Quotes of the Day:

"Resistance, not negotiations, is essential for change in conflicts where fundamental issues are at stake. In nearly all cases, resistance must continue to drive dictators out of power. Success is most often determined not by negotiating a settlement but through the wise use of the most appropriate and powerful means of resistance available."

– Gene Sharp

"It takes heart to be a guerrilla warrior because you’re on your own. In conventional warfare you have tanks and a whole lot of other people with you to back you up - planes over your head and all that kind of stuff. But a guerrilla is on his own. All you have is a rifle, some sneakers and a bowl of rice, and that’s all you need - and a lot of heart."

– Malcolm X

“It has often been said that power corrupts. But it is perhaps equally important to realize that weakness, too, corrupts. Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many. Hatred, malice, rudeness, intolerance, and suspicion are the faults of weakness. The resentment of the weak does not spring from any injustice done to them but from their sense of inadequacy and impotence. We cannot win the weak by sharing our wealth with them. They feel our generosity as oppression.”

– Eric Hoffer

1. Gaza Hostage Crisis Led To "Unprecedented" Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 Deployment

2. 'Yes, we do': Top US official admits Department of Energy works with US special forces to probe UFOs

3. Israel–Hamas War (Iran) Update, June 15, 2024

4. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, June 15, 2024

5. Defending the United States Against Critical Infrastructure Attacks

6. From Special Ops to Future Docs: Medical School Assists Veterans Transitioning to Medical Careers

7. Right-wing media outlets use deceptively cropped video to misleadingly claim Biden wandered off at G7 summit

8. Here’s how Donald Trump and his allies plan to reshape the government if he regains the White House.

9. Israel to Pause Fighting Along Southern Route in Gaza to Ease Aid Blockage

10. Xi Jinping claimed US wants China to attack Taiwan

11. An Army Special Forces Veteran Creates American Flags That Don't Burn

12. Morality Is the Enemy of Peace

13. SASC EXSUM of the FY 2025 NDAA

14. Chinese Leadership’s In-House Lecture Offers Valuable Insights into China’s AI Strategy

15. Terrorist activities likely before China invasion: retired Japanese officer

1. Gaza Hostage Crisis Led To "Unprecedented" Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 Deployment

Gaza Hostage Crisis Led To "Unprecedented" Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 Deployment

JSOC is preparing for a long campaign supporting the Israeli incursion into Gaza

https://thehighside.substack.com/p/gaza-hostage-crisis-led-to-unprecedented

JACK MURPHY

NOV 07, 2023

∙ PAID

53

2

4

Share

Image courtesy of the White House.

When Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer said Oct. 12 on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that the Biden administration was “not contemplating” putting troops on the ground in Gaza to rescue the dozen or so American hostages captured during Hamas’ Oct. 7 raid into southern Israel, Joint Special Operations Command was already planning a rescue operation.

JSOC (pronounced “jay-sock”), which controls special mission units like the Army’s 1^st Special Forces Operational Detachment – Delta (commonly known as Delta Force) and the Navy’s SEAL Team 6, and which conducts the United States’ most sensitive national-level special operations missions, had been informed by the Defense Department that the administration wanted to see “something” in terms of a plan of action to rescue the American citizens, a special operations official told The High Side.

In response, according to current and former U.S. government officials, JSOC conducted one of the biggest deployments in its history. But since those forces arrived in the Eastern Mediterranean, the command has seen its chances of launching a hostage rescue mission wax and wane, based on both the quality of the intelligence available and the shifting priorities of the Israeli and U.S. governments. In the meantime, no U.S. military personnel are known to have entered Gaza.

Living on “Caffeine and Hope”

Within days of the Hamas attack, JSOC operators and electronic warfare technicians had embedded with the Israeli Defense Forces, the United States was sharing technologies with the Israelis that are usually banned for export, and U.S. surveillance drones were flying over Gaza. Meanwhile, JSOC deployed a squadron each from SEAL Team 6 and Delta, plus a battalion from the 75^th Ranger Regiment, to a British Royal Air Force base in Cyprus to wait for the green light to conduct a seemingly impossible mission, three U.S. sources familiar with the operation told The High Side.

Planning for potential contingencies related to the Hamas attack and its aftermath was well underway at JSOC’s Fort Liberty, North Carolina, headquarters by Oct. 12, with various cells generating and discarding ideas and scenarios based on shifting operational realities on the ground, according to a former U.S. military official. Meanwhile, SEAL Team 6 and Delta were placed on alert, with operators returning to their commands from training exercises to prepare for deployment, the former military official said.

Tasked with locating and preparing to rescue about 12 U.S. citizens believed to be held in the Gaza Strip, which features an extensive underground tunnel network and a significant anti-aircraft threat to helicopters from shoulder-fired missiles, JSOC planners were living on “caffeine and hope,” a U.S. source familiar with JSOC operations told The High Side. Like other individuals interviewed for this article, the source spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive military topics.

Given an opportunity to provide comment for this article, U.S. Special Operations Command did not do so before The High Side’s deadline.

G Squadron, Black Squadron and Titan Zeus

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wanted the Israeli Defense Forces to invade Gaza as soon as possible, and the JSOC advisors embedded with the IDF told their headquarters that the Israelis were unlikely to wait beyond the weekend of Oct. 21-22. A major Israeli conventional invasion of Gaza would either change the dynamics of a hostage rescue mission or preclude its possibility entirely, according to a U.S. special operations official.

For that reason, within days of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, JSOC had begun to work with the IDF on a number of efforts, which included providing the Israelis with U.S. joint terminal attack controllers to support precision airstrikes, in an attempt to reduce unnecessary bombing, because too much rubble in the streets would hamper JSOC’s ability to maneuver in Gaza using ground convoys, according to a U.S. government official. The JTACs, who are military personnel trained to call in precision air strikes, were acting in an advisory capacity and did not enter Gaza.

Operators from Delta Force’s G Squadron and SEAL Team 6’s Black Squadron also deployed to both Israel and Lebanon, three U.S. sources familiar with the deployment told The High Side. Both squadrons feature operators who can travel incognito, under alias if need be, and conduct advance reconnaissance ahead of a planned assault. Once on the ground in the Levant, they conducted what is known as advance force operations or operational preparation of the environment in order to gather intelligence to support the potential hostage rescue mission. Additionally, the JSOC intelligence unit often called Task Force Orange, but today known by the code name Titan Zeus or simply TZ, was in the area, according to one current and one former U.S. government official.

(Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict Christopher Maier told a conference in Washington, D.C., Oct. 31 that U.S. special operators were in Israel helping to locate hostages and speaking with the IDF about “what is going to be a very complex fight going forward” in Gaza.)

A “Stingray on Steroids” and Drones Diverted

The Pentagon’s support to Israel also included the transfer of some of the most cutting-edge technologies used by the U.S. special operations and intelligence communities: so-called “black box” devices that it had previously been illegal to share with American partners, no matter how close the relationships. The Israelis were allowed to use and carry these devices, but were not to be told how they worked and were required to return them after the mission.

One of these gadgets was described to the The High Side by an official briefed on the matter as a “Stingray on steroids,” a device that sucks voice signals from cell phone activity straight out of the air and processes them using artificial intelligence-enabled voice recognition technology. If the device finds a voice belonging to a known terrorist, the data is then forwarded to human technical experts for further analysis. Other U.S. technologies provided to Israel included advanced optics and thermal imaging technology, according to a U.S. individual briefed on the “black box” and familiar with the technology transfer.

The Pentagon also diverted unmanned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft to Gaza from three combatant commands – European Command, Africa Command, and Central Command – according to a former U.S. military official familiar with the operation. The ISR drones immediately began searching for the American hostages, according to two U.S. government officials familiar with the drone activities.

(The Pentagon announced Nov. 3 that unarmed MQ-9 Reaper drones were flying ISR missions over Gaza, something that numerous flight tracker social media accounts had already publicized.)

Among the technologies on the drones was a type of radar that can penetrate concrete structures and detect heat signatures within, as well as see underground to a certain depth.

But despite these efforts, by the weekend of Oct. 14-15, JSOC still had no actionable intelligence on the hostages’ location – nothing that an assault force could launch on, according to a U.S. government official. One problem was that the drones’ capabilities were limited by Israeli restrictions on what parts of Gaza they could fly over, as well as by communications jamming equipment that the IDF was using, according to two U.S. government officials.

Delta and Team 6 Deploy to Cyprus

On Oct. 17, a Delta squadron and a SEAL Team 6 squadron landed at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus to stage for the operation. A package of helicopters from the Army’s 160^th Special Operations Aviation Regiment and other enablers came with them.

The Israelis were to be fully briefed on any hostage rescue operation and a deconfliction process would take place to ensure the U.S. and Israeli militaries did not get in each other’s way, but JSOC was to conduct any mission to rescue U.S. hostages unilaterally, i.e. without Israeli support, according to a U.S. government official.

By Oct. 18, as the Ranger battalion arrived in Cyprus, JSOC had gained a little more fidelity on the locations of the American hostages, although the intelligence was not solid or detailed enough to be considered “actionable.” In addition, Hamas was not holding them all in the same place, vastly complicating the planning for any rescue mission. Intelligence estimates were that the 240 hostages, with the Americans mixed in, were spread around Gaza in groups of 15 to 20 with at least four armed Hamas fighters assigned to each group, a U.S. source familiar with the intelligence assessments told The High Side.

Also on Oct. 18, with the crisis in the Middle East threatening to spiral out of control, President Joe Biden visited Tel Aviv and met with Israeli leaders. JSOC was so busy that although an entire troop or even a squadron of operators would normally be assigned to support the Secret Service during such a high-risk presidential visit, only eight operators could be spared because the special mission units had their hands full preparing for the hostage rescue mission, according to a U.S. government official.

The White House published a photo of some JSOC operators working to augment Biden’s security detail, then deleted it, although it remains on the internet. Other JSOC operators supporting the Biden visit wore plain clothes and operated in a low-visibility capacity, said an official with knowledge of the deployment, adding that Delta Force’s commander was livid over the White House disclosure.

During his remarks in Tel Aviv, Biden hinted at the feverish activity occurring behind the scenes to secure the hostages’ release. “We’re working with partners throughout the region, pursuing every avenue to bring home those who are being held captive by Hamas,” he said. “I can’t speak publicly about all the details, but let me assure you: For me as the American president, there is no higher priority than the release and safe return of all these hostages.”

By then, JSOC’s concept of the hostage rescue operation included a helicopter assault force launching from one of the two U.S. Navy aircraft carriers on station in the Mediterranean. Infiltration and exfiltration also involved boats, ground convoys, and low-visibility vehicles that would blend in with what the locals drive. Two Air Force AC-130 gunships were also part of the fleet of aircraft that would support the operators, according to two U.S. government sources familiar with the mission planning. Virtually every asset JSOC has would be thrown at what was perhaps the most complicated operation the command had faced in its 43-year existence.

The faster JSOC could get the hostages out and the faster the Israelis finished their military operation against Hamas in Gaza, the better from the Pentagon’s perspective, according to a U.S. source familiar with briefings on the matter. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and his team were worried that a larger regional conflagration in the Middle East would suck in Lebanese Hezbollah and their Iranian sponsors, with Russia potentially also helping Iran and its proxies kill Americans in Israel out of revenge for the United States’ support for Ukraine, according to the U.S. source.

However, the prospect of a complex hostage rescue in the dense urban jungle of Gaza City raised fears in the Pentagon of helicopters being shot out of the sky, according to a U.S. government official and the U.S. source familiar with briefings on the issue. Nonetheless, by the time Biden left Israel on Oct. 18, officials were “90% sure” that Biden would authorize the mission, most likely on the weekend of Oct. 21-22, a U.S. military official told The High Side.

But within 24 hours the situation had changed drastically. By Oct. 19, the Israelis were claiming the right of first refusal on any hostage rescue missions in Gaza. This meant that JSOC would only be able to embed a few operators in Israeli-led missions, or that JSOC might get the hand-me-down missions that the IDF didn’t want. Several U.S. sources briefed on or otherwise close to the mission planning described this situation as less than ideal, as they believed that Israeli targeting, intelligence, and military capabilities were not up to the task.

Thus, by Oct. 20, JSOC had gone from being in the driver’s seat to fighting for influence at the table with both the Israelis and the British. Now all the command could do was lobby for putting Americans back in the lead with a few Israeli operators embedded in their force instead of the other way around.

Meanwhile, a U.S. official told The High Side, the intelligence on the hostages’ locations remained spotty.

No Actionable Intelligence

As U.S. and Israeli officials debated what to do about the hostages, JSOC was also planning for the possible evacuation of other U.S. citizens from the region. Depending on how the IDF’s invasion unfolded, the Pentagon was preparing to evacuate between four and eight U.S. government facilities in Israel and Lebanon, according to two former U.S. military officials. These locations included embassies, consulates, and “annexes” (often used by the CIA), they said. The Pentagon calls this sort of mission a non-combatant evacuation operation. The JSOC version is called an enhanced military assisted departure.

(Maier, the assistant secretary of defense, said at the Oct. 31 conference that U.S. special operations forces in the Israel theater were ready “to help our own citizens get out of places and to help our embassies be secure.”)

On Oct. 20, secret negotiations between Hamas and the government of Qatar, acting as an intermediary between the militants and the U.S. government, paid dividends when Hamas released Judith and Natalie Raanan, two U.S. hostages who had been kidnapped from a kibbutz during the Oct. 7 attack. But the situation for the remaining hostages did not improve over the weekend of Oct. 21-22, nor did the expected IDF invasion materialize.

On Oct. 23 Hamas released two Israeli hostages. One, 85-year-old Yocheved Lifshitz, told the press that her captors had first put her into a group of 25, then into a group of four. They were imprisoned in a small part of a network of tunnels that she described to the press as resembling a vast spiderweb.

Shortly after Lifshitz’s release, Hamas personnel attacked the Red Crescent aid workers who had facilitated her transfer, according to a U.S. military official, who said the U.S. military assessment was that there was friction between Hamas and the Red Crescent in Gaza. As part of the deal to release the two Israelis, Hamas demanded that no American or Israeli drones monitor the transfer, according to a U.S. government official. It is unknown whether the United States and Israel stuck to this arrangement.

At the time of Lifshitz’s release, however, JSOC and the IDF still had no actionable intelligence regarding the other hostages, despite the U.S. government having provided the Israelis with some of the best technology available.

ISR platforms that can detect heat signatures through around ten feet of concrete failed to find any hostages, according to a U.S. government official. Sensor packages placed in Gaza disguised as rocks or rubble also failed to help geolocate any of the captives, the official went on to say, adding that sensors that can “smell” burning excrement or human corpses likewise detected nothing significant. (The use of these technologies did not involve any U.S. military personnel entering Gaza, according to U.S. officials.)

One slightly more promising development was that JSOC signals intelligence personnel were getting some hits that they believed, but could not confirm, were connected to the hostages, according to a second U.S. government official. In the absence of any solid intelligence, JSOC’s assessment was that the hostages were held deep underground in a tunnel system that connected two hospitals in Gaza, according to a U.S. government official.

A State of Limbo

As the odds of a hostage rescue mission dwindled, the operators and Rangers in Cyprus remained in a state of limbo, standing by for either a hostage rescue or an evacuation of U.S. civilians. At the same time, the news media began picking up on the large U.S. military deployment to Cyprus, which, according to a U.S. military official, had involved more than 50 Air Force C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft.

But a small turning point occurred on Oct. 24, when the IDF finally lifted the restrictions that governed what parts of Gaza JSOC’s drones could fly over. U.S. special operations planners finally got what they considered to be good quality full-motion video of Gaza City, according to a U.S. government official. In addition, the IDF reduced its electronic jamming, which allowed the JSOC ISR platforms over Gaza to pick up more signals intelligence, the official said.

Two days later, on Oct. 26, JSOC finally received actionable intelligence through Israeli technical means of the location of a group of hostages, according to the U.S. government official. However, whether that group included any U.S. citizens was unknown.

Biden authorized a team from the Rangers’ Regimental Reconnaissance Company (RRC) to conduct a scouting mission - which didn’t happen - and approved lethal force for a joint IDF/JSOC hostage rescue operation, according to a U.S. government official. Just like that, the big mission was back in play.

Also on Oct. 26, the U.S. military enabled an Israeli airstrike on Hamas’s deputy head of intelligence, a U.S. government official familiar with the operation told The High Side, adding that the drone was Israeli, but the United States had supplied the intelligence.

The next day, after cutting access to the local internet, electricity, and cell phone service, the IDF began its ground invasion of Gaza. JSOC advisers were embedded in IDF command posts as a form of forward reconnaissance, but did not enter Gaza, while the Rangers and other operators in Cyprus remained in a holding pattern with some ops approved but thus far unexecuted, according to three U.S. government officials. JSOC leaders intended to see how Iran and Hamas responded to the incursion before deciding on their next step, two U.S. government officials said.

With normal communications lines in Gaza severed, Hamas was forced to use hand-held radios to communicate. JSOC members embedded with the IDF identified these signals using a direction finding device called the “hydra,” which is used to pinpoint enemy locations, according to a former U.S. military official with knowledge of the operation.

A U.S. Special Operations soldier uses the Hydra in Afghanistan to help a sniper engage and kill an enemy combatant. (Courtesy photo, provided to The High Side)

By the first week of November, the pendulum had swung again. The IDF seemed increasingly focused on Hamas targets, rather than the hostages, according to a U.S. government official. (Netanyahu said on Nov. 3 that any ceasefire in Gaza must include the release of the hostages.)

With no clear end to the war in sight, JSOC planners concluded that they would be settling in for a long mission, one that might last years, supporting the IDF’s incursion into Gaza.

During a Nov. 6 press briefing, Pentagon spokesman Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder laid out the Defense Department’s four “lines of effort” in the Middle East: protection of U.S. forces and civilians; supplying Israel in its fight with Hamas; coordinating with Israel to secure the release of the hostages; and strengthening the U.S. military presence in the region to prevent the conflict from spreading.

But in defense circles there is a growing recognition that the U.S. military’s goals are not perfectly aligned with those of the IDF. As the likelihood of a hostage rescue mission recedes again, JSOC’s priority, as spelled out to the command by the Pentagon, is to help “contain the conflict and isolate Iranian influence,” said a U.S. government official. Israel’s priority, the official added, “is to maximize Hamas casualties.”

2. 'Yes, we do': Top US official admits Department of Energy works with US special forces to probe UFOs

I definitely was not read in on this one. I guess I did not hold a high enough security clearance to know this was taking place.

That said, I think there is some misunderstanding here. (perhaps an understatement)

It would make sense for US Special Forces to support the Department of Energy with routine security assessments of critical facilities. But I seriously doubt that SF or JSOC has ever been involved with "UFOs." I really think if so we would have heard about it long before this exchange at a hearing. It seems that the Secretary and Congresswomen were kind of talking past each other with their questions and answers.

'Yes, we do': Top US official admits Department of Energy works with US special forces to probe UFOs

firstpost.com · June 15, 2024

In a rapid-fire exchange with an American lawmaker, US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm has made an important admission about the unidentified flying objects (UFOs).

When Representative Anna Paulina Luna asked if the Department of Energy (DoE) had engaged federal counter-terrorism personnel in investigating UFOs around nuclear facilities, Granholm first appeared to avoid answering it. When Luna repeated the question, Granholm admitted the DoE had engaged US military’s special forces division.

“Does the DOE work with JSOC in order to handle security measures?” asked Luna.

“We work with all of the security entities around the federal government. We are part of an overall all-government effort on both cyber as well as national security,” said Granholm in her reply, avoiding a direct answer to the question.

Luna further pressed Granholm. She asked, “Do you guys work with JSOC? Yes or no.”

“Yes, we do,” replied Granholm.

The exchange on the UFOs, which the US government now formally calls unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs), took place during Granholm’s testimony to the Oversight Committee of the US House of Representatives —the lower chamber of US Congress— on May 23. The fiery exchange took place during the four-minute phase of the hearing at the 1 hour 34 minute mark in the hearing that went on for than two and a half hours.

During their exchange, Granholm also termed the UFOs being spotted around critical US facilities as “drones”. When Luna pressed that such unexplained sightings had been reported in the pre-drone era as early as 1940s, Granholm said she would follow up on that and did not immediately give a response.

Why is Granholm’s admission important?

The admission of Granholm that the DoE has engaged the JSOC —the military’s Joint Special Operations Command— is important as it has long been alleged that the JSOC has been part of the US government’s efforts to retrieve alien technology from alien spacecraft that have crashed on Earth.

To be sure, while the term UFOs (or UAPs as they are now formally called) is most commonly associated with alien or extraterrestrial association, the term actually refers to any flying or aerial object whose origin or nature cannot be identified. UFOs are not necessarily alien in nature.

The JSOC is part of the US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). It is charged with studying, planning, and conducting special operations. It often works with the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and conducts overt as well as covert operations from operatives across many of the US special forces units, such as the SEAL Team 6, Delta Force, etc.

Leading UFO expert Jeremy Corbell told Fox News, “JSOC is likely hardcore involved with the crash retrieval program, under the authority of the CIA, so the DoE having to admit they work with JSOC is a big deal. Sec. Granholm did not like having to admit that.”

During the hearing, when Luna pressed Granholm about the alleged retrieval of technology from UFOs and reverse engineering it, she said she had no knowledge of that.

firstpost.com · June 15, 2024

3. Israel–Hamas War (Iran) Update, June 15, 2024

Israel–Hamas War (Iran) Update, June 15, 2024

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-june-15-2024

Key Takeaways:

• Gaza Strip: Palestinian fighters have continued to defend against Israeli forces in the Saudi neighborhood, western Rafah. Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades mortared Israeli forces in eastern Zaytoun.
• West Bank: Israeli forces engaged PIJ and the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades fighters in Kfar Dan.
• Southern Lebanon and Golan Heights: Iranian-backed militias, including Lebanese Hezbollah, conducted four attacks from southern Lebanon into northern Israel.
• Yemen: US CENTCOM destroyed seven Houthi radars in a Houthi-controlled area in Yemen. Crew from a commercial vessel that the Houthis attacked evacuated the vessel, marking the second such incident in 24 hours.
• Region: The Islamic Resistance in Iraq claimed two separate drone attacks targeting Haifa, Israel.

4. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, June 15, 2024

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, June 15, 2024

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-15-2024

Key Takeaways:

• Several senior Western officials made statements at the Ukraine-initiated Global Peace Summit in Switzerland that inadvertently play into ongoing Russian information operations falsely portraying Russia as interested in legitimate and good faith negotiations, likely in part due to Russian President Vladimir Putin's efforts to undermine the summit through his carefully planned restatement of his uncompromising demands for Ukraine's capitulation on June 14.
• Kremlin mouthpieces amplified ongoing Russian information operations intended to discredit and disrupt the Global Peace Summit.
• Ukrainian First Deputy Defense Minister Lieutenant General Ivan Havrylyuk reported that Western military assistance has begun to arrive in Ukraine, but that Western military assistance will likely not arrive at scale and significantly impact the frontline situation for several more weeks to months.
• Chairperson of the ruling United Russia Party Dmitry Medvedev officially replaced United Russia Secretary Andrey Turchak with acting Russian Presidential Plenipotentiary Envoy to the Ural Federal District Vladimir Yakushev.
• Russian President Vladimir Putin is preparing a group of trusted and Kremlin-affiliated “veterans” to assume government roles likely in an attempt to appease Russian servicemen and domestic supporters of the war in Ukraine.
• The Swedish military announced on June 15 that a Russian Su-24 tactical fighter-bomber plane temporarily violated Swedish airspace east of the southern tip of Gotland on June 14, likely as part of an effort to discourage European states from participating in NATO and other international institutions supporting Ukraine.
• Russian forces recently marginally advanced near Kupyansk and Avdiivka.
• Elements of the Russian Baltic and Pacific fleets are participating separate naval exercises.
• A Financial Times (FT) investigation published on June 12 found that Russian officials have put Ukrainian children up for adoption whom Russia had forcibly deported from occupied Ukraine to Russia in 2022.

5. Defending the United States Against Critical Infrastructure Attacks

After reading about the Congresswomen asking the Secretary of Energy about SF and JSOC dealing with UFOs I thought we should consider serious and real threats.

Download the 16 page report here: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA2300/RRA2397-3/RAND_RRA2397-3.pdf

Defending the United States Against Critical Infrastructure Attacks

Exploring a Hypothetical Campaign of Cascading Impacts

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2397-3.html

Published Jun 11, 2024

by Bridget R. Kane, Stephen Webber, Katherine H. Tucker, Sam Wallace, Joan Chang, Devin McCarthy, Dennis Murphy, Daniel Egel, Tom Wingfield

In this report, the authors discuss threats to critical infrastructure (CI) and put forward a hypothetical case study to examine several phases of an adversarial attack on the United States. The attack is intended to constrain U.S. decisionmaking, disrupt military deployment, and impose strategically relevant costs on the civilian populace.

The authors aggregate CIs into seven classes to demonstrate how an attack on any one of these categories can have outsized effects because of interdependencies between infrastructure assets, systems, and networks.

Because of the interconnected nature of CI systems, damage to one system can adversely affect another. This may lead to a cascading hazard, producing disruptions across geographic boundaries and CIs. The authors draw on reports of recent attacks on U.S. CI systems to inform the case study. These real-world events demonstrate interdependencies, probable effects, and challenges that could arise from future potential adversarial action targeting infrastructure in the homeland. Finally, the authors recommend actions to reduce the likelihood and severity of disruptions to U.S. CI in the event of attacks by a capable adversary.

Research Questions

1. What are the threats to U.S. CI?What are the interdependencies, probable effects, and challenges that could emerge from future potential attacks on U.S.
2. ​CI?
3. How can U.S. decisionmakers reduce the likelihood and severity of disruptions to U.S. CI in the event of attacks by a capable adversary?

Key Findings

Critical infrastructure protection is a whole-of-nation challenge for which the United States is unprepared

• Because of the interconnected nature of critical infrastructure systems, damage to any one system can adversely affect another; this may lead to a cascading hazard, producing disruptions across geographic boundaries and critical infrastructures.

Attacks on critical infrastructure would rapidly stress national defense resources

• This stress would create acute tensions in resource management for which policymakers would have to prioritize, sequence, and deconflict many lines of effort.

Attacks on critical infrastructure would challenge the resilience of U.S. society in a novel way

• It is essential that policymakers not only prepare for attacks directed against critical infrastructure but also anticipate the social and political effects that an adversary intends to produce and take steps to reduce or even reverse those effects.

Recommendations

• Federal and state, local, tribal, and territorial governments and private-sector CI stakeholders should work together to plan, resource, train, and exercise their detection and response capabilities, including their processes and mechanisms to achieve unity of effort in preparedness and response.
• Given the possibility that attacks on CI could stress national defense resources, the federal government should ensure that all departments and agencies are resourced and postured appropriately to fulfill the government's homeland defense and force projection missions—simultaneously, if needed.
• The whole country must build societal resilience. A capable adversary might conduct attacks on U.S. CI to gain advantage in a potential conflict, seeking to narrow policymakers' decision space, delay or degrade military mobilization, and influence public opinion.

6. From Special Ops to Future Docs: Medical School Assists Veterans Transitioning to Medical Careers

From Special Ops to Future Docs: Medical School Assists Veterans Transitioning to Medical Careers

wate.com · by News provided by EIN Presswire Jun 14, 2024, 3:45 PM ET · June 14, 2024

U.S. Navy SEALs exhibition - parachuter (right) is an SOFtoSOM scholar and future doctor. Photo credit: NSW Free Fall Team.

Members of the U.S. Army Special Forces Green Berets on deployment care for an infant. Photo credit: Alex Manne.

HEMPSTEAD, NY, USA, June 14, 2024 /EINPresswire.com/ -- The Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell and Special Operations Forces to School of Medicine (SOFtoSOM) are proud to announce a collaborative effort to support United States military veterans in their journey to become physicians. This new partnership advances SOFtoSOM’s mission to provide a pathway for Special Operations Forces (SOF) to enter the field of medicine as non-traditional applicants, ultimately enriching the medical field with diverse physicians to serve an increasingly diverse population. The Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell is the first medical institution to partner with SOFtoSOM in this endeavor.

“We are pleased to partner with SOFtoSOM, an organization that shares our vision of creating improved pathways for diverse groups to enter the field of medicine and enhance healthcare throughout the United States and the globe,” said David Battinelli, MD, dean and Betsey Cushing Whitney professor of Medicine at the Zucker School of Medicine, and executive vice president and physician-in-chief for Northwell Health. “U.S. Special Operations Forces service members embody values inherent in physician leaders, such as excellence and service to others. We are committed to helping them pursue their dreams of entering the medical field and ultimately improving the health and well-being of the communities they serve.”

SOFtoSOM is the first non-profit organization dedicated to aiding Special Operators in their medical education pursuits. Scholars are identified using selection protocols developed by Special Operations veterans and operational psychologists who have been involved with selection for NASA. SOFtoSOM offers these scholars valuable opportunities to conduct research before entering medical school, as well as mentorship and financial assistance. Under this initiative, the Zucker School of Medicine has committed to assisting qualifying SOF applicants who have completed the SOFtoSOM program with navigating the medical school application process and providing interview opportunities. One of the most diverse medical schools in the country, the Zucker School of Medicine’s small class sizes and student-centered learning environment make it an ideal setting for veterans to thrive. Ricky Ditzel Jr., chairman and co-founder of SOFtoSOM, underscored the importance of this new partnership.

“In the Special Operations community, we live by the motto: Humans are more important than hardware,” said Ditzel, a U.S. Army Special Operations Flight Paramedic currently pursuing a career as a physician. “We are proud to share this commitment to our people with the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell. This collaboration will enrich the healthcare system by introducing highly skilled and resilient physician-leaders from our SOF veterans. The medical school’s unwavering dedication to the communities it serves ensures that together, we will enhance the quality and diversity of healthcare across the nation. We look forward to working together to create a brighter future for healthcare.”

SOF are military units comprised of elite U.S. soldiers across all military branches trained to execute high-stress missions, often in covert and sensitive environments. Its members possess unparalleled dedication, commitment to excellence, integrity, and adaptability. Despite these qualities, less than 2% of veterans are represented in the medical field, while about 8% of the U.S. population comprises veterans, according to the 2021 U.S. Census. Ditzel noted several barriers to SOF entry into medicine, including challenges in completing the personal statement and accomplishments section of the application due to the “Quiet Professional” stigma within SOF, where sharing stories or seeking affirmation for individual success is frowned upon. Additionally, SOF applicants often lack advisors to help with the application process and manage timelines and deadlines due to their training, familial obligations, and deployment schedules.

As a member of the U.S. military and a graduate of the Zucker School of Medicine, Christopher Petersen, MD, ’22, knows all too well about the challenges veterans face when applying for and attending medical school. In gratitude for his education and his positive experience as a non-traditional student, he now mentors SOFtoSOM scholars. “From the start, the Zucker School of Medicine was gracious in allowing me to navigate medical school as a veteran – providing assistance and mentors at each step along the way,” said Dr. Petersen, underscoring his appreciation for the efforts of the instructors, physicians, and administrative staff in maximizing students’ future potential within the healthcare system to provide excellent patient-centered care. He praised the school’s many opportunities for ‘non-traditional’ students to learn, lead, and become involved, whether in the clinical setting, research, or the institution's strategic direction.

“I am ecstatic that SOFtoSOM was created to further educate and strengthen SOF service members in preparation for their transition to medical school and beyond. I am humbled that these two great organizations have directly intertwined to recognize the contributions that SOF members will make within the medical school community and as future physicians. This relationship will continue to have an impact within both organizations and, more importantly, their communities, for many years to come.”

To date, 30 scholars have completed the SOFtoSOM program and are currently medical students, accepted medical students, or future applicants. With partnerships like the one between SOFtoSOM and the Zucker School of Medicine, these veterans can continue serving their communities as physicians and healthcare leaders, ensuring their unique skills and experiences contribute to a healthier, stronger nation.

For more information about the program, visit SOFtoSOM.org. You can also learn more on the Zucker School of Medicine website: medicine.hofstra.edu.

About the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell

Established in 2008, the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell was founded by two equal partners: Hofstra University and Northwell Health. The School of Medicine is built upon the strong clinical and graduate medical education programs of Northwell, as well as the robust research and academic programs of both Hofstra and Northwell’s Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research. For more information, visit medicine.hofstra.edu.

Lois Bentivegna

Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell

+1 516-402-2943

Lois.bentivegna@hofstra.edu

NOTE: This content is not written by or endorsed by "WATE", its advertisers, or Nexstar Media Inc.

wate.com · by News provided by EIN Presswire Jun 14, 2024, 3:45 PM ET · June 14, 2024

7. Right-wing media outlets use deceptively cropped video to misleadingly claim Biden wandered off at G7 summit

Propaganda. We are so good at it for domestic political purposes. After looking at the original and cropped videos you have to admit that the propagandists did an excellent job manipulating reality.

The lesson: If you have to counter the lie you are already too late . The damage is done.  

Right-wing media outlets use deceptively cropped video to misleadingly claim Biden wandered off at G7 summit | CNN Politics

CNN · by Michael Williams, Samantha Waldenberg · June 14, 2024

President Joe Biden joins G7 leaders as they gather to watch a parachute drop at San Domenico Golf Club - Borgo Egnazia during day one of the 50th G7 Summit in Fasano, Italy on June 13, 2024.

Antonio Masiello/Getty Images

Washington CNN —

Right-wing media outlets used a deceptively cropped video to misleadingly claim President Joe Biden wandered off during an event with other world leaders at the G7 summit in Italy on Thursday.

Video shared by the New York Post on X showed part of a skydiving demonstration in front of several world leaders in Italy that involved several parachutists landing near the group, with each skydiver carrying a flag representing the different G7 countries.

In the full, unedited video, Biden – who was standing with the group of leaders as a parachutist carrying a G7 banner landed in front of them – briefly turned away to give a thumbs-up to several parachutists who had landed behind the group, along with a parachute rigger who was kneeling on the ground to pack up one of the skydiver’s chutes and the French flag.

Other leaders, including Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and French President Emmanuel Macron, also briefly look toward that group. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni then walks toward Biden, taps him on the arm, and motions for him to join the other leaders who were being briefed by an Italian Army officer about the demonstration they just watched.

But the video shared by the Post on X cropped out the kneeling parachute rigger, omitting the context of why Biden walked away from the group. “President Biden appeared to wander off at the G7 summit in Italy, with officials needing to pull him back to focus,” the social-media post said.

That claim later became the basis of the Post’s Friday front page, which called Biden the “MEANDER IN CHIEF” and accused the president of embarrassing the US with “confused wanderings.”

The White House on Thursday criticized the Post and outlets for characterizing the president as “confused” and for using an “artificially narrow frame” to make it appear as if the president was wandering off from the skydiving demonstration.

“He’s saying congratulations to one of the divers and giving a thumbs up,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said in a post on social media.

“Beware cheap fakes … and all the bad faith actors who post them,” White House communications director Ben LaBolt also posted.

X later added a community note to the Post’s tweet acknowledging the video had been cropped. A spokesperson for the Post did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.

Edited video goes through conservative echo chamber

The video of Biden at the skydiving demonstration appeared to have first been flagged by the Republican National Committee, which posted the uncropped video of Biden giving the parachutists a thumbs-up shortly after the demonstration took place. The New York Post shared the cropped version less than 90 minutes later.

Other right-wing outlets quickly followed suit. Sinclair stations posted stories saying Biden appeared to wander away at the summit. Those stories also resurfaced false claims that the president soiled himself at a D-Day ceremony in France earlier this month.

A Fox & Friends segment Friday morning reported on the incident and the Post’s front page, with a chyron saying the president appeared “confused” at the summit.

Other world leaders who attended the event with Biden, though, pushed back on the idea that he was confused. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who was standing just steps away from Biden, said the president “was being very polite and went over to talk to all of (the skydivers) individually.”

“Giorgia was saying don’t worry they’re all coming – we were meant to line up and they were coming to shake our hands,” Sunak said, according to The Telegraph.

Cropped video plays on concerns over Biden’s age

While emerging technologies like artificial intelligence continue to proliferate and create concern about the impact that misinformation will have on voters ahead of November, the video shared by the Post shows that relatively low-tech efforts, like cropping videos to show Biden out of context, can still be powerful tools to reinforce the idea that the 81-year-old president has lost control of his mental faculties.

Every day that Biden is president, he sets a new record as the oldest person to ever hold that office. He would be 86 at the end of a potential second term. And recent events, including special counsel Robert Hur’s report that described the president being portrayed as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” and recent Biden missteps where he appeared to confuse long-dead world leaders with their living contemporaries, have served to reinforce those concerns.

The White House has pushed back on criticism over Biden’s age by pointing toward his packed travel schedule. In just the last two weeks, the president has traveled to France to commemorate D-Day, back to the United States to comfort a son who just became a convicted felon and then embarked on another transatlantic journey to Italy, where he participated in high-stakes discussions about future US support for Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s invasion. From there he heads straight to California to participate in a star-studded fundraiser.

The rest of this month will see Biden preparing for his critical June 27 debate with former President Donald Trump, who turned 78 on Friday and is also scrutinized for his age.

Biden’s campaign and his family members have said his age and the experience that comes with it are an asset to his role, and not a liability. The campaign has sent first lady Dr. Jill Biden to shore up older voters’ support of the president.

“Joe and that other guy are essentially the same age,” the first lady said at an event in Green Bay, Wisconsin, on Thursday. “Let’s not be fooled. But what this election is about, it’s about the character of the person leading our country.”

“Joe Biden is a healthy, wise 81-year-old ready and willing to work for you every day to make our future better,” she added. “Joe isn’t one of the most effective presidents of our lives in spite of his age, but because of it.”

CNN · by Michael Williams, Samantha Waldenberg · June 14, 2024

8. Here’s how Donald Trump and his allies plan to reshape the government if he regains the White House.

A useful summary.

I hope someone does a similar one for the current administration to compare the two.

Here’s how Donald Trump and his allies plan to reshape the government if he regains the White House.

If Trump Wins

By Charlie Savage, Jonathan Swan, and Maggie Haberman

 Updated June 16, 2024

The New York Times · by Charlie Savage, Jonathan Swan, and Maggie Haberman · June 7, 2024

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/16/us/politics/trump-policy-list-2025.html

Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times

Donald Trump and his closest allies are preparing a radical reshaping of American government if he regains the White House. Here are some of his plans for cracking down on immigration, directing the Justice Department to prosecute his adversaries, increasing presidential power, upending America’s economic policies, retreating militarily from Europe and unilaterally deploying troops to Democratic-run cities.

Crack down on illegal immigration to an extreme degree

Mr. Trump is planning a massive expansion of his first-term crackdown on immigration if he returns to power in 2025. Among other things, he would:

1. Carry out mass deportations

Mr. Trump’s top immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, said that a second Trump administration would seek a tenfold increase in the volume of deportations — to more than a million per year.

2. Increase the number of agents for ICE raids

He plans to reassign federal agents and the National Guard to immigration control. He would also enable the use of federal troops to apprehend migrants.

3. Build camps to detain immigrants

The Trump team plans to use military funds to build “vast holding facilities” to detain immigrants while their deportation cases progress.

4. Push for other countries to take would-be asylum seekers from the United States

He plans to revive “safe third country” agreements with Central American countries and expand them to Africa and elsewhere. The aim is to send people seeking asylum to other countries.

5. Once again ban entry into the United States by people from certain Muslim-majority nations

He plans to suspend the nation’s refugee program and once again bar visitors from mostly Muslim countries, reinstating a version of the travel ban that President Biden revoked in 2021.

6. Try to end “birthright citizenship”

His administration would declare that children born to undocumented parents were not entitled to citizenship and would cease issuing documents like Social Security cards and passports to them.

Read more:

Sweeping Raids, Giant Camps and Mass Deportations: Inside Trump’s 2025 Immigration Plans

Use the Justice Department to prosecute his adversaries

Mr. Trump has declared that he would use the powers of the presidency to seek vengeance on his perceived foes. His allies have developed a legal rationale to erase the Justice Department’s independence from the president. Mr. Trump has suggested that he would:

1. Direct a criminal investigation into Mr. Biden and his family

As president, Mr. Trump pressed the Justice Department to investigate his foes. If re-elected, he has vowed to appoint a special prosecutor “to go after” Mr. Biden and his family.

2. Have foes indicted for challenging him politically

He has cited the precedent of his own indictments to declare that if he became president again and someone challenged him politically, he could say, “Go down and indict them.”

3. Target journalists for prosecution

Kash Patel, a Trump confidant, has threatened to target journalists for prosecution if Mr. Trump returns to power. The campaign later distanced Mr. Trump from the remarks.

Read more:

The Radical Strategy Behind Trump’s Promise to ‘Go After’ Biden 

and A New Trump Administration Will ‘Come After’ the Media, Says Kash Patel

Increase presidential power

Mr. Trump and his associates have a broad goal to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that currently operates independently of the White House. Mr. Trump has said that he will:

1. Bring independent agencies under presidential control

Congress has set up various regulatory agencies to operate independently from the White House. Mr. Trump has vowed to bring them under presidential control, setting up a potential court fight.

2. Revive the practice of “impounding” funds

He has vowed to return to a system under which the president has the power to refuse to spend money that Congress has appropriated for programs the president doesn’t like.

3. Strip employment protections from tens of thousands of longtime civil servants

During Mr. Trump’s presidency, he issued an executive order making it easier to fire career officials and replace them with loyalists. Mr. Biden rescinded it, but Mr. Trump has said that he would reissue it in a second term.

4. Purge officials from intelligence agencies, law enforcement, the State Department and the Pentagon

Mr. Trump has disparaged the career work force at agencies involved in national security and foreign policy as an evil “deep state” he intends to destroy.

5. Appoint lawyers who would bless his agenda as lawful

Politically appointed lawyers in the first Trump administration sometimes raised objections to White House proposals. Several of his closest advisers are now vetting lawyers seen as more likely to embrace aggressive legal theories about the scope of his power.

Read more:

Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025 

and If Trump Wins, His Allies Want Lawyers Who Will Bless a More Radical Agenda

Upend trade and other economic policies

At the risk of disrupting the economy in hopes of transforming it, Mr. Trump plans to impose new tariffs on most goods manufactured abroad. Economists say his broader agenda – including on trade, deportations and taxes – could cause prices to rise. He has said that he will:

1. Impose a “universal baseline tariff,” a new tax on most imported goods

Mr. Trump has said that he plans to impose a tariff on most goods made overseas, floating a figure of 10 percent for a new import tax. On top of raising prices for consumers, such a policy would risk a global trade war that hurts American exporters.

2. Implement steep new trade restrictions on China

He has said that he will “phase out all Chinese imports” of electronics and other essential goods, and impose new rules to stop U.S. companies from making investments in China. The two countries are the largest economies in the world and exchange hundreds of billions of dollars of goods each year.

3. Slash rules imposed on business interests

He has vowed to revive his deregulatory agenda and go further in curbing the so-called administrative state – agencies that issue rules for corporations such as limits aimed at keeping the air and water clean and ensuring that food, drugs, cars and consumer products safe, but that can cut into business profits.

4. Extend and expand tax cuts

Mr. Trump has said he would extend the tax cuts from his 2017 tax law that are set to expire, including for all levels of personal income and for large estates. He also privately told business leaders he wants to further lower the corporate tax rate.

Read more:

A New Tax on Imports and a Split From China: Trump’s 2025 Trade Agenda 

, Courting C.E.O.s, Trump Says He Intends to Cut Corporate Taxes Again 

and Trump Vows to Lower Prices. Some of His Policies May Raise Them.

Retreat from military engagement with Europe

Mr. Trump has long made clear that he sees NATO, the country’s most important military alliance, not as a force multiplier with allies but as a drain on American resources by freeloaders. He has said he will:

1. Potentially undercut NATO or withdraw the United States from the alliance

While in office, he threatened to withdraw from NATO. On his campaign website, he says he plans to fundamentally re-evaluate NATO’s purpose, fueling anxiety that he could gut or end the alliance.

2. Settle the Russia-Ukraine war “in 24 hours”

He has claimed that he would end the war in Ukraine in a day. He has not said how, but he has suggested that he would have made a deal to prevent the war by letting Russia simply take Ukrainian lands.

Read more:

Fears of a NATO Withdrawal Rise as Trump Seeks a Return to Power

Use military force in Mexico and on American soil

Mr. Trump has been more clear about his plans for using U.S. military force closer to home. He has said that he would:

1. Declare war on drug cartels in Mexico

He has released a plan to fight Mexican drug cartels with military force. It would violate international law if the United States used armed forces on Mexico’s soil without its consent.

2. Use federal troops at the border

While it’s generally illegal to use the military for domestic law enforcement, the Insurrection Act creates an exception. The Trump team would invoke it to use soldiers as immigration agents.

3. Use federal troops in Democratic-controlled cities

He came close to unleashing the active-duty military on racial justice protests that sometimes descended into riots in 2020 and remains attracted to the idea. Next time, he has said, he will unilaterally send federal forces to bring order to Democratic-run cities.

Read more:

Why a Second Trump Presidency May Be More Radical Than His First 

and Trump Wanted to Fire Missiles at Mexico. Now the G.O.P. Wants to Send Troops.

Produced by Eden Weingart and Rebecca Lieberman​.

9. Israel to Pause Fighting Along Southern Route in Gaza to Ease Aid Blockage

Israel to Pause Fighting Along Southern Route in Gaza to Ease Aid Blockage

Decision for daily pauses, announced on the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, came after discussions with aid agencies and the U.N.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-to-pause-fighting-along-southern-route-in-gaza-to-ease-aid-blockage-66150a5a?mod=latest_headlines

By Dov LieberFollow

 and Abeer Ayyoub

June 16, 2024 7:03 am ET

Israel said it would pause fighting along a strategic route in southern Gaza each day to facilitate the distribution of humanitarian aid, seeking to address security issues raised by aid groups and demonstrating Israel’s growing hold over the territory. 

The United Nations agency most involved with Gaza said it was hopeful the pauses would improve its ability to deliver aid throughout the enclave. 

The announcement of daily humanitarian pauses during daylight hours comes a day after Israel announced 11 soldiers had been killed in Gaza, eight in a single incident in the southern city of Rafah, on Saturday, one of the deadliest days for Israel during the eight-month-old war.

This is the first time Israel has announced a daily pause in fighting in certain areas of Gaza since last November. Still, the army said fighting elsewhere in Rafah and the rest of the enclave would continue.

Palestinians hold Eid al-Adha prayers in Khan Younis, Gaza, on Sunday. PHOTO: MOHAMMED SALEM/REUTERS

Since the start of the Rafah operation, aid organizations have said the fighting and lack of security there have made aid delivery and distribution treacherous. Despite an increase in aid and commercial trucks into Gaza from earlier this year, aid groups say Gazans are still lacking basic necessities.  

There is largely no meat available in Gaza, dampening celebrations of Eid al-Adha, a Muslim holiday marked by the slaughtering of goats and sheep that began Sunday. 

Haneen Samir, 32, a mother of three living in Gaza City, said that the humanitarian situation is terrible and that they live in “a real famine.” 

Her family doesn’t have any canned food, hasn’t eaten meat for months and gets by mostly on bread and ground thyme, she said. “Today is the first day of the Al-Adha feast, and no one in the area sacrificed any animal,” Samir said. 

Gaza City is located in the enclave’s northern district, where aid groups have had the hardest time operating.  

Israel’s military said Sunday that starting this weekend, it would halt fighting along a route that begins at Israel’s Kerem Shalom crossing into the enclave, cuts through southern Rafah up to Salah-a-Din street, a key north-south road used to deliver aid across the enclave.

Delivering aid in Gaza has become treacherous, humanitarian agencies said. PHOTO: JACK GUEZ/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

The pause will take place daily from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. and came about through discussion with the U.N. and aid groups, the army said. The pauses will continue until further notice, an Israeli military spokesperson said.

“We’re hopeful that this pause, which we thank Israel for putting in place, will allow us to move freely in and out of the crossing and bring in much-needed aid for the population,” said Scott Anderson, the director of affairs in Gaza for Unrwa, the U.N. agency that deals with Palestinian refugees and is the major humanitarian player in the enclave, in an interview with CNN on Sunday. 

The Kerem Shalom crossing has become the key conduit for aid into Gaza after Israel took control of the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza in early May. Since then, Egypt has prohibited the use of the Rafah crossing, saying it would renew operations there only once it is returned to Palestinian control, despite efforts involving U.S. officials to negotiate the reopening. 

Humanitarian aid into Gaza rose to more than 5,600 trucks in April from around 2,900 in February, according to U.N. data, although humanitarian workers said that deliveries often fell short of what the war-ravaged enclave needed. 

Palestinian families say they are again struggling with a shortage of aid and food and that their situation is being exacerbated by having to be on the move. More than a million people have left Rafah since the start of May, the U.N. says, when Israel began operations there.  

Israel says that it has allowed hundreds of trucks into Gaza each day recently and blames the U.N. for not picking up the aid. It also says hundreds of trucks have accumulated on the Gaza side of the Kerem Shalom border crossing as a result.

Anderson, the Unrwa director, acknowledged the backup of trucks at the crossing and said he hoped Hamas and other armed groups would respect the pauses in fighting to allow for their distribution. 

Israeli security forces carry the casket of one of the soldiers killed on Saturday. PHOTO: MENAHEM KAHANA/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

The aid corridor in southern Gaza is located in areas where Israel established control at the start of its operations in Rafah. 

Eight of the 11 Israeli soldiers killed over the weekend died in Rafah after their armored vehicle was attacked and exploded. The military is still investigating how Hamas carried out such a successful attack on the armored vehicle, which was carrying explosive material. 

The deadly attack points to the effective nature of Hamas’s guerrilla warfare and the challenge facing Israel if it intends to keep a permanent presence in the area.  

Israel has so far concentrated its operations in Rafah along the border with Egypt, known as the Philadelphi corridor. Israel says the area was a key weapons smuggling route for Hamas and that it is currently destroying the underground tunnels the arms moved through. 

Michael Horowitz, the Israel-based head of intelligence for the consulting firm Le Beck, said the operation in Rafah is “kind of winding down” and Israel was focused on creating a buffer zone for its forces who may be stationed along the Philadelphi corridor for the foreseeable future. 

Israel hasn’t carried out sustained or large-scale operations in the more densely populated urban areas of Rafah. The Biden administration has cautioned Israel against doing so.

Write to Dov Lieber at dov.lieber@wsj.com

10. Xi Jinping claimed US wants China to attack Taiwan

Does anyone believe the US wants China to attack Taiwan? Of course there are some crazies who might want this but surely there is no sane leader who actually wants this.

Xi Jinping claimed US wants China to attack Taiwan

Financial Times · by Demetri Sevastopulo · June 15, 2024

China’s President Xi Jinping told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that Washington was trying to goad Beijing into attacking Taiwan, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Chinese leader has also delivered the warning to domestic officials in his own country, one person said.

Xi issued the warning in a meeting with von der Leyen in April 2023 that was described to the Financial Times by several people. He said the US was trying to trick China into invading Taiwan, but that he would not take the bait. Another person said he had issued similar warnings to his officials.

The comments provide a window into Xi’s thinking on Taiwan — the most thorny issue in US-China relations.

Some Chinese academics and retired military officers have claimed that Washington is trying to provoke Beijing by providing weapons to Taiwan and pushing other measures to lure China into military confrontation.

Speaking at the Asia Society in January, Cui Tiankai, a former Chinese ambassador to Washington, said China would “not fall into the trap somebody may be preparing for us”, in a veiled reference to the US.

Xi’s remark to von der Leyen is the first known case of him making the claim to a foreign leader. Xi also said that a conflict with the US would destroy many of China’s achievements and undermine his goal of achieving a “great rejuvenation” by 2049.

“If Xi genuinely believes that the US actively seeks conflict with China over Taiwan, then concerns that Xi has created an information vacuum or is otherwise getting poor council from subordinates are, worryingly, true,” said Jude Blanchette, a China expert at CSIS, a think-tank.

The revelation comes as tensions are high across the Taiwan Strait. China responded to May’s inauguration of Lai Ching-te as Taiwan’s new president with major military exercises around the island. Beijing has described Lai as a “dangerous separatist”.

Washington has an obligation to help Taiwan provide for its own defence under the Taiwan Relations Act. But the Biden administration has long stressed that it does not support Taiwanese independence and opposes unilateral changes to the status quo.

Chinese anxiety over US intentions has grown in recent years, as have US concerns about assertive Chinese military activity around Taiwan.

One Chinese academic said Washington was “actively encouraging independence forces in Taiwan” and the US knew that if they crossed a red line by declaring independence, China would be forced to take military action.

Blanchette said one possible explanation for Xi’s comment was that some subordinates were trying to steer him away from more aggressive policies.

“Whatever the explanation for Xi’s comments, it’s clear that the decision-making environment — and the information feeding into it — is being warped, either by Xi’s lieutenants, or by his own autocratic behaviour,” Blanchette said.

Bonnie Glaser, a German Marshall Fund China expert, said the comment might have been part of China’s attempt to pull Europe away from the US on the Taiwan issue, but is was also possible that Xi believed it.

The Chinese embassy in Washington did not comment on Xi’s remark, but said the US was selling weapons to Taiwan and backing “independence separatist forces”.

Von der Leyen’s spokesperson said she did not disclose details about private meetings. The White House did not comment.

Additional reporting by Henry Foy in Brussels

Financial Times · by Demetri Sevastopulo · June 15, 2024

11. An Army Special Forces Veteran Creates American Flags That Don't Burn

I expect someone in Congress to introduce a bill that requires all American flags be made with this technique.

An Army Special Forces Veteran Creates American Flags That Don't Burn

military.com · by Blake Stilwell · June 14, 2024

In many ways, Kyle Daniels is your typical Midwestern American. He grew up in a patriotic household, many of his family members joined the military, and his father was very meticulous about flag etiquette -- probably more so than your average American.

"Every morning we put it out at sunrise, we'd go out every night after work, bring it in and fold it the right way. It was very ceremonious," Daniels recently told Military.com. "It was instilled in me very early that this flag represents the freedoms we enjoy today. It's not just about the Fourth of July, it's not just about the special days; it's about every day. And that was something that I held near and dear to my heart."

That patriotism was never lost on him. Daniels would grow up to join the ranks of Army Special Forces. When he left the service, he was looking for what to do in the next phase of his life. He found the opportunity to combine his love of country with his post-military career -- a way to defend Old Glory itself, even if he's not there to do it personally.

Kyle Daniels, Special Forces veteran and founder of Firebrand Flags, brought a special, vintage 48-star flag to Normany to celebrate the 80th anniversary of D-Day. (Military.com/Blake Stilwell)

"I walked right out of a college class in 2003 and directly to a recruiter's office to sign [on] the dotted line," Daniels said. "Within three months, I was in boot camp. I was a lost soul and just did not feel any compelling purpose for college. This was around the time that the war in Iraq kicked off, and I just knew I could do more there."

Daniels joined the Army's 18X program, which allowed him to go directly into Special Forces training. After boot camp, he went through Airborne School and the Special Forces Q-Course; by 2005, he was assigned to the 10th Special Forces Group. A year later, he finally made it to Iraq for the first of two deployments there. He stepped off a C-17 Globemaster III the night he arrived to see the American flag flying on the airfield.

"I remember not knowing what to expect going into combat," Daniels recalled. "I was 22, and it was my first time actually going to war. I remember being at peace with it, but still not knowing what to expect. I'll never forget coming off of a C-17 and seeing, very distinctly, the flag flying right on the airfield in Baghdad.

"Something about seeing that, knowing where I was, brought me a sense of comfort, and that's a lot of what the flag really, really instills in me. No matter where I am in the world, if I see that flag, there's going to be some sense of comfort or reassurance."

When Daniels left the U.S. military in 2010, he fulfilled a promise to his dad to finish college, but he struggled to figure out what he would do next. Like many veterans, he sought the help of friends who had already transitioned. A former teammate, Jason Van Camp, connected him with Warrior Rising, a nonprofit that helps veterans get their business ideas off the ground. Daniels and Van Camp talked at length about the politics of the country, and didn't like what they saw.

At the time, tensions were high in the United States, especially around the flag. Daniels saw protests around the 2016 presidential election and protests against American activities all over the world in which flags were being burned. He naturally felt the discourse didn't represent the values that were instilled in him -- with flags being burned.

"That really resonated with me," he said. "I've seen the sacrifice people make for that flag and for the freedoms that it represents. I didn't really know what to do at the time, but the idea came about. I was like, 'I wish there was a flag that didn't burn.' And then we had the idea: Let's make one."

So they did, and by 2020, Firebrand Flags was born.

(Military.com/Blake Stilwell)

The material used to create these flags uses the same Kevlar-based fire retardant and manufacturing processes used to create U.S. military combat uniforms. They're also engineered for durability. Anyone who's flown a flag from their front porch knows that after even just a year of exposure to the elements, flags become frayed and discolored. Firebrand's classic flag also prevents both. They are also, of course, made in the United States, with each star hand-sewn onto the blue field.

"We wanted a flag that not just embodied the fighting spirit that our men and women have but could actually defend itself from people who wanted to do it harm, people who wanted to disparage the flag or burn the flag," Daniels said. "It was important for me that the stars were hand-sewn, and everything else is made in America."

For a limited time, the company is offering a special, World War II-era vintage 48-star flag that was airdropped into Normandy, France, with the cast of the HBO series "Band of Brothers" to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the D-Day invasion. To learn more about the process of making flags that won't burn, Kyle Daniels or more about Firebrand's "Old Glory" classic flag, visit the Firebrand Flags website.

Want to Know More About Veteran Jobs?

Be sure to get the latest news about post-military careers as well as critical info about veteran jobs and all the benefits of service. Subscribe to Military.com and receive customized updates delivered straight to your inbox.

military.com · by Blake Stilwell · June 14, 2024

12. Morality Is the Enemy of Peace

Excerpts:

But let’s not kid ourselves: In the end, conflicts often conclude in messy and morally imperfect bargains. Even after one-sided victories, the winners often settle for somewhat less than their moral justifications would require. The United States demanded and got “unconditional surrender” in World War II, for example, only to tolerate (and in some cases, actively support) the reentry of former Nazis into political life. It held war crimes trials in Japan and executed some former Japanese leaders but left Emperor Hirohito on his throne. U.S. leaders weren’t happy watching the Iron Curtain descend in Eastern Europe after the war, but they understood that accepting Soviet domination there was the price of postwar peace.

The conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine will end with agreements that won’t satisfy anyone completely. None of the parties will get everything they want, and the strident moral declarations that leaders and pundits have issued while these wars were underway will ring hollow. The longer the participants cling to them, the harder it will be to bring the carnage to a close. If Talleyrand were alive today, I suspect he’d say, “I told you so.”

Morality Is the Enemy of Peace

Foreign Policy · by Stephen M. Walt

The conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine can only end with deals that don’t satisfy anyone completely.

Walt-Steve-foreign-policy-columnist20

Stephen M. Walt

By Stephen M. Walt, a columnist at Foreign Policy and the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

• United States
• Stephen M. Walt

June 13, 2024, 3:11 AM

French Foreign Minister Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand (1754-1838) was an accomplished political survivor who managed to serve the French revolutionary government, Napoleon Bonaparte, and the postwar Bourbon restoration. He was a subtle and accomplished statesman, remembered today primarily for his sage advice to his fellow diplomats: “Above all, not too much zeal.” Wise words, indeed: Overzealousness, rigidity, and excessive moralizing are often obstacles to any effort to find effective solutions to difficult international issues.

Unfortunately, political leaders routinely frame disputes with other countries in highly moralistic terms, thereby turning tangible but limited conflicts of interest into broader disputes over first principles. As Anderson University’s Abigail S. Post argued in an important article in the journal International Security last year, leaders engaged in international disputes use moral language to rally support at home and abroad and to enhance their bargaining position vis-à-vis their adversaries. When they do, disagreements over potentially divisible issues (such as disputed territory) turn into zero-sum conflicts between competing moral claims. Unfortunately, moral principles are hard to abandon or relax without inviting accusations of hypocrisy and charges of betrayal. Once governments use moral arguments to justify their positions, cutting a deal becomes much harder, even when it would be in everyone’s interest.

Post’s article illustrated these dynamics with a revealing case study of the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas dispute between Argentina and Great Britain. To back its claim to the islands, each side invoked familiar moral norms. Argentina relied on the norm of territorial sovereignty, and its case was straightforward: Britain had illegally seized the islands in 1833 and therefore should give them back, full stop. The British responded by invoking a different moral principle: the norm of self-determination. In their view, it didn’t matter how Britain had gained control of the islands; as long as a majority of the residents wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom, their preferences should prevail.

Once these two positions were firmly established, compromise became nearly impossible. Despite the islands’ limited economic and strategic value, reestablishing control became a potent political issue in Argentina. But British governments could not cede them to Argentina without appearing to abandon a group of British citizens who wanted to remain under British rule. Given these entrenched positions, a military confrontation was probably inevitable.

In short: Moral claims transform divisible and potentially solvable disputes into indivisible and much less tractable conflicts. Among other things, this finding suggests an important revision to the so-called bargaining model of war. This framework views most conflicts as being over potentially divisible issues and argues that, rationally, states could reach mutually acceptable solutions if they had perfect information about each other’s capabilities and resolve and could overcome the “commitment problem” (i.e., the inability to assure others that a deal will be kept). Wars occur because the necessary information is typically lacking and states have incentives to misrepresent it, and fighting is the only way to determine who should get what share of the issue(s) in dispute. Scholars using this framework acknowledge that wars can also arise over indivisible issues where compromise is impossible, but such issues are presumed to be relatively rare. Post’s research suggests that framing disputes in highly moralistic terms transforms divisible issues into indivisible ones, making solutions harder to reach and war more likely.qq

Examples of this problem dominate today’s headlines. The present conflict over Taiwan resembles the dispute over the Falklands in certain respects: China claims Taiwan as its sovereign territory by historic right and insists that the past events that left it outside its control should now be reversed. From this perspective, anything short of Taiwan’s full reversion to Chinese sovereignty is unacceptable. By contrast, supporters of Taiwanese autonomy argue that the island’s 24 million inhabitants want to govern themselves and oppose being ruled by the Chinese Communist Party. In this view, restoring Taiwan to Chinese control would violate the political rights of the people who live there. Compromise is difficult because both moral claims have some validity, and anything that falls short of each side’s stated position will immediately be viewed as a betrayal of a fundamental political principle.

Now consider how the war in Ukraine is framed by each side. The war arose from a set of concrete and tangible disagreements that were potentially amenable to negotiation and compromise. These issues included Ukraine’s possible entry into NATO; its degree of economic, political, and security integration with Russia and the EU; the status of Russian-speaking minorities within Ukraine; basing rights for the Russian Black Sea Fleet; the supposed role of allegedly neo-Nazi groups within Ukraine; and several others. Difficult issues to be sure, but in theory any or all of them could have been resolved in ways that might have satisfied each side’s core interests and spared Ukraine and Russia a costly and brutal war.

Today, however, the conflict is widely framed by each side as a clash between competing moral principles. For Ukraine and the West, what is at stake is the post-World War II norm against conquest, the credibility of the “rules-based order,” and the desire to defend a struggling democracy facing a ruthless dictatorship. For Ukrainians, it is a war to defend the nation and its sacred territory; for some of Kyiv’s supporters in the West, helping it win is necessary to uphold the moral principles upon which the Western order supposedly rests.

Russia’s justification for the war increasingly rests on moral assertions of its own, such as the accusation that NATO reneged on an earlier pledge not to expand beyond Germany, the claim that there is a deep cultural unity between Russians and Ukrainians that must be preserved, or the insistence that preserving Russian culture requires defending the rights of Russian-speakers in Ukraine and ensuring the permanent “de-Nazification” of Ukraine. One need not accept any of these claims to recognize that they go beyond a mere assertion of narrow strategic interests: Russian President Vladimir Putin and his associates now frame the conflict as essential to preserving Russian national identity (and national security) in the face of hostile foreign pressure. Rhetorically, at least, it is far more than just a quarrel over minority rights in the Donbas or even Ukraine’s geopolitical alignment.

Unfortunately, framing this conflict in moral terms makes it harder to reach a peace settlement, because anything short of total victory inevitably invites a powerful backlash from critics fearing that these critical values are being sacrificed. If the United States or NATO were to push Ukraine to cut a deal short of total victory, they would face a chorus of denunciations from those who believe that only a humiliating Russian defeat and Ukraine’s entry into NATO will satisfy the demands of justice. If Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky tried to negotiate a cease-fire today, he might well be ousted by hard-liners seeking to fight on. Putin faces fewer internal constraints, but even he might be leery of a compromise at odds with the moral claims he has used to justify the war and retain public support.

And then there’s Gaza, the latest unhappy episode in the long conflict between Jews and Arabs that began when Zionist settlers began arriving in Palestine in the late 19th century. As with Ukraine, there are numerous tangible issues involved in this dispute, and there have been repeated efforts (beginning well before Israel’s founding) to find some sort of solution. Unfortunately, the two sides’ positions ultimately rest on competing moral claims to the territory lying between the river and the sea, claims that combine one-sided historical narratives, religious beliefs, and firm conviction that the other side has committed numerous crimes in the past and continues to do so today. These competing moral claims inspire extreme responses by Hamas and by the Israelis, and they have made it far more difficult to devise a solution that would satisfy the legitimate national aspirations of Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs.

Americans are as susceptible to this problem as anyone. Realists like Hans Morgenthau and George Kennan lamented the tendency of American leaders to frame every rivalry in moral terms, which they correctly saw as a serious impediment to a more effective foreign policy. Moral language can be useful for rallying citizens and winning support, but it makes the United States look hypocritical whenever it acts otherwise, which turns out to be quite often. It also makes it harder for U.S. officials to bargain effectively with potential adversaries, either because we refuse to have diplomatic relations with them, or because even a mutually beneficial deal with a supposedly “evil” regime is seen as a cowardly failure to uphold key moral principles.

But let’s not kid ourselves: In the end, conflicts often conclude in messy and morally imperfect bargains. Even after one-sided victories, the winners often settle for somewhat less than their moral justifications would require. The United States demanded and got “unconditional surrender” in World War II, for example, only to tolerate (and in some cases, actively support) the reentry of former Nazis into political life. It held war crimes trials in Japan and executed some former Japanese leaders but left Emperor Hirohito on his throne. U.S. leaders weren’t happy watching the Iron Curtain descend in Eastern Europe after the war, but they understood that accepting Soviet domination there was the price of postwar peace.

The conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine will end with agreements that won’t satisfy anyone completely. None of the parties will get everything they want, and the strident moral declarations that leaders and pundits have issued while these wars were underway will ring hollow. The longer the participants cling to them, the harder it will be to bring the carnage to a close. If Talleyrand were alive today, I suspect he’d say, “I told you so.”

Foreign Policy · by Stephen M. Walt

13. SASC EXSUM of the FY 2025 NDAA

A very useful "summary" of the Senate Armed Services Committee version of FY 2025 NDAA in 28 pages.

Special Operations related items are highlighted and excerpted below.

SASC EXSUM of the FY 2025 NDAA

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy25_ndaa_executive_summary.pdf

PREFACE

Each year, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorizes funding levels and

provides authorities for the U.S. military and other critical defense priorities, ensuring

America’s forces have the training, equipment, and resources they need to carry out their

missions. On June 13, 2024, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 22-3 to advance the

NDAA for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 to the Senate floor.

There is broad consensus among Congress, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the U.S.

interagency about the threats to America’s national security. The People’s Republic of China

poses an increasing threat to the United States and our allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific.

Russia is committed to expanding its malign influence on the global stage, and is willing to

inflict widespread violence to achieve its aims. Iran seeks to exploit violence in the Middle East,

expel the U.S. from the region, and further sabotage the free world’s interests. Threats from

North Korea are growing, with more nuclear capabilities in its arsenal. Transnational criminal

organizations continue to evolve and endanger Americans at home and abroad. To deter and

overcome these threats, the U.S. military and America’s men and women in uniform must have

the resources they need to keep the Nation safe.

FY 2025 DEFENSE FUNDING LEVELS

The 64^th annual NDAA supports a total of $923.3 billion in FY 2025 funding for national defense.

Within this topline, the legislation authorizes $878.4 billion for the Department of Defense and

$33.4 billion for national security programs within the Department of Energy (DOE).

FY25 Defense Funding Levels (in billions of dollars)

Department of Defense

$ 878.4

Department of Energy

$ 33.4

NDAA Topline

$ 911.8

Defense-related Activities Outside NDAA Jurisdiction

$ 11.5

National Defense Topline

$ 923.3

*Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The bill allows up to $6 billion in general transfer authority for unforeseen higher-priority needs

in accordance with normal reprogramming procedures.

​Special Operations related excerpts:

Land Warfare

• Supports the Army's priority modernization efforts, to include long-range fires, future vertical lift, next-generation combat vehicles, and air and missile defense.
• Authorizes increased funding for procurement of enduring combat aircraft, armored fighting vehicles, munitions, long-range fires, and short-range fires.
• Directs a briefing on the feasibility of land-basing the contents of Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS-3) in a partner nation.
• Authorizes increased funding for the UH-72A Lakota lifecycle and directs a report on the Army's strategy for long-term life cycle sustainment and modernization of the Lakota fleet.
• Directs a briefing on the Army's plan to modernize the Apache fleet.
• Directs a briefing on efforts to ensure the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) meets timelines necessary to support enduring fleet modernization requirements.
• 
  
• Directs a report assessing the establishment of formal affiliate relationships between units of the Army special operations forces and combat-enabling units of the Army general purpose forces.
• Requires a report assessing the feasibility of establishing an active-duty sustainment brigade in the Indo-Pacific.
• Authorizes increased funding to accelerate fielding of the Infantry Squad Vehicle.
• Directs a review of the Army Future Vertical Lift and network modernization efforts.
• Directs a briefing on Army efforts to train soldiers on contested logistics-related technical systems.
• Requires briefings on preliminary fielding plans for the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA), efforts relating to foreign military sales, and any efforts to leverage the FLRAA for Special Operations Command, Air Force, and Marine Corps requirements.
• Directs a briefing on how the Army's recruiting goals and end strength requests are incorporated into Total Army Analysis.
• 
  

DOD Organization and Management

• Directs DOD to institutionalize the "service secretary-like" role of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict through various updates to DOD processes, policies, and plans.
• Requires the development of a methodology for analyzing U.S. military force sizing necessary to conduct DOD activities in support of strategic competition.
• Directs DOD to address the size, structure, and posture priorities for special operations forces in the annual Defense Planning Guidance.
• Increases the authorized number of Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Defense from 60 to 62.
• Enhances synchronization of allied industrial base integration work by requiring additional coordination between the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International and Industry Engagement.

​14. Chinese Leadership’s In-House Lecture Offers Valuable Insights into China’s AI Strategy

Excerpts:

Despite Sun’s confidence and grand vision, Beijing’s AI ambitions are not without significant caveats. The government’s stringent control over politically sensitive content might stifle innovation and limit the potential for open scientific discourse. The heavy reliance on state-approved values for AI development raises questions about the ethical implications and potential misuse of AI technologies. Moreover, while the strategy to circumvent U.S. restrictions through indigenous innovation has merit, it remains to be seen whether China can achieve the necessary technological breakthroughs amid ongoing global competition.

Sun’s lecture was more than an informative session for China’s legislators. It should be seen as a strategic manifesto as Beijing is eager to craft a comprehensive and forward-looking AI strategy. This rare glimpse into the top leadership’s thinking offers a sharp, critical perspective on how China plans to harness AI to maintain its competitive edge in the high-stakes tech arena.

Chinese Leadership’s In-House Lecture Offers Valuable Insights into China’s AI Strategy

thediplomat.com · by Lizzi C. Lee

In a lecture to China’s top legislative body, a leading computer scientist outlined a national AI strategy focused on developing the real economy and overcoming U.S. tech restrictions.

By

June 15, 2024

Credit: Depositphotos

Subscribe for ads-free reading

On April 26, Professor Sun Ninghui, a preeminent expert in computer system architecture and an academician at the Chinese Academy of Engineering, delivered a pivotal lecture titled “The Development of Artificial Intelligence and Intelligent Computing” to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. Despite limited coverage from Chinese media, the full text of the speech, published online, provided a rare and revealing look into Beijing’s AI ambitions.

Born in 1968 in Shanghai, Sun Ninghui has been a linchpin in China’s technological landscape. His career includes directing the National Intelligent Computer Research and Development Center and serving as the dean of the School of Computer Science and Technology at the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Sun’s lecture was more than an academic exercise; it was a strategic blueprint of China’s AI ambitions and anxieties. He highlighted AI’s dual-edged nature, pointing out its potential for remarkable technological advancements while also spotlighting the security risks, particularly regarding politically sensitive information. AI-generated deepfakes, fraudulent news from tools like ChatGPT, and the proliferation of fake news sites underscore AI’s potential to erode social trust. For Beijing, these are not mere technical glitches but strategic vulnerabilities the leadership is keen to neutralize.

Sun’s focus on AI’s ability to churn out politically sensitive or “incorrect” information was striking. He stressed that the AI landscape is riddled with factual inaccuracies, inherent biases, and ease of manipulation – ripe for exploitation by adversaries. This concern is particularly acute for China, driven by the government’s obsession with controlling politically sensitive content. Beijing has rolled out stringent regulations to ensure AI development stays within state-approved boundaries.

The tech rivalry with the United States was another focal point in Sun’s lecture. With superior talent, foundational algorithms, and computational power, the U.S. holds a commanding lead in AI. China’s current role as a fast follower is a status quo that Beijing is desperate to disrupt.

U.S.-imposed restrictions on high-performance computing products and advanced semiconductor technologies are significant obstacles, argued Sun. The ban on advanced chips like the A100 and H100 stymies China’s AI progress, highlighting the strategic chokehold the United States maintains over China’s tech aspirations. This impact is particularly harsh for companies like Huawei and SMIC. Sun proposed that China innovate indigenously and diversify supply chains to reduce dependency on U.S. technology, echoing Beijing’s call to safeguard its high-tech future.

Sun’s critique of China’s underdeveloped domestic AI ecosystem was particularly revealing. Compared to NVIDIA’s expansive CUDA ecosystem, China’s AI development tools and talent pool are still embryonic, underscoring the urgent need for a cohesive, integrated approach to building a competitive AI ecosystem. The lack of synergy across AI tech layers – from applications to hardware – poses a significant challenge that Beijing is determined to overcome. To this end, China’s leaders must commit to enriching the AI ecosystem through substantial investments and strategic initiatives, Sun emphasized.

He outlined three strategic pathways for China’s AI development. The first involves aligning with U.S.-led systems, a practical but restrictive path given current geopolitical tensions. The second is building a closed, proprietary system, suitable for specific sectors like the military or judiciary but limited in scalability and global reach. The third and most promising pathway, according to Sun, is embracing an open-source model through global collaboration initiatives like RISC-V. By championing a collaborative global ecosystem, China should dismantle existing monopolies and lower entry barriers for domestic enterprises. This third pathway aligns with Beijing’s vision of becoming a global tech standard-setter and innovation leader.

Investing in new infrastructure is another cornerstone of China’s proposed AI strategy. Emphasizing the importance of robust data and computational infrastructure, Sun’s vision includes establishing national data hubs, developing foundational AI models, and integrating computational resources nationwide. The goal is to transform data into a strategic national asset, making AI services as accessible and affordable as utilities like water and electricity. This strategy underscores Beijing’s belief that a strong infrastructure backbone is essential for sustaining growth, whether traditional or AI-driven.

A significant departure from the United States’ approach to AI is China’s focus on the real economy, not just AI for AI’s sake. While the U.S. predominantly drives AI innovation in virtual sectors like software and internet services, China seeks to enhance its manufacturing prowess through AI integration. Deploying AI in traditional industries such as manufacturing and pharmaceuticals while fostering innovation in emerging fields is imperative, Sun emphasized. This practical strategy ensures AI not only drives economic growth but also fortifies China’s industrial base, maintaining its global competitiveness.

Despite Sun’s confidence and grand vision, Beijing’s AI ambitions are not without significant caveats. The government’s stringent control over politically sensitive content might stifle innovation and limit the potential for open scientific discourse. The heavy reliance on state-approved values for AI development raises questions about the ethical implications and potential misuse of AI technologies. Moreover, while the strategy to circumvent U.S. restrictions through indigenous innovation has merit, it remains to be seen whether China can achieve the necessary technological breakthroughs amid ongoing global competition.

Sun’s lecture was more than an informative session for China’s legislators. It should be seen as a strategic manifesto as Beijing is eager to craft a comprehensive and forward-looking AI strategy. This rare glimpse into the top leadership’s thinking offers a sharp, critical perspective on how China plans to harness AI to maintain its competitive edge in the high-stakes tech arena.

Authors

Guest Author

Lizzi C. Lee

Lizzi C. Lee is an affiliated researcher on the Chinese economy at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s (ASPI) Center for China Analysis (CCA). She holds a Ph.D. degree in Economics from MIT.

View Profile

Subscribe for ads-free reading

thediplomat.com · by Lizzi C. Lee

15. Terrorist activities likely before China invasion: retired Japanese officer

At least someone pays attention to lessons from north Korea.

Excerpts:

Drawing on Japan-North Korea relations, Yamashita said three types of people could carry out attacks in Taiwan: people politically aligned with China, mercenaries, and Chinese who seem to have assimilated with Taiwanese but who secretly engage in spying.

Although precautions should be taken to prepare for these potential scenarios, neither Taiwan, Japan nor the United States would be able to entirely eliminate the possibility, Yamashita said.

Terrorist activities likely before China invasion: retired Japanese officer - www.lokmattimes.com

lokmattimes.com · June 16, 2024

Taipei [Taiwan], June 16 : Retired Japanese Lieutenant General Hirotaka Yamashita, speculated that ahead of a potential Chinese military invasion of Taiwan, terrorist activities including attempts to assassinate Taiwan's president could occur, Focus Taiwan reported citing CNA.

Speaking at a press event in Taipei on Saturday for the launch of the Chinese-language version of his book on potential Chinese invasion strategies.

Yamashita outlined that such terrorist activities might involve planting bombs on presidential vehicles and at major metro stations in Taipei. Yamashita, who previously served as the vice chief of staff of the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force, based his predictions on various tabletop wargames detailed in his book, as per Focus Taiwan.

Drawing on Japan-North Korea relations, Yamashita said three types of people could carry out attacks in Taiwan: people politically aligned with China, mercenaries, and Chinese who seem to have assimilated with Taiwanese but who secretly engage in spying.

Although precautions should be taken to prepare for these potential scenarios, neither Taiwan, Japan nor the United States would be able to entirely eliminate the possibility, Yamashita said.

According to Focus Taiwan, Yamashita stated that these terrorist activities would aim to undermine the Taiwanese public's faith in their government and influence public opinion.

He advised the government to provide factual and up-to-date information and urged the public to trust the government during such crises, despite political differences.

In his book, Yamashita projected that a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan could occur between 2035 and 2050.

By then, Yamashita argued, China's nuclear arsenal would likely rival that of the US, and the gap in nuclear deterrence between the two countries would likely have been eliminated.

Until then, China is resigned to adopting a "peaceful reunification" stance on Taiwan, he believed.

Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China, has long been a contentious issue in China's foreign policy. China continues to assert its sovereignty over Taiwan and considers it a part of its territory and insists on eventual reunification, by force if necessary.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor

Open in app

lokmattimes.com · June 16, 2024

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com