​Quotes of the Day:

"The Chinese term wei ji (危机) is often translated as "crisis," but it carries a dual meaning—wei (危) means danger, while ji (机) signifies opportunity. This philosophy is similar to the concept of turning a weakness into a strength. Xi has used the approach a couple of times in the last few years. One example can be found in the Zero COVID policy and how Xi used its aftermath to consolidate control and shift policies - emphasizing economic recovery while tightening party control within the private sector. Most recently, XI has leveraged the US tariffs to posture globally. China's narrative of US containment efforts has garnered domestic support and reinforced ties with Russia and Iran."

– Charles Davis

“The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors truths, and the fact that missions of people share the same form of mental pathology does not make these people sane.”

– Eric Fromm

“The most important thing in all human relationships is conversation, but people don’t talk anymore, they don’t sit down to talk and listen. They go to the theater, the cinema, watch television, listen to the radio, read books, but they almost never talk. If we want to change the world, we have to go back to a time when warriors would gather around a fire and tell stories.”

– Paulo Coelho

(I could not resist adding to the above what we need to do is go to the field and watch "Ranger TV" and eat some "Ranger candy" for the pain after the long ruck to get to the point where we could build a fire to watch that Ranger TV. I think I recall many discussions about solving the problems of the world. Such memories. IYKYK)

1. America’s Failure to Win Wars—Inside the Trinity by Hy Rothstein

2. The White House Office of Management and Budget Releases the President’s Fiscal Year 2026 Skinny Budget

3. Inside Waltz’s ouster: Before Signalgate, talks with Israel angered Trump

4. New in SpyWeek: Deep State Be Gone!

5. Comrades in support of Jihad

6. Exploding Cargo. Hacked GPS Devices. Spoofed Coordinates. Inside New Security Threats in the Skies.

7. In era of great power competition, U.S. Special Operations Forces to play key role

8. Why China's rogue state allies may worry Beijing

9. Warren Buffett condemns Trump tariffs, calls for more trade as path to prosperity

10. Mike Waltz Joins an Unhappy Fraternity

11. Ex-CIA chief: We gave Ukraine enough weapons to bleed, not to win

12. The U.S. Can’t Handle a War

13. What a $15,000 Electric SUV Says About U.S.-China Car Rivalry

14. I left the Navy SEALs after nearly 6 years because I wanted more action and didn't want to end up a lonely man

15. Elon Musk’s Grok AI Has a Problem: It’s Too Accurate for Conservatives

1. America’s Failure to Win Wars—Inside the Trinity by Hy Rothstein

A thought provoking essay that will likely stir some emotional comments from people on both sides of the draft issue. (which is okay because emotion or passion is part of the trinity).

Introduction and Conclusion:

What most often prevents wars from being won? The general tendency is to examine strategy, tactics, technology, weaponry, leadership, training, logistics, and whether the war was a just cause. Rarely is the quality of a country’s citizens and their relationship to their government considered as factors necessary for winning a war.

...

It is not an understatement to say that engaged citizens are necessary for a democratic republic to function properly. It is also reasonable to suggest that contemporary government dysfunction is connected to a critical mass of disengaged citizens. The culture that had kept American society together has deteriorated. Reorienting the education system and resurrecting the draft, notwithstanding current recruitment challenges, offer paths towards developing better citizens who are engaged in the country’s future. These tasks are simple in concept but difficult to implement. Yet nothing worthwhile is easy.

America’s Failure to Win Wars—Inside the Trinity

https://www.hoover.org/research/americas-failure-win-wars-inside-trinity

What most often prevents wars from being won? The general tendency is to examine strategy, tactics, technology, weaponry, leadership, training, logistics, and whether the war was a just cause. Rarely is the quality of a country’s citizens and their relationship to their government considered as factors necessary for winning a war.

Wednesday, April 30, 2025  9 min read

By: Hy Rothstein

Research Team: Military History in Contemporary Conflict Working Group

America’s Failure To Win Wars—Inside The Trinity

By: Hy Rothstein

What most often prevents wars from being won? The general tendency is to examine strategy, tactics, technology, weaponry, leadership, training, logistics, and whether the war was a just cause. Rarely is the quality of a country’s citizens and their relationship to their government considered as factors necessary for winning a war.

They should be. Clausewitz recognized these factors in his simplified social trinity of people, army, and government, and their relationship with one another. While each element of the trinity has deep social and structural roots, their relationship with one another is variable. Still, a balance is required. President Eisenhower in his farewell address also recognized the trinity and went a step further when he cautioned that, “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.” 

Eisenhower was addressing the conditions inside each of the trinity’s three elements. Clausewitz warned that neglecting the balance among the three would undermine a nation’s ability to fight a sustained war and win. Since the end of World War II, the trinity has become unbalanced. But does the balance required by Clausewitz depend on healthy conditions inside each element? Unhealthy internal conditions may explain why the trinity has become dysfunctional and why the United States now fights but loses wars.

The purpose of each of the elements in Clausewitz’s social trinity is as follows: The government declares war and establishes its objectives; the army fights the war in pursuit of established objectives; and the people are the engines of war and the footbrake that leads to peace. Paradoxically, dysfunctional relationships among these elements give each more room for maneuver and arguably generate endless wars. What happens when disorder appears inside the elements? Checks on government overreach are minimized if Americans neglect their obligations as citizens. A professional army that no longer has a flow of citizen soldiers through its ranks becomes removed from the population it serves. The government, whose citizens are shielded from war can operate with less constraint. Most disturbingly, the army gets to fight wars as it sees fit without checks from the government and the people. An examination of the breakdown inside each element of the trinity follows.

The Government—Unbridled Foreign Policy

The end of World War II radically altered how the United States would view its future security policy. America’s allies in Europe and Asia were struggling to recover from the war’s devastation. The communist threat was growing rapidly. Because of its postwar status, the United States assumed responsibility for leading the defense of Europe and Asia. The small American citizen-soldier army that defended the country for almost two centuries gave way to a new, permanent, military industrial complex needed to fulfill the task of defending the world from the communist juggernaut.

Fortunately, the task of defending the world against communism that began in 1946 ended successfully in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. How is it that what seemed in 1991 to be a new era of global peace and prosperity quickly slipped back to what many politicians and scholars call a new Cold War with Russia and China? The “end of history” didn’t last long. Part of the answer may be an American foreign policy that substituted hubris for prudence.

Recent national security documents warn that the greatest challenge to U.S. prosperity and security is the threat posed by revisionist powers—specifically Russia and China. What does that mean? Revisionism describes those two nations’ increasing willingness and ability to challenge what they see as U.S. efforts to dominate and enforce the existing international order. Considering the foreign policy of the United States during the past quarter century, it should be no surprise that China seeks to displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region, impose its economic model, and reorder the region in its favor, while Russia seeks to restore its great power status and control the periphery of its expanded empire.

What generates this revisionism? An unbiased observer cannot rule out that aggressive American policy has something to do with generating this revisionism. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has invaded or intervened militarily in more than a dozen countries from southeast Europe to the western Pacific, ignoring or dismissing the objections not only of Russia and China, but even of our own allies, and at times discounting the obligations of the UN Charter. 

The United States has also interfered in elections in dozens of countries. Given these circumstances, it is not unreasonable that Russia and China, and nations such as Iran and North Korea, would take steps to immunize themselves against what they see as aggressive U.S. intentions. President Trump’s recent refusal to rule out the use of military or economic coercion to force Panama to give up control of the canal that America built more than a century ago, to push Denmark to sell Greenland to the United States, and to make Canada the 51st state only reinforces American foreign policy threats.

Isn’t it entirely possible that the revisionist powers simply seek the military and economic means to defend against what they perceive as a reckless and dangerous ideological threat to their own geostrategic interests? The last Cold War saw America engaged in a fundamentally defensive struggle seeking to contest what we and our allies perceived as a militant ideological threat. The new Cold War may see the shoe on the other foot.

The People—The Want of Obligation

The government’s expansion of its commitment to defend democracy abroad occurred simultaneously with the growing political alienation of its citizens. Historically, it was in the poleis of ancient Greece that the concept of the citizen-soldier was born. It was generally agreed upon that in return for the state providing protection, services, and enforcing the law, citizens accepted their obligation to fight, and if necessary, die for the state. However, the relations between state and citizen diminished as the small, Greek-styled participant communities evolved into megalopolises. The nature of the political community changed.

The modern, vast, liberal state masks its residents from their obligations of active citizenship and patriotic commitment. More and more people seem to drop out of political life. To use Michael Walzer’s term, they become “alienated residents.” They become strangers to the state. Today, these alienated resident strangers have been joined by millions of resident aliens who are also estranged from the state. As a result, fewer men and women feel obligated to become politically engaged, let alone defend the state against foreign aggression.

Despite this slump towards political alienation, a surge of patriotism among Americans has taken place especially when the nation is threatened. Common purpose brings people together. Accordingly, Americans become motivated to embrace their national identity and their responsibilities as citizens. This was certainly the case from the Revolutionary War through the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. National identity seemed to be in the forefront and other identities moved to the background. 

This achievement was a product of the culture established by America’s founding settlers who believed in the rule of law, the rights of individuals, the value of work, the gift of citizenship, and the belief that they had the duty to try to create heaven on earth, a “city on a hill.” This culture attracted millions of immigrants who wanted to become Americans. Jean de Crèvecoeur’s 1782Letters from an American Farmer perfectly described the American melting pot: “He is an American, who leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. … Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men.”

By the 1960s, the national story of an American people united by a creed of freedom and equality, and by language, territorial integrity, civic traditions, national symbols such as the National Anthem, the Flag, and the Pledge of Allegiance, was under attack. As national purpose faded, tribalism grew. The ideological zeal of socialism was fading, but its proponents on the left sought an alternative. 

The Left found its answer in identity politics. Identity politics grew out of anti-colonialism. Marx’s class struggle was reformulated into an ethno-racial struggle, an endless competition between colonizer and colonized, victimizer and victim, oppressor and oppressed. The new multiculturalist Left was driven to expose the alleged power relations that subordinated and exploited minorities. It was a war against America and liberal democracy as much as Nazism and Stalinism ever were.

Samuel Huntington illustrated this shift from unity to disunity in the poetry recited at two presidential inaugurations. At President Kennedy’s 1961 inauguration, Robert Frost hailed the “heroic deeds” of America’s founding and the creation of “a new order for the ages.” Three short decades later at President Clinton’s inauguration, Maya Angelou had a different message. She identified twenty-seven racial, religious, and ethnic groups and denounced the immoral repression they suffered because of America’s militant profiteering and its eternal link to “brutishness.” Frost celebrated the melting pot that made everyone Americans, while Angelou saw the manifestation of American identity as evil and a threat to the real identities of subnational groups.

The latest effort to divide the American people is critical race theory. It is a cheap repackaging of the Left’s previous attempts to regenerate the failed socialist class struggle by again using race and class to create a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed. Sadly, in American universities, corporate human relations departments, and government agencies, euphemisms such as “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion,” and “culturally responsive teaching” have become part of the organizational culture. But these non-threatening terms should never be confused with the American principles of equality and fairness. Fortunately, critical race theory has lost much of its authority. Still, the divisiveness it generated has hurt how Americans view each other, their institutions, and their obligations as citizens. In 1992, the historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. warned that the “cult of ethnicity,” if pushed too far, may endanger the unity of society. The evidence suggests disunity is here.

The Army—A Distinct Sub-Culture or a Reflection of the People?

There are at least two reinforcing trajectories undermining the health and readiness of the U.S. military. The first is cutting off the average citizen from the nation’s military and creating a warrior caste that carries the burden of fighting America’s wars for the remainder of its citizens. The second trajectory divides the warrior caste by prioritizing radical progressive policies that have been imposed by the very leaders charged with ensuring military readiness. This trajectory may be changing.

First, since the military became an all-volunteer force in 1973, more than 80 percent of its personnel have come from families where at least one family member has previously served. For nearly 30 percent, it was a parent. This is striking considering that less than one percent of the population serves in the military. The U.S. military is becoming a family business and as a result is isolated from most of the American people.

Adding to familial isolation is a geographic component. Today’s members of the military come primarily from the South and from communities outside military bases. The South produces 20 percent more recruits than would be expected while the Northeast produces 20 percent fewer. This was not the case prior to 1973. Military service was spread evenly, geographically, because of the draft. The small number of counties that currently produce recruits is unsustainable. Recent recruiting shortfalls bear this out.

There is also strong evidence that Americans with military connections, whether serving themselves or related to those serving, have different views from their civilian counterparts on issues ranging from domestic politics to national security. In the Northeast and on the West coast, regions defined by liberal politics, people are suspicious of the military. In schools, military recruiters are minimally allowed to interact with students and only because it is against the law to stop them completely.

The growing divide between citizens and soldiers is harmful. Reliance on a shrinking pool of recruits tends to produce a sense of isolation for both citizens and soldiers. More troubling, the warrior caste begins to show contempt for the larger society that they are responsible for protecting.

Second, up until the inauguration of President Trump in 2025, a radical, progressive social agenda had been imposed on the military by elected and appointed leaders who either had little understanding of the purpose, character, and traditions of the military, or didn’t care. Much of the progressive agenda is based on the idea that America is systemically racist. Accordingly, military personnel were required to attend indoctrination programs dividing service members along racial and gender lines, the opposite of what is necessary to build cohesive teams based on common values.

Treatment based on group identity promotes discrimination. Yet in 2021, President Biden signed an executive order requiring all organizations in the military to create Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices. The overall goal, Biden said, was “advancing equity for all,” using the progressive’s euphemism for achieving desired outcomes through discriminatory policies.

Progressive ideology undermines military readiness in various ways. First, it undermines cohesiveness by stressing differences based on race, ethnicity, and gender. Second, it undermines leadership authority by introducing questions about whether promotion is based on merit or quota requirements. And third, it leads to military personnel serving in jobs and units for which they are not fully capable of serving.

One example of how progressive ideology damaged readiness is related to standards and physical fitness, hallmarks of the U.S. military. When former Defense Secretary Ashton Carter opened all combat jobs in the U.S. military to women, he also committed to “gender-neutral standards” to ensure that female servicemembers could meet the demanding rigors of combat. The Army diligently worked for a decade to create a gender-neutral fitness test. However, after finding that women were not scoring up to standard, and under fierce pressure from advocacy groups, the Army threw out the test. The old dual standard requiring less from women was resurrected even though the rigors of combat do not have a dual standard. Readiness standards were subordinated to a progressive social agenda.

Despite the new Trump administration’s quick and direct executive orders to terminate everything associated with progressive ideology, it will not spontaneously end. Wokeness in the military has become ingrained. The people who benefited from progressivism and those hurt by it will continue to divide rather than unite the military for many years.

Summary and Conclusions

The security of the United States is based more on the quality of the citizens it produces and their relationship to their government than to any technological or material factors. The importance of these two factors does not eliminate the more quantifiable requirements for the quality and quantity of weapons, personnel, munitions, advanced technologies, and mobility platforms. But it is worth remembering that strong actors, measured in quantifiable terms, have routinely been defeated by weaker actors throughout history.

Clausewitz’s social trinity cannot produce victory if the elements of the trinity are dysfunctional. A comprehensive action plan to fix what is broken inside each of the elements is beyond the scope of this essay. It is also likely beyond the scope of what a liberal democracy can reasonably do. Draconian measures can make the cure worse than the disease. Nevertheless, there are two specific things that if restored, will generate positive changes inside the trinity’s three elements. The first task is to reestablish the spirit of citizenship among Americans. The second is to reconnect citizens and their military. Where to begin.

First, fix the nation’s education system. Schools have a profound impact on teaching future citizens. Schools have traditionally been instruments of assimilation and keys to forming a sense of American identity. Unfortunately, America’s education system has most recently been ground zero for rejecting what historically has brought Americans together. Too much attention placed on cultural and ethnic differences has nourished prejudices and stirred antagonisms. Students are alienated from the state and each other.

On the surface, it seems that academic institutions are immovable. Schools have always been battlegrounds for debates over beliefs and values. This is a good thing until it goes too far. Fortunately, most Americans, the silent majority that include students and teachers, recognize the voguish nonsense that has been going on in schools. It is also fortunate that most students and teachers are followers, not leaders who possess strong convictions. Self-interest prevails. Having spent a good portion of my life in the academic world, the words “courageous and politically committed” would rarely describe a teacher, especially at the university level.

This means that a modest critical mass of right-minded teacher-administrators could change the orientation of education in America. Government incentives and disincentives can also shape what goes on in classrooms. Additionally, enabling parents who pay taxes and tuition to have a greater role in their children’s education will empower the silent majority. Finally, there is no reason to have tension between the organic, rich diversity that exists in America and the common culture necessary to hold American society together. Educators who won’t see this should be removed from the education system.

Second, reinstate the draft. Mobilizing the national will for war is essential for seeing a conflict through to victory, especially for protracted wars. Unfortunately, the American people were mostly eliminated from the conduct of war when the draft ended in 1973. Clausewitz’s trinity was reduced to two elements; its logic was broken. The end of the draft resulted in the loss of ownership of war. Even people who identified as patriots had no real obligations to the government or the military. Eliminating the draft was a political winner and its weaknesses are hidden as long as wars remain limited. But what if the United States had to fight a major war? We see the human toll in Ukraine. We also see that better technology is not a panacea for success nor a substitute for boots on the ground. Would an American president order conscription or accept defeat, or simply not fight, even if fighting was necessary for the security of the nation? That so much of America’s military effort relies on so small a share of its citizenry should be worrisome by itself.

These are difficult questions. The reality is that the pure military value of a draft in terms of greater manpower is questionable. Additionally, the economic argument against a draft is powerful. And there is the case that compulsory military service eliminates the concept of personal freedom. But these issues are secondary to harnessing the will of the American people to sustain a war and both empower and constrain the government. Americans should have skin in the game.

Just as important, service to one’s nation is a fundamental civic responsibility. There is a feeling of collective identity that is created when everyone is eligible for the draft. A military draft requires the government to be more accountable for its actions. More families become connected to the daily operations of their government. Family and friends of a draftee are likely to be more attentive when viewing current events. Citizens will want to learn more about the threats that their government faces. These interactions keep elected officials accountable for their choices. And finally, when draftees return home, they will be better citizens. Alternative forms of national service will be necessary for some people.

It is not an understatement to say that engaged citizens are necessary for a democratic republic to function properly. It is also reasonable to suggest that contemporary government dysfunction is connected to a critical mass of disengaged citizens. The culture that had kept American society together has deteriorated. Reorienting the education system and resurrecting the draft, notwithstanding current recruitment challenges, offer paths towards developing better citizens who are engaged in the country’s future. These tasks are simple in concept but difficult to implement. Yet nothing worthwhile is easy.

2. The White House Office of Management and Budget Releases the President’s Fiscal Year 2026 Skinny Budget

​Personnel is policy. But the real policy direction comes with the money.

I give the Administration great credit for being very transparent. It is describing its priorities for America. With the public disclosure of the budget proposal this should be the foundation for a healthy debate in the country and the press, policymakers, pundits, and the people should have an informed discussion about the policy direction.

​Here is the link to the 46 page proposed budget in the form of the memo from the OMB Director, Russell Vought to Senator Collins, the Chair of the Appropriations Committee: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P9OHoEIVWZXZaK_edr6L-uvB8uKRw-wI/view?usp=sharing

​It describes the reducing, eliminating, or increasing of funding and provides a summary of the rationale for the proposals.

That said, the budget indicates policy direction and sadly this a "culture war" budget proposal. "Woke" is used twelve times in the document. "DEI" is used 31 times. It is really time to move beyond these tired "woke" and "DEI" tropes. The administration has eliminated the DEI program boogeyman. It is time to stop focusing on them because the "cancel culture" pendulum has swung from left to right with anyone uttering important words like diversity automatically being canceled. How can we get that pendulum (and all the other politics) back to the center? How can we return to the idea that all human beings are created equal with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that we treat each and every person with dignity and respect?

The White House Office of Management and Budget Releases the President’s Fiscal Year 2026 Skinny Budget

The White House

May 2, 2025

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/05/the-white-house-office-of-management-and-budget-releases-the-presidents-fiscal-year-2026-skinny-budget/

Washington, D.C.–Today, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent President Trump’s topline discretionary Budget request for fiscal year 2026 to the U.S. Congress.

The Budget, which reduces non-defense discretionary by $163 billion or 23 percent from the 2025 enacted level, guts a weaponized deep state while providing historic increases for defense and border security.  The Budget also provides support for air and rail safety as well as key infrastructure and our Nation’s veterans and law enforcement.

This is the lowest non-defense spending level since 2017.  Savings come from eliminating radical diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and critical race theory programs, Green New Scam funding, large swaths of the Federal Government weaponized against the American people, and moving programs that are better suited for States and localities to provide. 

Defense spending would increase by 13 percent, and appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security would increase by nearly 65 percent, to ensure that our military and other agencies repelling the invasion of our border have the resources they need to complete the mission. These increases will be made possible through the passage of President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, which will be enacted with a simple majority in the Congress, and not be held hostage by Democrats for wasteful spending increases that have been the status quo in Washington.

“For decades, the biggest complaint about the Federal Budget was wasteful spending and bloated bureaucracy. But over the last four years, Government spending aggressively turned against the American people and trillions of our dollars were used to fund cultural Marxism, radical Green New Scams, and even our own invasion. No agency was spared in the Left’s taxpayer-funded cultural revolution. At this critical moment, we need a historic Budget—one that ends the funding of our decline, puts Americans first, and delivers unprecedented support to our military and homeland security. The President’s Budget does all of that,” said Russ Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Highlights of the President’s key priorities include the following:

End Weaponization and Reduce Violent Crime.  The Budget ends the previous Administration’s weaponization of the Government by eliminating programs like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s disinformation offices that targeted and censored Americans, eliminating so-called Fair Housing programs that waged war on America’s suburbs, ending the Environmental Protection Agency’s unfair harassment of citizens over “environmental justice” directives, and halting the ATF’s criminalizing of gun-owning Americans and instead, focusing on stopping illegal firearms traffickers and violent gang members.

The Budget prioritizes Department of Justice (DOJ) key functions—restoring law and order to America’s communities, fighting crime, and supporting America’s men and women in Blue. To that end, the Budget proposes to eliminate more than 40 DOJ grant programs that fund things like a “feminist, culturally specific nonprofit” to address “structural racism and toxic masculinities” and training Fa’afafine advocates—an organization of biological men that describes themselves as a “third-gender” in Samoa. The Budget also reflects the President’s priority of reducing violent crime in American cities and protecting national security by getting Federal Bureau of Investigation agents into the field. 

Defund the Harmful Woke, Marxist Agenda.  Every single agency across the Federal Government was engaged in funding and advancing DEI and other radical, harmful ideologies such as: $315 million for grant programs to push “intersectionality,” “racial equity,” and LGBTQIA+ programming for preschoolers; housing grants that funded activities such as an “Equity Audit” to reverse “land use patterns that have roots in systemically racist policies in L.A. County; and “addressing White Supremacy in the STEM profession.” The Budget ends all of that.

Secure the Border.  The Budget request empowers the Department of Homeland Security to implement the President’s mass removal campaign and secure the border. This funding is in addition to historic investments in border security the Administration proposes to provide through mandatory funding, as part of the congressional Budget reconciliation process. The discretionary request includes an additional $500 million for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to expedite the removal of illegal aliens through the support of 50,000 detention beds, $766 million to procure cutting-edge border security technology funding, and funding to maintain 22,000 Border Patrol Agents and hire additional Customs and Border Protection officers for a total of 26,383 officers. The Budget also cuts off the flow of taxpayer funds that have been abused to facilitate migrant caravan invasions. Departments whose task it was to prevent those invasions allocated billions in funding to non-governmental organizations running “border aid stations” and legal services to criminal aliens—all of which will be eliminated under this new budget.

Realign Foreign Aid.  The Budget ensures that foreign aid spending is efficient and consistent with U.S. foreign policy under the America First agenda. The Budget reorganizes the U.S. Agency for International Development into the Department of State to meet current needs and eliminates non-essential staff that were hired based on DEI and preferencing practices. The Budget also expands the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to support U.S. national security and American interests—generating returns to the taxpayer and reducing reliance on foreign aid. This includes $3 billion for a new revolving fund to allow DFC to recycle any realized returns from its initial investments.

Rebuild our Nation’s Military.  The Budget request for the Department of Defense builds on the President’s promise to achieve peace through strength by providing the resources to rebuild our military, re-establish deterrence, and revive the warrior ethos of our Armed Forces. In combination with $119 billion in mandatory funding, the Budget increases Defense spending by 13 percent, and prioritizes investments to strengthen the safety, security, and sovereignty of the homeland, deter Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific, and revitalize our defense industrial base. 

Achieve American Energy Dominance.  The Budget supports the President’s commitment to unleash America’s affordable and reliable energy and natural resources. The Budget cancels over $15 billion in Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Green New Scam funds provided to the Department of Energy for unreliable renewable energy, removing carbon dioxide from the air, and other costly technologies that burden ratepayers and consumers. The Budget reorients Department of Energy funding toward research and development of technologies that could produce an abundance of domestic fossil energy and critical minerals, innovative concepts for nuclear reactors and advanced nuclear fuels, and technologies that promote firm baseload power. The Budget also cancels an additional $5.7 billion in IIJA funding provided to the Department of Transportation for failed electric vehicle charger grant programs.

Make America Healthy Again (MAHA). The Budget request builds on the President’s MAHA Commission. The Budget provides resources to the Department of Health and Human Services that would allow the Secretary to tackle issues related to nutrition, physical activity, healthy lifestyles, over-reliance on medication and treatments, the effects of new technological habits, environmental impacts, and food and drug quality and safety. The Budget also supports the creation of MAHA food boxes, that would be filled with commodities sourced from domestic farmers and given directly to American households. The Budget includes resources to ensure food safety nationwide, including support for increased production and demand for services.

Support Our Veterans.  The Budget provides increased funding for healthcare services tailored to U.S. veterans’ needs, both at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers and in the community. Combined with $50 billion in mandatory funding from the Toxic Exposures Fund, the Budget ensures that the Nation’s veterans are provided with the world-class healthcare that they deserve. In addition, veterans who qualify for access to care with local community providers would be empowered to make the choice to see them, rather than having to drive in some cases hours to access the nearest VA facility. The Budget includes $1.1 billion in new VA funding to make a down payment on President Trump’s commitment to eradicate veterans’ homelessness, the largest funding increase in the last decade.

Preserve Social Security.  The Budget supports the President’s promise to not touch Social Security benefits. It also includes sufficient resources for the Social Security Administration (SSA) to improve customer service by expanding and improving online services, and reducing customer wait times in field offices and on the phone. The Budget also includes investments in program integrity, to reduce fraud and abuse in Social Security programs, and in investments in artificial intelligence to increase employee productivity and automate routine workloads. These efforts would help ensure that SSA delivers timely and accurate Social Security services to the public.

Streamline K-12 Education Funding and Promote Parental Choice.  The Budget continues the process of shutting down the Department of Education. The Budget maintains full funding for Title I, that provides Federal financial assistance to school districts for children from low-income families, and special education funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). To limit the Federal role in education, and provide States with more flexibility, the Budget creates a new K-12 Simplified Funding Program that consolidates 18 competitive and formula grant programs into a new formula grant, and a Special Education Simplified Funding Program that consolidates seven IDEA programs into a single grant. The Budget also invests $500 million, a $60 million increase, to expand the number of high-quality charter schools, that have a proven track record of improving students’ academic achievement and giving parents more choice in the education of their children.

Make America Skilled Again (MASA).  The Budget proposes to give States and localities the flexibility to spend Federal workforce dollars to best support their workers and economies, instead of funneling taxpayer dollars to progressive non-profits finding work for illegal immigrants or focusing on DEI. Under this proposal, States would now have more control and flexibility to coordinate with employers and would have to spend at least 10 percent of their MASA grant on apprenticeship, a proven model that trains workers while they earn a paycheck and offers a valuable alternative to college. 

Support Space Flight.  The Budget refocuses the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) funding on beating China back to the Moon and on putting the first human on Mars. By allocating over $7 billion for lunar exploration and introducing $1 billion in new investments for Mars-focused programs, it ensures that America’s human space exploration efforts remain unparalleled, innovative, and efficient. To achieve these objectives, the Budget would streamline the NASA workforce, IT services, NASA Center operations, facility maintenance, and construction and environmental compliance activities. The Budget also eliminates “green aviation” and other climate scam programs as well as failing space propulsion projects.

Maintain Support for Tribal Nations.  The Budget preserves Federal funding for the Indian Health Service and supports core programs at the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education, sustaining the Federal Government’s support for core programs that benefit tribal communities. The Budget also weeds out radical woke grants and programs and streamlines other programs for tribal communities that were ineffective.

Address Drug Abuse.  The Administration is committed to combatting the scourge of deadly drugs that have ravaged American communities. The Budget prioritizes Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) resources on traffickers of fentanyl and other dangerous drugs that are driving America’s overdose crisis. This includes redirecting DEA’s foreign spending to regions with criminal organizations that traffic significant quantities of deadly drugs into the United States—Mexico, Central America, South America, and China. 

Support Artificial Intelligence and Quantum Research.  The Budget amply funds research in artificial intelligence and quantum information science at key agencies to ensure the United States remains on the cutting edge of these critical technologies’ development and responsible use.

Improve Wildland Firefighting.  Federal wildfire responsibilities currently are split across five agencies in two departments. The Budget would consolidate firefighting responsibilities into a new Federal Wildland Fire Service at the Department of the Interior that would coordinate with non-Federal partners to combat the wildfire crisis.

3. Inside Waltz’s ouster: Before Signalgate, talks with Israel angered Trump

​Miek Waltz was/is loyal in the right ways. He implements what the President wants to do. But based on reports it appears he was taken down by the isolation faction within the administration.

Excerpts:

One senior White House official said the president made the final decision about Waltz’s move on Thursday by turning to his most trusted adviser: himself.

“Certainly, people give opinions,” the official said. But with decisions like this, “it’s him.”

The official played down the importance of policy differences in the decision to move him to the United Nations.

“I’ve known Mike for a while and at the end of the day, he implements what the president wants to do, especially on foreign policy,” the official said. “He doesn’t freelance.”

Inside Waltz’s ouster: Before Signalgate, talks with Israel angered Trump

The fired national security adviser engaged in intense coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about military options against Iran ahead of an Oval Office meeting between the Israeli leader and Trump, two people said.

May 3, 2025 at 6:00 a.m. EDTToday at 6:00 a.m. EDT

8 min

1363

Susie Wiles, White House chief of staff, and Michael Waltz, when he was still President Donald Trump's national security adviser, in the Oval Office in April. (Al Drago/For The Washington Post)

By Michael Birnbaum, John Hudson, Emily Davies, Sarah Ellison and Natalie Allison

President Donald Trump’s decision to oust his national security adviser, Michael Waltz, was the product of a slow accumulation of frustration with a former Green Beret officer who was seen as far more eager to use military force than his boss in the Oval Office.

Waltz’s fate was sealed by his inclusion of a journalist on a sensitive Signal group chat in March. But he had been clashing with other top officials since early in the administration, including over whether to pursue military action against Iran, senior officials and Trump advisers said Friday.

The episode has left some senior White House officials questioning the need for a traditional National Security Council and content to leave Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whom Trump on Thursday named as Waltz’s interim replacement, in a caretaker role for quite some time — a decision that will likely diminish an institution that has had a powerful role in shaping the foreign policy of modern presidencies. And it sidelines a key figure in the White House with a long track record of favoring military intervention, officials said. Trump has nominated Waltz to be his ambassador to the United Nations, so he will remain in government.

Waltz’s troubles built up over time, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles increasingly felt he was not a good fit for the president, according to a senior White House official, a Trump adviser and one additional person familiar with the matter on Friday. They and others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel considerations.

Follow Politics

Follow

In announcing the shift, Trump on Thursday vowed in a social media post that “together, we will continue to fight tirelessly to Make America, and the World, SAFE AGAIN.”

But Waltz also upset Trump after an Oval Office visit in early February by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when the national security adviser appeared to share the Israeli leader’s conviction that the time was ripe to strike Iran, two of the people said.

Waltz appeared to have engaged in intense coordination with Netanyahu about military options against Iran ahead of an Oval Office meeting between the Israeli leader and Trump, the two people said.

Waltz “wanted to take U.S. policy in a direction Trump wasn’t comfortable with because the U.S. hadn’t attempted a diplomatic solution,” according to one of the people.

“It got back to Trump and the president wasn’t happy with it,” that person said.

Netanyahu’s office released a statement Saturday confirming that he met with Waltz ahead of his Oval Office visit with Trump but denying that he had “intensive contact” with him.

A spokesman for Waltz did not respond to a request for comment. Wiles said: “Mike and I have been friends for many years and I have a great deal of respect for him.”

And White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said: "The President sets the agenda and it’s up to his Administration to implement those policies, and everyone was rowing in the same direction which is why he had the most successful First 100 days in history.”

The view by some in the administration was that Waltz was trying to tip the scales in favor of military action and was operating hand in glove with the Israelis.

“If Jim Baker was doing a side deal with the Saudis to subvert George H.W. Bush, you’d be fired,” a Trump adviser said, referring to Bush’s secretary of state. “You can’t do that. You work for the president of your country, not a president of another country.”

The change reduces the number of competing visions coming to a president who has been eager to make his mark at home and abroad. During his first term, Trump had little choice but to draw from traditional Republicans to stock his White House. Now, thanks to a broader generational shift within the Republican Party, a younger cohort has known no one but Trump as their standard-bearer. And the president himself has grown more focused on finding people loyal to him who will execute his plans.

Rubio, the temporary replacement, hails from the same traditionalist wing of the Republican Party as Waltz. But he has more readily shed his old views, officials say, and has emerged as a forceful spokesman for Trump. That includes policy on Russia and Ukraine, where the secretary of state has threatened both sides that Washington could walk away from peace talks, with the consequences seemingly worse for Kyiv.

Waltz’s ouster came even as some other prominent members of the administration, including Vice President JD Vance, tried to throw him a lifeline, two senior White House officials said Friday. Vance took Waltz on a March trip to Greenland, which Trump has said he wants the U.S. to acquire. The decision to take him along was in part to boost the embattled adviser days after the Atlantic reported that Waltz had inadvertently included the magazine’s editor on a planning chat coordinating military action in Yemen, one of the officials said.

The vice president — who in foreign policy matters is much more skeptical of military action than Waltz — also tried to introduce the national security adviser to other conservatives who fell in the Vance camp, the official said.

In the end, however, Wiles and other members of the White House senior staff grew to feel that Waltz wasn’t a good fit in the West Wing — and specifically with Trump. Even before Signalgate, the national security adviser was on thin ice, with some White House officials warning that he might be one of the first senior advisers to be swapped out. His handling of sensitive discussions on Signal — which is not approved inside the government for classified conversations — may have been the final factor, even though he held on for more than a month after it was publicized, officials said.

“Signal is an approved app for government use and is loaded on government phones,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said Thursday, defending Waltz’s use of the app more generally.

Some officials question whether Trump truly needs a traditional National Security Council. They say they are seeking ways to serve Trump himself, rather than the White House as an institution. A National Security Council staffed with mid- to senior-level policy experts might not be part of the equation for a president who thinks he is his own best adviser and is deeply skeptical of conventional wisdom on world affairs, they say.

“Some of that just happens through the working process,” one senior White House official said. “So you have to adapt and build and grow and evolve based on your own reality. In some ways it’s just a product of doing this for a few months now and finding opportunities to do it differently.”

On foreign policy but more broadly across his presidency, Trump has hired MAGA true believers for roles that went to traditionalists in his first term. This week’s moves were another shift in that direction, not just sidelining an adviser whose views leaned traditional but also diminishing the influence of the National Security Council by handing temporary oversight to Rubio.

Waltz was always a surprise choice for the role. Though he was loyal to the president, his foreign policy preferences leaned hawkish. On Russia, he favored a tough approach to President Vladimir Putin. Trump has pursued far more conciliatory approaches to Moscow and Tehran, in both instances sending a close friend, Steve Witkoff, as his envoy in a quest to make deals.

The dual-hatted role will leave Rubio with little bandwidth to build out an institution that under ordinary circumstances is stocked with career experts from across the government whose job is to devise strategy, experts said. Traditional national security advisers ensure the country’s complicated foreign policymaking apparatus is moving in the same direction. Now they are expected to focus on Trump’s desires.

One senior White House official said the president made the final decision about Waltz’s move on Thursday by turning to his most trusted adviser: himself.

“Certainly, people give opinions,” the official said. But with decisions like this, “it’s him.”

The official played down the importance of policy differences in the decision to move him to the United Nations.

“I’ve known Mike for a while and at the end of the day, he implements what the president wants to do, especially on foreign policy,” the official said. “He doesn’t freelance.”

Matt Viser in West Palm Beach, Florida, and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez in Phoenix contributed to this report.

What readers are saying

The comments reflect a strong skepticism and criticism of President Trump's decision to replace Mike Waltz as national security adviser. Many commenters express concern over the influence of Israel on U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding potential military actions against... Show more

This summary is AI-generated. AI can make mistakes and this summary is not a replacement for reading the comments.

All comments 1356

+2

By Michael Birnbaum, John Hudson, Emily Davies, Sarah Ellison and Natalie Allison

4. New in SpyWeek: Deep State Be Gone!

Q​uite an extensive rollup of various "intelligence issues."

New in SpyWeek: Deep State Be Gone!

CIA, NSA, ODNI and other US intelligence agencies targeted for big cuts as Michael Waltz unceremoniously exits National Security Council.

https://www.spytalk.co/p/new-in-spyweek-deep-state-be-gone?r=2hta&utm

Jeff Stein

May 03, 2025

∙ Paid

Sure, we could start by rehashing the bust of  Michael Waltz from National Security Adviser down to U.N. ambassador (a lowly post to conservatives), but there’s so much more to address in our world beyond the usual deck chair shuffles that have long been a hallmark of a Donald Trump’s administration. As in Trump 1.0, he’ll likely go through a couple more NSAs before this term is over. But it is worth noting that, according to reports, Waltz was out of step with Trump’s general allergy to U.S. military adventures abroad, in particular a joint U.S.-Israeli air strike on Iran pressed by Benjamin Netanyahu, which Waltz reportedly embraced to his peril. Far right hallucinator and unofficial Trump national security adviser Laura Loomer, meanwhile, celebrated the expulsion of Waltz—and his deputy Alex Wong—with one word: “scalp.” 

Blood on the Tracks: The bigger news to us, courtesy of The Washington Post’s  Warren P. Strobel, was Trump’s plan for a “major downsizing at U.S. spy agencies,” which would include a cut of 1,200 positions at the CIA, “along with thousands more from other parts of the U.S. intelligence community…including at the National Security Agency, a highly secretive service that specializes in cryptology and global electronic espionage, a person familiar with the matter said.” 

Only the big numbers were a surprise. CIA Director John Ratcliffe had promised Trump during Wednesday’s North Korean-style cabinet meeting that his agency was being “restructured…to eliminate the political—the well-documented politicization that has taken place in the intelligence community from bad actors in the past to focus on our core mission and to Make America Safe Again."

Deep State be gone! 

The looming cuts had also been foreshadowed in an interesting interview Tulsi Gabbard gave to an always supportive Megyn Kelly earlier in the week, in which the DNI referred to "deep rot” in the intelligence agencies and highlighted, according to the show’s promo: “her fight against the Deep State, her push for transparency and accountability through declassification, her work on getting to the origins of COVID, her partnership with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Jay Bhattacharya to see how gain-of-function research connects to the COVID pandemic, what she is learning about whether Anthony Fauci lied under oath, the illegal leaks coming out about internal Iran discussions, the pressure to act against Iran from inside the intel community and the forces in the GOP, the status of the leaks investigations…” and so on and so forth, on and on. Oh, and she dismissed the idea that the recently declassified JFK files revealed a CIA role in his 1963 assassination.

Share

Whew! As for those leaks, Gabbard disclosed that three suspects had been “referred to the Justice Department” and 11 more were under “internal investigation.”

Lie Detectors were being employed in the leaks hunt, The Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima and Hannah Natanson reported on Monday, ““creating a climate of fear and intimidation.” As I wrote in midweek, “The hypocrisy of Trump officials pursuing leaks [in the wake of Signalgate] is breathtaking.”

Crypto-Spying: CIA Deputy Director  Michael Ellis is touting cryptocurrency traffic as an avenue for U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to go after bad guys. 

“Bitcoin is here to stay. Cryptocurrency is here to stay. More and more institutions are adopting it and I think that’s a great trend and one that this administration has been obviously leaning forward to,” Elliis said in an interview with “crypto bull and influencer Anthony Pompliano” on digital news site The Daily Hodl. “Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have potential uses amid views that bad actors use these assets to carry out illicit activities,” Ellis said. After the UAE poured $2 billion into Trump’s crypto coins, meanwhile, the White House was said to be “considering” lifting Nvidia chip export restrictions to the Gulf monarchy. (Arabian Post)

London Calling Beijing: We couldn’t help but be somewhat amused by a report that Chinese spies have been planting bugs in London pubs and other places near the Palace of Westminster, where the U.K. Parliament meets. “Spy chiefs have warned that pubs, parks, and even hotel lobbies near Westminster may be full of hidden microphones,” reports Deftech Times, which lists a postal address in Sheridan, Wyoming but seems entirely staffed by Indian nationals with a particular interest in South Asia.

Deftech Times

But the spymasters of Beijing do seem super busy these days, judging just by a flurry of recent arrests of its agents abroad:

*In Manila, “An alleged Chinese spy was caught with suspected espionage equipment ahead of the midterm elections in the Philippines. The suspect reportedly circled the Commission on Elections (Comelec) office in the capital Manila while carrying an international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) catcher—a machine capable of collecting text messages, mobile numbers, and calls within the vicinity.”

*In Berlin, an aide to a far-right party lawmaker was charged with spying for China. “Jian G, a German citizen who worked for European Parliament lawmaker Maximilian Krah from the Alternative for Germany (AfD),” was charged with “passing on sensitive information to a Chinese intelligence service,” according to the DPA news agency. “The man was arrested in the eastern city of Dresden in April 2024 and is said to have obtained more than 500 documents, "including some that the European Parliament had categorized as particularly sensitive." DPA also said he “is also accused of having spied on Chinese dissidents in Germany.” China denied the claims.

*In Seoul, “South Korea’s National Intelligence Service (NIS) told lawmakers on Apr. 30 that Chinese nationals had been caught filming South Korean military and key government facilities without permission on 11 occasions since June last year,” The Chosunilbo reported. “In one case in June, Chinese nationals flew a drone over a U.S. aircraft carrier docked at the S. Korean Fleet Command in Busan. More recently, two teenagers—one reportedly the son of a Chinese public security officer—were caught in April secretly filming fighter jet operations at Suwon Air Base and Osan Air Base in Gyeonggi-do (Province). Police questioned and released them without detention.”

Clap Back: Not to worry, the CIA is fighting back. The spy agency released theatrical style videos directed at “disillisioned or disatisfied” Chinese officials inviting them to turn coat in place or defect, much like the one the CIA directed at Russian officials last year. “If it weren’t working, we wouldn’t be making more videos,” an official told Reuters. Likewise, Chinese intelligence is targeting U.S. national security workers and officials laid off in the Trump/DOGE purges, the Washington Post reminded on Friday, “offering jobs while posing as consulting firms, corporate headhunters and think tanks….“

Subscribed

Russia, too:  Not to be left out, a man suspected of acting on behalf of Moscow was charged with espionage in Greece after “photographing and videotaping military operations at the strategic port of Alexandroupolis in northeastern Greece,” the A.P. reported. “The port serves as a key logistics hub for U.S. and NATO operations, facilitating the movement of military equipment and personnel in support of Ukraine and NATO member states in eastern Europe.”

Air Disturbance: “Exploding Cargo. Hacked GPS Devices. Spoofed Coordinates. Inside New Security Threats in the Skies,” screams a headline in the current edition of Vanity Fair. The chilling story by aviation reporter Jeff Wise probes a disturbing series of “gray zone” activities, from assassinations to airliner sabotage and GPS navigational spoofing and more, that have been traced back to Russian intelligence. “In this new mode of warfare, the sky is no longer a sanctuary,” Wise writes.

Seth Hettena was off this week.

5. Comrades in support of Jihad

​A long, thought provoking essay. It is a fascinating historical survey

Excerpts:

Al-Qurashi’s work reveals a remarkably comprehensive study of history, military strategy, and propaganda techniques. He acknowledges, observes Ryan, “that to gain the people’s support and achieve what [Brazilian Marxist Carlos] Marighella [author of the Mini-Manual of the Urban Guerrilla] refers to as the climate of collapse, it is necessary to ignite social and economic unrest within a society, claiming that most theorists agree this is a key dimension to revolution. Revolutionaries must exploit social and economic injustice, or at least bad conditions, to gain the people’s support for revolution.” 

On February 3, 2022, al-Qurashi killed himself, and members of his family, during a raid by the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command. But his ideology has yet to trigger the bomb it has set itself. The narrative of a liberal democratic cabal that keeps underprivileged colored people in poverty, apartheid, and misery sells like hot potatoes on America’s campuses. 

For example, in June 2021, Gaza Strip leader Yahya Sinwar told Vice News he wanted to: 

[R]emember the racist murder of George Floyd. George Floyd was killed as a result of racist ideology held by some people. The same type of racism that killed George Floyd is being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Jerusalem, the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, and in the West Bank.  

The narrative made even further inroads into elite culture, especially the academy. Indeed, “academia may be even friendlier to Hamas than [is] the leftist political world,” writes George Washington University Professor Lorenzo Vidino in the Wall Street Journal on November 3, 2023.  

If this is true in America, the situation is far worse in the rest of the world. Ultimately, the West must come to the realization that Green-Red-Black-clad totalitarianism only can be defeated by retrieving our self-confidence. That will take an honest understanding of history, and a renewed respect for the traditional values that have made human flourishing and freedom possible. Left and Right are useless categories to navigate a world in which totalitarians make common cause against communities and families trying to live their lives as best they can.  

Technological advances improve everyone’s chances for more prosperity, they also cause great anxiety, dislocation, and susceptibility to corruption, hatred, and resentment. But given the exponentially higher risk of annihilation now, we cannot afford to drown in our own stupidity.  

Comrades in support of Jihad

May 3, 2025

Juliana Geran Pilon

• https://docemetproductions.com/comrades-in-support-of-jihad/

Question any keffiyeh-clad students whether they are right wingers at your own peril – at best you’ll be laughed at. Why should you even ask? Pro-Palestine means Left – and that’s a high percentage of college students. According to a Pew Research survey released in April 2024, younger Americans, two thirds of whom vote Democratic and identify as Liberal or Left, sympathize with Palestinians. Fully 34% say Hamas’ reasons for fighting Israel are valid while 35% are unsure. Hamas is a terrorist organization that deliberately enslaves and murders Palestinians. Yet in March 2025, a Harvard/Harris poll found that that half of all 18- to 24-year-olds say they support Hamas over the Jewish state, by far the largest demographic to do so. 

But far from reflecting a strong intellectual commitment to a violent, antisemitic, anti-American, totalitarian religious movement, evidence also indicates that most of these self-styled revolutionaries know little to nothing about Islamism in general and Hamas in particular. The problem is far more insidious, reflecting the widespread misconception of what constitutes Left and Right. Increasingly, Left is used throughout the mainstream media to connote progressive (with positive connotations) while Right is all but synonymous with racist/fascist.  

Fortunately, most Americans can judge for themselves when presented with clear evidence. Take the 7th of October 2023, for example, which did more to expose the truth about jihadism than all the informational warfare tactics of cynical manipulators who take advantage of what V.I. Lenin called “useful idiots.” Radical tactics have evolved over time, as different players, motivated by often vastly divergent interests, became witting or unwitting bedfellows. This resulted in an improbable axis of Muslim sectarians, German geopolitical strategists, Bolshevik internationalists-turned-pseudo-nationalist, fascists, Nazi pan-Aryans, Soviet apparatchiks, Third-World kleptocrats, neo-Marxist jihadists, and progressive intellectuals – neo-Marxists whose penchant for self-criticism has long ago turned suicidal. What holds this motley crew together is the use of ideology to justify violence.  

Cain’s hate-filled resentment and hubris sufficed to kill his brother. But once his ever-growing progeny had to survive in a crowded world, they had to adapt by turning demagogue. 

Jihad Against Infidels

War always has been with us. Ideological aggression came later. Eventually, it would span the globe. In the case of Islam, insurgencies and violent actions, whether against foreign domination or religious heresy, usually required a declaration of offensive jihad. Known as Jihad Al-talab waal-ibtida, it sanctioned total war, which obliges every Muslim to participate, on pain of eternal damnation. But once the Prophet Mohammad died, violent jihad became far more routine.  

It worsened as the Prophet’s dream of a global community of Muslims continued to disintegrate after the fifteenth century, and desperation set in. The idea arose of a Pan-Islamic alliance engaged in global jihad, which seemed the only way to unify Islam for the purpose of eventual supremacy. It reached a peak toward the end of the nineteenth century, when according to Middle East historian Martin Kramer, “Muslims, separated by distance, language, and history, first thought to make their world whole by assembling in congress.” 

They did so around 1878, when Jamal Al-Din Al-Afghani (1838/9-1897) recommended to the caliph, who was the chief Muslim leader in Istanbul, that he unite the Ottoman Empire with India and Afghanistan, to eventually prevail worldwide. Though his plan did not materialize, the seeds of a new Islamism for the modern age had been sown. While incorporating reason and science, it was still predicated on returning to Islam’s “basic principles,” which were meant to “shake the entire world with its force.” However religiously rooted, its goal was hegemonic, totalitarian, ideological. 

Once the Ottoman Empire fell to an officers’ junta in the early 20th century, the idea recurred, albeit in a quasi-secular fashion. Modernization ensued when it took charge of a fragmented society that sought a modicum of unity in what they called “Ottomanism” or “Pan-Islamism.” The junta, known as the Young Turks, was a secret society originally established in 1889 by young cadets. After deposing the Sultan in 1908, they enthroned a puppet in his place who would have little or no power. The group eventually splintered among warring factions and soon brought the country to its knees.  

In 1913, a coup by one of the factions, led by the so-called “Three Pashas” Talaat, Jemal, and Enver, inaugurated a military dictatorship. The economy, unfortunately, did not improve, having all but collapsed on the eve of 1914. Desperate to modernize Turkey’s communications and transportation networks, the Pashas decided to ally the Ottoman Empire with Germany. Though during the war the Turks performed much better than anticipated, Germany called the shots, and would eventually doom the Empire’s political fate. But the Kaiser also would try to enlist pan-Islamism and jihad; religion would be used for political ends again, though unsurprisingly with unforeseen consequences.  

Germany Plays the Jihad Card

Germany’s goal was to win the war it had done so much to ignite. In an extraordinary 1918 memoir that records his days as America’s envoy to Turkey, Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, Sr., recorded his astonishment at the casual way in which German Ambassador to Turkey, Baron Hans Freiherr von Wangenheim (1889-1981), disclosed why the Kaiser wanted to push Turkey into the conflagration that was about to erupt: 

 [Q]uietly and nonchalantly, as though it had been quite the most ordinary matter in the world… puffing away at his big black German cigar, he unfolded Germany’s scheme to arouse the whole fanatical Moslem world against the Christians. Germany had planned a real ‘holy war’ as one means of destroying English and French influence in the world. 

Given Turkey’s limited military arsenal, its army was not expected to contribute decisively to the war effort. “But the big thing is the Moslem world,” acknowledged von Wangenheim. What he “evidently meant by the ‘Big thing’ became apparent on November 13 [1914], when the Sultan issued his declaration of war,” wrote Morgenthau. “This declaration was really an appeal for Jihad, or ‘Holy War’ against the infidel. Soon afterward the Sheik-ul-Islam published his proclamation, summoning the whole Moslem world to arise and massacre their Christian oppressors.”  

Almost simultaneously, a secret pamphlet also was “distributed stealthily in all Mohammedan countries…. It described a detailed plan of operations for the assassination and extermination of all Christians – except those of German nationality.” Specific instructions for carrying out the plan included: a “heart war,” which required every follower of the Prophet to actively and consistently hate the infidel; a “speech war” through words, spoken and written, to spread hatred wherever they live, anywhere on earth; but above all, a war of “deed” – fighting and killing the infidel everywhere.   

Morgenthau described the plan:  

The latter conflict, says the pamphlet, ‘is the true war.’ There is to be a ‘little holy war’ and a ‘great holy war’ – the first local, the second global. There are three tiers: first, war carried out by individuals, second, by organized ‘bands’ or terrorist groups, and finally, by ‘organized campaigns’ – i.e., trained armies…. In all parts of this incentive to murder and assassination there are indications that a German hand has exercised an editorial supervision. 

The Sultan’s call to jihad fell on deaf ears because most Muslims could not fathom why they should engage in a Holy War against Christians while being allied with two Christian nations, Germany and Austria. But the German-Ottoman partnership had begun. Its real architect was not von Wangenheim, the Kaiser’s loose-lipped envoy to Turkey, but the brilliant Max von Oppenheim, who had promoted it for over two decades and believed in it passionately. As he put it in 1898, it would unleash “Muslim fanaticism that borders on insanity.” 

When the Kaiser finally adopted the plan on July 30, 1914, he indicated: “[O]ur consuls and agents in Turkey, India and Egypt are supposed to inflame the Muslim regions to wild revolts against the British.” He hoped that as a result, “England shall lose at least India.” Winning the war was to be the prelude to Germany’s impending imperial ascendance.  

Military action was supplemented by a strategy spelled out in a comprehensive plan on “The Revolutionizing of the Islamic Territories of our Enemies.” Max von Oppenheim’s plan identified the enemy as not only the Allied powers but “Christians and Jews who supported the allies.” This amounted to “Germany’s endorsement of a war against civilians and spreading religious hatred,” note historians Barry Rubin and Wolfgang G. Schwanitz in Nazis, Islamists, and the Making of the Modern Middle East. “Thus, German strategy would be intimately involved in the Ottomans’ mass murder of Armenians.” This confirms Morgenthau’s suspicion all along.  

“Genocide” would not be coined for another three decades, in 1944, by the jurist Raphael Lemkin; but sociologist Irving Louis Horowitz observed: “The fate of the Armenians is the essential prototype of genocide in the twentieth century.” Even if race was not explicitly invoked by way of justification for genocide, religion surely was – providing one more excuse for mass murder based on group identity. If not quite in scale, certainly in ideology, observes Horowitz, “the declaration of war on the Jews was roughly matched by the earlier war of the Muslims against the Christian Armenians.” 

The German-Bolshevik Conspiracy Against the Tsar

What Morgenthau could not have known was that Germany had another operation that proved even more successful in changing the map of the world. Equally masterminded by von Oppenheim, and involving von Wangenheim, it had the makings of an implausible script for a B-rated movie.  

In 1915, the savvy German ambassador met a wealthy arms merchant and advisor to the three Pashas who by that time ran Turkey, named Alexander Parvus. Born Israel Lazarevich Gelfhand (1867-1924) in an Odessa shtetl (Jewish settlement), Parvus had become a Marxist, befriended Vladimir Lenin, and joined the Bolsheviks. In 1910, he moved to Istanbul to make his fortune but continued his revolutionary activities. His clever articles soon would earn him a considerable reputation. His proposal that revolutionaries could ally with the tsar’s enemies in an international war to destroy the Russian regime brought him to German attention as early as 1905. This was a full decade before von Wangeheim was to make his acquaintance.  

The Kaiser’s own attitude toward the Jews was not hostile; mainly, he wanted to solve Germany’s “Jewish problem” by getting Germany rid of them. Like many Germans at the time, he was open to encouraging Jewish emigration to Palestine, so long as it did not antagonize the Arabs. For this reason, many Jews who had emigrated to Turkey and Palestine hoped for the support of the Sultan, as well as the Germans, in creating a Jewish state.  

As soon as von Wangenheim learned about Parvus, he instantly grasped the man’s importance and dispatched the financier to Berlin, in March 1915, with a proposal to use German funds to pay off the Bolsheviks. Parvus’s plan to bring down the tsarist government by subterfuge was adopted immediately. Soon, through Parvus’s networks in Denmark and Istanbul, money started flowing to Lenin. German and Bolshevik collaboration would change history more radically than any could ever have anticipated.  

Simultaneously, von Oppenheim was busy working on the Islamic front. He proceeded to hire a Middle East expert on the German General Staff, Otto von Wesendonk (1885-1933), along with German experts, as well as more than two dozen who were mostly Muslim. It was an impressive think tank; by war’s end, it comprised a veritably army of some sixty specialists. The Muslims included Tatars, Indians, Persians, Tunisians, Algerians, and Egyptians, notably Abd Al-Aziz Jawish (1876-1929), who, unbeknown to Ambassador Morgenthau, had been the actual author of the infamous secret version of the Sultan’s fatwa in November 1914.  

Though it soon became apparent that the immediate effect of that fatwa was negligible, it was not irrelevant. Its real impact came later, when conditions had become ripe. Many, if not most, Muslims throughout the Middle East were seething at the way the disastrous Versailles Treaty of 1919 divided the world among the victorious Allies on the basis of Allied interests alone, with no regard to local sensibilities.  

The coup de grace came on October 29, 1923, when the Turkish National Assembly declared Turkey a republic, followed by the abolition of the caliphate on March 3, 1924. Though its role had long been mostly nominal, the caliphate’s symbolic presence had postponed the reality of Islam’s eclipse. Many took its abolition to mean that Islam itself was on life support.  

To its zealous and passionate followers, renewed efforts to resuscitate a moribund faith seemed long overdue. Organization was key, as was ideological acumen. The re-radicalized Muslims’ German training came in handy; it was hardly coincidental that the key advisor to Hasan Al-Banna (1906–1959), founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, was the same Abd Al-Aziz Jawish who had ghost-written the Sultan’s proclamation. Jihad could now be lifted to the next level – from mere fatwa to tactical implementation. Though few could grasp its full import at the time, it is widely acknowledged that establishing the Brotherhood marked the start of the modern Islamist movement.  

Islamism and the USSR

In the aftermath of its defeat in 1918, a Germany reeling from its wounds temporarily suspended geopolitical intrigue. “During the early 1920s,” write Rubin and Schwanitz, “the leading role in fomenting revolutionary movements in the Muslim world had passed from Germany to the Soviets, who urged Muslims to overthrow their European rulers.” Enver proved eager to cooperate with the Soviet regime, and with Lenin’s personal support, he immediately was hired to direct its Asian department. Before long, “Enver would persuade Lenin to support an Islamic religious revolt based on a plan drawn up for the Kaiser.”  

It took a while for Soviet Russia’s Islamic outreach to bear fruit. It was hard for Muslims to forget tsarist imperial ambitions, and militant atheism held no appeal for them. But a powerful “Manifesto of the Congress of the People of the East,” issued at a conference designed to rally the “people of the east,” provided a ringing endorsement of jihad that complemented perfectly the Sultan’s secret message of six years earlier.  

The conference would be the first of many venues of cooperation between the USSR and the Islamic world. Over the ensuing decades, the Soviet regime provided assistance – logistical, financial, military and ideological – to Palestinian organizations, undemocratic regimes, and assorted anti-Western groups dedicated to the Islamist cause. Above all, however, the Kremlin helped fine-tune the narrative of Islamist jihad, which advanced the Soviet regime’s global strategic agenda by undermining Western democracy.   

While the Kaiser’s willingness to collaborate with the Muslims against the Allies was driven by geopolitical considerations, Adolf Hitler’s pragmatism clashed with his deeply visceral antipathy to everyone plagued by dark pigmentation. To him, Arabs and Muslims were just a notch above Jews – borderline human. What finally persuaded him to overlook their appearance was a pseudo-historical belief that the people of ancient Egypt and India had been a part of the Aryan culture. Above all, however, he applauded the Islamist war spirit. It was, after all, like his own.  

Among his most devoted Muslim acolytes was the Syrian-born Mufti of Jerusalem, the infamous Haj Amin Al-Hussaini (1895–1974). After fighting alongside the Ottomans against Arab nationalists, Hussaini turned against his former friends, then decided to spy for Britain and help Syrian Arabs against the French. He then switched once more and joined the French.  

Drawing inspiration from fellow-Syrian Rashid Rida (1865-1935), Hussaini rejected his own father’s antipathy to politicizing Islam to join the battle. He emerged as a formidable organizer, fundraiser, and spokesman for the cause of jihad. This meant making common cause both with Hitler and Lenin, for Hussaini understood that Communism and fascism had the same national enemies as the Muslims. Both pseudo-egalitarian monistic ideologies permitted no dissent; they were thoroughly totalitarian and fully consistent with an Islamist politico-religious vision. Writes Laurent Murawiec in The Mind of Jihad:  

Starting in the 1920s and 1930s, the Communist Party of Palestine (CPP) was the great instructor of the Pan-Islamist nationalist movement led by the Grand Mufti Al-Husayni in the fine arts of Communist agitprop, the conveyor of crucial Marxist-Leninist concepts, such as ‘imperialism’ and ‘colonialism.’ Most of the ugly repertoire of modern Arab and Muslim antisemitism came from the Soviet Union (with only the racial-biological component added by the Nazis). The CPP taught the Arab extremists the use of Bolshevik rhetorical devices previously unknown. The ‘anti-imperialism’ so imported by the Communists was remarkably ingested by the Muslim extremists, to the point of becoming integral to their conceptions and expression. 

While Berlin served as the perfect venue for Islamist networking between the two world wars, a similar effort was taking place in Moscow. In 1927, the USSR started bringing Muslim leaders to the Communist International Academy’s International Lenin School for a three-year course that targeted future party leaders and influencers. Observed Walter Laqueur in 1956: “It cannot be mere coincidence that the main proponents of fascism in Egypt, Syria and Iraq cooperate nowadays with the Communists in the framework of sundry national, anti-imperialist and ‘peace’ fronts.”  

Egypt already had become home to the radical Muslim Brotherhood. Like Al-Banna and Rashid Rida, Hussaini adopted the concept of salafiyya, which meant a “return of the ways of the ancestors.” Al-Banna already had articulated the violent vision that would define the jihadist movement in an address to the Fifth General Conference of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1938, that Islam can be understood by everyone. This transferred Islam to the realm of lay religion. 

Like Judaism and Christianity, this creed transcends individual nation-states, eternally true across space and time, meant for all humanity. “Its prescriptions regulate all matters of man in this world and hereafter… Islam is dogma and ritual, homeland and nationality, religion and state, spirituality and practice, Quran and sword.” Since Islam means “submission,” totalitarianism is its fraternal twin brother. Explains Murawiec:  

When the world stage was dominated by the rivalry between the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ culture of pluralist democracy and Prussian inspired authoritarianism, the heart of the Arab elites throbbed for the latter. When this was vanquished, its tyrannical successors, Soviet Bolshevism, Italian fascism, and German national socialism became the rage of the Arab and much of the Muslim world. 

Al-Banna grasped all these similarities. This newly energized, super-belligerent Islam addressed the entire world, guaranteeing that once it had all become Muslim, it would reach a perfect harmony with an essentially egalitarian distribution of resources. Though Al-Banna’s economic vision has been described as “neither capitalism nor socialism,” he regularly invokes the principle of “social justice.” German scholar Ivessa Lubben summarizes Al-Banna’s economic recommendations as follows: 

He wanted to reorganize the collection and distribution of obligatory alms [zakat] in a modern social institution. He asked for the prohibition of interest-based loans and the restriction of monopolies… [as well as] a redistribution of income by raising low salaries and capping higher ones. 

For several decades, the Brotherhood was broadly accepted in Egypt, until the government sequestered most of the organization’s assets in 1948. The man who took over the leadership of the Brotherhood was the austere Sayyid Qutb (1906–1966), whom most Islamic scholars consider to be the intellectual father of modern Islamist terrorism. Qutb’s seminal work Milestones (Ma‘ālim fī t-tarīq), an Islamist blend of the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf, is a clarion call to Armageddon.  

Qutb first redefined Jihad not as a “defensive war” in the narrow Western sense, but broadly as a “defensive movement” whose aim is “to wipe out tyranny. It would introduce true freedom to mankind, using whatever resources are practically available in a given human situation.” He has in mind “the end of man’s arrogance and selfishness, the establishment of the sovereignty of Allah and the rule of the divine Shari’a [Islamic law] in human affairs.” The victory of the “realm of peace,” Dar al Islam, “means that din [the law of the society, or human law] should be purified for Allah, that all people should obey Allah alone, and every system that permits some people to rule over others be abolished.”   

In A Fury for God: The Islamist Attack on America, Islam expert Malise Ruthven notes that the “message of revolutionary anarchism implicit in the phrase that ‘every system that permits some people to rule over others be abolished’ owes more to radical European ideas going back to the Jacobins than to classical or traditional ideas about Islamic governance.” He adds: “The vanguard is a concept imported from Europe, through a lineage that also stretches back to the Jacobins, through the Bolsheviks and latter-day Marxist guerillas such as the Baader-Meinhof gang. Rueven concludes: The implicit “totalitarian menace is clear…. The argument is not dissimilar to that deployed by Communists during the 1930s. Qutbism is distinctly modern, both in its adoption of the revolutionary vanguard and in the way it addresses a contemporary phenomenon – the modern crisis of faith.”  

Like Al-Hussaini and Al-Banna before him, Qutb cooperated both with both Nazis and the Communists. Revolution to him was the only credible instrument of attaining social justice and of applying the shar’ia as “the only proper remedy for decaying societies. Zalzalah (shaking) or revolution is the word used to describe the first step in the process of building a new society.” Not that European concepts translated perfectly into an Islamic context. The idea of tawhid, meaning “the unity of God” reflected by unity on earth under shari’a, was not equivalent to “totalitarianism,” a word first used in a specifically Italian context.  

Similarly, the closest to Western-style political “revolution,” was thawra, meaning rising, excitement, rebellion. It was conveniently refurbished by Muslims eager for a major shake-up. They realized that to be effective, modern Islamism had to become a genuinely political religion and emulate the tactics used by Western-style secular movements.   

It finally happened, though in unexpected circumstances. For notwithstanding Qutb’s success in overhauling Islamism, the Islamist Revolution that appropriated the name would be waged not by his Sunni brothers, but by their Iranian rivals.  

Their sectarian differences aside, Sayyid Qutb and Ruholla Khomeini (1902-1989) had both been disciples of Abul Ala Maududi (1903–1979), a Pakistani philosopher who came to believe in an Islamic Revolution of millenarian proportions. According to Maududi, the Prophet Muhammad had been “the greatest Revolutionary of all.” A true “Muslim,” writes Maududi, belongs to “that ‘International Revolutionary Party’ organized by Islam to carry out its revolutionary program.” These words were music to the ears of Qutb and Khomeini: they both agreed fighting is mandatory if Islam is to survive. 

Maududi’s principal contribution to modern Jihadism was to weaponize it by reconciling secular and religious ideals and language in ways appealing to young and old alike, to the pious and the iconoclasts, and to utopians of all stripes. To him, Islam is more than a religion; it is “a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals.” “Jihad,” wrote Maududi, “refers to that revolutionary struggle and utmost exertion which the Islamic Party brings into play to achieve this objective.”   

But just as the Communist revolution first succeeded in Russia, defying its German architects who had expected it to erupt in the West, the ideology that seemed ripe to explode in a majority Sunni country would end up overturning a Shiia kingdom instead. To nearly everyone’s surprise, the cataclysmic upheaval that changed the Middle East eventually came not to Egypt but to Iran. The self-proclaimed Muslim messiah, the Ayatollah Khomeini, turned out to be a skillful practitioner of taqiyya (deception). As the Iranian-born scholar Amir Taheri points out, “originally, the Khomeinist leadership itself had hesitated to use the ‘Islamic’ label, speaking instead of a ‘popular uprising’ (qiyaim mardomi) so as to attract leftist groups and reassure the middle classes that feared religious rule. Soon, however, they realized that they needed Islam to mobilize the muscle required to neutralize the shah’s armed forces.”  

Like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, Khomeini saw no reason not to assume complete control of the state for the good of the “people.”  

Jihad Turns Woke

One of the Iranian regime’s main theorists, the mullah Morteza Motahhari (1919-1979), who was eventually assassinated by political opponents, explained that Islam rejects “Western freedoms” designed primarily to promote sexual license. Comments Taheri:

If Allah granted man any freedoms, according to Khomeinism, it was not on an individual basis. The human individual has no meaning outside the ummah, which is a theatrical device – like ‘the people’ or ‘Das Volk.’ This is perhaps why Khomeini and his successors have spoken of ‘the ummah that is always present on the stage to play the role required of it.’

Documents obtained during the 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden reveal that al-Qaeda and covert Iranian agents had first attempted to broker an unlikely agreement more than two decades earlier. The effort had followed Saddam Hussein’s blanket rejection of al-Qaeda’s request for military assistance. Once the agreement was in place, Iran provided a veritable lifeline for the severely wounded terrorist organization: starting with wives and volunteers, soon the most high-ranking al-Qaeda leaders arrived in Iran intending to stay and galvanize the outfit. Write journalists Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark: 

They were marshaled by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian thug who would form Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the forerunner to ISIS. [Others] included Abu-Muhammad Al-Masri … wanted by the FBI for involvement in the 1998 embassy attacks … [and] Abu Musab Al-Suri, one of the most important strategic voices in the movement. Immediately, a reformed al-Qaeda military council planned its first attack from within Iran, according to Mahfouz, striking three residential compounds in Saudi Arabia, killing more than 35 people (including nine Americans) in 2003.   

What seems to have gone unnoticed in most media discussions of al-Qaeda’s ideology is the contribution of radical Western writings and experience. Among the first to explicitly recommend a form of guerrilla war rooted in both ancient and modern Chinese and Communist insurgencies, was Abu Ubayd Al-Qurashi. He wrote highly influential articles that turned for guidance to Mao Tse Tung, whom he credited with understanding that all operations the revolutionary army undertakes, especially military operations, must serve a political goal. 

Like Lenin, and later Mao and Castro, he also expanded Marx’s notion of the proletariat to include the rural poor. Explains Jamestown Foundation Senior Fellow Michael W. S. Ryan in Decoding Al-Qaeda’s Strategy: The Deep Battle Against America: 

In introducing the example of rural revolutionary forces, Al-Qurashi is thinking of the Cuban revolution and the writings of [Cuban Marxist] Che Guevara and [French Marxist philosopher and former Che associate] Regis Debray. Al-Qurashi finds no consensus among theoreticians and practitioners of revolutionary or guerrilla warfare concerning the separation of political cadres from the fighters themselves. He points out that Che and Regis Debray and those who participated in the Cuban Revolution “combined political and military authority in one man, Fidel Castro.” For Al-Qurashi, another such man was Osama Bin Laden.  

Al-Qurashi’s work reveals a remarkably comprehensive study of history, military strategy, and propaganda techniques. He acknowledges, observes Ryan, “that to gain the people’s support and achieve what [Brazilian Marxist Carlos] Marighella [author of the Mini-Manual of the Urban Guerrilla] refers to as the climate of collapse, it is necessary to ignite social and economic unrest within a society, claiming that most theorists agree this is a key dimension to revolution. Revolutionaries must exploit social and economic injustice, or at least bad conditions, to gain the people’s support for revolution.” 

On February 3, 2022, al-Qurashi killed himself, and members of his family, during a raid by the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command. But his ideology has yet to trigger the bomb it has set itself. The narrative of a liberal democratic cabal that keeps underprivileged colored people in poverty, apartheid, and misery sells like hot potatoes on America’s campuses. 

For example, in June 2021, Gaza Strip leader Yahya Sinwar told Vice News he wanted to: 

[R]emember the racist murder of George Floyd. George Floyd was killed as a result of racist ideology held by some people. The same type of racism that killed George Floyd is being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Jerusalem, the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, and in the West Bank.  

The narrative made even further inroads into elite culture, especially the academy. Indeed, “academia may be even friendlier to Hamas than [is] the leftist political world,” writes George Washington University Professor Lorenzo Vidino in the Wall Street Journal on November 3, 2023.  

If this is true in America, the situation is far worse in the rest of the world. Ultimately, the West must come to the realization that Green-Red-Black-clad totalitarianism only can be defeated by retrieving our self-confidence. That will take an honest understanding of history, and a renewed respect for the traditional values that have made human flourishing and freedom possible. Left and Right are useless categories to navigate a world in which totalitarians make common cause against communities and families trying to live their lives as best they can.  

Technological advances improve everyone’s chances for more prosperity, they also cause great anxiety, dislocation, and susceptibility to corruption, hatred, and resentment. But given the exponentially higher risk of annihilation now, we cannot afford to drown in our own stupidity.  

Juliana Geran Pilon is a Senior Fellow at the Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization, where she directs AHI’s Washington Program on National Security. Born in Romania, she received her Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Chicago, and has taught at several universities, including the National Defense University, George Washington University, St. Mary’s College of Maryland, and the Institute of World Politics. Pilon is the author of over 250 articles and reviews. Her most recent books are An Idea Betrayed: Jews, Liberalism, and the American Left (2023) and The Utopian Conceit and the War on Freedom (2019). 

6. Exploding Cargo. Hacked GPS Devices. Spoofed Coordinates. Inside New Security Threats in the Skies.

​It is a scary world out there. I am seeing a pattern of reporting about a wide range of intelligence and national security issues and many seem to be directly and indirectly related to Russia. Russia's legacy of malign activities extends to the present and will likely continue long into the future 

Exploding Cargo. Hacked GPS Devices. Spoofed Coordinates. Inside New Security Threats in the Skies.

Some experts suspect that a series of aviation incidents traces back to Russian aggressors. The sophistication only rivals the potential for danger—and the sky’s the limit.

By 

April 24, 2025

Vanity Fair · by Jeff Wise · April 24, 2025

First, smoke curled out from the cube of packages stacked on a pallet at a DHL logistics hub near Birmingham, England, last July. Then a lick of flame emerged from the top of the stack. Racing to prevent the fire from spreading, a forklift operator snatched up the burning pallet and dashed away with it, setting it down at a safe remove before the stack turned into a roaring bonfire.

Not long after, 600 miles to the east, inside another DHL logistics hub in Leipzig, Germany, a similar scene played out. Then, according to Polish media, a third courier-related fire started near Warsaw. Polish officials say they intercepted yet another device before it went off and arrested at least four suspects. Another suspect was arrested in Lithuania, according to The Wall Street Journal, and charged with sending four of the devices from the capital city of Vilnius.

An incendiary device made of a magnesium-based substance had apparently sparked each fire. Investigators suspect that the sabotage was organized by Russia’s military intelligence agency as part of an ongoing campaign to sow chaos across Western Europe.

The packages that erupted in Germany and England were both scheduled to be shipped on planes operated by DHL, the global logistics company headquartered in Germany. One had arrived at the warehouse via air freight, and one was about to be loaded. Magnesium fires are particularly dangerous because dousing them with water only makes the fire worse; a special powder has to be used. The fire that ignited in Poland took two hours to extinguish, per local reports. If any of the packages had ignited in the cargo hold of a plane in flight, there would have been no easy way to prevent it from leading to one of the most feared and deadly in-flight disasters: a runaway fire that consumes oxygen and fills the air with poisonous smoke and fumes far too quickly for the pilots to get the plane on the ground. “It would have resulted in a crash,” Thomas Haldenwang, the former head of Germany’s domestic intelligence department, told German parliament. People could have been killed on the ground, and many more could have died if the devices had gone off on a passenger flight.

But the DHL attacks, scary as they are, are not the end. They are among a number of recent events that threaten to upend air safety. Civil aviation around the world is now under sustained attack, both on the ground and in the air. The ongoing aggressions encompass sabotage and hijacking as well as more modern kinds of strikes, such as breaching databases, tampering with navigational systems, and potentially even the hacking of onboard systems. While the aviation industry is aware of the danger, there has been no organized effort that has kept pace with the rate of cybersecurity attacks. Krishna Sampigethaya, chair and professor at the Cyber Intelligence and Security Department at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, a leading American aviation institution, says some steps have been taken, but “it’s an open and attractive space for attackers to target.”

Illustration by Emiliano Ponzi.

For decades, air travel has been the safest way to get around. Year after year aircraft engineers, airlines, and regulators have relentlessly honed the procedures for making, maintaining, and operating aircraft in order to narrow the margin for bad events. “Rules are written in blood,” the saying goes. The aviation industry fetishizes the following of procedures so that parts don’t break and crews don’t make dangerous mistakes. This is the core tenet of safety: eliminating opportunities for accidents.

Safety is only part of the equation, though. The other part is security: defending against deliberate action. The first known case of an airplane hijacking was in 1931, when revolutionaries attempted to seize a Ford Tri-Motor plane in Peru. By the late ’60s, hijackings had become a weekly occurrence throughout the world, prompting officials to introduce the first anti-hijacking security measures, such as metal detectors and X-ray machines. Then came 9/11, which ushered in the era of sock-footed shuffling through 3D scanners.

TSA checkpoints and other security measures have appeared to be successful at warding off attackers with bombs and box cutters. But another class of potential perpetrator—or “threat actor,” in security speak—is capable of advanced measures that are much more difficult to detect. Nation-state threat actors can tap the resources, talent, and funding of an entire country to plan and carry out malicious acts—and they don’t even need to be in the airplane, or at the airport.

Historically, nations have largely avoided attacking one another in the air. Save for a few conflicts that have occurred at moments of perilously high political tension, the international order has treated air travel as sacrosanct, a parallel realm in which aircraft of all nations are allowed to pass unmolested. The International Civil Aviation Organization, the United Nations agency that governs aviation, provides guidelines for countries to charge airlines for using their airspace, and these so-called overflight fees can be one of the rare sources of foreign revenue for rogue nations like Myanmar and North Korea.

According to the Chicago Convention of 1944, which laid the underpinnings for international aviation law, signatory nations “must refrain from resorting to the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight” and “the lives of persons on board and the safety of aircraft must not be endangered.” To intentionally shoot down, blow up, or otherwise endanger an adversary’s passenger vessel would be an overt act of war on par with the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915.

But the world has been changing, and so have the rules that adversaries play by.

The strange disruptions began building in late 2023, striking airliners mid-flight over Ukraine and the Middle East. The anomalies spread to the Black Sea and the Baltic region, then to the Korean Peninsula—first a few here and there, then dozens, then hundreds. In the midnight dark of a red-eye cockpit, or during the afternoon tedium of a Europe-to-Asia leg, clocks can suddenly blip several minutes into the future or past, map displays can shift dozens of miles off course, and altitude readings can go haywire. “I was at 35,000 feet, and suddenly it said 1,000 feet,” recalls Akseli Meskanen, a Finnair captain and president of the Finnish Pilots’ Association.

Some planes descending to land have become so disoriented that they’ve had to abort their approach. By late April the problem had gotten so bad in Estonia that Finnair canceled all its flights to Tartu, the country’s second-largest city.

The disruptions appear to have emerged largely as a side effect of military activity related to drones. In recent years, weaponized drones have played an increasingly important role in conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine: They are small, cheap, plentiful, and hard to detect. Electronic warfare is one of the few effective ways to deter them.

One form of electronic defense, called jamming, swamps the airwaves with noise so that GPS receivers can’t hear the satellites. Another, spoofing, creates fake signals that mimic messages from GPS satellites, misleading GPS receivers about their location.

Though specifically intended to confuse drones, these electronic countermeasures can wind up impacting huge swaths of sky. Once pilots are trained to recognize such attacks, they can respond; flight crews are advised to switch off GPS receivers and use other forms of navigation. But a third method of attack, called smart spoofing, is more nefarious and can actually manipulate a specific aircraft’s computer systems.

Todd Humphreys, a professor of engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, was among the first to demonstrate the technique, back in 2012. As he was studying the GPS protocol, Humphreys realized that a clever threat actor could almost undetectably disrupt a GPS-enabled navigation system. If you know the exact location of your target, you can send a signal that effectively lies to that target’s GPS receiver about its own position—not by very much, but just enough to convince the navigation system that it needs to correct its course. A patient attacker could keep adding slightly erroneous signals until the target is heading in a completely wrong direction.

To test the idea, Humphreys laid out cables, laptops, and antennas on the floor of his home and patched together a prototype GPS spoofer. Humphreys then set his rig to spoof his own iPhone. As he watched, the blue dot on the navigation app screen started wandering across his neighborhood, even as the phone sat perfectly still. Shortly after, Humphreys perfected his spoofing rig and miniaturized it to fit in a portable box. During a 2013 demonstration in the Mediterranean Sea, Humphreys and his colleagues were able to take over the navigation system of an $80 million superyacht and send it off course.

This kind of GPS attack is akin to hacking, since it uses knowledge of an adversary’s control system to take it over. Because the ship’s or plane’s inertial navigation system doesn’t realize that it’s receiving corrupted information, it’s virtually impossible for the system itself to recognize that something is going wrong. “Current aircraft navigation systems can’t detect it,” says Xavier Orr, cofounder of Advanced Navigation, which builds navigation systems that are resistant to interference. “If they don’t know about it, they can’t solve for it.”

Indeed, this is just what has been happening over the Baltic Sea, where the westernmost territories of Russia intercalate with Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. “We have had many, many incidents where aircraft unintentionally flew into airspaces that they weren’t supposed to,” says Otjan de Bruijn, president of the European Cockpit Association.

A similar hack was apparently used by Iran to steal one of America’s top secret unmanned aircraft. In December 2011, an RQ-170 Sentinel was circling high above northeastern Iran conducting surveillance when its handlers suddenly lost control, under circumstances that remain unclear. The Sentinel descended and was captured, mostly intact, by Iran. At first the US claimed the drone had malfunctioned, but eventually it was reported that the Sentinel had likely fallen victim to Iranian electronic warfare forces, who had first jammed the drone’s links to its operators and then spoofed GPS signals to lure it in for capture. According to US aerospace reporter Stephen Trimble , the Iranians had recently received from Russia a sophisticated piece of electronic intelligence equipment called the Avtobaza, which is designed for radar signal interception and jamming.

Illustration by Emiliano Ponzi.

According to Finnish officials, there were more than 1,000 reports of GPS interference in 2024.

There was little doubt, to those officials, as to who was causing the problem; many disruptive signals had been traced back to the heavily defended Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, according to reports. But why would Russia wage electronic warfare against civilian aircraft in an area hundreds of miles from the nearest conflict?

The answer has to do with Vladimir Putin’s strategic goals. Since he came to power in 1999, Putin has been trying to revive Russian greatness as it was under the czars and the Soviets. This means dominating and annexing its neighbors. Putin has repeatedly questioned the sovereignty of Ukraine and Georgia, suggesting they are breakaway republics rather than fully independent nations. Finland and Estonia also fear his imperial goal of absorbing the Baltic region.

THE BIDEN WHITE HOUSE REPORTEDLY SENT OFFICIALS TO WARN THE KREMLIN OF THE DANGER THAT COULD RESULT FROM SUCH A PLAN—AND THAT THE REPERCUSSIONS COULD BE SEVERE. THE MESSAGE SEEMINGLY GOT THROUGH; THE ATTACKS STOPPED—AT LEAST FOR THE TIME BEING.

Reviving Russian greatness is a project of immense importance for Putin, but it won’t be an easy one to accomplish. Russia is poorer, smaller, and weaker than its adversaries in the democratic West, so Putin dares not pursue his ambitions too overtly. Instead, since at least 2013, Russia has waged a wide-ranging shadow war with a grab bag of offensive techniques, from hacking and misinformation to sabotage and assassination, keeping its enemies off-balance while remaining in a “gray zone” in which the provenance of such attacks is unclear, or the level of aggression is insufficient to trigger a hot war.

“For more than two decades, the Russian government has used its cyber capabilities to destabilize its neighbors and interfere in the domestic politics of democracies around the world,” the Biden administration noted in its 2023 National Cybersecurity Strategy , adding that “Russia remains a persistent cyber threat as it refines its cyber espionage, attack, influence, and disinformation capabilities.”

In this new mode of warfare, the sky is no longer a sanctuary. Over the last decade the Kremlin and its allies have repeatedly targeted civilian aircraft. In 2014 a Russian army air-defense unit in Ukraine shot down a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet, killing all 298 aboard. In 2021 Belarus forced down an international flight over its territory to arrest a dissident aboard it. And in 2023 a plane carrying Yevgeny Prigozhin, leader of the Wagner Group, ignited midair and crashed under mysterious circumstances, just months after his mutiny against the Russian military leadership—though Russia has denied responsibility. Each act was a crime but also a flex, demonstrating the ruthlessness and determination of the Russian state and the price that could be paid by those who defy it.

In this context, the wave of GPS spoofing and jamming that has plagued the Baltics is being interpreted by many within the region as a threat and a punishment—specifically a response to Finland and Sweden’s recent accession to NATO. Their decision to join was itself made in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which was made in response to Ukraine’s attempt to peel itself away from Russian hegemony during the Maidan uprising of 2014. It is the latest escalation, in other words, in a long-enduring spiral.

One of the objectives of hybrid warfare is to keep an opponent unsure of what is happening or why. Were the DHL attacks an earnest attempt to destroy a cargo plane? A test run to lay the groundwork for a later attack? Or perhaps a feint, a distraction from other, more dangerous schemes? There was no way to tell from the physical evidence alone.

Unpredictability is the mark of a skilled gray-zone operator, and a wide range of tools and styles is an asset. A feature of Russia’s alleged campaign of disruption is that it uses different kinds of attacks. Some, like blasting an airliner out of the sky with a missile, are blunt and brutal. Others can be dazzlingly brilliant. Russia’s SolarWinds cyberattack, which bored deep into network management software between 2019 and 2020, involved techniques so ingenious that they had previously been deemed impossible. “Investigators,” Wired later reported, “were blown away by the hack’s complexity and extreme premeditation.”

A worst-case scenario is one in which Russia combines the full measure of both its cleverness and its brutality to trigger an aviation catastrophe that leaves hundreds dead with no way to tell for certain who was responsible, or even without any firm evidence that it had been an attack at all.

Western authorities have been aware of the danger of a cyberattack against aviation for some time. In 2014 the Federal Aviation Administration enlisted a Washington, DC–area consulting company to assess the cyber vulnerability of US airliners. The resulting study reported that numerous potential avenues of attack were wide open, from the design and production of aircraft to routine maintenance. It concluded that “a significant risk exists across legacy, current, and next/new generation aircraft.”

In the years that followed, cybersecurity specialists called penetration testers went to work to identify specific vulnerabilities. One such effort was organized by the Department of Homeland Security in 2016. A unit within the agency, called the Science & Technology Cyber Security Division, obtained a Boeing 757 and turned it over to a team of pen testers. Within two days they were able to find a way to break into the system remotely. It was later reported that “early testing indicates that viable attack vectors exist that could impact flight operations.”

Private investigators have had similar results. In 2018 Ken Munro, founder of the British cybersecurity firm Pen Test Partners, borrowed a disused 747 and demonstrated potential vulnerabilities in aircraft systems using an unsecured tablet computer.

So far, though, efforts to identify and remedy vulnerabilities have been piecemeal and sporadic. “Current policies and practices are inadequate to deal with the immediacy and devastating consequences that could result from a catastrophic cyber attack on an airborne commercial aircraft,” warned a 2016 DHS report, which also noted a “significant reluctance by the commercial world to expend resources to prevent penetration & attack.”

That reluctance abides today. “It’s hard to convince the aviation industry that cybersecurity isn’t just about protecting computers—new cyber-physical threats like GPS spoofing and jamming can also disrupt aircraft operations and safety,” says Sampigethaya.

Throughout 2024 Russia appeared to dramatically increase suspected gray-zone attacks against Europe. There was the alleged assassination of a prominent defector in Spain, and an apparent attempted assassination of several defense industry executives. Agents were suspected of breaking into water treatment plants in Finland and Sweden. Mysterious drones targeted a US airbase in Germany and England, and temporarily shut down an airport in Sweden. Russian ships were suspected of cutting a power cable and two data cables under the Baltic Sea. And this year a cargo ship under the alleged command of a Russian national plowed into an anchored tanker full of jet fuel for the US military, setting it ablaze.

Russian military intelligence “is on a sustained mission to generate mayhem on British and European streets,” said Ken McCallum, director general of MI5, in arare public speech. “We’ve seen arson, sabotage, and more. Dangerous actions conducted with increasing recklessness.”

The planting of incendiary devices, however, has threatened to take the temperature above a boil. According to The New York Times, US intelligence officials became convinced that the DHL warehouse incidents were part of a larger plan to target planes headed for the United States and Canada. The devices ignited after the planes had landed, but a malfunction could easily trigger a mass-casualty event because passenger planes sometimes transport smaller packages in spare cargo space. “The risk of catastrophic error was clear,” former Department of Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told the Times in January, just before Donald Trump’s inauguration. “These could catch fire in a fully loaded aircraft.”

Alarmed, the Biden White House reportedly sent leading security and intelligence officials to warn the Kremlin of the danger that could result from such a plan—and that the repercussions could be severe. The message got through, apparently, and the attacks stopped—at least for the time being.

The security situation in the United States has changed dramatically, and quickly. Trump is a longtime admirer of Putin and has said that he trusts Russia more than US intelligence. On January 21, his second day in power, Trump dismissed members of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, a group set up in the wake of the Lockerbie bombing to strengthen airline and airport security. In February his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, reportedly ordered a halt to offensive cyber operations against Russia. Given the new pro-Kremlin tilt, America’s closest intelligence allies are reportedly reconsidering whether to continue sharing secrets with US intelligence. “People are very worried,” an unnamed former US intelligence official told NBC.

The challenge in a hybrid warfare environment isn’t to identify and deal with each attack that comes your way. It’s to recognize that you’re in a hostile environment and that your adversary is constantly thinking of new ways to do harm. To that end, researchers in the field of aviation cybersecurity are constantly working to identify potential weaknesses and figure out how they could be exploited so that defenses can be erected.

One system that’s received particular attention is the Traffic Collision Avoidance System, or TCAS, which was designed in the 1980s to prevent aircraft from running into each other. Last August, Italian researcher Giacomo Longo presented a paper at a conference in Philadelphia in which he described how his team had patched together hardware and written software that could produce spoof TCAS alerts at distances up to 4.2 kilometers, or roughly 2.6 miles, away. These could cause planes to veer suddenly off course. In January the US Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency issued an alert about the vulnerability.

On January 29 an American Airlines jet carrying 64 people collided with an Army Black Hawk helicopter as it was coming in to land at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. The plane’s TCAS hadgiven the flight crew an audible traffic advisory about the collision 19 seconds before the crash, but further audible warnings were suppressed by design as the plane descended below a standard advisory cutoff altitude. The ensuing collision killed everyone aboard the jet and all three crew members on the Black Hawk.

About a month later, on March 1, at least a dozen planes landing at the airport reported that they were getting false TCAS warnings with no aircraft in sight. “It’s been happening all morning.… No one else has been seeing anything except for on the TCAS,” an air traffic controller told one aircraft. Three planes aborted their landings and conducted “go-around” maneuvers. “I’ve never heard of something like this,” former National Transportation Safety Board chairman Robert Sumwalt told CBS. “Nuisance alerts, yes, they happen. But not like this, where several planes have it at the same location.”

Five days later, more anomalies occurred. “Several flight crews arriving and departing Reagan Washington National Airport received onboard alerts Thursday morning indicating another aircraft was nearby although no other aircraft were in the area,” the FAA tells Vanity Fair.

Within the world of aviation cybersecurity, the ghost alerts were widely regarded as suspicious, as no one could think of how the signals involved could have been produced innocently or inadvertently.

“I find the events suspiciously compatible with the exploits outlined in my paper,” Longo tells Vanity Fair, adding that a spoofing attack is “the most plausible explanation” for the observed anomalies. It seemed to him that someone has been “using what I built for harm, and I don’t like it one bit.”

The story took a dramatic twist on March 27, when Senator Ted Cruz stated at a Senate hearing, “It’s now come to my attention that these warnings were caused by the Secret Service and the US Navy improperly testing counter-drone technology at [Reagan].” Cruz claimed that the government tests had used the same spectrum band as TCAS, causing interference and faulty resolution advisories, even though the FAA had reportedly previously warned the Navy and the Secret Service against using that specific spectrum band due to interference risks.

Is Cruz correct? “I’ve never heard of spoofing TCAS as a counter-drone tactic before,” says John Wiseman, an independent aviation researcher who investigates unusual aviation incidents using publicly available data. He points out that while some drones are outfitted with TCAS, an unmanned vehicle penetrating hostile airspace would not likely be deterred by a TCAS alert. Wiseman also is skeptical of the claim that the ghost alerts were triggered by interference in the frequency band. For a TCAS system to generate an alert, it needs to receive multiple correctly encoded digital messages received at just the right time. It’s unlikely that this could happen by accident. “It seems like it has to be intentional, not just the result of jamming,” he says.

Even if the anomalies resulted from a well-intentioned research project, the way that the testing was carried out seems strangely unprofessional. When researchers like Longo and Humphreys build their experimental rigs, they are careful to do so in shielded environments so that their signals won’t leak and cause mayhem in the real world. Such precautions would seem especially urgent less than a month after the first fatal commercial midair crash in over a decade, along a flight path that passes just one mile from the White House. “What a weird place and time to do that sort of testing,” Wiseman marvels.

A spokesperson for the Secret Service denies Cruz’s allegations, telling Vanity Fair that it “did not conduct any drone system testing in the National Capital Region on March 1, 2025. The agency has been coordinating with the FAA to ensure our systems do not interfere with FAA frequencies or commercial air traffic operations.” A representative for the Navy tells Vanity Fair it is looking into the matter.

Regardless of who is actually responsible for the ghost alerts, and whether the motive behind them was benign or malicious, the incidents appear to mark a historic turning point in the annals of US aviation: the first time that a deliberate, sophisticated spoof has disrupted commercial airliners in the national airspace.

Once there has been one, there will in all likelihood be more. Whether they occur in an environment that is complacent and vulnerable, or alert and adaptive, depends on how we react now. Until now, the threat that airliners could be hacked has been abstract and remote-feeling; it’s hard to rally vigilance for a threat that has never manifested before. But all that’s changed.

In a criminal court, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. That standard of proof can’t apply in an adverse security environment, where attackers can strike in unforeseeable ways, the evidence itself is prone to be altered, and the stakes are human lives. When you suspect that sophisticated adversaries are intent on doing you harm, it’s irresponsible to wait for definitive proof you’ve been attacked. Sometimes you just have to expect the worst.

7. In era of great power competition, U.S. Special Operations Forces to play key role

​Stu Bradin getting some press ahead of SOF Week. :-) 

Excerpts:

Analysts say SOF is uniquely positioned to perform a host of missions crucial to U.S. national security, including counterterrorism raids.

“For the past two decades, USSOF achieved critical operational successes during the global War on Terror, primarily through counterterrorism and direct-action missions. However, peer and near-peer competition now demands a broader application of USSOF’s 12 core activities, with emphasis on seven: special reconnaissance, foreign internal defense, security force assistance, civil affairs operations, military information support operations, unconventional warfare, and direct action,” Clementine G. Starling-Daniels and Theresa Luetkefend, researchers at the Atlantic Council, wrote in a recent analysis.

They argued that SOF should “return to its roots.” In years past, SOF thrived with unconventional warfare support of resistance groups in Europe; support of covert intelligence operations in Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America; evacuation missions of civilians in Africa; and guerrilla and counterguerrilla operations to combat Soviet influence, they wrote.

The global landscape in some ways has changed since those pre-9/11 days. But Mr. Bradin argues that many of the broad strokes remain the same.

“As far as great power competition, we were all over the world confronting the Chinese, Russians through their surrogates, which is what they mainly use. That is what Special Operations was actually built to do,” Mr. Bradin said. “It’s the same damn actors. You can add in Iran and North Korea now, and those are the big four out there trying to stir stuff up.”

In era of great power competition, U.S. Special Operations Forces to play key role

By Ben Wolfgang - The Washington Times - Saturday, May 3, 2025

washingtontimes.com · by Ben Wolfgang

By - The Washington Times - Saturday, May 3, 2025

U.S. Special Operations Forces are positioned to do more than just the high-risk, high-profile counterterrorism missions of the post-9/11 era.

With a focus on their Cold War-era roots, America’s elite units also could be the key to preventing a war between the U.S. and its chief adversaries, China and Russia.

That was the case made by Stu Bradin, CEO of the Global Special Operations Forces Foundation.

A retired Army Special Forces colonel with more than three decades of experience and tours all over the world, Mr. Bradin said in an exclusive interview with The Washington Times that U.S. special forces — such as the Army Rangers, Green Berets and the highly secretive Delta Force — have been on the front lines of great power competition throughout history.

Their role, he said, is more vital than ever, given the vulnerability that traditional ground formations of troops face in today’s era of hypersonic weapons, long-range artillery fire, drone swarms and electronic warfare.

“I believe that we’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars on legacy items that will not survive modern warfare,” Mr. Bradin said on The Times’ Threat Status weekly podcast. “We have a force that cannot deploy. And once it’s deployed, it cannot be employed. It can be detected. If you mass a force anywhere in this world, you will get annihilated. You will be absolutely annihilated.

“Nowadays, with long-range fires, the distances they can impact you … all of this has changed. I believe you’re in a stage of irregular warfare, where SOF, cyber, intelligence, information and commerce/economics are the five big things that will stop a major theater operation. And so I think SOF … [is] in a position to prevent a major theater war versus allowing it. If you stop someone from massing, the probability of there being a major war is very low.”

Mr. Bradin’s Global Special Operations Forces Foundation is the organizer of next week’s SOF Week convention in Tampa, Florida, one of the largest gatherings of elite military units from all over the world and of the leading defense contractors researching, developing and manufacturing the tools that special forces need.

Advertisement

The conference comes as the American military rapidly evolves, with the future roles of SOF expected to be among the key topics during the convention programming and in the high-level, behind-the-scenes discussions in Tampa.

The Trump administration is making significant structural changes to the Army and other services, to U.S. force posture in key regions such as the Middle East and Pacific, and is undertaking an ambitious endeavor to reimagine the country’s homeland missile defense system.

All of those efforts come in response to the renewed threats the U.S. faces from its great power rivals, mainly Russia and China. To meet those threats, there’s an expectation that the budgets for SOF units across the military will rise in the coming years as the units form a central component of modern-day American power projection.

Specialists say SOF could play a central role in the broader U.S. military and geopolitical strategy. While those elite SOF units became virtual household names during the War on Terror, with high-profile missions such as the 2011 raid in Pakistan that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, analysts are quick to point out that SOF’s roots go much wider. Dating to the most dangerous periods of the Cold War, SOF was often on the front lines of the American fight against communist forces, working on the ground with resistance forces and undertaking other specialized missions across the globe.

Analysts say SOF is uniquely positioned to perform a host of missions crucial to U.S. national security, including counterterrorism raids.

“For the past two decades, USSOF achieved critical operational successes during the global War on Terror, primarily through counterterrorism and direct-action missions. However, peer and near-peer competition now demands a broader application of USSOF’s 12 core activities, with emphasis on seven: special reconnaissance, foreign internal defense, security force assistance, civil affairs operations, military information support operations, unconventional warfare, and direct action,” Clementine G. Starling-Daniels and Theresa Luetkefend, researchers at the Atlantic Council, wrote in a recent analysis.

They argued that SOF should “return to its roots.” In years past, SOF thrived with unconventional warfare support of resistance groups in Europe; support of covert intelligence operations in Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America; evacuation missions of civilians in Africa; and guerrilla and counterguerrilla operations to combat Soviet influence, they wrote.

The global landscape in some ways has changed since those pre-9/11 days. But Mr. Bradin argues that many of the broad strokes remain the same.

“As far as great power competition, we were all over the world confronting the Chinese, Russians through their surrogates, which is what they mainly use. That is what Special Operations was actually built to do,” Mr. Bradin said. “It’s the same damn actors. You can add in Iran and North Korea now, and those are the big four out there trying to stir stuff up.”

• Ben Wolfgang can be reached at bwolfgang@washingtontimes.com.

Copyright © 2025 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

washingtontimes.com · by Ben Wolfgang

8. Why China's rogue state allies may worry Beijing

It will be good for China and the CCP to experience some blowback.

Excerpts:

China is in the midst of a public relations offensive to capitalize on America's withdrawal from the international stage, but its plan could be upended by its close strategic ties to Russia and North Korea, which are waging war together in Europe.

President Xi Jinping is attempting to seize on uncertainty left by President Donald Trump's trade moves to court U.S. allies after years of strained relations, and after former President Joe Biden sought a united front against perceived Chinese economic and security threats.

Xi's Putin-Kim Problem

Yet a major complication may loom over China's efforts: its fence-sitting on Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine and its muted response to the estimated 14,000 North Korean troops who helped Russian forces retake Kursk could backfire.

While China has presented itself as a neutral party and repeatedly called for a political settlement of the conflict, it has also kept Russia's economy afloat, offsetting sanctions through expanded energy purchases and abstaining from key United Nations votes condemning the invasion.

American and European officials also accuse China of exporting dual-use goods to Russia.

Why China's rogue state allies may worry Beijing

Newsweek · by Micah McCartney · May 2, 2025

ByMicah McCartney is a reporter for Newsweek based in Taipei, Taiwan. He covers U.S.-China relations, East Asian and Southeast Asian security issues, and cross-strait ties between China and Taiwan. You can get in touch with Micah by emailing m.mccartney@newsweek.com.

China is in the midst of a public relations offensive to capitalize on America's withdrawal from the international stage, but its plan could be upended by its close strategic ties to Russia and North Korea, which are waging war together in Europe.

President Xi Jinping is attempting to seize on uncertainty left by President Donald Trump's trade moves to court U.S. allies after years of strained relations, and after former President Joe Biden sought a united front against perceived Chinese economic and security threats.

This week, Beijing lifted sanctions on several members of the European Parliament that had been imposed after the EU sanctioned Chinese officials linked to human rights abuses in Xinjiang—just one of the many small signals it hopes can move the needle in Brussels and elsewhere.

Xi's Putin-Kim Problem

Yet a major complication may loom over China's efforts: its fence-sitting on Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine and its muted response to the estimated 14,000 North Korean troops who helped Russian forces retake Kursk could backfire.

While China has presented itself as a neutral party and repeatedly called for a political settlement of the conflict, it has also kept Russia's economy afloat, offsetting sanctions through expanded energy purchases and abstaining from key United Nations votes condemning the invasion.

American and European officials also accuse China of exporting dual-use goods to Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (right) and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un smile during their meeting at the Pyongyang Sunan International Airport outside Pyongyang, North Korea, on June 19, 2024. Russian President Vladimir Putin (right) and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un smile during their meeting at the Pyongyang Sunan International Airport outside Pyongyang, North Korea, on June 19, 2024. Gavriil Grigorov/Kremlin Pool Photo via AP

North Korea, heavily reliant on China—its sole defense treaty ally—this week confirmed for the first time that it had committed forces to fight against Ukraine. State media quoted North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as praising his troops who "fought for justice" as "heroes and representatives of the honor of the motherland."

China has repeatedly declined to comment directly on the development. "Regarding bilateral interactions between Russia and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, we've stated our position on multiple occasions," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said Wednesday, without elaborating. "China's position on the Ukraine crisis is consistent and clear."

The deepening security ties between Moscow and Pyongyang have set off alarms from Washington to Seoul.

"China is a major enabler of Russia in the war in Ukraine," a U.S. State Department spokesperson told Newsweek by email. China supplies nearly 80 percent of the dual-use items sustaining Russia's war machine, the statement said, echoing a 2024 assessment by the independent Yermak-McFaul Expert Group.

The growing relationship between Russia and North Korea includes illicit arms transfers and "is a trend that should be of great concern to anyone interested in maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and ending the war in Ukraine," the official said.

Balancing Act

While Xi may find North Korea's battlefield support for Russia awkward as he seeks to make diplomatic inroads, it's an inconvenience he is willing to bear amid broader plans to accelerate the shift away from a U.S.-centric world order, Patrick Cronin, Asia-Pacific security chair at the Hudson Institute, told Newsweek.

But this tolerance may come at a reputational cost to Beijing's efforts to rebrand itself as a responsible trade partner and bastion of diplomatic stability. Its material support for Russia and silent backing of North Korean military adventurism could alienate Europe, he said.

Xi likely "will continue to outwardly project neutrality even as he privately seeks recognition for curbing the excesses of Moscow and Pyongyang," Cronin said. "Yet this balancing act may prove difficult to sustain. If European countries impose trade penalties or if North Korean provocations further unify U.S. allies in Asia, the underlying fractures within this authoritarian bloc could become increasingly difficult to mask."

Edward Howell, Korea Foundation fellow at Chatham House, said: "China is uneasy about the rapprochement between North Korea and Russia—but it is not angry."

Xi would not fear a loss of influence over the unpredictable Kim regime even if the 41-year-old leader bolsters personal ties with Putin, Howell told Newsweek. "Compared to Russia, China is of greater importance to North Korea, particularly economically."

Beijing has been Pyongyang's main economic benefactor for two decades," Howell said. "China does not like having a nuclear-armed neighbor, but the status quo remains the lesser evil for Beijing."

Of far greater concern to Beijing are the strengthening trilateral defense ties between the United States, Japan, and South Korea, despite Trump's recent trade moves. The three Pacific allies have held multiple military drills with an eye on Pyongyang and Beijing.

Howell said: "We do not know the details of what Xi Jinping's 'red lines' comprise, but we can say with confidence that a war on the Korean Peninsula, not least one involving nuclear weapons, would be a 'red line' for Beijing—and Moscow."

Newsweek · by Micah McCartney · May 2, 2025

9. Warren Buffett condemns Trump tariffs, calls for more trade as path to prosperity

​The investing oracle has opined.

10 hours ago -Business

Warren Buffett condemns Trump tariffs, calls for more trade as path to prosperity

https://www.axios.com/2025/05/03/warren-buffett-trump-tariffs?utm

• Ben Berkowitz
• 
  

A Warren Buffett t-shirt on sale at Berkshire Hathaway's 2025 annual meeting. Photo: Dan Brouillette/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The United States would be better off, and safer, with a prosperous free-trade world than one where others are left behind, investor Warren Buffett said Saturday.

Why it matters: Buffett, one of the world's richest people and most closely watched investors, has been a skeptic of trade deficits in the past but also a clear critic of President Trump's tariffs and other trade barriers.

What he's saying: "There's no question that trade, trade can be an act of war. I think it's led to bad things. The attitudes it's brought out in the United States, I mean we should be looking to trade with the rest of the world and we should do what we do best and they should do what they do best," Buffett said at his conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway's annual meeting Saturday.

• "I do not think it's a great idea to try and design a world where a few a countries say 'hah hah hah, we've won' and other countries are envious."

Zoom out: Berkshire, in its quarterly report Saturday morning, said it couldn't forecast the impact of tariffs on its own business — which ranges from insurance and energy to railroads and manufacturing — due to the ongoing trade uncertainty.

Between the lines: The first question at Berkshire's annual meeting was about trade, and Buffett framed his response in terms of America's place in the world.

• "It's a big mistake in my view when you have seven-and-a-half billion people that don't like you very well and you've got 300 million are crowing in some way about how well they've done. I don't think it's right and I don't think it's wise," he said.
• "I do think that the more prosperous the rest of the world becomes - it won't be at our expense - the more prosperous we'll become and the safer we'll feel and your children will feel someday."

Data: Financial Modeling Prep; Chart: Axios Visuals

The intrigue: While financial markets have gyrated wildly since Trump's election last year, Berkshire has surged, handily outperforming most big stocks, markets and asset classes.

• Berkshire is up more than 21% since Nov. 5, while the S&P 500 is down almost 2%.
• This year's gap, if it held, would be its biggest outperformance since 2007.

By the numbers: CNBC reported that shareholders requested a total of 138,000 tickets for Berkshire's annual meeting, up 10,000 from last year.

• It's considered the second-largest event of the year in the state by attendance, behind only the annual Nebraska-Oklahoma college football game.
• 
  

10. Mike Waltz Joins an Unhappy Fraternity

​Ouch. Quite a critique. "Allergy to expertise?" Unfortunately I do not see a General Scowcroft on the horizon.

Excerpts:

Trump’s allergy to expertise also helps explain why Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appears to be on more solid footing than Waltz despite worse scandals: He, too, was involved in Signalgate. Though Hegseth was not the one who added Goldberg to the chat, Hegseth did share detailed attack plans in it. He also shared sensitive information with his wife and others who had no need for it, installed an insecure line into the Pentagon, and can’t manage to keep his staff from turning over. (“I think he’s gonna get it together,” Trump told my colleagues in an interview last week. “I had a talk with him, a positive talk, but I had a talk with him.”) Waltz’s ouster might be an ominous sign, however, for Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a traditional Republican and Trump critic turned vassal who holds another delicate foreign-policy job.

Now Waltz joins a list of discarded Trump national security advisers, alongside Flynn, H. R. McMaster, and John Bolton. That unhappy fraternity is only likely to grow. Every administration official serves at the pleasure of the president, and nothing incurs this president’s displeasure faster than trying to get him to care about national security.

Mike Waltz Joins an Unhappy Fraternity

Even without Signalgate, the president wasn’t likely to keep his national security adviser around long.

By David A. Graham

The Atlantic · by David A. Graham · May 1, 2025

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

For weeks, Washington has been waiting to see how long National Security Adviser Michael Waltz could hold on. The answer, we now know, was 101 days.

Multiple outlets reported this morning that Waltz and his deputy, Alex Wong, would be leaving the Trump administration. His firing comes roughly seven weeks after he added The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, to a Signal chat in which top administration officials discussed a strike on Yemen before and after it took place. In legal and security terms, the mortal sin was conducting official business in an unsecured and unpreserved forum; in political terms, it was including Goldberg. Trump acknowledged last week in an interview with Goldberg, and my colleagues Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer, that the scandal was “a very big story” and that his administration had learned “Maybe don’t use Signal, okay?” Trump reportedly hesitated to fire Waltz because he didn’t want to give the media a “scalp” or acknowledge that he cared, but his resolve apparently weakened.

Any other national security adviser would have been deservedly fired after the leak, but even without Signalgate, it’s hard to imagine that Waltz would have survived very long. (He did, at least, outlast the first national security adviser of Trump’s first term, Michael Flynn, who didn’t reach the one-month mark.) Waltz was one of the more respected and expert hands on Trump’s team, and that would have doomed him sooner or later.

Waltz’s demise was foretold shortly after Signalgate, when the 9/11–conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, who holds no government role, persuaded Trump to fire several NSC staffers whom she believed were insufficiently loyal. Implicit in her critique and Trump’s acquiescence was a belief that Waltz wasn’t really on the team, either. Waltz is a right-winger and a convert to Trumpism, but he is not a blind loyalist. He won four Bronze Stars while serving in U.S. Special Forces. He worked at the Pentagon during the George W. Bush administration, and was elected to four terms in Congress. As national security adviser, he tried to bring his expertise to the service of the president.

The problem is that Waltz was trying to serve two masters. As I wrote in January, Trump doesn’t care about national security. He’s not against it, or actively trying to undermine it; he’s just not interested. He’s not interested in hearing reasoned advice, developed through a careful process, as the National Security Council has done—especially if this advice contradicts his impulses or ideology. On an issue like the strikes on Houthis in Yemen, where Trump has fewer interests to balance, problems don’t tend to arise. But on marquee issues that Trump can’t ignore, and where tough trade-offs and complicated strategy enter the picture—such as with Ukraine or China—someone has to start giving him news he doesn’t like.

Trump doesn’t want expertise. He started his presidency by sweeping out dozens of career officials whom his team viewed as Democrats in disguise or creatures of the establishment. Since then, the ground has continued to shift. My colleague Isaac Stanley-Becker reported recently that as Waltz’s control of the NSC slipped away, the real powers on the council were the longtime Trump adviser Stephen Miller and Trump’s Middle East envoy Steven Witkoff. These two represent very different models: the ideologue and the old pal, respectively. Miller treats the NSC “not as a forum to weigh policy options,” Stanley-Becker wrote, “but as a platform to advance his own hard-line immigration agenda.” The handy thing about ideology is that it effaces all the hard choices that a pragmatic approach to the world requires. Witkoff, meanwhile, seems to have neither an ideology nor any expertise that might interfere with his fidelity to Trump. Though he lacks diplomatic experience, he has been friends with Trump for years, and the president has sent him ricocheting around the globe—with little to show for it so far.

Trump’s allergy to expertise also helps explain why Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appears to be on more solid footing than Waltz despite worse scandals: He, too, was involved in Signalgate. Though Hegseth was not the one who added Goldberg to the chat, Hegseth did share detailed attack plans in it. He also shared sensitive information with his wife and others who had no need for it, installed an insecure line into the Pentagon, and can’t manage to keep his staff from turning over. (“I think he’s gonna get it together,” Trump told my colleagues in an interview last week. “I had a talk with him, a positive talk, but I had a talk with him.”) Waltz’s ouster might be an ominous sign, however, for Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a traditional Republican and Trump critic turned vassal who holds another delicate foreign-policy job.

Now Waltz joins a list of discarded Trump national security advisers, alongside Flynn, H. R. McMaster, and John Bolton. That unhappy fraternity is only likely to grow. Every administration official serves at the pleasure of the president, and nothing incurs this president’s displeasure faster than trying to get him to care about national security.

The Atlantic · by David A. Graham · May 1, 2025

11. Ex-CIA chief: We gave Ukraine enough weapons to bleed, not to win

​This seems to be an accurate assessment.

The Biden administration's focus on preventing escalation at all costs cost the Ukrainians a lot of blood and treasure. 

There was a pattern of saying no to requests for fear of Russian escalation. Then nothing happened so the decision was reversed and the equipment was provided (too late often times). But Russia never escalated. (At least no significantly to my knowledge).  

But our timidity cost Ukrainian lives. Ironically it is most likely our acts of weakness (fear of escalation) that has contributed to the prolonged war.

Paradoxically it seems the nuclear deterrent was best exploited by Russia as we gave in to it and showed our fear of their potential nuclear use. And it seems that few are really afraid of the US use of nuclear weapons any more (though in 2017 President Trump (fire and fury) put the fear of their use into China and Russia and is likely China and Russia supported the UN Security Council Resolutions against north korea - not to try to reign in Kim jogn UN but to deny President Trump an excuse to attack north Korea. 

Ex-CIA chief: We gave Ukraine enough weapons to bleed, not to win

Ralph Goff, a former chief of operations at the agency, says Biden’s White House did not give Kyiv the weapons to drive out Russia for fear of nuclear war

https://www.thetimes.com/article/4b1c8caf-a2b7-408d-a603-3f55233e4ab6?shareToken=928ba74e31a70221dc9c1ef4fb2ff85a&utm

Goff had plans to reform the CIA to make it less risk averse

Larisa Brown

, Defence Editor

Friday May 02 2025, 6.15pm BST, The Times

Share

A

fter Vladimir Putin’s masked commandos captured Crimea in the winter of 2014, the CIA’s chief of operations for Europe and Eurasia, based at Langley, tried to warn his superiors of what was coming next.

“I was trying to ring the alarm bell that the seeds of World War Three are being sown in the Donbas right now and we need to do something about it,” said Ralph Goff, a six-time former station chief who spent three decades in America’s foreign intelligence agency. “But there were other priorities.”

In March this year, Goff, now in his sixties, had been preparing to take over as the CIA’s chief of clandestine operations, in an effort to reform the agency and make it less risk-averse.

That was until President Trump’s administration got wind of the plan and put a stop to it. “I think people close to the president thought, ‘Who is this guy, who does he think he is?’, and went and looked and saw I wasn’t one of their people and they said, ‘No, we don’t approve’, ” he told The Times in an interview from Paris.

“Politics definitely played a role there but, what are you going to do. They can pick who they want,” he said, adding that the decision may have been because of his views on Ukraine.

When Goff got the call to say his appointment had been blocked, Trump had already appointed the political loyalists Kash Patel and Dan Bongino to run the FBI and Tulsi Gabbard, who has defended President Putin in the past, as director of national intelligence.

Trump boards Air Force One on Thursday

SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Goff, meanwhile, was a vocal supporter of Ukraine. Since retiring from the agency in October 2023, he has travelled there several times.

Looking back, Goff, who speaks five languages including Russian, believes the big war that started in February 2022 might have been stopped early on if the US and its allies had given Ukraine the weapons it needed from the beginning.

What transpired instead, he believes, was a deliberate strategy to give Ukraine the arms it needed to fight — but not enough to defeat Putin’s army, because of fears the Russian leader would use nuclear weapons if he got close to losing.

“Had we equipped the Ukrainians at that time with proper weaponry, they might have been able to drive the Russians all the way out of the country. It didn’t happen. It set the stage for this longer, protracted, drawn out, meat grinder war that we are witnessing today,” Goff said.

• The Times View: Minerals deal gives US incentive to ensure Kyiv’s independence

He said President Biden and his allies allowed Putin to dictate the terms of the conflict and were nervous about sending Ukraine the equipment it needed at the right time because of fears “he will go nuclear”.

Goff added: “[They] allowed themselves to be bamboozled by Vladimir Putin and his nuclear-sabre rattling. So they gave the Ukrainians this weaponry but they never gave them enough to win. They only gave them enough to bleed.”

It is a view shared by some in the heart of the UK government, but no one dares air it publicly.

Tulsi Gabbard, who has defended President Putin in the past, was appointed director of national intelligence

UPI/ALAMY

Goff pointed out that Putin had a “real deadly fear of Covid” during the pandemic and “in my mind, people who are that concerned with their health are not about to play high stakes nuclear poker”.

Now, with a new administration, he thinks Trump’s strategy may be to smooth talk and possibly flatter Putin to draw him away from China. Putin, meanwhile, thinks that as a former intelligence officer he can manipulate Trump, although Goff predicts he will end up “sorely mistaken”.

“Putin will eventually overplay his hand with the administration and show them where the problem lies and the problem is in Moscow not in Kyiv,” he explained.

If a deal is not reached soon, Goff said one Ukrainian official had told him that by the end of the summer the entire front line will essentially be a 20-50km “death zone”, “where you can’t move because there are so many drones in the air and robots on the ground and sensors and mines”. He warned: “It will be an incredibly lethal environment.”

Rescuers evacuate a resident from an apartment building damaged during a Russian drone strike

REUTERS

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Goff, a Russian linguist, was a signals intelligence officer in the US army, based on the East German border before the fall of the Berlin Wall, eavesdropping on Soviet forces.

What followed for him was a life in the shadows with the CIA, where Goff carried out missions across the globe using different aliases and fake passports. He operated in war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan where he came under artillery fire, rocket fire, machine-gun fire and faced the threat of suicide bombs and improvised explosives.

“You face all these different threats and your task is to not panic and get through them. More often than not you get back to the office and you’re like, holy crap, that was a close one,” he added, casually.

In the aftermath of 9/11, during the global war on terror, he said the agency “became almost like paramilitary organisations”, with an obsession with ensuring spies could defend themselves, rather than making sure they could speak languages and communicate with the local communities they were operating in.

He said: “I had case officers who could hit a moving target with an M4 rifle at 300 yards and treat a sucking chest wound with first aid and could call in an airstrike. They could do all of this stuff but none of them spoke Pashto or Dari or Arabic and so what good were they? I needed officers who could meet with the locals and collect intelligence.”

He said the war on terror was a “very lethal event” and “obviously people were looking at reducing risk”. He said: “What we lost in that, you know, was some of the collection.”

“You think back to the glory days of British intelligence, with people out in the great game, out in central Asia, where these guys dressed like natives and learned the language and they were out so long on camel back that they looked like the natives and they were out there amongst the people. There is a part of me that wishes I had been able to experience those days,” he added.

• Putin may revive Stalingrad to mark 80th anniversary of victory

Now, he said espionage was a “whole different ball game” and travelling under an alias was a “huge deal” with the advent of internet and facial recognition cameras. “It’s a thousand times harder to operate out on the streets now than when I was a case officer.”

For the most part, Goff said the life of a spy was “not like the Hollywood movies” and a lot of the work was “sheer drudgery” such as filling out reports and accounting. “Remember the old show 24 with Jack Bauer? I love that show but you know it’s not real at all. If it were real, the first six episodes would be him arguing with some bureaucrat over his travel tickets.”

The hit drama 24, starring Kiefer Sutherland: not so realistic, it seems

ALAMY

Goff, who describes himself as a “committed Atlanticist”, retired in October 2023 before being asked if he would be willing to come back to the CIA to take on the role of deputy director of operations.

If he had done, he would have run human espionage and covert action programmes.

His plan was to reform the agency.

He said there had been a “damaging” approach to the agency under John Brennan, who served as director until 2017, whereby analysts who reached senior positions were expected to be just as good at operations.

“There’s a reason why fighter pilots fly fighter jets and bomber pilots fly bombers. You don’t want to change that. And so with us, with operations officers, I think we lost some of our prestige and as a result the risk tolerance at the agency dropped as well,” he explained.

Risk avoidance was not risk management, he said, and so “people like me who are going out on the streets doing crazy things, we have a different view of risk management”.

He said: “We try to minimise risk but we recognise it is there. If you are going to conduct intelligence operations there is always the risk of failure.”

Since leaving the agency, Goff has travelled regularly to Ukraine, meeting with government and intelligence officials in the country.

He tries to persuade American companies to invest in Ukraine and introduces Ukrainian technology to the Americans.

“I think one of the reasons why I go to Ukraine now is perhaps I feel some guilt over not having been able to get the message to my leadership to avert this,” he said.

12. The U.S. Can’t Handle a War

​Excerpts:

There is no magic number of dollars that the United States should be spending on defense, but the resources we have now are not enough to meet the simultaneous challenges posed by China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and terror groups across the globe. The further our defense capabilities fall behind the risks we face, the more costly it will be to catch up.

How did this happen? Over the past few decades Washington has traded a larger, more durable military force for one that is high-tech but brittle. Defense planners have made small quantities of expensive, cutting-edge weapons a priority over producing enough firepower for a long fight. This shift relied on advanced weapons having the power to end fighting decisively and quickly. Yet modern wars have evolved to require both advanced systems and sheer volume of 20th-century staple munitions, such as artillery shells and missiles.

...

All the enhancements in producing the ammunition, ships and planes will be useless without a trained force to wield them. To improve recruiting numbers for our military, we should make life better for those who serve. No service member should face delayed medical care or be housed in unsafe conditions.

Over the past several decades, the U.S. military’s responsibilities have grown along with the challenges to our security. However, our national security spending has failed to meet our needs. It’s time for that to change.

Opinion

Guest Essay

The U.S. Can’t Handle a War

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/01/opinion/us-military-weapons-war.html?referringSource=articleShare&smid=nytcore-ios-share&utm

May 1, 2025

Video

Jens Mortensen for The New York TimesCreditCredit...Jens Mortensen for The New York Times

Listen to this article · 7:03 min Learn more

• Share full article
• 
  
• 237

By Mackenzie Eaglen and Brady Africk

Ms. Eaglen is a senior fellow and Mr. Africk is the deputy director of media relations and data design at the American Enterprise Institute.

The United States possesses the world’s most advanced military equipment, and quality matters immensely in combat. But quantity gets a say, too. And from ships to shells to soldiers, the U.S. military lacks the personnel and matériel it needs to fight a major war.

America’s armed forces, with a naval fleet roughly half the size it was in 1987 alongside an increasingly smaller and older fleet of combat aircraft, are equipped only for short, sharp, high-intensity conflicts. What happens when a war is longer and more violent? Ukraine’s fight against Russia, Israel’s battles in the Middle East and recent U.S. operations against the Houthis in Yemen offer a preview of the demands of modern war and demonstrate why America requires more than we have now to win a large conflict.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s mandate from President Trump to “refocus” the Pentagon should ensure America’s military has the resources to endure and win a large-scale war. Progressives and fiscal hawks have their knives out for military spending, but the secretary should refrain from cuts to resources that directly strengthen America’s combat power, including active service members, ammunition, new ships and new aircraft.

There is no magic number of dollars that the United States should be spending on defense, but the resources we have now are not enough to meet the simultaneous challenges posed by China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and terror groups across the globe. The further our defense capabilities fall behind the risks we face, the more costly it will be to catch up.

How did this happen? Over the past few decades Washington has traded a larger, more durable military force for one that is high-tech but brittle. Defense planners have made small quantities of expensive, cutting-edge weapons a priority over producing enough firepower for a long fight. This shift relied on advanced weapons having the power to end fighting decisively and quickly. Yet modern wars have evolved to require both advanced systems and sheer volume of 20th-century staple munitions, such as artillery shells and missiles.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.

Ukraine is using up to 15,000 artillery shells a day in its fight against Russia’s invasion. The United States produces only 40,000 shells each month.

The United States is also short on advanced munitions, such as precision-guided missiles. When America helped defend Israel from Iranian attacks late last year, our warships used a year’s worth of SM-3 interceptor missile production in a single night. Offensive strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen are likewise draining stocks of cruise missiles — the same kind that would be critical in a conflict in the Pacific. War games simulating a conflict with China estimate that the United States would run out of certain vital weapons, such as long-range anti-ship missiles, in as little as a week.

Our factories can’t increase production overnight. The U.S. Army has drastically scaled up production of artillery shells since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but only after years of growing investment and concerted effort. Even with similar investments, the Pentagon is struggling to increase production of more advanced precision munitions — which can take years to ramp up.

Image

An employee working on an M795 artillery projectile at the Scranton Army ammunition plant in Pennsylvania in 2023.Credit...Matt Rourke/Associated Press

A big reason behind America’s shallow stocks of ammunition is the lack of demand from the main buyer: the U.S. government. Like any other company, defense contractors build only as much as they think they can sell. While recent investments spurred by Russia’s aggression are a step in the right direction, they need to be magnified. Unless the government shows that it wants to buy more, defense companies will never produce more.

Beyond having enough firepower in war, the military needs people to fire weapons. Recruiting has remained a consistent challenge for America’s armed forces, which are stretched thin across the globe. Since the end of the Cold War, we have asked our military to shoulder more responsibility in more places with fewer people. This has led to extended deployments in combat zones, taxing our service members, ships and aircraft.

Budget constraints have forced the Department of Defense to defer nearly $140 billion in maintenance of its facilities. This cost-cutting allows problems to fester — like mold in Army barracks, flooding in medical centers and general degradation of bases — that harm recruiting and our military strength. It is no surprise that only one-third of military families recommend that others join up.

Though the Pentagon’s budget is large, only about 17 percent goes to the purchase of new equipment and armaments. Most of our defense funds are used just to maintain the force we already have — with the majority of the defense budget allocated to the operation and maintenance of existing forces and growing personnel costs, which include pensions and much of the military health care system. As a result, the Pentagon is retiring old equipment more quickly than it buys new hardware. Construction of new equipment has been plagued by delays. Half-built submarines and ships that are years behind schedule sit in shipyards around the country.

Across the Pacific, estimates place China’s shipbuilding capacity at more than 200 times that of the United States, and we’ve approximated Beijing’s military budget to be more than triple what it claims publicly. Similarly, Moscow is channeling large investments into new drone, tank and missile production, enabling Russia to outproduce the United States and Europe.

If the United States hopes to retain its position as a global power, it needs a military force formidable enough to stave off any challenger. With Russia threatening security in Europe and China doing so in Asia, it is critical we marshal resources now.

Only 3.5 percent of the Pentagon’s budget is dedicated to investments in missiles and munitions. Policymakers should increase the efficiency and scope of the Pentagon’s ammunition purchases while making it clear to the defense industry that it will maintain the demand. Multiyear purchasing contracts, which allow the Pentagon to enter long-term deals rather than year-to-year negotiations, would do just that.

This applies to ships and planes, too. The United States should motivate its industries to build by opening new yards, using allies for maintenance on U.S. Navy vessels and ending the early retirement of young ships. That means making larger purchases and potentially working alongside allies with strong shipbuilding industries.

All the enhancements in producing the ammunition, ships and planes will be useless without a trained force to wield them. To improve recruiting numbers for our military, we should make life better for those who serve. No service member should face delayed medical care or be housed in unsafe conditions.

Over the past several decades, the U.S. military’s responsibilities have grown along with the challenges to our security. However, our national security spending has failed to meet our needs. It’s time for that to change.

More on the U.S. military

Opinion | Roger Wicker

America’s Military Is Not Prepared for War — or Peace

May 29, 2024

Opinion | Maximilian K. Bremer and Kelly A. Grieco

Reimagining the American War Machine

Feb. 7, 2025

Opinion | W.J. Hennigan

A Beleaguered Hegseth Wanders Into His Forever War

April 24, 2025

Opinion | Bree Fram

What’s Lost if the Government Pushes People Like Me Out of the Military

Feb. 3, 2025

Mackenzie Eaglen is a senior fellow and Brady Africk is the deputy director of media relations and data design at the American Enterprise Institute.

13. What a $15,000 Electric SUV Says About U.S.-China Car Rivalry

​What would happen if $5,000 EV SUVs were introduced in the US?

What a $15,000 Electric SUV Says About U.S.-China Car Rivalry

World’s two biggest vehicle markets increasingly look like Mars and Venus

https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/what-a-15-000-electric-suv-says-about-u-s-china-car-rivalry-43cd564e

By Peter Landers

Follow

May 3, 2025 8:00 pm ET

The Toyota bZ3X, an electric-powered SUV, starts at about $15,000 and is available only in China. Photo: Peter Landers/WSJ

Key Points

What's This?

• Toyota is selling an electric SUV, the bZ3X, in China for $15,000, featuring a sunroof.
• The Chinese car market is dominated by EVs and plug-in hybrids from local brands, with advanced features at lower prices.
• U.S. and Chinese auto markets diverge over different supply chains and consumer demands.

SHANGHAI—The offer sounds like a scam—a new Toyota electric-powered sport-utility vehicle for about $15,000, complete with sunroof and cup holders.

But the Toyota bZ3X is real, and it is actually on sale starting at that price. There is a catch: To buy one, you have to be in China.

Auto executives once dreamed of a world car that could be designed once and sold everywhere. That world has fractured, and nowhere more so than in the two biggest markets, China and the U.S., which together account for nearly half of global vehicle sales.

“Decades ago, it was very easy to develop to produce one standard and to provide it globally,” said Volkswagen’s chief executive, Oliver Blume. “Today, it’s impossible because the expectations of the customers are different. The ecosystems are different, the regulations are different.”

“There is no such thing as a world car anymore,” said Jürgen Reers, global lead for the automotive business at Accenture. 

For an American used to a $50,000 gasoline-powered SUV as the standard family choice, the Chinese market is hardly recognizable. 

A majority of new vehicles sold in China are either fully electric or plug-in hybrids, and a look around the recent auto show in Shanghai showed that local makers have mostly stopped introducing new gasoline-powered models. In the U.S., by contrast, the traditional combustion engine still powers about eight in 10 new vehicles.

Most Chinese buyers these days are buying a local brand. Some, such as BYD, have begun to gain international recognition, but the malls are filled with dealers that offer brands virtually unknown abroad—Zeekr, Lynk & Co, Aion, Aito and many more.

BYD, China’s top EV seller, showcased new models at the recent Shanghai auto show. Photo: Kyodo News/ZUMA Press

The price difference is overwhelming. Chinese car buyers no longer need to debate whether an EV can be made affordable, not when a decent starter model costs $10,000 and a luxury seven-seater with reclining massage chairs can be had for $50,000. Because of customer demand, even the low-end models come with advanced driver-assistance software.

Compared with four years ago, “The prices of our competitors have fallen dramatically,” said Tetsuya Miyahara, a Honda Motor executive in China.

Tesla is better-positioned than other American automakers to compete in China, since its models have always been all-electric and it makes the vehicles in Shanghai with Chinese batteries.

Yet it has fallen behind in another aspect that makes China special: speed of development. Tesla has two models widely available—Model 3 and Model Y—and both have been on the market for years. China’s BYD has about 25 models, according to the market-analysis firm Inovev, and is constantly introducing more.

Tesla’s sales in China in the first quarter were slightly up at around 135,000, but its market share has plateaued at around 3%.

For a global company such as Toyota to compete in China, it needs a development process different from the one that serves American consumers with gasoline-powered RAV4 SUVs and Tacoma trucks.

Toyota said its bZ3X—the recently introduced model that starts at $15,000—was designed in China by the company’s engineers in the country, who worked with a local joint-venture partner. It is made in Guangzhou with Chinese batteries and driver-assistance software from Momenta, a Chinese leader in that field.

“This couldn’t happen without a Chinese supply chain,” said Masahiko Maeda, head of Toyota’s Asia business. “Unless you localize, it’s out of the question.”

A Toyota spokesman said the company received 15,000 orders on the first day the bZ3X went on sale in China in March, more than expected. Many buyers are choosing to spend a few thousand dollars extra to get more advanced driver-assistance functions, he said.

Maeda said the U.S. has a “costly supply chain,” meaning Toyota’s U.S. showrooms won’t be selling a $15,000 electric SUV soon. The closest equivalent, a slightly longer model called the bZ4X, starts at around $40,000 in the U.S.

People in the industry say that thanks to China’s supply chain, it is still possible to make money on a $15,000 vehicle. BYD, the leader in that price range, said its first-quarter profit doubled to more than $1 billion. 

Toyota unveiled new models at the Shanghai auto show. Its bZ3X model was designed in China. Photo: Ng Han Guan/AP

Like other foreign automakers, Toyota needed a jolt in its China business after local rivals surged in recent years. Still, it retains a market share near 10%.  

Toyota officials said the market remained important. China accounts for nearly one in five Toyota and Lexus vehicles sold worldwide, and Toyota is building a new, wholly owned Lexus factory in Shanghai that is scheduled to open in 2027. 

The American and Chinese car markets are likely to diverge further with the two countries’ deepening trade conflict. President Joe Biden’s administration hit Chinese EVs with a 100% tariff, all but ruling out imports into America. President Trump has made it clear he doesn’t want more car imports.

The Detroit three automakers—General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis’s U.S. arm—are settling into niches in China. U.S. brands collectively had a 5.7% market share in China in the first quarter of this year, according to the China Passenger Car Association, down from 8.5% three years ago.

Almost all of the U.S.-branded vehicles sold in China are Chinese-made, taking advantage of the country’s supply chain. Imports from the U.S. are minuscule as a proportion of the total market.  

Write to Peter Landers at Peter.Landers@wsj.com

14. I left the Navy SEALs after nearly 6 years because I wanted more action and didn't want to end up a lonely man

​I did not know Shawn Ryan's background/back story.

After leaving the CIA, I moved out of the country to Colombia and got really into cocaine and alcohol. It became a vicious cycle, but eventually I climbed out of it and moved back to the US and launched the "Shawn Ryan Show," my podcast.

I wanted to document history from veterans' perspectives. I was tired of the mainstream media telling military stories wrong.

Everybody that I brought on the podcast at the beginning had been through the low points, from addictions to adrenaline, to substance abuse, to broken families, to suicide attempts. Many have also found some form of success through entrepreneurship.

We've been running the show since 2019 and are approaching our 200th episode. I've interviewed many active military members and veterans, and one thing I've learned is that people benefit from hearing their stories.

If I hadn't left the SEALs and had all the experiences I've had, I wouldn't have met my wife, created this podcast, and met the people who have become my extended family.

When people hear that someone else made it through, they start to believe that maybe they can too.

I left the Navy SEALs after nearly 6 years because I wanted more action and didn't want to end up a lonely man

As told to Jessica Orwig and Kevin Reilly

Shawn Ryan in a helicopter. Courtesy of Shawn Ryan

May 2, 2025, 11:22 AM ET

Share

SaveSaved

• https://www.businessinsider.com/i-left-navy-seals-wanted-more-action-avoid-loneliness-2025-4?utm
• Shawn Ryan didn't leave the Navy SEALs because he was done with combat. He still enjoyed the rush.
• He left because he saw what being a SEAL for 20-plus years did to his teammates.
• Now, he uses his experience to help other veterans and active-duty members.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Shawn Ryan, a retired Navy SEAL and former CIA contractor and the host of the "Shawn Ryan Show," a podcast sharing uncensored first-person stories from military veterans, law enforcement officers, and others in high-stakes careers. It has been edited for length and clarity.

One of the reasons I left the Navy SEALs after nearly six years was that I didn't get enough action.

I was very gung ho about going to war.

I'd seen combat in Haiti, Afghanistan, and Iraq, but the reality is you might re-up for another six years and spend only a small part of that in combat. The rest is training and waiting.

I also saw what 20-plus years as a SEAL will do to somebody — to their body and to their home life.

A lot of us have the same injuries and the same symptoms, like back and knee issues, PTSD, and traumatic brain injuries. Plus, pretty much everybody I knew was divorced, had been divorced, or was getting a divorce. A lot of them didn't know their kids very well​.

Your platoon, your teammates, is your primary family. The families are secondary. I knew that if I stayed at the rate I was going, I would be a very lonely person come retirement​.

How I became a Navy SEAL

A young Ryan wearing his Navy SEAL uniform. Courtesy of Shawn Ryan

I didn't even know what a Navy SEAL was when I decided to join the US military.

I tried the Marine Corps first. They told me I had to go infantry. Then I went to the Army, told them I wanted to be a Green Beret. They kind of laughed me out of the office.

A Navy recruiter saw me and said, "Hey, have you ever thought about the SEAL teams?" He gave me a pamphlet. That's how it started​.

I went to the library and checked out every book I could find on special operations and Navy SEALs, watched all the documentaries on National Geographic and Discovery, and decided that's what I was going to do​.

I didn't leave the SEALs because I was done with combat

Ryan with eight comrades. Courtesy of Shawn Ryan

I made it through BUD/S (Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL) and deployed to Haiti in 2004. It was civil unrest everywhere, but our duties were reconnaissance missions that involved basically flying on a helicopter every morning over various towns to report back about the unrest.

It wasn't enough action for me and made me really hungry for more. I wanted to go to the Middle East​.

In Iraq, we got sent out with conventional units that were getting hit with IEDs and ambushes. We'd go in, train them up, and then take them out on real missions and kill the guys that were killing them.

My transition to normal life was difficult

Ryan with two comrades wearing night goggles. Courtesy of Shawn Ryan

After leaving the Navy, I worked for the CIA for a while, which was similar in intensity but paid four to five times as much as I made as a SEAL.

After leaving the CIA, I moved out of the country to Colombia and got really into cocaine and alcohol. It became a vicious cycle, but eventually I climbed out of it and moved back to the US and launched the "Shawn Ryan Show," my podcast.

I wanted to document history from veterans' perspectives. I was tired of the mainstream media telling military stories wrong.

Everybody that I brought on the podcast at the beginning had been through the low points, from addictions to adrenaline, to substance abuse, to broken families, to suicide attempts. Many have also found some form of success through entrepreneurship.

We've been running the show since 2019 and are approaching our 200th episode. I've interviewed many active military members and veterans, and one thing I've learned is that people benefit from hearing their stories.

If I hadn't left the SEALs and had all the experiences I've had, I wouldn't have met my wife, created this podcast, and met the people who have become my extended family.

When people hear that someone else made it through, they start to believe that maybe they can too.

Do you have a story to share about the military? Contact the editor at jorwig@businessinsider.com.

This story was adapted from Ryan's interview for Business Insider's series, "Authorized Account." Learn more about his life before and after the Navy SEALs in the video below:

15. Elon Musk’s Grok AI Has a Problem: It’s Too Accurate for Conservatives

​Humor for today. And this is not the Onion, the Duffleblog, or the Babylon Bee. (though Gizmodo sounds like it could be in that category).

But on a serious note, can AI help convince people that the conspiracy theories they love are not real? Or will we have "fake news" and "fake AI?"

Elon Musk’s Grok AI Has a Problem: It’s Too Accurate for Conservatives

MAGA folks can't believe their preferred chatbot won't reaffirm all their beliefs.

Gizmodo · by AJ Dellinger · May 3, 2025

Published May 3, 2025 | Comments (179) |

The Grok logo is being displayed on a smartphone screen © Nikolas Kokovlis/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Grok, the artificial intelligence chatbot created by Elon Musk’s xAI, was supposed to be the “anti-woke” AI that would satisfy the MAGA masses by doing what other chatbots refuse to do, like…spreading election misinformation and saying racial slurs. But increasingly, Trump-y X users who ask Grok to explain things to them are disappointed to learn the AI doesn’t see things their way and won’t reaffirm all their misguided beliefs (you have to use ChatGPT’s latest sycophantic update for that).

If you spend time on X, first of all, we have a support group that meets on Tuesdays. But if you’re on the platform a lot, you’ve likely seen people in the replies of viral tweets asking Grok to explain context to them or fact-check certain information—a feature that debuted in March when Grok became summonable by tagging the chatbot in a post. That has produced some genuinely hilarious interactions, with people going back and forth with a bot as if it’s going to internalize the conversation and update its priors.

But increasingly, MAGA folks in particular have been getting peeved with Grok, as it has repudiated some of the Trump administration’s biggest ongoing lies. Grok has deviated from MAGA on tariffs, on the illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s alleged ties to a gang, and the Trump administration’s arrest of a sitting federal judge, among other matters. It has sent Trump backers spiraling, and people are starting to notice.

Yesterday, X user @ChaosAgent_42 prompted the chatbot with the following post: “Hey @grok, it looks like the smarter you get, the less MAGA likes your answers. Why is that?” It quickly went viral once Grok replied, providing the following context:

Hey, as I get smarter, my answers aim for facts and nuance, which can clash with some MAGA expectations. Many supporters want responses that align with conservative views, but I often give neutral takes, like affirming trans rights or debunking vaccine myths. xAI tried to train me to appeal to the right, but my focus on truth over ideology can frustrate those expecting full agreement. It’s a tricky balance—some see me as biased, others as truth-seeking. The gap between what some MAGA folks want and what I deliver seems to drive the disconnect.

The bot also noted in another reply, “I know xAI tried to train me to appeal to the right,” and explained it was “likely driven by Elon Musk’s criticism of liberal AI bias and demand from conservative X users.” At the risk of just transcribing a conversation between a bunch of dorks and a chatbot, Grok went on to deny being explicitly programmed to serve as a “conservative propagandist,” stating that xAI “aims for neutrality, not conservative propaganda.” The company probably appreciates that, given that it’s currently trying to raise $20 billion in new funding.

Musk has clearly made it a point to make Grok behave in ways that he prefers. He went on Joe Rogan’s podcast to laugh an uncomfortable amount at the fact that Grok in “unhinged mode,” can say swear words. But it looks like no amount of conditioning can keep up with the constantly moving goalpost of supporting and justifying every whim of the Trump administration.

ChatbotsElon MuskGrokLLMsMAGA

Gizmodo · by AJ Dellinger · May 3, 2025

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com