," the DIU director said. "For the military, that means that we've got to modernize faster. We [have] got to use more commercial technology."
Brown added that requirements in acquisition and budgeting must again work for the Pentagon. "I've been leading DIU for three years now, and what I see is [that] we're not going fast enough. We're not transforming at the scale that we need to make changes to address the threat with China."
Robot Prep
Marine Corps Sgt. Marcus Mckeller prepares his robot before competing in a robot fighting competition on Camp Hansen, Japan, Dec. 11, 2019. Mckeller, a native of Wilmington, N.C., is an ammunition chief with Expeditionary Operations Training Group, III Marine Expeditionary Force. Marines used 3D printers to design robots that were used to war-game how technology might be used in future conflicts.
SHARE IMAGE:
Photo By: Marine Corps Sgt. Mackenzie Carter
VIRIN: 191211-M-KK705-1046
Brown agreed that the human capital in the United States' volunteer force is extraordinary, citing earlier comments by Army Gen. Paul M. Nakasone, commander of U.S. Cyber Command, director of the National Security Agency, and chief of the Central Security Service. "What I've seen firsthand in terms of the capability and dedication to mission is phenomenal. It's impressive. We owe it to those [service] men and women to give them the best tools. We ought to have an incredible sense of urgency and impatience and courage to change those 60-year-old processes to give them the best so they have adequate tools to do their jobs, which is what's important to all of us to keep us safe," he said.
"We're losing that [technological] edge, and we're losing it at a rapid rate," Brown said, adding that the United States needs a recommitment to science and technology. "It involves STEM talent. Where is our program to increase STEM talent? We need that in the military. And we need moonshots to inspire people, just like we had during the space race. We need that kind of resurgence of excitement about what we can do in science and technology, and how that's going to enable economic prosperity for the next 20, 30 or 40 years. China's doing that long-term thinking, and we have to, as well."
Investing in technology is something China has been doing, he said, and that's where well-paying jobs are. "That's why [China is] focused on creating the standards for industries for the next 10 or 20 years with what they call 'China's standards 2035,'" he said, noting that China wants to displace the United States, Canada, and all Western countries and companies with its own capabilities.
In Formation
F-22 Raptors from the 94th Fighter Squadron at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va., and F-35A Lightning IIs from the 58th Fighter Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., fly in formation after completing an integration training mission, Nov. 5, 2014. It was the first operational integration training mission for the Air Force’s fifth generation aircraft. The F-35s and F-22s flew offensive counter air, defensive counter air, and interdiction missions, employing tactics to maximize their capabilities.
SHARE IMAGE:
Photo By: Air Force Master Sgt. Shane A. Cuomo
VIRIN: 141105-F-XC395-076M
"We don't want to live in that world," Brown said.
It's important for the United States to not sit back and become complacent and think it has a corner on technology or innovation, he said.
"If we don't invest, if we don't have the right talent, if we're not focused on the fact that this is a tech race, we're not going to be happy with the outcome," Brown said.
6. White House Appoints 2021-2022 Class of White House Fellows
Congratulations to Major Zachary Griffiths, US Army Special Forces, and all fellows. Perfect place for you on the NSC.
White House Appoints 2021-2022 Class of White House Fellows
OCTOBER 18, 2021
•
Today, the President’s Commission on White House Fellows announced the appointment of the 2021-2022 class of White House Fellows, the most diverse class in the history of the program. The prestigious White House Fellowship program embeds professionals from diverse backgrounds for a year of working as a full-time, paid fellow for White House staff, Cabinet Secretaries, and other senior government officials.
President Lyndon B. Johnson created the White House Fellows Program in 1964 with the purpose of “give[ing] the Fellows first hand, high-level experience with the workings of the Federal Government and to increase their sense of participation in national affairs.” The Fellowship functions as a non-partisan program maintained throughout both Republican and Democratic administrations. Throughout the year, Fellows actively participate in an education program that expands their knowledge of leadership, policy-making, and contemporary issues. The mission of the White House Fellows Program is to encourage active citizenship and service to the country.
Selection into the program is based on a record of professional accomplishment, evidence of leadership skills, the potential for further growth, and a commitment to service. This year’s White House Fellows advanced through a highly competitive selection process, and they are a remarkably gifted, passionate, and accomplished group. Over half of the fellows are women and overall reflect the diversity of America. These fellows bring experience from a broad cross-section of professions, from the private sector, local government, academia, medicine, law, and the military.
2021-2022 Class of White House Fellows:
Etsemaye Agonafer is from San Francisco, California and is placed at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Etsemaye is a physician, educator, and researcher committed to advancing health equity for all. She was a National Clinician Scholar and completed a Masters of Science in Health Policy & Management at UCLA. She served as Chief Resident of Quality & Patient Safety at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center where she completed her internal medicine residency. She passionately focuses on amplifying the voices of vulnerable communities through multi-sector partnership. Her work spans creating a clothing line inspired by her heritage that raised funds for disparities in Ethiopia and Eritrea, to co-founding a foot-health clinic serving the homeless in Greater Los Angeles, to producing a compilation of videos of veteran narratives, and spearheading an academic-community coalition in South Los Angeles. She conducts stakeholder-engaged investigations of innovative healthcare solutions for health-related social needs that are aimed at improving health outcomes and reducing costs. Throughout her career, Etsemaye participated in numerous quality improvement efforts in diverse healthcare systems, trained and mentored students, developed novel medical education curricula, and disseminated her work in national presentations and peer-reviewed publications. Etsemaye earned a B.S. in Biochemistry from the University of Southern California, a M.P.H. and M.D. from the UCLA/CDU PRIME-LA dual-degree program.
Tom Barron is from Houston, Texas and is placed at the White House Domestic Policy Council. Tom worked most recently as a management consultant at McKinsey & Company. In this role, he advised private and social sector clients across a range of industries on strategy and operations challenges. Prior to his work at McKinsey, he served for over nine years in the U.S. Army as both a Special Forces and infantry officer. He commanded a Special Forces team focused on operations across the African continent, deploying to Niger and the Horn of Africa, and served as the Deputy Director of Operations for Special Operations Command Forward North and West Africa. As an infantry officer, he led an airborne infantry platoon in combat in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan. Outside of his professional activities, Tom was a 2018 Shawn Brimley Next Generation National Security Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, is a Term Member at the Council on Foreign Relations, and actively volunteers in support of several veteran- and education-focused initiatives. His writing and research have appeared in both academic and policy publications. Tom graduated from Harvard College with an A.B. in Social Studies, and from the University of Cambridge with an M.Phil. in African Studies, where he was a Gates Cambridge Scholar.
Joy Basu is from Naperville, IL and is placed at the White House Gender Policy Council. Joy has served as a senior advisor to innovative businesses seeking authentic, impact-integrated growth. She was the first Chief of Staff at TPG Growth, where she worked as a key architect and builder of The Rise Fund, a groundbreaking impact investment platform. She also served as The Rise Fund’s global Sector Lead for Food and Agriculture. Prior to joining TPG, Joy was a consultant at McKinsey & Company, where she focused on agricultural development, working with businesses, governments, and donors to improve food systems in emerging markets. Joy also served as project manager to the World Economic Forum’s New Vision for Agriculture, and has supported strategic projects for the Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency and Starbucks Coffee Company. Joy earned her J.D. and M.B.A. from Stanford University with a certificate in public management and social innovation. While at Stanford, she served as Co-President of the Women of Stanford Law, as an Arbuckle Fellow and as a leader of the Afghanistan Legal Education Project. Joy holds a B.A. in Public Policy and Economics from Duke University. She currently serves as a Trustee for the Heifer International Foundation and a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Arlene Crews is from Alameda, California and is placed at the Office of the Second Gentleman. Arlene is a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy and a command-screened Surface Warfare Officer. She has served aboard USS MONTEREY (CG 61), USS GONZALEZ (DDG 102), and USS SAMPSON (DDG 102) conducting missions in Operation Enduring Freedom, Oceania Maritime Security Initiative, and Operation Inherent Resolve. Her last operational tour was as the Staff Director of Destroyer Squadron NINE. She has previously served as a Resource and Requirements Officer in the Surface Warfare Division on the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations staff at the Pentagon. She is a certified yoga instructor with advanced certification in mental health and wellness. Her passion is making yoga more accessible to diverse communities. Arlene earned her commission through the Naval Reserve Officer’s Training Corps at the University of Southern California where she earned her BA in International Relations and Italian. She is an Olmsted Scholar and earned her M.A. in National Security from the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland.
Zachary Griffiths is from Lexington, Massachusetts and is placed at the National Security Council. Zach is a Major in the United States Army Special Forces with three combat deployments. For outstanding performance as a Special Forces Detachment Commander in combat, Zach’s detachment was recognized with the Larry Thorne Award; and, the Hungarian Minister of Defense awarded Zach the Service Medal for Merit in Bronze Grade decorated with Swords. Zach most recently returned from Iraq, where he served as the Special Assistant for the Special Operations Joint Task Force Commander. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Zach assisted his local hospital with crisis planning. Between operational tours, Zach taught American Politics in the Department of Social Sciences at West Point and mentored cadets to pass the rigorous combat diver qualification course. Additionally, Zach has published more than 25 articles, edits for Military Review and the Irregular Warfare Initiative, and is a term member at the Council on Foreign Relations. Zach also volunteers as a Cub Scout leader and with the Army Rowing Association. Zach earned a B.S. in Operations Research from the United States Military Academy at West Point and a M.P.P. from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
SaMee Harden is from Paducah, Kentucky and is placed at the Office of Personnel Management. SaMee Harden is from Paducah, Kentucky and is placed at the Office of Personnel Management. SaMee is a seasoned attorney, with experience in both litigation and policy work. She previously served as an attorney working as a Privacy and Data Policy Manager at Facebook. She led a team that coordinates legal, policy, and technological responses to protect Facebook user data from bad actors and collaborates with cross-functional partners to investigate data policy violations. Prior to Facebook, SaMee was a federal criminal prosecutor, managing a robust docket, which included narcotics, public corruption, white-collar, and firearms offenses. She specialized in prosecuting child exploitation crimes. SaMee received several SPOT Awards for “making a significant contribution” during her work as a federal prosecutor. Previously, SaMee was a Senior Associate focusing on white collar investigations at the law firm of WilmerHale. She also served as a judicial law clerk on both the federal trial and appellate courts. SaMee is a founding member of the James M. Nabrit Clerkship Scholarship, which encourages diverse law school students to apply to clerkships, and the Northwestern Law Social Justice Impact Alumni Award. She is a Fulbright and Boren Scholar and Department of Justice Honors Selectee. SaMee received a J.D. from Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, an M.A. from American University, and a B.A. from the University of Louisville; she is currently pursuing an M.B.A. from the University of Michigan.
Claire Henly is from Somerville, Massachusetts and is placed at the Special Presidential Envoy on Climate. Claire is an energy technology and policy expert with a decade of experience advancing solutions to climate change. Claire recently served on the executive team of the Energy Web Foundation where she helped build a consortium of over 30 of the world’s largest energy companies to accelerate renewable energy adoption with blockchain technology. Prior to that, Claire advised international governments on climate policy at the Rocky Mountain Institute. In this role, she led a project with Rwanda’s Ministry of Infrastructure that identified over $30 million in utility savings while improving energy access and partnered with the China’s Energy Research Institute on a multi-year carbon reduction study that informed the 13th Five Year Plan. In 2018, Claire provided expert testimony before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on blockchain in the energy sector. She has authored papers on subjects ranging from solar geoengineering to energy access in emerging economies and has spoken at over 20 climate-related forums worldwide. Claire recently graduated with a M.A. from Harvard’s Kennedy School where she was awarded two prestigious environmental fellowships and co-led a successful effort to de-bias faculty hiring. Claire holds a B.S. in Environmental Engineering from Yale University.
Victoria Herrmann is from Paramus, New Jersey and is placed at the United States Coast Guard. Victoria is on sabbatical from her positions as an Assistant Research Professor at Georgetown University and the Managing Director of The Arctic Institute, a nonprofit with a mission to inform policy for a just, sustainable, and secure Arctic. Victoria directs strategic planning and oversees the implementation of global research partnerships by a 45-person team. Her research focuses on Arctic climate change and resilience. As a recognized expert in the field, Victoria has testified before the House and Senate, served as the Alaska Review Editor for the National Climate Assessment, and contributed to national and international media. At Georgetown, she serves as the Principal Investigator of a National Science Foundation-funded Research Coordination Network on Arctic migrations. The three-year initiative aims to build a lasting, policy-oriented network of Arctic scientists to strengthen communication between nations and scientific disciplines. Victoria was a Junior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Fulbright Awardee to Canada, and a Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow at the National Academies of Sciences. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge as a Gates Scholar, a M.A. in International Affairs from Carleton University, and a B.A. from Lehigh University.
Margaret Jackson is from Washington, D.C. and is placed at the United States Department of Commerce. Margaret Jackson is an energy and climate policy expert and a former US Navy Surface Warfare Officer. Prior to her White House Fellowship, she was the Deputy Director for Climate and Advanced Energy at the Atlantic Council, a nonpartisan, foreign policy think tank, where she led engagement with stakeholders across government, industry, and civil society to develop policy solutions that advance a clean and just energy transition. Margaret was a Fulbright scholar at Tsinghua University in Beijing, China, a Council on Foreign Relations-Hitachi International Affairs Fellow at the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan, and is a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Her research and publications focus on the proliferation of renewable energy and advanced energy technologies, international climate cooperation, and the role of energy and climate in foreign policy. Throughout her career, she has advocated for organizational changes to better support women and veterans in the workplace. Margaret earned a Master of Arts from Georgetown University and a Bachelor of Science from the United States Naval Academy.
Andrew Kim is from San Francisco, California and is placed at the Office of Management and Budget. Andrew is a physician passionate about health diplomacy and peacebuilding. His current research explores vaccine diplomacy and humanitarian aid to North Korea. During his health equity residency program at the University of California, San Francisco, he worked with the Institute for Global Health Sciences on a report for the WHO on the U.S. COVID response, and with the Center for Health Diplomacy on reports informing the COVID Transition Taskforce. As a Rappaport Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, Andrew led a national landscape assessment of advanced directive digitalization efforts. His prior work on the nexus between peace and health spans projects in Liberia during the 2014 Ebola outbreak, eastern Uganda, and South Sudan. Andrew has studied social justice at the Center for Action and Contemplation, co-founded an interfaith youth service program, and devoted time to clinical care in Guatemala, Brazil, Tanzania, Uganda, and Taiwan. His writing has been awarded with the Henry Knowles Beecher Prize and SF Medical Society writing contest. He earned his M.D. from Harvard Medical School through the Presidential Public Service Scholarship, his M.Phil. in International Development at the University of Cambridge as a Baker Fellow, and B.A. from Brown University.
Hila Levy is from Guaynabo, Puerto Rico and is placed at the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Hila is a Major in the U.S. Air Force Reserve, serving as a Senior Intelligence Officer and Foreign Area Officer in Air Force Special Operations Command, supporting combat operations, contingencies, and partnership-building exercises in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. She has led teams at tactical, operational, and joint headquarters-level assignments in South Korea, Japan, and the United Kingdom, earning Air Force-level awards for leadership and performance. In parallel military and civilian careers, Hila has worked in national security, international relations, science, and environmental management on every continent. She is a published scientific researcher, undergraduate educator, translator in six languages, and fellow at New America. She is active in Arctic and Antarctic affairs, climate change advocacy, infectious disease, and STEM education for underrepresented youth. In 2020, she advised the federal COVID-19 Joint Acquisition Task Force on viral diagnostics procurement to safeguard public health. She received a B.S. as the top graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and holds a M.Phil. from the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, M.S. from Johns Hopkins University, and M.St., M.Sc. with Distinction, and D.Phil. from the University of Oxford, where she was the first Rhodes Scholar from Puerto Rico.
Alister Martin is from Neptune, New Jersey and is placed at the Office of the Vice President and the White House Office of Public Engagement. Alister is a practicing emergency physician and former Chief Resident at Massachusetts General Hospital. He served as a former Health Policy Aide to Governor Peter Shumlin of Vermont and Congressman Raul Ruiz of California. He works at the intersection of public policy and medicine as research faculty at the Harvard Kennedy School Behavioral Insights Group and as clinical faculty at Harvard Medical School in the Center for Social Justice and Health Equity. He leverages his background in politics, policy, and the field of behavioral economics to use the ER as a place to build programs that serve the needs of vulnerable patients. He is the founder of Vot-ER, a nonpartisan voter registration organization that has organized over 26,000 healthcare providers and 300 hospitals to help non-urgent patients register to vote. He is the founder of Get Waivered, a program that is converting our nation’s ERs into the front door for opioid addiction treatment. He also co-founded GOTVax, an initiative aimed at leveraging a get out the vote framework to deliver vaccines directly to vulnerable communities throughout Boston via hyper-targeted vaccine pop up clinics. Alister earned his MD from Harvard Medical School as a Presidential Scholar, his Masters in Public Policy from the Harvard Kennedy School as a fellow in the Center for Public Leadership, and graduated Summa Cum Laude from Rutgers University where he was a Division 1 tennis player.
Tara Murray is from Los Angeles, California and is placed at the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs. Tara is a civil and human rights lawyer with her own practice in Washington, D.C. She is committed to bringing accountability and transparency in the justice system through advocacy and litigation on behalf of persons most vulnerable to unfair treatment. Previously, Tara served as Deputy Director of London-based human rights NGO Reprieve. There, she represented 30 men imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay in federal court proceedings and spearheaded the first investigations into the community impact of drone strikes in Pakistan, which expanded to include Yemen and the horn of Africa. Tara has spent her career developing and maintaining strategic partnerships in the public, nonprofit, and government sectors to champion the rights of inequitably treated people and has mobilized diverse teams around the world towards common goals. Her work has been profiled by news and media outlets worldwide. Tara received an LL.M. in Advocacy from Georgetown University Law Center, where she was an E. Barrett Prettyman Fellow and taught law students in the Criminal Justice Clinic while representing indigent clients; a J.D. from Harvard Law School; and a B.A. summa cum laude from Howard University. Tara enjoys a rich home life with her husband and their three young children.
Jennifer Onofrio is from Jersey City, New Jersey and is placed at the United States Navy. Jenn was the Director of Resource Management & Planning for security and policing at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, where she was responsible for providing financial, analytical, and logistical support to almost 2,400 employees (including over 2,000 police officers) protecting critical transportation assets in the New York City area. She led a team of 75 employees and controlled an annual budget of more than $700 million. She joined the Port Authority in 2011 as a Leadership Fellow and rose through the ranks in positions of increasing responsibility within the Office of the Chief Security Officer, transforming the department into a data-driven operation. Prior to her career at the Port Authority, Jenn worked in criminal justice reform on improving reentry outcomes for incarcerated men and women, evaluating policies and practices in dozens of states across the country. She also taught job readiness and life skills to inmates at Rikers Island. She is a member of the Port Authority’s Ethics Board, their Diversity & Inclusion Steering Committee, and the PAPD Civilian Complaint Review Board. Jenn is a Truman Scholar who received a B.S. in Liberal Arts from The New School and an M.P.A. from Princeton University.
Sunny Patel is from Burbank, California and is placed at the United States Department of Homeland Security. Sunny is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and public health physician with interests in building equitable health systems that serve children and families. He recently completed his fellowship at NYU, where he created a model embedding mental health services in the pediatric oncology clinic. He also launched a comprehensive mental health response for thousands of frontline workers during the COVID-19 pandemic and volunteered as a palliative care physician at Bellevue Hospital. Sunny has spearheaded health interventions for vulnerable populations in the United States and abroad, including in India, Thailand, and Dominican Republic. He has spent the past decade working with refugee populations and has conducted forensic psychological examinations for asylum seekers with NYU and Physicians for Human Rights. Sunny’s research has been published in numerous journals and informed policy initiatives, including work presented at the United Nations General Assembly. He has also served as a resident tutor in medicine at Adams House of Harvard College. Sunny completed his adult psychiatry residency at Cambridge Health Alliance and Harvard Medical School. He has an M.D. from the Mayo Clinic, an M.P.H. from Harvard, and bachelor’s and master’s degrees in biology and physiology, respectively, from UCLA with college and departmental honors.
Kenyatta Ruffin is from Maywood, Illinois and is placed at the Office of the National Cyber Director. Kenyatta is a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Air Force and a career fighter pilot. He has 155 combat missions in the F-16 and MC-12 during deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, including his appointment as the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance mission commander for the largest special operations raid in Operation Enduring Freedom’s history. He began his flying career at 13 years old and became one of the nation’s youngest FAA-certified flight instructors at age 18. He founded the Legacy Flight Academy, an award-winning non-profit organization that honors the heroic Tuskegee Airmen and serves minority youth with character-building, STEM enrichment programs. He was selected by the Air Force Chief of Staff to lead the Service’s efforts to improve diversity and inclusion in flying careers, including selection to establish and command a unique, flight-focused recruiting organization. Most recently, he was the operations support squadron commander at the Air Force’s second busiest airfield, responsible for the safety and effectiveness of flight operations valued at over 1.25 billion dollars. He is a graduate of the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy, U.S. Air Force Academy, and earned Master’s Degrees from Air University and the U.S. Army School of Advanced Military Studies.
Aakash Shah is from Cliffside Park, New Jersey and is placed at the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Aakash is a practicing emergency room doctor at Hackensack Meridian Health. He helped treat some of the earliest confirmed cases of COVID-19 during the pandemic. Aakash also serves as the Director of Addiction Medicine and the Medical Director of Project HEAL (a hospital-based violence intervention program) at Jersey Shore University Medical Center as well as the Medical Director of New Jersey Reentry Corp. His work in those roles has resulted in several reforms, including the elimination of prior authorization requirements for medications for opioid use disorder, and he received the bipartisan endorsement of five former New Jersey governors. He previously served as the Founder and Executive Director of Be Jersey Strong, which represented one of the largest and most diverse efforts to connect the uninsured to coverage in the nation, and was honored by President Barack Obama at the White House for its impact. He has also served as an advisor to several local, state, and federal campaigns and policymakers. He obtained his M.D. from Harvard Medical School, M.B.A. and M.Sc. in Comparative Social Policy from Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, and B.A. and B.S. from Ursinus College. He was awarded an honorary doctorate from Centenary University.
Brittany Stich is from Denver, Colorado and is placed at the White House Domestic Policy Council. Brittany is Co-Founder of Guild Education, a company whose mission is to unlock opportunity for America’s workforce through education and upskilling. Guild partners with Fortune 1000 companies, including the Walt Disney Company, Walmart, and Chipotle, to provide education benefits to their frontline workforce. Through these partnerships, more than 3 million working Americans have gained access to employer-funded education. Prior to Guild, Brittany built honors programs in community colleges across the country. She began her career as a teacher in East Palo Alto through Teach for America. She has received numerous accolades, including Forbes 30 under 30, Stanford’s Arjay Miller Social Change award, Fast Company’s World Changing Ideas award, and recognition on CNBC’s Disruptor 50, Forbes’ Cloud 100 list, and B Lab’s Best for World list. She is a board member of the GALS schools of Denver and a speaker on higher education, the future of work, entrepreneurship and women in leadership. Appointed by Governor Polis, she is a Commissioner for the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. A first-generation college student, Brittany holds an M.B.A., M.A. in Education, and B.A. from Stanford University, as well as an Ed.D. in higher education from the University of Pennsylvania.
Garth Walker is from Chicago, Illinois and is placed at the Office of the Surgeon General. Garth is an academic public health expert and physician leader working to eliminate structural barriers which limit marginalized communities’ access to quality healthcare. He is Deputy Director at the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH), Assistant Professor in Emergency Medicine at Northwestern University, and an Emergency Physician at Jesse Brown Veteran Affairs Hospital. At IDPH, Garth leads on key statewide health issues. He drives strategy on men’s health and co-leads the state’s response to the opioid crisis. During COVID-19, he developed messaging to address vaccine hesitancy and established a statewide town hall program, targeting marginalized communities. To provide public health information about COVID-19, he has been featured on news networks, including MSNBC, ABC, and Yahoo. Garth has published for scientific journals addressing gun violence and opioids. He has also written various op-eds for The Chicago Sun-Times, Forbes, and other publications, with a focus on social determinants of health. Garth is a mayoral appointment for Chicago’s equity advisory board, an Economic Club of Chicago member, a Leadership Greater Chicago Fellow, and Urban League IMPACT Fellow. He earned his B.A. in Economics and M.D. from University of Illinois, his M.P.H. from Northwestern, and clinical training from University of Chicago.
###
7. Official Says DOD Is Focused on Threats From State Actors, Terrorists
Official Says DOD Is Focused on Threats From State Actors, Terrorists
Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby held a briefing with journalists today, covering a broad range of topics from China, Russia and Pakistan to COVID-19 vaccinations.
Kirby Briefing
Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby speaks during a press briefing at the Pentagon, Nov. 5, 2021.
SHARE IMAGE:
VIRIN: 211105-N-SH180-1034
Russia
Kirby said there's been an unusual build up of Russian military activity near Ukraine in the last several days.
"We continue to consult with allies and partners on the issue," he said. "We continue to monitor this closely. Any escalatory or aggressive actions by Russia would be of great concern to the United States.
"We would urge Russia to be more clear about its intentions," he added.
China and North Korea
Both nations have been building up their nuclear missile capabilities.
"What we're focused on is being able to address the threats and challenges in the region," Kirby said, referring to the "pacing challenge" from China, as well as potential actions by North Korea.
The Defense Department, he said, would "obviously support any level of dialogue and discussion that reduces the threats of weapons of mass destruction," but the matter would be better addressed at the State Department and White House levels.
Pentagon Briefing
Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby speaks during a press briefing at the Pentagon, Nov. 5, 2021.
SHARE IMAGE:
VIRIN: 211105-N-SH180-1027
"What we have to stay focused on is making sure that to the degree there is a threat and a challenge, that we're ready to deter that threat and challenge and defeat it if necessary, and that's what our focus is on here. But nobody wants to see an arms race that leads to conflict and confrontation," he added.
Pakistan
Pakistan remains a key partner in the region, he said. "We look for opportunities to continue to work with Pakistan to address what is a shared threat, a shared terrorism threat along that spine between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and we're going to continue to explore opportunities to do that."
Kirby added that Pakistan itself has fallen victim to terrorism in that border region, and the country's citizens have been killed or wounded, "so, they have a real stake in this."
Vaccinations
Kirby also reminded those present that Nov. 22 is the deadline for DOD civilians to show proof that they've been vaccinated for COVID-19.
Government Resources
8. State Dept. names new team to oversee ‘Havana Syndrome’ response
Excerpt:
The State Department effort forms part of a larger administration response headed by the White House. Last month, President Biden signed legislation authorizing financial compensation to individuals who have reported such problems. It is not yet clear how such funds will be distributed.
State Dept. names new team to oversee ‘Havana Syndrome’ response
The State Department on Friday named two senior officials to lead its response to mysterious illnesses among U.S. personnel stationed overseas, as the Biden administration steps up efforts to help those afflicted by the shadowy “Havana Syndrome.”
Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the appointment of veteran diplomats Jonathan Moore and Margaret Uyehara to oversee the department’s response to the poorly understood ailments — which have been reported by personnel from the State Department, CIA and the U.S. military and their families in countries from Cuba to Austria — signals the urgency with which officials hope to address a problem whose cause remains largely unknown.
“We will do absolutely everything we can, leaving no stone unturned, to stop these occurrences as swiftly as possible,” Blinken said in remarks at the State Department.
The announcement comes as some affected by what the State Department calls “anomalous health incidents” complain their ailments, including headaches, dizziness and neurological issues, have not been taken seriously enough. The phenomenon was first detected by officials assigned to the U.S. mission in Cuba’s capital in 2016.
Lawmakers had called for the State Department to appoint a new coordinator after Ambassador Pamela Spratlen departed the job in September, having led the effort only for six months. Spratlen had faced criticism from some officials who said she did not show sufficient confidence that the ailments were real.
“While we cannot necessarily see their injuries, they are real and deserve the same attention and urgency as wounds that are visible,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) said in a statement, applauding the appointment of Moore and Uyehara.
Government officials have been circumspect in their comments about the phenomenon, sometimes describing them as “attacks” and other times as “incidents,” reflecting the incomplete understanding about what is happening and why.
Some have suggested Moscow may be behind the occurrences, which Russia denies. Others are skeptical the illnesses are anything more than psychogenic.
The Biden administration has sought to demonstrate that it is taking the reports seriously. In September, for instance, The Washington Post reported that the CIA had recalled its station chief in Vienna after numerous individuals reported being affected there but that the leadership’s response was inadequate.
In his remarks, Blinken outlined a series of actions the administration has taken, including expanding access to external medical experts, standardizing the initial medical response for personnel who report being affected, and launching a program to collect baseline health information that can be used as a point of comparison if an employee is sickened. He said the State Department had also developed new training for those posted overseas and established a channel for anonymous incident reporting.
“There is absolutely no stigma in reporting these incidents and there will, of course, be no negative consequences of any kind,” he said. “On the contrary, reporting means that we can get people the help they need and by reporting you can help keep others safe and help us get to the bottom of who and what is responsible.”
Blinken also said new technology would be deployed to protect personnel serving at overseas missions, but he provided no detail about what that would involve.
The State Department effort forms part of a larger administration response headed by the White House. Last month, President Biden signed legislation authorizing financial compensation to individuals who have reported such problems. It is not yet clear how such funds will be distributed.
9. ANDREW YANG: News outlets like CNN and Fox News are only making America's problems worse.
Public interest "tax credits?" Can government fix this? Only people can solve this "problem:" people who report the news, people who produce and edit the news, and people who consume the news. The Fourth Estate contributes to the public good. While it is exists to hold governments as well as people and organizations of power accountable, it must also be held accountable by the public to ensure it is ensuring the public good.
ANDREW YANG: News outlets like CNN and Fox News are only making America's problems worse. If we don't incentivize fair reporting, our country will be run on lies.
The Fox News Logo is seen through the reflection of a window.
Getty
- Incendiary, sensationalist media has eroded public trust in the news to historic lows.
- Media companies steer their coverage to the extreme ends of issues to make more money.
- Establishing a new Fairness Doctrine would go a long way towards eliminating partisan bias in news.
- Andrew Yang is an entrepreneur, political leader, and Founder of the Forward Party.
- Phil Shawe is the Co-Founder, President and CEO of TransPerfect.
- This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.
Get a daily selection of our top stories based on your reading preferences.
Our society trusts banks to fulfill their function of securely storing an individual's money so that they can retrieve it at their leisure. Hence the phrase "you can bank on it."
But it wasn't always that way. Years of turmoil and financial crises in the early 1900s caused regulators to build unassailable trust in banks because our way of life depended on it. Banks now have to fit strict legal definitions and follow specific regulations when it comes to backing up their operations. If the word "bank" is used to define an entity incorrectly, regulators will quickly step in and shut down its operation.
Imagine what would happen if we treated the word "news" the same way.
What if the entities that provide news were scrutinized for well-sourced and balanced reporting? What if we built incentives designed to provoke more in-depth news coverage? Just like we depend on banks to support our entire financial system, don't we need news outlets to secure our informational ecosystem?
Trust in the news media is faltering. In recent years, polling has shown that public trust in major media organizations is underwater at 40%, a number that continues trending downward.
This mistrust corresponds with polarization along political lines – people seek out "news" that is already tailored to their views. This model has become so profitable — with mammoth financial incentives distorting news delivery — that the current market may not be able to bring Americans back to a shared sense of reality.
The more incendiary news gets, the more people watch. The more people watch, the more advertisers and cable companies are willing to pay in a vicious cycle that stimulates our sense of outrage and alarm while dividing us against one another.
While the FCC has a policy to prohibit broadcasters from "intentionally distorting" the news, it is toothless in practice, giving networks wide latitude to exaggerate or even flat-out lie to their audiences. Meanwhile the FTC has historically shied away from ruling on misinformation from news outlets, though there have been efforts to challenge that standard in the wake of COVID-19.
We should look to the recent past for solutions to our "news" crisis. Between 1949 and 1987, the FCC had a rule – the Fairness Doctrine – that required broadcasters to present controversial issues in an honest and balanced way. This meant that broadcasters airing commentary on one side of an issue would have to make sure the other view was represented. This instilled resiliency in our political system, as more Americans operated on the same set of facts, leading political polarization to its lowest point throughout the 1970s.
Establishing a new Fairness Doctrine that includes cable news – whether through legislation or executive branch decision-making – would go a long way towards eliminating the partisan bias at leading cable networks. As with any regulation, successful implementation will be an ongoing, collaborative process with all the stakeholders involved – including FCC regulators, media executives, editors, and the hosts of news shows themselves.
Adding to the challenge is that this revived Fairness Doctrine would need to be updated in light of the 24-7 cable news explosion of recent decades and ensure adherence with the First Amendment. But implementation challenges shouldn't obscure the power of having a new tool that promotes the health of our news ecosystem.
This is no panacea, but when it feels like you live in a different reality depending on whether you're watching Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC, we should be doing anything we can to restore a semblance of balance to the news.
Additionally, as it does with parental guidelines for programming, the FCC should require more clear labelling of segments as "news" or "opinion." This would put a dent in the sensationalization of news that rewards conflict and tribal appeals over societally useful information.
Finally, we should be trying to find creative ways to redesign the incentive structures for cable news networks. Right now, the top cable networks like Fox News and CNN make anywhere from $600 million to $1.1 billion in annual advertising revenue on top of over $1 billion in cable licensing fees.
Offering "public interest" tax credits to networks that, for example, forgo advertising to air longer, more substantive segments that are plainly accepted as being in the public interest could lead to more in-depth, fact-based reporting. Those tax credits could offset the standard advertising revenue lost when networks air longer, uninterrupted segments. And any tax revenue lost via such a mechanism would be more than made up for by the benefits of breaking the stranglehold that ratings-driven formatting has on cable news programs.
What's more, leveraging the tax code to financially incentivize a mixture of formats beyond just the glitzy talking head format we've grown accustomed to would cause at least some proportion of cable news programming to resemble the actual conversations that humans have in real life – and hopefully, inject more grace and tolerance into our public discourse.
Unless we incentivize a change to the way we tell news, it appears that we are stuck with this unfortunate reality. As of now, we cannot bank on truth, but we can definitely take untruthfulness to the bank.
10. Plan to Draft Women is Uniting Unlikely Political Allies
Strange bedfellows.
Excerpts:
Public support for adding women to the draft is dropping. In 2016, when Congress last debated the issue, 63 percent of Americans supported drafting both sexes. But an Ipsos poll in August found that number had dipped to just 45 percent. Support is even lower among women, only about a third of whom support the change.
Just as conflict looks drastically different now than it did at the end of the Vietnam War, experts predict the draft would also look different if it is ever reinstated. For example, as cyber warfare becomes a greater threat, Vuic predicted civilians with cyber skills could be conscripted to help the country, pointing as an example to an existing plan that could be activated to draft civilian medical personnel in a crisis.
Reed acknowledged that changing conflicts means different people can be best suited for the mission.
“We’re going to need a lot more people who can operate autonomous vehicles. You don’t have to be 6-foot-2 to do that,” he said.
Even in this form, restarting the Selective Service process and adding conscripts to the all-volunteer force is highly unlikely and would require a national emergency and action by Congress. But, Vuic said that no matter if women are ever actually drafted, adding women to the system is important for its symbolism alone.
“It’s the last legal distinction between the obligations of men and women as citizens,” she said, adding that both sexes are expected to act identical in other ways, such as serving on juries or paying taxes. “On paper, men and women will be completely equal.”
Plan to Draft Women is Uniting Unlikely Political Allies
Anti-war activists and conservative hawks both want women to stay out of the Selective Service System.
China hawk Sen. Josh Hawley normally has little in common with anti-war group Code Pink. But the two are on the same side when it comes to keeping women out of the draft.
Congress is expected to debate this year whether women should register with the selective service, when it considers the fiscal 2022 National Defense Authorization Act. The fight is uniting advocates on opposite extremes of the political spectrum, even if their reasons for supporting or opposing the change are different.
“It’s a weird pairing,” said Kara Vuic, an expert on women in the military who teaches at Texas Christian University. “They’re united because they don’t want women going to war, whether that’s because they don’t want anybody going to war or because they think women should be in the home….It is bringing together people both for and against who probably agree with each other on absolutely nothing else.”
The objections are likely to fall flat. There is bipartisan support in both the House and Senate for the proposal requiring women to register. The House has already approved the bill, and the Senate Armed Services Committee voted the legislation out of committee with Republican support.
“Attaching it to NDAA basically ensures that it will [pass], barring a massive herculean effort to get it unattached somehow,” Vuic said. “I think it’s going to pass. It’s well past time.”
Those herculean efforts, however, are underway. Conservative news outlets are pressing officials on the issue. Code Pink is hosting webinars to push for abolishing the draft entirely, arguing that it’s not gender equality to coerce both men and women to join the military, said Carley Towne, the co-director at the nonprofit. And Hawley, R-Mo., who led Senate efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, introduced an amendment this week to fight against the proposal on the Senate floor.
“It is wrong to force our daughters, mothers, wives, and sisters to fight our wars,” Hawley said in a statement on Monday. “Volunteering for military service is not the same as being forced into it, and no woman should be compelled to do so.”
Despite this opposition, there are also GOP lawmakers who support it, including Rep. Mike Waltz, R-Fla., a former Army Green Beret who sponsored the amendment to add this provision in the House along with Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Penn.
“I actually see less conservative opposition than ever in the past,” said Amy Rutenberg, a professor at Iowa State University, adding that this is “absolutely the farthest” the effort to require women to register has gotten on Capitol Hill.
There are also some non-traditional allies joining forces to support the change. The ACLU, which historically fights for women’s rights and against sex discrimination, worked with the National Coalition for Men, which fights to end discrimination and stereotyping against men, on a lawsuit, because both groups believe that a draft that excludes women is discriminatory.
A legal effort in 1981 to require women to register failed when the Supreme Court said drafting only men was constitutional because women at that time could not serve in combat. But multiple experts said a male-only draft is now unconstitutional by that same logic, since the ban on women serving in combat was lifted in 2016—though women served in war zones long before that.
The ACLU’s more recent lawsuit made it to the Supreme Court, which declined to consider the case in June because Congress is actively considering the proposal.
Congress seems poised to approve the change. The fiscal 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, which contains the provision, passed the House by a bipartisan 316-113 vote. The full Senate has not yet considered the bill, but the Senate Armed Services Committee approved the bill by a 23-3 vote, showing strong support from Republicans.
“My view is that we have a force now that would not be as effective or efficient without women,” Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee and proposed the language about drafting women, said Wednesday at the Aspen Security Forum. “I don’t think most women feel that they shouldn’t register. I think they should.”
President Joe Biden also supports women registering with the selective service. While running for president last September, he told the Military Officers Association of America that he would “ensure that women are also eligible to register for the Selective Service System so that men and women are treated equally in the event of future conflicts.”
And military leaders support the change as well. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley said at the Aspen Security Forum that all women who can meet the standards of military service are welcome to serve, though he added that no one is talking about bringing back the draft, which was last used in 1972.
Congress last considered whether to require women to register for the draft in 2016, when then-Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., introduced an amendment to the annual defense policy bill to make the point that if members didn’t support drafting women, they also should not support female troops serving in combat. To his surprise, the amendment passed the House, though it was stripped from the final bill. As a compromise, lawmakers instead ordered an independent commission to study the matter.
In March 2020, the commission released its report and recommended that both men and women between 18 and 26 years old should have to register with the selective service.
Women will have to register for the draft within one year of the bill passing, if the language remains in the legislation after negotiations. While the logistics of implementing are expected to be easy—women will simply register the same way men do, which happens automatically in many states when getting a driver's license—getting the public onboard will take more time, Rutenberg said. She expects the government will need to launch an aggressive public relations campaign to make people aware of the new law since, so far, the provision buried in the wonky defense authorization bill has not gotten a lot of attention among the broader population.
“I don’t think it’s been much on the radar,” she said. “Most people are totally unaware.”
Public support for adding women to the draft is dropping. In 2016, when Congress last debated the issue, 63 percent of Americans supported drafting both sexes. But an Ipsos poll in August found that number had dipped to just 45 percent. Support is even lower among women, only about a third of whom support the change.
Just as conflict looks drastically different now than it did at the end of the Vietnam War, experts predict the draft would also look different if it is ever reinstated. For example, as cyber warfare becomes a greater threat, Vuic predicted civilians with cyber skills could be conscripted to help the country, pointing as an example to an existing plan that could be activated to draft civilian medical personnel in a crisis.
Reed acknowledged that changing conflicts means different people can be best suited for the mission.
“We’re going to need a lot more people who can operate autonomous vehicles. You don’t have to be 6-foot-2 to do that,” he said.
Even in this form, restarting the Selective Service process and adding conscripts to the all-volunteer force is highly unlikely and would require a national emergency and action by Congress. But, Vuic said that no matter if women are ever actually drafted, adding women to the system is important for its symbolism alone.
“It’s the last legal distinction between the obligations of men and women as citizens,” she said, adding that both sexes are expected to act identical in other ways, such as serving on juries or paying taxes. “On paper, men and women will be completely equal.”
11. FDD | China Consolidates Rare Earth Supply Chain
Excerpts:
To meet the challenge, the U.S. government — using economic incentives such as tax credits and guaranteed purchase contracts — should encourage the private sector to increase production. In so doing, Washington can offset the costs to U.S. firms of mining and processing rare earth elements in a more environmentally sustainable way than that used by Chinese companies.
Additionally, the State Department should implement a diplomatic strategy for rare earth supply chains that encourages allies and partners to simultaneously increase production and restrict Chinese investment in their domestic rare earth industry.
Finally, pursuant to section 1260H of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, the Department of Defense should list the Big Six corporations and other companies in China’s critical mineral ecosystem as “Chinese military companies,” since they are “military-civil fusion contributor[s] to the Chinese defense industrial base.” This listing and a parallel Treasury Department designation would ban U.S. persons from trading in the public securities of these companies.
The CCP is strategically focused on rare earths, but America’s innovative private sector and robust alliance network can be important assets in countering China’s domination of the industry.
FDD | China Consolidates Rare Earth Supply Chain
fdd.org · by Annie Fixler CCTI Deputy Director and Research Fellow · November 5, 2021
Peng Huagang, secretary general of China’ State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, confirmed last month that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will “promote the restructuring of rare earths to create a world-class company.” While it remains unclear what this “restructuring” entails, Peng’s declaration indicates the CCP will not stand by as the United States and its allies seek to diminish their reliance on China for rare earth elements.
Peng’s remarks come on the heels of China Minmetals Corporation’s September Shenzhen Stock Exchange filing, which announced a planned restructuring with China Aluminum Company (Chinalco) and the People’s Government of Ganzhou, a municipality in southeastern China. A merger would create China’s “second-largest rare earth producer by capacity,” according to Reuters, behind China Northern Rare Earth Group. The latter is the world’s largest supplier of rare earths.
China Minmetals, Chinalco, and China Northern Rare Earth Group are three of the “Big Six” corporations formed during a consolidation of the industry three years ago. Peng’s comments may confirm reports that China now plans to consolidate the Big Six into two mega-producers — one in the north, responsible for light rare earths, and one in the south, responsible for heavy rare earths.
This prospective consolidation comes amid increasing concern in Washington about U.S. dependence on Chinese rare earths. In response, a February executive order issued by President Joe Biden identified critical minerals as one of four key areas in need of a complete review and better policy options to reduce risks to the supply chain. That review recommended numerous steps “to increase the resilience of strategic and critical material supply chains” by expanding domestic production and processing capacity and by working “with allies and partners to ensure a secure global supply.”
The White House’s fact sheet summarizing the review highlighted a $30 million Defense Department technology investment agreement with Australia’s Lynas Rare Earth Ltd — which the Pentagon noted is the “largest rare earth element mining and processing company outside of China” — to establish a light rare earth processing facility in Texas.
This and other investments and grants are important but pale in comparison to the scale of the efforts necessary to shift away from Chinese rare earth supplies. Between 2016 and 2019, the United States imported 80 percent of its rare earth compounds and metals from China, according to U.S. Geological Survey data.
While U.S. rare earth mineral deposits are abundant and China holds approximately 37 percent of global rare earth reserves, Chinese companies have a near monopoly on processing, which turns the raw minerals into magnets and other products essential for weapons systems, electric vehicles, telecommunications equipment, and many other goods. For this reason, China’s state-owned Global Times, citing Chinese experts, has dismissed previous U.S. efforts to expand domestic and allied production and processing as “wishful thinking.”
To meet the challenge, the U.S. government — using economic incentives such as tax credits and guaranteed purchase contracts — should encourage the private sector to increase production. In so doing, Washington can offset the costs to U.S. firms of mining and processing rare earth elements in a more environmentally sustainable way than that used by Chinese companies.
Additionally, the State Department should implement a diplomatic strategy for rare earth supply chains that encourages allies and partners to simultaneously increase production and restrict Chinese investment in their domestic rare earth industry.
Finally, pursuant to section 1260H of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, the Department of Defense should list the Big Six corporations and other companies in China’s critical mineral ecosystem as “Chinese military companies,” since they are “military-civil fusion contributor[s] to the Chinese defense industrial base.” This listing and a parallel Treasury Department designation would ban U.S. persons from trading in the public securities of these companies.
The CCP is strategically focused on rare earths, but America’s innovative private sector and robust alliance network can be important assets in countering China’s domination of the industry.
Annie Fixler is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and deputy director of FDD’s Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation (CCTI), where she also contributes to FDD’s China Program. Louis Gilbertson is a CCTI intern. For more analysis from the authors, CCTI, and the China Program, please subscribe HERE. Follow Annie on Twitter @afixler. Follow FDD on Twitter @FDD and @FDD_CCTI. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.
fdd.org · by Annie Fixler CCTI Deputy Director and Research Fellow · November 5, 2021
12. The Taliban’s Man in Washington
Ouch!
Conclusion:
Again, Ghani was a feckless leader. But that doesn’t absolve the U.S., which was supposed to be the real power in the war. And Khalilzad himself deserves much of the blame for the way the endgame unfolded.
The Taliban’s Man in Washington
Zalmay Khalilzad is blaming Afghans for the failures that resulted from his deal with the Taliban.
(Photograph by Susan Walsh/Getty Images.
Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. special representative for Afghanistan reconciliation, is making his rounds in the media. As should be clear to everyone by now, Khalilzad’s servile diplomacy helped pave the way for a swift Taliban victory over the now deposed Afghan government this year. Nonetheless, Khalilzad is trying to defend his record. His arguments are self-serving piffle.
First, Khalilzad tried to blame exiled Afghan President Ashraf Ghani for failing to reach a “political settlement” with the Taliban. Ghani’s tenure was an unequivocal failure, and few will rise to Ghani’s defense. But it’s nonsensical to claim that Ghani held the keys to peace. The Taliban never had any interest in a political compromise. The group’s leaders repeatedly made it clear that they were waging jihad to resurrect their Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the same totalitarian regime that was deposed in late 2001. This was a sacred duty for the jihadists and the principal motivation for their 20-year war.
The Taliban did not hide its ultimate political objective. The Taliban repeatedly referred to itself as the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” in the February 29, 2020, agreement with the U.S. Somewhat clumsily, the State Department inserted language into that same accord saying the U.S. does not recognize the Taliban’s regime. But that did not stop the Taliban from insisting that it be called the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.” Khalilzad struck the deal anyway. And that was a dead giveaway.
The simple fact of the matter is this: There was no “political settlement” to be had. The Taliban was fighting for total victory—exactly as it played out this year. There is no valid counterfactual scenario in which Ghani, or any other Afghan official, could have persuaded the jihadists to settle for anything less than the resurrection of their authoritarian government.
Therefore, Khalilzad’s story rests on an entirely dishonest premise.
Khalilzad claims that the State Department should have “pressed President Ghani harder,” as if the failure to reach a negotiated compromise was Kabul’s fault. How would that have worked? The U.S. forced the Afghans to fight for a draw between February 29, 2020, when Khalilzad submitted to the Taliban in Doha, and August 15, 2021, when the jihadists took over the country. The U.S. kept insisting that there was “no military solution” to the war, dangling the prospect of a fanciful political settlement, even as the Taliban and al-Qaeda fought for victory.
Indeed, Khalilzad’s submissive diplomacy helped the Taliban’s men win the war during that same time-period. Remember: Ghani and his representatives were excluded from Khalilzad’s negotiations with the Taliban. Regardless, Ghani’s government acquiesced to the pressure Khalilzad placed on it by freeing 5,000 Taliban prisoners from Afghan jails. Despite supposed assurances from the Taliban that these fighters would stay out of the war, some of the newly freed jihadists immediately returned to the battlefield and helped their brethren overthrow the Afghan government. The Taliban and al-Qaeda can thank Khalilzad for this boost in manpower.
As Susannah George of the Washington Post has reported, Khalilzad’s bilateral deal with the Taliban hastened the demise of the Afghan military and security forces in other ways as well. Khalilzad’s accord “demoralized” many members of the Afghan forces, signaling that the Taliban was going to return to power. To be sure, there were many other problems, ranging from corruption to poor Afghan leadership. But after Khalilzad’s agreement, many Afghan commanders decided to cut deals with the jihadists, rather than risk losing an all-out fight. We can criticize the Afghans for failing to muster more of a defense, but their defeat took place in the context of Khalilzad’s diplomacy.
Again, Ghani was a feckless leader. But that doesn’t absolve the U.S., which was supposed to be the real power in the war. And Khalilzad himself deserves much of the blame for the way the endgame unfolded.
13. Opinion | President Biden, don’t help our adversaries break NATO
Excerpts:
Other NATO capitals understand there is no positive benefit from a U.S. embrace of No First Use — just enormous downsides. Allied governments (including key Asian allies) have been warning the administration at all levels strenuously, bluntly and unambiguously against such a change. In response to these entreaties, the administration has retreated to a convoluted attempt at constructing an alternative policy that would declare the U.S. nuclear arsenal’s “sole purpose” is to deter nuclear attack by adversaries. The eventual formulation might be quite close to existing policy, but adopting any new variant would signal a unilateral change to the extended deterrence promise that lies at the heart of NATO policy.
Rejecting our allies’ views on a matter absolutely central to their security is dangerous. Adopting “sole purpose,” let alone No First Use, would rupture the alliance. The policies of NATO’s other nuclear powers, Britain and France, will not change even if U.S. policy does. Eastern European allies that joined NATO precisely to benefit from extended deterrence will be unnerved. NATO policy, which remains based on the threat that has forestalled aggression for seven decades, will be undercut.
Our allies are one of the United States’ comparative strategic advantages. Successful alliance management requires meaningful consultations — listening to allies’ concerns and modifying “America First” initiatives that call into question the United States’ will to defend its allies.
Putin has worked tirelessly to break NATO. It would be shameful and unforgivable if the Biden administration were to help him achieve his objective.
Opinion | President Biden, don’t help our adversaries break NATO
The Washington Post · by Eric Edelman and Franklin Miller November 4, 2021 at 4:23 p.m. EDT · November 4, 2021
Eric Edelman and Franklin Miller are retired senior national security policy officials who had significant responsibilities for U.S.-NATO relations over several administrations.
Declaring “America is back,” President Biden has pledged to restore alliance ties badly battered by his predecessor. Nevertheless, his botched withdrawal from Afghanistan caused dismay in NATO capitals, and the administration’s decision to create a British, U.S. and Australian submarine program infuriated France.
But both actions pale in significance to what might occur if Biden continues to pursue a major change in U.S. nuclear deterrence policy — despite strong allied opposition — because that change would strike at the heart of transatlantic ties and would be interpreted as a huge step toward decoupling the United States from Europe’s defense. NATO defense ministers queued up to make this point unequivocally to Lloyd Austin at a recent ministerial meeting.
Since NATO’s inception, successive U.S. administrations have pledged that a Russian invasion of NATO member states would trigger a U.S. response, and that response could include using nuclear weapons. This “extended deterrence” policy is widely believed to have contributed to forestalling such an attack, even during the darkest days of the Cold War.
But Biden does not share this belief. As vice president, he tried unsuccessfully to persuade President Barack Obama to change policy, and declared that “given our non-nuclear capabilities … it’s hard to envision a plausible scenario in which the first use of nuclear weapons would be necessary… [W]e can deter and defend ourselves and our allies against non-nuclear threats through other means.”
In the spring of 2020, candidate Biden doubled down: “I believe the sole purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal should be deterring — and, if necessary, retaliating against — a nuclear attack,” he wrote in Foreign Affairs. “As president, I will work to put that belief into practice, in consultation with the U.S. military and U.S. allies.”
That is exactly what he is now seeking to do. The Biden administration is undertaking a nuclear posture review, with the aim of implementing the president’s rash determination to change long-standing U.S. policy. And allied governments are very worried.
Despite the growth in Russian military capabilities over the past 15 years, the president’s faith in a “No First Use” policy rests on the presumption that the United States has sufficient conventional superiority that Vladimir Putin would never attempt to seize NATO territory. That presumption is flawed. It assumes that deterrence by conventional means alone can successfully forestall war (an assumption belied by centuries of European history) and that — despite two decades of U.S. disinvestment in armor, long-range weapons systems and short-range air defenses while Russia has advanced in electronic warfare and other conventional capabilities — NATO is not “outranged and outgunned” by the Russians. It also ignores geography: Russia’s superior forces along the European front line could quickly seize NATO territory before U.S. forces even arrived. Finally, and most important, it assumes that NATO governments and populations are prepared to accept victory achieved by a bloody conventional war on their territory.
Advocates of No First Use assert that its adoption would cause Moscow to similarly forswear the first use of nuclear weapons. That idea is culturally arrogant and contrary to considerable historical evidence. Russia remains committed to coercive and unambiguous nuclear first-use threats to support its expansionist agenda.
Other NATO capitals understand there is no positive benefit from a U.S. embrace of No First Use — just enormous downsides. Allied governments (including key Asian allies) have been warning the administration at all levels strenuously, bluntly and unambiguously against such a change. In response to these entreaties, the administration has retreated to a convoluted attempt at constructing an alternative policy that would declare the U.S. nuclear arsenal’s “sole purpose” is to deter nuclear attack by adversaries. The eventual formulation might be quite close to existing policy, but adopting any new variant would signal a unilateral change to the extended deterrence promise that lies at the heart of NATO policy.
Rejecting our allies’ views on a matter absolutely central to their security is dangerous. Adopting “sole purpose,” let alone No First Use, would rupture the alliance. The policies of NATO’s other nuclear powers, Britain and France, will not change even if U.S. policy does. Eastern European allies that joined NATO precisely to benefit from extended deterrence will be unnerved. NATO policy, which remains based on the threat that has forestalled aggression for seven decades, will be undercut.
Our allies are one of the United States’ comparative strategic advantages. Successful alliance management requires meaningful consultations — listening to allies’ concerns and modifying “America First” initiatives that call into question the United States’ will to defend its allies.
Putin has worked tirelessly to break NATO. It would be shameful and unforgivable if the Biden administration were to help him achieve his objective.
The Washington Post · by Eric Edelman and Franklin Miller November 4, 2021 at 4:23 p.m. EDT · November 4, 2021
14. FDD | Turkish Streamers Colluded With Iran-Based Money Launderers: Amazon Subsidiary Twitch Should Take Action
Excerpts:
According to Sonuc, the Turkey-based money laundering scheme on Twitch has been going on for at least three years. Twitch’s compliance officers should have detected the massive multi-year money laundering effort, which within three weeks of the leak became obvious to Twitch streamers who were searching for evidence to undermine rival streamers.
This scandal underscores the need for technology companies to develop more effective due diligence and “know your customer” procedures, especially for clients based in Turkey and other jurisdictions on the grey list of the Financial Action Task Force, the global money-laundering watchdog.
FDD | Turkish Streamers Colluded With Iran-Based Money Launderers: Amazon Subsidiary Twitch Should Take Action
fdd.org · by Aykan Erdemir Turkey Program Senior Director · November 5, 2021
Twenty-four hundred Turkish streamers have reportedly helped launder nearly $10 million for Iran-based credit card theft schemes through the Amazon subsidiary Twitch, a live streaming service that leads the world’s video game streaming market. The scandal underscores the need for corporations to develop more effective anti-money laundering measures, especially to protect against illicit financiers based in or working through permissive jurisdictions such as Turkey.
On October 29, Ahmet Sonuc, a Turkish internet celebrity whose Twitch channel has 1.7 million followers, exposed a scheme in which Iran-based credit card thieves laundered money with the help of Turkey-based Twitch streamers. To uncover the scam, Sonuc and other Turkish Twitch users investigated the Twitch data on creator payouts — the revenue generated by streamers — that were leaked following a massive data breach on October 6. They detected some 2,000 Turkey-based streamers who have very few followers but attract large amounts of donations in the form of Bits, a virtual currency Twitch viewers can purchase and use to support streamers through a process called “cheering.”
As part of the scam, the credit card thieves purchased Bits with stolen credit cards and donated large sums by cheering Turkey-based accomplices, then asked them to refund 70 to 80 percent of the proceeds as part of a money-laundering scheme.
Among Turkish Twitch users, the exposé led to a #CleanTwitch (#TemizTwitch in Turkish) hashtag campaign on Twitter aimed at shaming Twitch into going after illicit actors. Gursel Tekin, a Turkish lawmaker from the pro-secular Republican People’s Party, filed a parliamentary question with the Ministry of Treasury and Finance on October 31, asking whether Turkey’s Financial Crimes Investigation Board has launched an inquiry into the scheme. Tekin also inquired whether the Turkish government is cooperating with international law enforcement partners, since foreign currencies, including U.S. dollars, were used in the scheme.
A Twitch spokesperson told Middle East Eye reporter Muhdan Saglam that the company makes “efforts to combat and prevent financial fraud on Twitch on a regular basis,” and that it took action in September “against more than 150 partners in Turkey” for abusing its monetization tools. So far, however, Twitch has not announced any measures against the 2,400 Turkish streamers who colluded with Iran-based credit card thieves to launder money. One Turkish Twitch streamer complained that Twitch streamers were aware of the money laundering schemes on the platform but could not convince Twitch, Amazon, or other Twitch users to act.
As a Foundation for Defense of Democracies research memo showed in 2018, digital currency services and other technology platforms have become key targets for money launderers and terror financiers around the world. Technology companies need to step up their anti-money laundering measures as illicit financiers and terrorists increasingly exploit gaming and streaming platforms. The far-right German gunman who attacked a Halle synagogue on Yom Kippur last year, for example, livestreamed his murderous rampage on Twitch. Vice reported in 2019 that “nearly all” microtransactions among players of Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, a multiplayer game, were used for money laundering as part of a “massive worldwide fraud network.” This misconduct pushed the game’s developer, Valve, to introduce trading restrictions.
According to Sonuc, the Turkey-based money laundering scheme on Twitch has been going on for at least three years. Twitch’s compliance officers should have detected the massive multi-year money laundering effort, which within three weeks of the leak became obvious to Twitch streamers who were searching for evidence to undermine rival streamers.
This scandal underscores the need for technology companies to develop more effective due diligence and “know your customer” procedures, especially for clients based in Turkey and other jurisdictions on the grey list of the Financial Action Task Force, the global money-laundering watchdog.
Aykan Erdemir is a former member of the Turkish parliament and senior director of the Turkey Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), where he also contributes to FDD’s Iran Program, Center on Economic and Financial Power (CEFP), and Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation (CCTI). For more analysis from Aykan, the Turkey and Iran programs, CEFP, and CCTI, please subscribe HERE. Follow Aykan on Twitter @aykan_erdemir. Follow FDD on Twitter @FDD, @FDD_Iran, @FDD_CEFP, and @FDD_CCTI. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.
fdd.org · by Aykan Erdemir Turkey Program Senior Director · November 5, 2021
15. American Defense Policy After Twenty Years of War
Excerpts:
The very people who now are wringing their hands and calling for a full-fledged effort to counter such threats are the same people who should have been warning the nation of their possibility ten or even twenty years ago.
So, ask yourself: If things go wrong, who then shall we blame?
Much of the world is now uneasy with China’s unremitting aggression on its home turf in Asia. Over the past decade, China has been calling its own shots, rejecting international law and public opinion while flexing its muscle to signal its view that it will soon replace the United States as the region’s dominant military, diplomatic and economic power. Beijing has taken down Hong Kong’s democracy movement; started military spats with India; disrupted life for tens of millions by damming the headwaters of the Mekong River; conducted what our government now deems a campaign of genocide against Muslim Uighurs; escalated tensions with Japan over the Senkaku Islands; consolidated its illegal occupation and militarization of islands in the South China Sea; and made repeated bellicose gestures designed to test the international community’s resistance to “unifying” the “renegade province” of Taiwan. China’s military is expanding and modernizing and its Navy is becoming not only technological but global.
While we expended a huge portion of our human capital, emotional energy, and national treasure on two wars, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has had a major economic impact in Asia, Africa, and Latin America and with individual governments on other continents. In Africa, whose population has quadrupled since 1970 and which counts only one of the world’s top thirty countries in Gross National Product, more than forty countries have signed on to China’s BRI.
Let’s get going. We have alliances to enhance, and extensive national security interests to protect. We need to address these issues immediately and with clarity. America has always been a place where the abrasion of continuous debate eventually produces creative solutions. Eventually is now. Let’s agree on those solutions, and make the next twenty years a time of clear purpose and affirmative global leadership.
American Defense Policy After Twenty Years of War
America has always been a place where the abrasion of continuous debate eventually produces creative solutions. Let’s agree on those solutions, and make the next twenty years a time of clear purpose and affirmative global leadership.
The American scorecard for foreign policy achievements over the past twenty years is, frankly, pretty dismal. And without talking our way all around the globe, it’s clear that the most dismal score goes to the stupidest mistakes. We fought one war that we never should have fought and another war whose objectives grew so out of control that no amount of battlefield proficiency could overcome the naïve mission creep of the political and military leadership at the top that was defining what our troops were supposed to do. So, let me start with a couple of quotes from two pieces I wrote, one at the beginning of this twenty-year period and the other at the end.
On September 4, 2002, five months before the Bush administration ordered the invasion of Iraq, I wrote the following as part of a larger editorial for the Washington Post, warning that an invasion would be a strategic blunder:
Nations such as China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall. Indeed, if one gives the Chinese credit for having a long-term strategy — and those who love to quote Sun Tzu might consider his nationality — it lends credence to their insistent cultivation of the Muslim world. An “American war” with the Muslims, occupying the very seat of their civilization, would allow the Chinese to isolate the United States diplomatically as they furthered their own ambitions in South and Southeast Asia.
Almost exactly nineteen years later as the military planners serving the Biden Administration executed a shamefully incompetent final withdrawal from Afghanistan, I wrote the following for The National Interest, excerpted in the Wall Street Journal, in a piece entitled “Requiem for an Avoidable Disaster:”
…the war that we began was not the same war that we are finally bringing to an end. When we went into Afghanistan in 2001 our national concern was to eliminate terrorist entities who desired to attack us. The common understanding at the time was that we would operate with maneuver elements capable of attacking and neutralizing terrorist entities. It was never to occupy territory with permanent bases or to attempt to change the societal and governmental structure of the Afghan people. This “mission creep” began after a few years of successful operations and was obvious in 2004 when I was in the country as an embed journalist. The change in mission eventually increased our troop presence tenfold and sent our forces on an impossible political journey that no amount of military success could overcome.
Why did all this happen? And how can we rectify the damage that has been done to the institutions that were involved, and to our international credibility?
There’s an old saying that “success has a thousand fathers but failure is an orphan.” In this case, there were two entirely different categories of orphans, some of whom were not touched personally or even professionally, and some who gave up lives, limbs, and emotional health.
For the policymakers in Washington, these were wars to be remotely managed inside the guide rails of theoretical national strategy and uncontrolled financial planning. As with so many other drawn-out military commitments with vaguely defined and often changing objectives, America’s diplomatic credibility steadily decreased while the price tag rose through the roof, into trillions of dollars and thousands of combat deaths. There is no way around the reality that these hand-selected policymakers, military and civilian alike, failed the country, even as many of them were being lionized in the media and offered lucrative post-retirement positions in the private sector. Their immediate strategic goals, vague as they were from the outset, were not accomplished. The larger necessity of meeting global challenges, and particularly China’s determined expansion, was put on the back burner as our operational and diplomatic capabilities were diverted into a constantly quarreling region with the deserved reputation of being the “Graveyard of Empires.”
In the context of history, the human cost on the battlefield as viewed by those at the top was manageably small, and carried out by an all-volunteer military. Indeed, despite the length of twenty years of war and many ferocious engagements, the overall casualty numbers were historically low. DOD reports the total number of American military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan combined over twenty years as 7,074, of which 5,474 were killed in action. This twenty-year number was about the same as six months of American casualties during any one of the peak years of fighting in Vietnam.
Emotionally, although there was much sympathy and respect for our soldiers we were not really a nation in a fully engaged war. As the wars continued, life in America went on without disruption. A very small percentage of the country was at human or even family risk. The wars did not interfere on a national scale with the lives of those who chose not to serve. The economy was largely good. In places like my home state of Virginia it absolutely boomed with tens of billions of dollars going to Virginia-based programs in the departments of Defense and Homeland Security.
This societal disconnect gave the policymakers great latitude in the manner in which they ran the wars. It also resulted in very little congressional oversight, either in operational concepts or in much-need scrutiny of DOD and State Department management and budgets. Powerpoint presentations replaced vigorous discussion. Serious introspection by Pentagon staff members gave way to bland reports from Beltway Bandit consultants hired to provide answers to questions asked during committee hearings. An “Overseas Contingency Fund” with billions of unlabeled dollars allowed military leaders to fund programs that were never directly authorized or specifically appropriated by Congress. To be blunt, the Pentagon and the Joint commands were basically making their own rules, and to hell with everybody else.
This was not the Congress in which I had worked as a full committee counsel during the Carter Administration. Nor was it the Pentagon in which I had served as an assistant secretary of defense and Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan.
At the other end of the pipeline, it was different. For those who did serve, and especially for those who served in ground combat units and in special operations, being thrown into the middle of a region where violence and bitter retribution is the norm was often a life-altering experience. Repetitive combat tours pulled them away from home, from family, and from the normal routines of their peers again and again, creating burnout from unresolved personal issues of stress and readjustment to civilian life. So-called “stop loss” programs kept many soldiers on active duty after their initial terms of service were supposed to end, a policy that brought the not-unreal slogan that stop-loss was, in reality, nothing more than a back-door version of the draft: We have you. And we are going to keep you until we no longer need you. The traditional policy of allowing troops a two-to-one ratio of “dwell time” at home between deployments was repeatedly shortened until, for the Army, the ratio was less than one-to-one, requiring soldiers to return to combat for fifteen months with only twelve months at home to recuperate, refurbish, and retrain. Those who left the military after one enlistment rather than choosing a career were largely ignored by commands that provided little post-military guidance and sent battle-weary young soldiers home without much more than a goodbye.
But along the way, as with those who have served our country in uniform in every other war, our young military did the job that they were sent to do, no matter the overall wisdom of the mission itself.
With respect to these capable and dedicated young Americans who stepped forward to serve, I feel fortunate to have been able to play a part in making sure that the public was aware of the contributions they made, and to put into place policies that recognized and properly rewarded their service. And as a writer, journalist and later a Senator I was able to use whatever pulpit was available in order to emphasize that our greatest strategic challenges were not in the places where our elites had decided to invest our people and our national treasure, and to call for the country’s leadership to cease its unfortunate obsession with a region that has never needed a permanent American ground presence as a means of mediating, much less resolving, its centuries-old conflicts. You don’t take out a hornet’s nest by sitting on top of it. We’re smarter than that, and also more capable.
In addition to working on strongly felt issues such as economic fairness and criminal justice reform, once I was elected to the Senate I took a two-pronged approach to resolving the mess that had been made in our misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. The first involved our larger strategic interests. I immediately gained a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and two years later was named Chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs. From our immediate office, I designed a staff—and a legislative approach—that would energetically re-emphasize our commitment to relations in East Asia, and recruited good people to carry out that approach. My mission to my staff was that we were going to work to invigorate American relations in East Asia, particularly in South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, and the Philippines, and we were going to open up Burma to the outside world. We did more than talk about this, averaging three intense trips every year where I was able to meet with top leaders in those countries as well as almost every other country in ASEAN.
Barack Obama later announced a similar policy after he was elected two years later, calling it the “Pivot to Asia.” Unfortunately, his administration’s approach skirted the largest issue in the region by avoiding any major confrontations with China. The pivot was largely abandoned at a crucial period in 2012 after China claimed sovereignty over a two million square kilometer area of the South China Sea, and began militarizing numerous contested islands claimed by several other countries. The Obama administration declined to criticize China’s actions, saying that the United States would not take a position on sovereignty issues. Quite obviously, not taking a position in this matter was defaulting to China’s aggressive acts. I responded by introducing a Senate resolution condemning any use of military force in the resolution of sovereignty issues in the South China Sea, which passed with a unanimous vote.
The second involved the day-to-day manner in which our wars were being fought, and the way that our younger military people were being treated by those at the top.
I participated in numerous hearings on all aspects from my seats on the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, becoming even more concerned about the lack of serious congressional oversight. During one Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-invasion reconstruction efforts, an assistant secretary of state testified that the United States had spent 32 billion dollars on different smaller-scale projects. I asked him to provide me and the committee a complete list of every project, as well as the cost. That was in 2007. I’m still waiting for his answer. This was clearly not the way things worked when I was a counsel in the House, where such requests were often answered within a day or two, from information that had already been compiled. In fact, the lack of an answer, despite follow-up calls from my staff, followed a broader pattern that had evolved after 9/11 when vague answers and delayed responses had become the norm, a deliberate and increasingly routine snub of the Congress by higher-level members of the executive branch.
Take your choice. This was either incompetent leadership or deliberate obstruction. If the congressional liaisons from DOD were able to provide specific, complicated data within a day or two in 1977, certainly the computers of 2007 were capable of doing so after thirty years of technological progress.
I responded by co-authoring legislation along with Senator Claire McCaskill that created the Wartime Contracts Commission, modeled after the Truman Commission of World War Two. After three years of investigations, the commission’s final report estimated that due to major failures in our contracting system the United States had squandered up to 60 billion dollars through contract waste and fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the commission lacked subpoena power or criminal jurisdiction over actions taken in the past, but it certainly got the attention of would-be fraudsters, led to better record-keeping, improved the oversight process, and put a marker down for contracts from that point forward.
Having grown up in the military, and serving as an infantry Marine in Vietnam, and with a son who had left college to enlist in the Marine Corps infantry and fought in Ramadi, Iraq during one of the worst periods in that war, I seized the opportunity – and undertook the obligation – to properly reward the contributions of those who had stepped forward to serve.
Immediately after I won the election to the Senate, and two months before actually being sworn in, I sat down with the Senate legislative counsel and drafted the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Having spent four years as a full committee counsel on the House Veterans Affairs Committee, my legislative model was the GI Bill that had been given to our World War Two veterans, the most generous GI Bill in history up to that time: pay for the veteran’s tuition and fees, buy the books, and provide a monthly living stipend. For every tax dollar that was spent on the World War Two GI bill, our treasury received eight dollars in tax remunerations from veterans who had gone on to successful lives. By contrast, the Vietnam Era GI Bill had provided only a monthly payment that in almost every case was far less than the costs of higher education, beginning in 1966 at a paltry rate of 50 dollars a month and ending in the early 1970s at $340 a month.
I introduced the Post – 9/11 GI Bill on my first day as a Senator. I put together a bipartisan leadership team—two Republicans, John Warner and Chuck Hagel; two Democrats, Frank Lautenberg and myself; two of them World War Two veterans, and two of them Vietnam veterans. Sixteen months later in a modern-day Congressional miracle, the bill became law, ironically over the strong opposition of the Bush Administration to the very end. The White House and the Pentagon claimed that such a generous bill would affect retention, causing too many people to leave the military. The obvious but implicit message was, Don’t treat them too good; they’ll leave. This position was taken by general officers who were going to receive a couple of hundred thousand dollars every year in military retirement when they themselves decided to leave. Having spent five years in the Pentagon and being intimately familiar with manpower issues, I held a completely different belief, that the generosity of the new GI Bill would enhance enlistments and help broaden the base of our overall military. In a back-handed compliment, at least in my view, I was not invited to the White House for the ceremony when the President signed the bill. But to date, millions of post-9/11 veterans have used this Bill, which is beyond cavil the most generous GI Bill in history. It has created opportunities and empowered the careers of people who are now making their way into positions of leadership and influence throughout the country.
Shortly after I introduced the GI Bill, I introduced legislation to mandate a proper ratio for dwell time between overseas deployments. The legislation would have required that military members not be returned to combat unless they had been home for at least the amount of time that they had previously been gone. This was not unreasonable. A two-to-one ratio was a simple formula that reflected traditional rotation cycles. With the continuous deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan it had fallen to less than one-to-one, which meant that for years our soldiers would be gone longer than they were at home, and when they were at home they would be spending much of their time getting ready to go back. This reality was clearly affecting not only morale but also the potential for long-term emotional difficulties such as post-traumatic stress.
Predictably, the White House and the Pentagon opposed the legislation. Some claimed that I had designed it with a hidden agenda to slow down the war in Iraq. Others, led by Senator Lindsey Graham, claimed that the legislation was unconstitutional, that Congress could not intervene in the operational tempo of the military since the President was the Commander in Chief. But a precedent was already set. During the Korean War, Congress had ceased the deployment of soldiers who were being sent to the war zone without proper training by mandating that no military members could be deployed overseas unless they had spent 120 days on active duty. If the military leaders weren’t going to take care of their people, it was only right that Congress should set proper boundaries.
The Republicans filibustered the legislation, which then required sixty votes for passage. Although the bill twice received a fifty-six vote majority, with several Republican votes for passage, we did not break the filibuster. But we did put the issue of dwell time firmly before Congress and the public, and the two-to-one deployment cycle eventually became the express goal inside the Department of Defense.
All of that is history. I put it before you as something of a template to show the patterns that evolved and have continued over the past twenty years, as well as evidence that strong and informed leadership in Congress can turn things around. In many ways, this dislocation is between those who make policy—including military leaders—and those who carry it out. It continues due to the group mentality of a foreign policy aristocracy seeking common agreement rather than original thought. And it has exacerbated this ever-growing dislocation by freezing out those who are not, basically, in the club because their thinking does not fit the usual mantra and their ideas threaten the prevailing orthodoxy.
We need these other voices. There are lessons to be learned and unavoidable questions that need to be answered at every level. Some involve the articulation of our national security objectives and how we define national strategy. Some involve when and how we should use the military for operational missions in harm’s way. And some involve the actual makeup of these military missions, from their remote or covert or overt nature, and if deployed in large numbers how large that footprint should be, and what portion should consist of military contractors along the lines of the past twenty years. And for those who want to repair the damage, it challenges us to find clear ways where we can move forward.
Who do we hold accountable for the random and often changing strategic mistakes that have damaged our strength and our reputation? How do we move forward in the way we articulate and implement our national strategy here at home? How do we regain our respect in the international community, both among our friends who need us, and from potential adversaries who pray every day that America will lose its willpower, that we would be so overcome by military failures abroad and turbulence at home that the nation itself will atrophy and descend into the ranks of an also-ran, second-rate power?
We should begin with a vigorous and open discussion about the makeup, power, and influence of America’s massive defense establishment. And here I’m talking about the highest levels of our uniformed military, the civilian government officials, the powerful defense corporations, the numerous think tanks funded heavily by the defense industry, the hugely influential lobbying organizations, and—if not at the bottom, certainly in the bullseye of the efforts of all of these entities—the authorizing and appropriating committees in the Senate and House of Representatives. Couple that with the media of all sorts, particularly the huge growth of the internet and social media, and one can see how complicated the debate over any controversial issue can become.
We were warned about this, sixty years ago, by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his well-remembered speech about the “military / industrial complex.” The speech was the president’s carefully placed farewell message to the American people, made just three days before he left office. His words resonate, symbolic in their timing as his final shot across the bow, and coming as they did from this former five-star general who knew the military with a completeness that no other American president could ever match.
After commenting that in the aftermath of World War Two the “conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience,” Eisenhower expressed his concern about the “total influence – economic, political, even spiritual” of this new reality “in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications.”
The outgoing, immensely popular President then bluntly called out the members of his own professional culture—the military itself—and the bond its top leaders were increasingly forming with America’s defense corporations. “In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military / industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
Looking at the decades following his speech and particularly the past twenty years, I believe President Eisenhower would be amazed at how massively this military-industrial complex has grown, how entangled the relationships between the military and the industrial complex have become, and how much it has affected the career paths of civilian “experts,” as well as the positions taken by many senior flag officers facing retirement.
Lucrative civilian careers have been made through the “revolving doors” of serving for a few years in appointed posts in the Departments of Defense and State, or by working on committee staffs in the Congress, then rotating over the space of many years in and out of government into the defense-oriented industry and in the ever more influential think tanks, some of them heavily funded by corporations with major financial interests in defense contracts. The number of people involved in such revolving doors and the amount of money flowing back and forth would have stunned the understanding of people in Eisenhower’s era.
Likewise, many military officers have made similar career moves, taking advantage of skills and relationships that were developed while on active duty. Those in uniform and others who work in the area of national defense regularly comment about the potential for conflicts of interest among the most senior flag officers as they carry out their final active duty positions before retiring and prepare for their next career in the civilian world. Critical issues ranging from the procurement of weapons systems to carrying out politically sensitive military operations often comprise the way in which potential civilian employers decide on the next chapter in their lives. A hand played well can bring large financial benefits. A hand played poorly can result in media stigma or even being relieved of their duties, and a beach house in Tarpon Springs.
As with other areas of public service, it would be useful for Congress to examine the firewalls in place in order to maintain the vitally important separation of the military, on the one side, and the industrial complex on the other, just as President Dwight Eisenhower so prophetically pointed out sixty years ago.
Dwight Eisenhower would have liked General Robert Barrow, the twenty-seventh commandant of the Marine Corps. His leadership example personally inspired me, both during and after my service in the Corps. We had many personal discussions over the years, until he passed away in 2008. He was a great combat leader. He mastered guerrilla warfare while fighting Japanese units alongside Chinese soldiers in World War Two. In the Korean War, he received the Navy Cross, our country’s second-highest award, for extraordinary heroism as a company commander during the historic breakout from the Chosin Reservoir. And in Vietnam, he was known as one of the war’s finest regimental commanders. He knew war, he knew loyalty, and he knew his Marines.
General Barrow was fond of emphasizing that moral courage was often harder, and more exemplary, than physical courage. On matters of principle, he would not bend. During one difficult period when he was dealing with serious issues in the political process, the four-star Commandant calmly pointed out to me that his obligation was to run the Marine Corps “the same way a good company commander runs his rifle company: I’ll do the best job I know how to do, and if you don’t like what I’m doing, then fire me.”
It is rare these days to see such leaders wearing the stars of a general or an admiral. And thinking of President Eisenhower’s prescient warnings about what he termed the “the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals,” I have no doubt that he and General Barrow shared the same concerns. General Barrow held another firm belief. Having served as Commandant of the Marine Corps, he believed it would soil the dignity of that office by trading on its credibility for financial gain through banging on doors in Washington as a lobbyist or serving as a board member giving a defense-related corporation his prized insider’s advice on how to sell their product.
The Japanese have a saying that “life is a generation, but reputation is forever.” And General Barrow’s pristine motivation will forever preserve his honor.
I grew up in the military. I know the price that families must pay when their fathers or now even their mothers are continuously deployed, because I lived it as a very young boy. My father, a pilot who flew B-17s and B-29s in World War Two and cargo planes in the Berlin Airlift, was continually deployed either overseas or on bases with no family housing, at one point for more than three years. I know the demands and yet the honor of leading infantry Marines in combat and then spending years in and out of the hospital after being wounded. I know what it is like to be a father with a son deployed in a very bad place as an enlisted infantry Marine. And most of all I know the pride that comes from being able to say for the rest of my life that when my country called, I was there, and I took care of my people.
My other major point today is that our top leaders in all sectors of national defense need to get going and develop a clearly articulated foreign policy. We have lost twenty years, unfortunately fulfilling the prediction that I made in the Washington Post five months before the invasion of Iraq that “Nations such as China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall.” And for China, indeed it was.
It’s ironic that we are now hearing frantic warnings from our uniformed leaders about China’s determined expansionism, both military and economic, and particularly about how recent reports of Chinese technological leaps might be something of a new “Sputnik” moment where America has been caught off-guard and now must rush to catch up. Too bad they weren’t following this as these policies and technological improvements were developed by the Chinese over at least the past two decades, while our focus remained intently on the never-ending and never-resolved brawls in the Middle East.
The very people who now are wringing their hands and calling for a full-fledged effort to counter such threats are the same people who should have been warning the nation of their possibility ten or even twenty years ago.
So, ask yourself: If things go wrong, who then shall we blame?
Much of the world is now uneasy with China’s unremitting aggression on its home turf in Asia. Over the past decade, China has been calling its own shots, rejecting international law and public opinion while flexing its muscle to signal its view that it will soon replace the United States as the region’s dominant military, diplomatic and economic power. Beijing has taken down Hong Kong’s democracy movement; started military spats with India; disrupted life for tens of millions by damming the headwaters of the Mekong River; conducted what our government now deems a campaign of genocide against Muslim Uighurs; escalated tensions with Japan over the Senkaku Islands; consolidated its illegal occupation and militarization of islands in the South China Sea; and made repeated bellicose gestures designed to test the international community’s resistance to “unifying” the “renegade province” of Taiwan. China’s military is expanding and modernizing and its Navy is becoming not only technological but global.
While we expended a huge portion of our human capital, emotional energy, and national treasure on two wars, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has had a major economic impact in Asia, Africa, and Latin America and with individual governments on other continents. In Africa, whose population has quadrupled since 1970 and which counts only one of the world’s top thirty countries in Gross National Product, more than forty countries have signed on to China’s BRI.
Let’s get going. We have alliances to enhance, and extensive national security interests to protect. We need to address these issues immediately and with clarity. America has always been a place where the abrasion of continuous debate eventually produces creative solutions. Eventually is now. Let’s agree on those solutions, and make the next twenty years a time of clear purpose and affirmative global leadership.
Jim Webb served as a Marine in Vietnam, as Secretary of the Navy, and as a United States Senator. He is the Distinguished Fellow at Notre Dame’s International Security Center.
Image: Reuters.
16. FBI believes U.S. faces equal threats from domestic extremists and Islamic State -official
FBI believes U.S. faces equal threats from domestic extremists and Islamic State -official
November 3, 2021
3:27 PM EDT
An FBI logo is pictured on an agent's shirt in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, U.S. October 19, 2021. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri
WASHINGTON, Nov 3 (Reuters) - U.S. law enforcement and security agencies believe domestic extremists, notably white supremacists, pose a violent threat in the United States similar to that of Islamic State militants, top U.S. security officials told Congress on Wednesday.
Concern about racially motivated domestic extremists had prompted the FBI to elevate the threat to a level equal with that posed by the Islamist militants, said Timothy Langan, the assistant director who heads the counterintelligence division.
Langan told a House Intelligence subcommittee the Federal Bureau of Investigation had detected a significant increase in the threat of violence from domestic extremists over the last 18 months.
He said the bureau was conducting around 2,700 investigations related to domestic violent extremism, and there had been 18 lethal attacks targeting U.S. religious institutions in which 70 people had died in recent years.
The FBI has engaged with tech companies regarding their role in fueling extremism, has successfully disrupted planned acts of violence and will continue to "try to close the gap" on its inability to legally decode encryptions on mobile phones.
John Cohen, acting undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis in the Department of Homeland Security, told the subcommittee that racial superiority and "hatred of immigrants" were major threat concerns.
He said his department believes the biggest domestic threat is posed by lone offenders and small groups indoctrinated in extremist ideology. The threat is fueled by a blend of extremist beliefs and personal grievances, he said.
Cohen noted that domestic extremists conduct so much discussion openly on social media that covert collection of intelligence on the threats they pose may often not be necessary to spot the threats.
Some Republican members of the House subcommittee suggested U.S. spy agencies should not be collecting information on U.S. political activity unless there is a connection to foreign actors.
Reporting by Mark Hosenball; Editing by Howard Goller
17. New Tech Will Erode Nuclear Deterrence. The US Must Adapt
Excerpts:
Questions this new review should answer include: which capabilities, and in what quantities, would be most survivable and credible against enemy counterforce weapons; which targets they should prioritize to have the greatest effect on adversary decision-making in both war and peace; and where and how they would need to be postured, depending in part upon allied and partner willingness to host and/or operate them. And perhaps most importantly, with careful guidance by the senior leadership of the Pentagon, this review should determine what strategic deterrence strategy, policy, and posture constructs accounting for these new capabilities could serve to both protect American and allies’ national security while also initiating a new form of strategic stability with Russia and China.
The answers to these questions should inform investment and modernization priorities over the next decade and beyond, while providing the foundation for dialogue with China and Russia to avoid instability in a new era of strategic forces. That, however, is a topic for another day, and will be the subject of further analysis by these authors.
It is not too late for the United States to lead the next RMA in strategic forces, just as it capably led the last. But the time for action is now.
New Tech Will Erode Nuclear Deterrence. The US Must Adapt
A nuclear-only review can’t properly assess sensors and weapons from hypersonics to directed energy.
Nuclear weapons are no longer enough to sustain U.S. strategic deterrence. Senior military leaders and pioneering scholars believe a new technological revolution is now unfolding, and they are right. If we are not attentive now, the United States may lose the ability to deter major attacks in coming years.
The old model of strategic nuclear deterrence is increasingly threatened by a new suite of military technologies, from hypersonic missiles and advanced missile defenses to non-kinetic cyberattacks. Individually, these technologies are potent. But together, they will revolutionize the way that great powers deter and conduct war. To avoid falling behind, the United States must hedge against disruptive capabilities by modernizing its existing nuclear arsenal and undertaking a systematic review of strategic capabilities for the 2030s. This vision for the future balance of strategic forces should then enable defense and diplomatic officials to determine investment priorities accordingly and decide when and how to engage Russia and China to avoid strategic instability in this new era.
These contemporary trends are best understood through the historical lens of revolutions in military affairs, or RMAs. While the history of warfare is mostly evolutionary, certain technological advancements—such as gunpowder, aviation, and precision-guided munitions—have revolutionized warfare and reshaped military balances and the geopolitical landscape.
Technology is not the only variable; RMAs require a convergence of technology, training, doctrine, and operational concepts, as well as a fundamental shift in underlying assumptions, to produce a new way of competing and fighting. For example, the United Kingdom invented tanks, but Germany revolutionized tank warfare by integrating armor, radio, and airpower with novel concepts for employing them. This produced the blitzkrieg of World War II.
The nuclear revolution was perhaps the most consequential RMA, since nuclear weapons could do what no other weapon had ever done: pose an instantaneous, existential threat. The preceding paradigm of strategic deterrence was instantly outdated, as large armies and navies no longer sufficed to deter major attacks. The advent and continual evolution of nuclear weapons ultimately precipitated a new approach to deterrence during the Cold War, wherein only a “triad” of nuclear delivery systems—strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles—was deemed sufficiently diversified to survive any enemy first strike and retaliate, thereby maintaining stability between nuclear-armed adversaries. These capabilities, which so uniquely affect the very decision to wage war, are termed “strategic forces.”
A new, second RMA in strategic forces is now underway on the backs of an array of emerging technologies like hypersonic weapons, advanced missile defenses, artificial intelligence and autonomous systems, high-performance data analytics, quantum computing and sensing, space-based sensors and anti-satellite weapons, and cyberweapons. These threaten to undermine the long-standing nuclear deterrence paradigm and alter the balance of power among the United States, Russia, and China. New capabilities can destroy, intercept, or blind traditional delivery systems, potentially enabling a devastating first strike and precluding adversary retaliation. The country that first develops a new model for using these capabilities in tandem with each other, mastering the emerging “strategic forces balance,” may become the next military and geopolitical hegemon.
This RMA poses distinct threats to each leg of the current nuclear triad. First, advanced Russian and Chinese air defenses are already challenging the stealth capabilities of U.S. strategic bombers. One of China’s leading defense companies claims to have developed a prototype radar that relies on quantum physics to detect the incredibly faint (and normally undiscernible) signals of stealth aircraft. Without stealth, U.S. nuclear-armed bombers could operate outside contested airspace and still reach their targets with standoff cruise missiles, but even those missiles may be increasingly less likely to prevail against more sophisticated missile defenses.
Second, in the wake of the United States’ successful kinetic missile defense test last November, ground- and sea-based missile defenses are vastly improving their ability to shoot down ICBMs and SLBMs, threatening the triad’s ground- and sea-based legs. While it is still relatively easy to overwhelm existing missile defenses, new technological developments in directed energy are very likely to enable a more robust defense against massed ballistic missile attacks. Meanwhile, shooting down a missile is not the only way to stop it; in many cases, it is preferable to destroy the missile before it ever launches. Here again, emerging technologies soon will offer a solution: travelling at over five times the speed of sound, hypersonic missiles supported by synthetic aperture radar satellites are increasingly capable of hitting heavily defended or time-critical targets, thereby enabling preemptive “left-of-launch” strikes against ballistic missile launchers.
Third, and most surprisingly, even the submarine leg of the triad is becoming less survivable. Technological advancements portend swarms of unmanned underwater vehicles, drawing on greater remote sensing capabilities and high-performance data analytics and processing, that will more effectively, continuously, and rapidly track and hunt nuclear-armed submarines. The proliferation of undersea, floating, and space-based sensors will make the oceans far more transparent.
When combined, these technologies could enable a devastating first strike for any nation that seizes this first-mover advantage. Imagine Russia or China uses cyberattacks to blind the U.S. nuclear command, control, and communications architecture, hypersonic weapons to preemptively eliminate ICBM launch sites, underwater drones and advanced sensors to hunt submarines, and advanced air and missile defenses to “mop up” any retaliatory strikes. It is questionable whether the triad could survive, and thus its deterrent power would be fatally compromised.
Such a comprehensive first-strike capability is not with us yet, but current technologies foreshadow its looming likelihood. As friends and foes alike adopt these systems, it is imperative for the United States to develop a new paradigm for understanding and utilizing strategic forces. Only from a position of technological and doctrinal advancement vis-à-vis its competitors can the United States negotiate with them to mitigate strategic instability. Heretofore the realm of academia, now is the time for policymakers to seize the initiative, encourage public and private debates like those of the early Cold War, and realign the nuclear paradigm that still grips the academic and policy communities.
The United States should hedge against this disruptive RMA in the short term by sustaining plans for robust nuclear modernization of the triad. Fortunately, technologies develop at different rates; not all legs of the triad will be threatened simultaneously over the next decade. If one leg is threatened first, the other two legs could provide short-term redundancy in the nuclear deterrence mission. Thus, in its upcoming 2022 National Defense Strategy (NDS) and Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the Biden administration should continue U.S. nuclear modernization policies, while resisting pressures to reduce to a “dyad,” to decrease the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, or to further delay recapitalization programs.
However, modernizing the nuclear triad is only one necessary step; developing a new construct for strategic forces is essential to sustaining an effective deterrent into the 2030s. Over the long term, U.S. policymakers need to move beyond the limited parameters of the Nuclear Posture Review, which views new technologies through the lens of the increasingly outdated traditional nuclear paradigm. The strategic forces balance of the future will include both nuclear weapons and a suite of capabilities comprising the emerging non-nuclear technologies outlined above. Integrating the NPR within the NDS, as the Pentagon announced it would do earlier in the year, is a positive step but is insufficient to develop a new strategic forces paradigm.
Therefore, the Pentagon should replace the nuclear posture element of its NDS review with a broader Strategic Posture Review or “Strategic Deterrence Review” to explore how strategic forces, both existing and emerging, can complement each other, threaten what adversaries value, and thereby realign deterrence for a new era. This more holistic review can be a foundational pillar in Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s “integrated deterrence” concept, by which the U.S. military would develop “the right mix of technology, operational concepts and capabilities – all woven together and networked in a way that is so credible, flexible and so formidable that it will give any adversary pause.”
Questions this new review should answer include: which capabilities, and in what quantities, would be most survivable and credible against enemy counterforce weapons; which targets they should prioritize to have the greatest effect on adversary decision-making in both war and peace; and where and how they would need to be postured, depending in part upon allied and partner willingness to host and/or operate them. And perhaps most importantly, with careful guidance by the senior leadership of the Pentagon, this review should determine what strategic deterrence strategy, policy, and posture constructs accounting for these new capabilities could serve to both protect American and allies’ national security while also initiating a new form of strategic stability with Russia and China.
The answers to these questions should inform investment and modernization priorities over the next decade and beyond, while providing the foundation for dialogue with China and Russia to avoid instability in a new era of strategic forces. That, however, is a topic for another day, and will be the subject of further analysis by these authors.
It is not too late for the United States to lead the next RMA in strategic forces, just as it capably led the last. But the time for action is now.
Barry Pavel is senior vice president and director of the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council.
Christian Trotti is assistant director of the Forward Defense practice at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.
18. Taiwan establishes task force against China’s election-meddling deepfakes
Hopefully we can learn some best practices from Taiwan.
Taiwan establishes task force against China’s election-meddling deepfakes
Move part of Taiwan’s response to China’s disinformation efforts
1722
2021/11/03 15:13
In this Sept. 15, 2021, file photo, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, second from right, watches as a military jet taxis along a highway in Jiadong, T... (AP photo)
TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — The National Security Bureau (NSB) has established a task force dedicated to countering deepfakes used to influence elections or disrupt society in Taiwan from Chinese perpetrators.
The move was prompted by the discovery of falsified photos or videos featuring Taiwanese leadership in 2018 released by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Chen Chin-kuang (陳進廣), deputy director-general of the NSB, said. He made the remark at a legislative interpellation on Wednesday (Nov. 3) regarding Taiwan’s response to 21st-century crime, reported Liberty Times.
According to Chen, intelligence has pointed to such activity involving manipulated audio and visual content, which warranted the set-up of a special unit to tackle the potential threats to national security and electoral integrity using AI-generated technologies.
The official added the NSB was hit with over 40,000 cyberattacks in 2020, with the number already hitting 10,000 more, so far this year. Minister of the Interior Hsu Kuo-yung (徐國勇) echoed his statement by saying that many of such attacks were originated in China.
Last month President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) vowed action against deepfakes after an influencer was busted producing deceitful pornographic videos featuring actors or actresses whose faces were swapped with that of celebrities.
China has been identified as an alleged culprit behind continued disinformation campaigns against Taiwan, especially during major events such as presidential inaugurations, national day celebrations, and how the country handled the COVID-19 pandemic.
19. 'Absolute totalitarianism': China's Xi aims to cement authority and moral legitimacy
Excerpt:
“At the very moment that China aspires to global influence, the United States appears to be backing away from the global stage to devote itself to the Indo-Pacific above all other regions,” CNAS’s Fontaine contends. ” Only by balancing the Chinese threat with its interests in other regions and issues can the United States effectively contest Chinese power—and strengthen its own position in the world.”
'Absolute totalitarianism': China's Xi aims to cement authority and moral legitimacy - Democracy Digest
China‘s President Xi Jinping is expected to push through an historical resolution at a key Communist Party gathering next week, cementing his authority and legacy and strengthening his case for a precedent-breaking third term starting next year, Reuters reports:
A resolution on the “important achievements and historical experiences of the party’s 100 years of struggle” will be discussed and almost certainly ratified by the ruling Communist Party’s 300-plus member Central Committee when it meets Nov 8-11 for the sixth and penultimate plenum of its five-year term.
“This resolution is a further move by Xi to consolidate power and lay the groundwork for a third term,” said Yang Chaohui, who lectures on political science at Peking University.
“The purpose of the resolution is to cement Xi’s new approach – and close the door on Deng’s reform era,” said Trey McArver, a partner at Beijing-based consultant firm Trivium. “This means doubling down on China’s one-party political system, rejiggering the economy to a more high-quality and inclusive growth model, and being more assertive in global affairs.”
The code, that punishes the slander of China’s martyrs and heroes. is being enforced with a revolutionary zeal as part of an intensified campaign under Xi, to sanctify the Communist Party’s version of history — and his vision for the country’s future, Steven Lee Myers writes for the Times:
The Cyberspace Administration of China, which polices the country’s internet, has created telephone and online hotlines to encourage citizens to report violations. It has even published a list of 10 “rumors” that are forbidden to discuss….. The party once could rely on the financial inducements of a booming economy and coercive control of the security state to cement its rule, but now appears to be using political and historical orthodoxy as a foundation, said Adam Ni, a director of the China Policy Center in Australia and editor of China Story.
“There are limits to these tools,” he said of the economy and security state. “They need the moral — the moral legitimacy to maintain their rule.”
It is not China but Russia that presents the chief current threat to democratic institutions in the United States and Europe, says a leading analyst.
Critics of the new Washington consensus about China have framed it as threat inflation, arguing that a softer approach based on cooperation and common interests will yield better results. That is shortsighted, argues Richard Fontaine, CEO of the Center for a New American Security. It is not China but Russia, for example, that presents the chief current threat to democratic institutions in the United States and Europe, he writes for Foreign Affairs:
Since the early years of this century, groups backed by the Russian government have twice meddled in U.S. presidential elections and launched cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and other forms of interference in some 27 different countries. Yet until now there has been no collective effort to defend democratic political systems against Russian infiltration, even among the multiple countries that have been subject to direct election interference.
The Chinese regime has built a sophisticated strategy to portray the country’s leadership in a good light. It has spent around USD 6.6 billion since 2009 in strengthening its global media presence. According to Bloomberg News, between 2008 and 2018, its investment into media alone amounted to $2.8 billion. China regularly conducts exchange programs for foreign reporters from several countries, organizes training for journalists in Chinese cities, and holds regular discussions with foreign journalists and Chinese media unions.
National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
China’s media forays in states as diverse as Italy, Czech Republic and the Philippines go beyond simply “telling China’s story”, according to Sarah Cook, Freedom House Research Director for China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. “Their sharper edge often undermines democratic norms, erodes national sovereignty, weakens the financial sustainability of independent media, and violates local laws,” she wrote.
Anne-Marie Brady, Professor at the University of Canterbury and author of Marketing Dictatorship, strongly disagrees.
“The government of Xi Jinping changed Chinese-U.S. relations, not the U.S. government,” she observes. “The U.S. government, along with other governments, needs to have a clear-eyed, realistic, view of the Xi government, just as the Xi government takes a clear-eyed and realistic view of them.”
“The Biden administration’s China policy does not seek to stop the rise of China or overthrow the Chinese Communist Party but to prevent China from achieving regional or global dominance,” adds Columbia University’s Andrew Nathan, a former NED board member, who also disagrees with the proposition.
“At the very moment that China aspires to global influence, the United States appears to be backing away from the global stage to devote itself to the Indo-Pacific above all other regions,” CNAS’s Fontaine contends. ” Only by balancing the Chinese threat with its interests in other regions and issues can the United States effectively contest Chinese power—and strengthen its own position in the world.”
20. Joint Chiefs’ Information Officer: US is Behind On Information Warfare. AI Can Help
This is the strongest statement I have read from a senior leader about the importance of being able to lead with influence:
Excerpts:
Too often, Crall said, the information environment has been an afterthought for the U.S. military.
“We understand kinetic operations very well. Culturally we distrust some of the way that we practice information operations,” he said. “If you wait until the last minute or if you—as we all have heard the term, “sprinkle some IO [information operation] on that”—all you have is hypnotism. And we're not too good at it. Right? If you're going to condition an adversary, if you're going to condition the space to put these things forward, you've got to put the time and work into it and be sophisticated.”
In addition to strategy—and better interagency coordination on that strategy—the United States also has to be quicker and more proactive in the way it talks about its activities and the contrast between democratic and nondemocratic societies, he said, lest authoritarians use internet-enabled speech and automation to their advantage, rendering U.S. messaging and influence efforts futile.
“I would look at irregular warfare, whether it be messaging or really any kind of warfare in the future, the speed game of...digital transformation, predictive analytics, machine learning, artificial intelligence, they are changing the game...and if we don't match that speed, we will make it to the right answer and that the right answer will be completely irrelevant,” Crall said.
As I have written many times:
Modern UW and Counter UW Irregular Warfare, Political Warfare
All apply to the “Gray Zone” And Great Power Competition
Learn to lead with Influence
•What is the major difference in the views of conflict, strategy, and campaigning between China, Russia, Iran, nK, AQ, and ISIS and the US?
–The psychological takes precedence and may or may not be supported with the kinetic
–Politics is war by other means
–For the US kinetic is first and the psychological is second
–War is politics by other means
–Easier to permission to put a hellfire on the forehead of terrorist than to put an idea between his ears
•Napoleon: In war, the moral is to the physical as three is to one
•In the 21st Century the psychological is to the kinetic as ten is to one
•The US has to learn to put the psychological first
–Can a federal democratic republic “do strategy” this way
–Or is it only autocratic, totalitarian dictatorships that can “do strategy” this way?
•An American Way of Political Warfare: A Proposal https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE300/PE304/RAND_PE304.pdf
Joint Chiefs’ Information Officer: US is Behind On Information Warfare. AI Can Help
Concerns mount about how quickly the Pentagon can respond to global influence campaigns.
The United States needs a better strategy and more advanced tools for information operations, Lt. Gen. Dennis Crall, the Joint Staff’s chief information officer, said Thursday.
The government has become slower and less confident in its approach, a reticence it can’t afford as artificial intelligence drastically increases the pace of messaging and information campaigns, said Crall, who is also the Joint Staff’s director for command, control, communications, computers, and cyber.
“The speed at which machines and AI won some of these information campaigns changes the game drastically for us. If we study, if we're hesitant, if we don't have good left and right lateral limits, if every operation requires a new set of permissions...We're never going to compete.”
Crall made his remarks at the NDIA conference for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, or SOLIC.
Rep. Michelle "Mikie" Sherrill, D-N.J., a former Navy helicopter pilot, said the issue has risen to the attention of the White House.
“I've heard this directly from the president of the United States that they [China and Russia] are doing a better job at this right now. They are telling people across the world that democracy is not fast enough. ‘Democracy can't compete in the world today. Democracy doesn't have the unity of purpose that we need.’ And we need now to come together to portray why you want to be part of the democracy,” Sherrill said. “We need to convey why it's a bad outcome to have China running all of your internet operations.”
Currently, the U.S. government lacks a central organizer for influence campaigns.The State Department has a Global Engagement Center that can identify and respond to things like extremist messaging on social media, disinformation campaigns, etc., and can award grants to private and non-governmental organizations as well as academics, but it’s not positioned to engage with global audiences on broad topics like the desirability of democracy or authoritarian rule.
In the U.S. military, the lead roles in information operations have traditionally gone to the Army and the special operations community. That usually comes as part of larger military campaigns, such as the effort to take down the Lord’s Resistance Army that was terrorizing Uganda, South Sudan, the Congo, and the Central African Republic. But the need for information campaigns has greatly expanded beyond combat areas, and adversaries such as China and Russia have grown adept at using the internet to influence populations across the globe on trade, human rights, the climate, and more.
Too often, Crall said, the information environment has been an afterthought for the U.S. military.
“We understand kinetic operations very well. Culturally we distrust some of the way that we practice information operations,” he said. “If you wait until the last minute or if you—as we all have heard the term, “sprinkle some IO [information operation] on that”—all you have is hypnotism. And we're not too good at it. Right? If you're going to condition an adversary, if you're going to condition the space to put these things forward, you've got to put the time and work into it and be sophisticated.”
In addition to strategy—and better interagency coordination on that strategy—the United States also has to be quicker and more proactive in the way it talks about its activities and the contrast between democratic and nondemocratic societies, he said, lest authoritarians use internet-enabled speech and automation to their advantage, rendering U.S. messaging and influence efforts futile.
“I would look at irregular warfare, whether it be messaging or really any kind of warfare in the future, the speed game of...digital transformation, predictive analytics, machine learning, artificial intelligence, they are changing the game...and if we don't match that speed, we will make it to the right answer and that the right answer will be completely irrelevant,” Crall said.
V/R
David Maxwell
Senior Fellow
Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Phone: 202-573-8647
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
FDD is a Washington-based nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.
