Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners

Quotes of the Day:

“Always leave a way out, unless you really want to find out how hard a man can fight when he’s nothing to lose.”
- Robert Jordan, The Fires of Heaven

“Politeness [is] a sign of dignity, not subservience.”
- Theodore Roosevelt

"Life is short. That’s all there is to say. Get what you can from the present – thoughtfully, justly."
- Marcus Aurelius



1. RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, JUNE 28 (PUTIN'S WAR)
2. Reports of Disinformation Campaign Against Rare Earth Processing Facilities
3. Green Beret Tabbed as Next Commander of USSOCOM
4. Irregular Competition: Conceptualizing a Whole-of-Government Approach for the United States to Indirectly Confront and Deter State and Nonstate Adversaries 
5. Why buildings on Fort Bragg are named after these former Special Forces soldiers
6. James Mattis just got married in the most Marine way possible
7. Why Has China Increased Military Flights off Taiwan Coast?
8. Pressure grows for Taiwan to boost its defense force
9.  Lawmakers want DoD to parse cyber roles, explore partnerships with CISA and colleges
10. Biden’s Endgame Shouldn’t Be Victory for Ukraine
11. G-7 nations must reject China’s Taiwan Strait claim
12. America Is Losing Its Value Proposition
13. Opinion | The Future of the West Is in Question
14. Want 'strategic thinkers'? You'll have to transform the military culture
15. Maria Ressa: News organization Rappler ordered to shut down by Philippines government
16. Ukraine Is the Korean War Redux
17. Pentagon watchdog to evaluate US intelligence sharing in support of Ukraine
18. The One China Policy Is a Lie
19. NATO ties to Finland and Sweden could aid US with useful tactics for the Pacific, naval experts say
20. U.S. popular support for Ukraine aid declines amid ongoing economic woes
21. Biden must rally against a Russia-led UN ‘cybercrime treaty’
22. Turkey Supports Hamas, Which Means an Alliance With Israel Isn't Going To Happen
23. Anti-personnel landmines still play a vital part in defending against an invader
24. Show Me the Money: Boost the Pacific Deterrence Initiative
25. Air Force welcomes its first female commando with little fanfare
26. An Opinion Series on Innovation: How the Intelligence Community Kills Ideas
27. Special Ops Tech Pulled in Different Directions
28. NATO’s Hard Road Ahead
29. The Real Key to Victory in Ukraine
30. US special operators are picking up a softer skill as they refocus on countering China




1. RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, JUNE 28 (PUTIN'S WAR)



RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, JUNE 28
Jun 28, 2022 - Press ISW
Kateryna Stepanenko, Frederick W. Kagan, George Barros, Mason Clark, and Grace Mappes
June 28, 7:45 pm ET
Click here to see ISW's interactive map of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This map is updated daily alongside the static maps present in this report.
Ukrainian forces are likely conducting a fighting withdrawal that may include pulling back from Lysychansk and Luhansk Oblast in the near future and which probably aims to force the Russian offensive to culminate prematurely. The Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) Ambassador to Russia Rodion Miroshnik and Russian milbloggers claimed that Ukrainian forces began a large-scale withdrawal from Lysychansk towards Siversk, Kramatorsk, and Slovyansk on June 28.[1] Although ISW cannot confirm independently Miroshnik’s claims of an ongoing withdrawal, Ukrainian forces may continue the fighting withdrawal that began in Severodonetsk to Ukrainian strongholds around Siversk, Kramatorsk, and Slovyansk. The staunch but limited Ukrainian defense of Severodonetsk imposed high costs on the Russians despite new Russian tactics intended to limit Russian casualties. Kyiv could continue this approach until the Russian attack culminates or Ukrainian forces reach more defensible positions along a straighter line dotted with fortified cities and towns.
The pace and outcome of the next phase of the current campaign may depend in part on Russia’s ability to recoup combat power from the forces that participated in the Battle of Severodonetsk. The remaining Russian forces in Severodonetsk will need to cross the Siverskyi Donets River into Lysychansk from Severodonetsk or its surrounding settlements to participate further in the Russian offensive. This movement could require some time since the Russians destroyed the three main bridges across the river near the city. Miroshnik claimed that Russian forces have already crossed the Siverskyi Donets River from Kreminna and are building bridgeheads for further attacks on Lysychansk from the north.[2] ISW cannot independently verify Miroshnik’s claims. If they are true, and Russian forces threaten to complete the cauldron by pushing from the north and southwest of Lysychansk, then Ukrainian forces will likely abandon Lysychansk as well and conduct a fighting withdrawal to more defensible positions. Russian forces that have engaged in continuous offensive operations in Severodonetsk will also require some time to restore combat capabilities before participating in an assault on northern or northeastern Lysychansk. An unnamed Pentagon official stated that Russian forces continue to endure significant losses in fights for small territorial gains, and Russian groups that fought in Severodonetsk likely lost personnel and equipment.[3] The locations and strength of the Russian troops that seized Severodonetsk remain unclear at this time, however. A notable acceleration of Russian attacks from the south of Lysychansk or from across the Siverskyi Donetsk River would likely indicate that the Russians have completed a redeployment of forces from Severodonetsk. ISW has not yet observed such indicators.
Ukraine’s Conflict Intelligence Team (CIT) reported that the Kremlin replaced Western Military District (WMD) Commander Alexander Zhuravlev with the former commander of the 8th Combined Arms Army (CAA) Andrey Sychevoy.[4] CIT added that WMD Chief of Staff Aleksey Zavizion was relieved. ISW cannot independently verify these reports and will continue to monitor the situation for further corroboration.
Russian forces continue to look for additional reserves to replenish personnel losses in Ukraine, but these reserves are unlikely to initiate rotations or provide combat-ready manpower. Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov announced that he will form four new battalions “with an impressive number of personnel” on June 26.[5] Kadyrov also announced that Chechen forces formed a West-Akhmat battalion “in the shortest possible” time and claimed that the unit would deploy to a well-equipped base in Chechnya. Chechen forces will likely deploy the newly-created battalion to the frontline without sufficient training. Social media users also released footage of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) rounding up “volunteers” in Donetsk City as part of the recruitment campaign on June 28.[6] Wives of servicemen of the Russian 5th Guards Separate Tank Brigade issued a video plea for the immediate rotation of their husbands back home, noting that their husbands had left their permanent bases of deployment in January 2022 for “exercises in Belarus.”[7] The video indicates that the Russian military command has expressed its intentions for unit rotations.
Key Takeaways
  • Russian forces continued to launch assault operations south and southwest of Lysychansk. The Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) officials claimed that Ukrainian forces had begun to withdraw from the city, but ISW cannot confirm these claims.
  • Russian forces launched unsuccessful offensive operations north of Slovyansk and conducted spoiling attacks on settlements west of Izyum, likely to disrupt Ukrainian counteroffensives.
  • Russian forces failed to advance along the Kharkiv City-Belgorod highway and continued to undertake measures to hinder Ukrainian advances towards the international border or Izyum.
  • Ukrainian forces continued to launch counteroffensives north of Kherson City and reportedly liberated two settlements.
  • Russian forces continued to transfer military equipment and personnel east of Melitopol.
  • Russian occupation authorities are maintaining unsuccessful efforts to introduce ruble salary payments and set conditions to inflate electoral numbers in a future referendum.

We do not report in detail on Russian war crimes because those activities are well-covered in Western media and do not directly affect the military operations we are assessing and forecasting. We will continue to evaluate and report on the effects of these criminal activities on the Ukrainian military and population and specifically on combat in Ukrainian urban areas. We utterly condemn these Russian violations of the laws of armed conflict, Geneva Conventions, and humanity even though we do not describe them in these reports.
  • Main Effort—Eastern Ukraine (comprised of one subordinate and three supporting efforts);
  • Subordinate Main Effort—Encirclement of Ukrainian troops in the cauldron between Izyum and Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts
  • Supporting Effort 1—Kharkiv City;
  • Supporting Effort 2—Southern Axis;
  • Activities in Russian-occupied Areas
Main Effort—Eastern Ukraine
Subordinate Main Effort—Southern Kharkiv, Donetsk, Luhansk Oblasts (Russian objective: Encircle Ukrainian forces in Eastern Ukraine and capture the entirety of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, the claimed territory of Russia’s proxies in Donbas)
Russian forces continued to conduct offensive operations southwest of Lysychansk to sever the T1302 Bakhmut-Lysychansk highway in several areas. Luhansk Oblast Administration Head Serhiy Haidai reported that Russian forces attempted to gain a foothold in the southern part of the Lysychansk Oil Refinery and pushed west of Vochoyarivka, but did not reach the T1302 as of June 28.[8] Haidai also added that Russian forces fought south and southwest of Lysychansk. Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) Ambassador to Russia Rodion Miroshnik claimed that LNR and Russian forces have advanced a third of the way into Lysychansk from the south and are fighting at the Shaktar football stadium, while other troops cross the Siverskyi Donetsk River around Kreminna. ISW is unable to independently verify these claims.[9] The Ukrainian General Staff noted that Russian forces also conducted an unsuccessful attack west of Mykolaivka and Yakovlivka, both along the T1302.[10] Russian Su-25 aircraft struck Ukrainian positions in Bila Hora, just southeast of Lysychansk.[11]

Russian forces continued to make limited territorial gains south of Bakhmut on June 28. Russian forces continued to attack settlements along the E-40 highway that runs from Slovyansk to Bakhmut, approximately 13km southeast of Bakhmut.[12] The Ukrainian General Staff also added that Russian forces are attacking in the direction of the Uglehirska Power Plant northwest of Svitlodarsk.[13] Ukrainian forces reportedly repelled Russian attacks in Pavlivka, just east of the Donetsk-Zaporizhia Oblast border.[14]
Russian forces are likely continuing to launch spoiling attacks west of Izyum to disrupt Ukrainian counteroffensives in the area. The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces attempted an unsuccessful assault on Zalyman, approximately 26km northwest of Izyum, on June 28, having failed to advance in the area yesterday.[15] Russian forces likely continued to attack Zalyman with insufficient combat power to make real gains in their effort to disrupt Ukrainian counter-offensives and thereby defend Russian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) to Izyum through Borova (approximately 41km east). Ukrainian forces continued to target Russian equipment in Vesele, just east of Zalyman.[16] Russian forces are likely also continuing to conduct aerial reconnaissance and operate near Velyka Komyshuvakha (approximately 21km west of Izyum) to disrupt Ukrainian advances from the west.[17]

Russian forces conducted assaults north of Slovyansk but were unable to advance along the E-40 highway on June 28. Ukrainian Defense Ministry Spokesperson Oleksandr Motuzyanyk reported that Ukrainian forces repelled Russian offensive operations on Mazanivka, just west of the E40.[18] Russian forces also continued to shell settlements around Lyman and Slovyansk itself.[19]
Supporting Effort #1—Kharkiv City (Russian objective: Defend ground lines of communication (GLOCs) to Izyum and prevent Ukrainian forces from reaching the Russian border)
Russian forces launched unsuccessful offensive operations in northwestern Kharkiv Oblast and continued to undertake measures to prevent Ukrainian forces from reaching the international border or striking Russian positions southeast of Kharkiv City. Ukrainian Defense Ministry Spokesperson Oleksandr Motuzyanyk reported that Ukrainian forces repelled a Russian attack on Dementiivka along the Kharkiv City-Belgorod highway.[20] The Ukrainian General Staff added that Russian Ka-52 helicopters struck in the area of Yavirske, 65km southeast of Kharkiv City, likely to hinder Ukrainian counterattacks in the area.[21] Russian forces continued to shell Kharkiv City and settlements in its vicinity and conduct aerial reconnaissance.[22]

Supporting Effort #2—Southern Axis (Objective: Defend Kherson and Zaporizhia Oblasts against Ukrainian counterattacks)
Ukrainian forces continued to launch counteroffensive operations north of Kherson City on June 28. Ukrainian military journalist Andriy Tsaplienko reported that Ukrainian forces liberated Zelenyi Hai and Barvinok, approximately 25km north of Kherson City on the Mykolaiv-Kherson Oblast border.[23] An unnamed Pentagon official had previously reported that Ukrainian forces liberated small villages north and northwest of Kherson City over the weekend, but neither Ukrainian nor US officials had named these settlements as of June 28.[24] The Ukrainian Southern Operational Command stated that Russian forces unsuccessfully attempted to regain previously lost positions in Potyomkyne, Plotnytske, and Lupareve in northwestern Kherson Oblast.[25] Russian forces continued to shell and launch air strikes along the Mykolaiv-Kherson and Kherson-Dnipropetrovsk Oblast borders to disrupt Ukrainian counteroffensives.[26] Ukrainian Southern Operational Command Spokesperson Nataliya Gumenyuk noted that Ukrainian forces also struck three Russian Pantsir systems in a continuing effort to destroy Russian defenses on the Snake Island off the Romanian coast.[27]

Russian forces continued to transfer equipment and personnel east of Melitopol on June 28. Zaporizhia Oblast Military Administration Head Oleksandr Starukh reported that Russian forces are transporting military equipment to and from Melitopol to unspecified settlements in the east.[28] Starukh added that Russian forces moved a battalion tactical group (BTG) to Berdyansk and the Prymorsk area, but it is unclear if the BTG will continue further east or remain in that area. Russian forces may be relocating more military personnel to suppress rising partisan activity in cities like Berdyansk or could be reinforcing Russian defensive positions on the Donetsk-Zaporizhia Oblast border. Russian forces are also likely setting conditions to hold the E58 highway stretching from Rostov-on-Don to Kherson City even if Ukrainian counteroffensives push back the Russian line to the north.
Activity in Russian-occupied Areas (Russian objective: consolidate administrative control of occupied areas; set conditions for potential annexation into the Russian Federation or some other future political arrangement of Moscow’s choosing)
Russian occupation authorities continued to introduce bureaucratic measures to install societal control over occupied territories on June 28 but face challenges due to Ukrainian resistance. The Ukrainian Resistance Center reported that the Russian occupation administration is attempting to carry out a medical reform in Kherson Oblast to follow the Russian healthcare model.[29] Ukrainian healthcare workers largely refuse to cooperate with Russian occupation authorities, disrupting Russian plans to introduce ruble salaries in Kherson Oblast. The Ukrainian Southern Operational Command also noted that Russian forces are opening a network of offices in southern Ukraine offering Russian passports, likely to inflate electorate numbers before a referendum.[30]

[8] https://t.me/luhanskaVTSA/3829?single; https://www dot ukrinform.ua/rubric-ato/3517127-vijska-rf-namagautsa-otociti-zsu-v-rajoni-lisicanska-minoboroni.html
[11] https://www dot ukrinform.ua/rubric-ato/3517127-vijska-rf-namagautsa-otociti-zsu-v-rajoni-lisicanska-minoboroni.html
[12] https://www dot ukrinform.ua/rubric-ato/3517127-vijska-rf-namagautsa-otociti-zsu-v-rajoni-lisicanska-minoboroni.html
[17] https://twitter.com/antiputler_news/status/1541348686067896322; https://www dot ukrinform.ua/rubric-ato/3517115-zsu-na-harkivsini-vidkinuli-voroga-na-dvoh-napramkah.html; https://www dot ukrinform.ua/rubric-ato/3517127-vijska-rf-namagautsa-otociti-zsu-v-rajoni-lisicanska-minoboroni.html
[18] https://www dot ukrinform.ua/rubric-ato/3517115-zsu-na-harkivsini-vidkinuli-voroga-na-dvoh-napramkah.html
[20] https://www dot ukrinform.ua/rubric-ato/3517115-zsu-na-harkivsini-vidkinuli-voroga-na-dvoh-napramkah.html
[27] https://t.me/voenkorKotenok/37924; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhs2JS_f9bI; https://tsn dot ua/ru/ato/ocherednoy-udar-vsu-po-ostrovu-zmeinyy-v-ok-yug-rasskazali-detali-o-rezultatah-voennoy-operacii-2097703.html
[29] https://sprotyv.mod.gov dot ua/2022/06/27/okupanty-ne-mozhut-znajty-kolaborantiv-sered-medykiv-na-hersonshhyni/



2. Reports of Disinformation Campaign Against Rare Earth Processing Facilities

This is the first time I have seen such a specific report on disinformation from DOD.

Excerpt:

DoD appreciates the diligence of Mandiant in identifying this disinformation campaign, and will continue to work with our partners to provide accurate information related to this and other supply chain investments.


Reports of Disinformation Campaign Against Rare Earth Processing Facilities

Release
Immediate Release
June 28, 2022

The Department of Defense is aware of the recent disinformation campaign, first reported by Mandiant, against Lynas Rare Earth Ltd., a rare earth element firm seeking to establish production capacity in the United States and partner nations, as well as other rare earth mining companies. The department has engaged the relevant interagency stakeholders and partner nations to assist in reviewing the matter.
The exposure of the disinformation campaign comes roughly one year after the Biden Administration and Department published a Review of Critical Minerals and Materials under Executive Order 14017 “America’s Supply Chains.” That review highlighted ongoing concerns regarding a lack of transparency and overreliance on concentrated foreign sources of critical minerals in key U.S. supply chains for essential global civilian and national security applications.
The department remains committed to working with industry, the interagency, and partner nations to promote resilient, environmentally sustainable, and transparent supply chains for critical minerals and materials, both domestically and around the globe. To this end, the department recently announced an agreement under the Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment (IBAS) program to establish a modern and world class heavy rare earth element processing facility in North America. This effort is complementary to an ongoing light rare earth processing project awarded through the Defense Production Act Title III program last year. This facility will operate under existing federal, state, and local government environmental and worker health and safety regulations.
DoD appreciates the diligence of Mandiant in identifying this disinformation campaign, and will continue to work with our partners to provide accurate information related to this and other supply chain investments.

Subscribe to Defense.gov Products
Choose which Defense.gov products you want delivered to your inbox.












The Department of Defense provides the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation's security.



3. Green Beret Tabbed as Next Commander of USSOCOM

General Fenton is getting a good bit of press.

Just to slightly clarify this statement: he will be the first career Special Forces Officer to command USSOCOM. There are previous commanders who were Special Forces qualified but not career Special Forces officers.

Excerpt:

Once confirmed by the Senate, Fenton would become the first Green Beret to head SOCOM in more than 20 years. 



Green Beret Tabbed as Next Commander of USSOCOM
19fortyfive.com · by BySteve Balestrieri · June 27, 2022
USSOCOM gets a new head: President Joe Biden has nominated Army Lt. Gen. Bryan Fenton to become the next commander of the United States Special Operations Command, or USSOCOM. Fenton is the current commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, or JSOC. SOCOM headquarters is located at McDill Air Force Base, in Florida.
Fenton’s replacement at JSOC has not yet been announced. Once confirmed by the Senate, Fenton would become the first Green Beret to head SOCOM in more than 20 years. The current commander, Army Gen. Richard Clarke, and his predecessor, Gen. Tony Thomas, were both from the Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment.
According to his official Army bio, Fenton, who joined the Army in 1987 as an infantry officer, has served in major combat commands including SOUTHCOM, EUCOM, AFRICOM, CENTCOM, and INDOPACOM. He has participated in Operations Joint Forge, in Bosnia; Enduring Freedom, in Afghanistan and Africa; Iraqi Freedom; and Odyssey Dawn, in Libya.
Of particular interest is Fenton’s experience with the Indo-Pacific area of operations. He has served as the deputy commanding general for operations of the 25th Infantry Division, which is based at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii. He also served as operations officer for U.S. Army Pacific at Fort Shafter, Hawaii; as commander of Special Operations Command Pacific; and as deputy commander, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. Those last two commands are located at Camp Smith, Hawaii.
USSOCOM – Bringing Priorities Into Focus
Fenton’s selection is perhaps a nod to the U.S. Department of Defense’s focus on great power competition, especially the growing rivalry with China, which is seen as the most serious long-term threat to U.S. interests.
In a keynote address to the annual Special Operations Forces Industry Conference back in April, Gen. Clarke emphasized that focus.
“In the coming years, China will become the most capable adversary, and they are rapidly modernizing,” Gen. Clarke said at the conference in Tampa. “Capabilities to prevail in the Indo-Pacific are our priorities. Every investment we make will support this strategy.”
JSOC’s official mission statement describes it as a sub-unified command of the US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). It is charged to study special operations requirements and techniques, ensure interoperability and equipment standardization, plan and conduct special operations exercises and training, and develop joint special operations tactics. JSOC has the Tier 1 forces under its umbrella and conducts special operations in support of US interests. Included in it are the Army’s Delta Force, the Navy’s Naval Special Warfare Development Group, formerly known as SEAL Team 6, the Air Force’s 24th Special Tactics Squadron, the Army’s Intelligence Support Activity, and the Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment.
Fenton came from the intelligence part of JSOC, and is the second commander to do so. Gen. William Garrison, who commanded troops during the Battle of Mogadishu (commonly known as Black Hawk Down), was JSOC chief from 1992-94 and also came from the intelligence section (J2) of JSOC.
A Role in Ukraine
SOCOM’s operators have worked closely with Ukraine’s special operations forces. They have been instrumental in transforming their Ukrainian counterparts into a very capable force with a professional NCO corps since the first Russian foray into Ukraine in 2014.
Ukraine’s special operations force has doubled in size in the last eight years, Gen. Clarke told members of Congress back in April.
“Our special-operations forces help develop and work with other allies to come into Ukraine and help build up the Ukrainian special-operations forces,” Clarke said.
“One aspect is that it was a lot of our civil affairs, our psychological operations, and our Special Forces that were also working side-by-side with Ukrainians,” Clarke added. “It wasn’t just combat forces, but it was also other parts of special operations that work very closely with their Ukrainian partners.”
Steve Balestrieri is a 1945 National Security Columnist. He has served as a US Army Special Forces NCO and Warrant Officer before injuries forced his early separation. In addition to writing for 19fortyfive.com and other military news organizations, he has covered the NFL for PatsFans.com for over 10 years. His work was regularly featured in the Millbury-Sutton Chronicle and Grafton News newspapers in Massachusetts.
19fortyfive.com · by BySteve Balestrieri · June 27, 2022
4. Irregular Competition: Conceptualizing a Whole-of-Government Approach for the United States to Indirectly Confront and Deter State and Nonstate Adversaries 

Excerpts:

The ideas highlighted here likely lead to more questions that must be addressed but go beyond the scope of this article. These questions include but are not limited to the following: Who should lead such a whole-of-government effort? What does it look like to take the strategic objectives of irregular competition and translate them into pragmatic activities? What are the political costs and benefits of implementing such a strategy? How do we educate and inform our own citizens as well as our foreign partners of the importance of irregular competition? While these questions must be carefully considered and answered, the United States and its friends must first simply embrace the concept of whole-of-government irregular competition itself. This requires political will that transcends administrations and rarely provides legislators with quick evidence of success in exchange for the cost of doing business in this space.
This article and the model it proposes are not intended to take the place of existing doctrine or practice. Those who are well read on U.S. doctrine will immediately realize that the definitions presented in this work are a hybrid of many things. The reader is encouraged to focus on the overarching idea of whole-of-government irregular competition rather than any organizational or cultural dogma encoded in doctrine. Furthermore, this article is not meant to imply that an irregular competition strategy should replace any current plan or policy. On the contrary, the intent is to illuminate the unfortunate reality that no whole-of-government strategy for irregular competition exists—and that the United States needs one to complement and render its strategic competition objectives achievable. The principles of irregular competition discussed here appear occasionally in disjointed, unrelated, incomplete literature or doctrine—not policy—mostly geared toward the military. No policy exists. There is no obligation within the U.S. government for institutions to collectively think about the principles of irregular competition, no office or individual charged with synchronizing a holistic effort, no institution empowered to provide interagency education on the subject (although the military is considering it), and no strategic plan to build a multinational irregular competition network of like-minded partners and allies. As the Defense Department itself has written, “No single U.S. Government department or agency has primacy in the prosecution of irregular conflict or adversarial competition.”17
The question asked in the opening of this article was “how may the United States conceptually model a whole-of-government approach to irregular competition?” The answer to this question is a whole-of-government irregular competition policy model, illustrated in the figure, that includes four pillars: political warfare (the diplomatic element of power), propaganda and psychological operations (the information element of power, which may be cyber-enabled), irregular warfare (the military element of power), and economic pressure, persuasion, coercion, and/or subversion (the economic element of power). Without whole-of-government synchronization, numerous agencies, organizations, and individuals across the U.S. government are left to execute their irregular competition programs—if they even exist—without common understanding, direction, or purpose. If the United States instead develops a whole-of-government irregular competition strategy with the four elements outlined in this article, the country will increase its capacity to deter and confront adversarial state and nonstate actors in this new era of competition.

Irregular Competition
Conceptualizing a Whole-of-Government Approach for the United States to Indirectly Confront and Deter State and Nonstate Adversaries
 
Lt. Col. Jeremiah C. Lumbaca, U.S. Army, Retired

 
 

(Composite graphic by Jeff Buczkowski, Army University Press)
Despite increased global interest in “gray-zone” activities, the United States does not have a whole-of-government policy to deter or indirectly confront state and nonstate adversaries in this expanding security domain. With the release of the December 2017 National Security Strategy, a policy shift occurred overnight that fundamentally changed the direction that the U.S. security enterprise had been heading for two decades.1 After sixteen years, trillions of dollars spent, and hundreds of thousands of lives lost during the War on Terrorism, the United States redirected its primary focus away from asymmetric threats and looked instead toward strategic competition, sometimes referred to as “great-power competition” or “near-peer competition.” The 2021 Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, released by the White House, continues and reinforces the strategic competition policy direction.2
Notwithstanding a redirect toward conventional security concerns, America’s state and nonstate adversaries continue to operate globally with malign intent through unconventional security efforts. Consequently, there is a need for the United States and like-minded nations to indirectly implement a discreet set of activities—during times of peace, competition, and war—to maintain international order.
Gray zone, fourth generation, new generation, irregular, hybrid, asymmetric, compound, and unrestricted “warfare” or “conflict”; all these terms, and many others, have made their way into the contemporary lexicon. Each comes with bias and a preconceived definition. Ask anyone in the national security arena if the United States should have some type of irregular warfare capability in its toolbox and the answer will undoubtedly be “yes.” Ask people to define “irregular warfare” and the answers will be numerous, vague, and confusing. Establishing common meaning that everyone agrees on would be helpful but would also cost precious time and likely prove impossible. Therefore, for the purposes of this article, the term “irregular competition” is utilized to describe this space. The reason for the use of this term is to avoid inherent bias that comes with the more common terms listed above. Irregular competition is defined as state and nonstate actors engaging in activities during times of peace, competition, and war to influence populations and affect legitimacy. These activities by themselves are unlikely to elicit a kinetic response. Additionally, “whole-of-government” will precede “irregular competition” in this article to emphasize the necessity for government synergy. This article will answer the following question: How might the United States conceptually model a whole-of-government approach to irregular competition?
Definitions and Context
It is often said that irregular-competition-type activities take place somewhere “between peace and war,” and that these activities by themselves are unlikely to elicit a major conventional military response.3 This statement is only partly correct. For example, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is executing an aggressive irregular competition campaign to influence (global) populations and affect (Russian) legitimacy far from the battlefields. The specific irregular competition activities in isolation, however, remain unlikely to elicit a major conventional military response. The notion of “between peace and war” is inaccurate since irregular competition persists regardless of any state of peace, competition, or conflict.
As outlined in the National Security Strategy, the Chinese Communist Party is the primary strategic security concern for the United States with other states like Russia, Iran, and North Korea close behind. The National Security Strategy acknowledges persistent threats from extremist and terrorist organizations as well, but these nonstate actors are no longer the top priority they were in the nearly two decades following 9/11. In this era of strategic competition, one might assume that the lessons and concepts associated with irregular competition have limited applicability since priorities have shifted. This assumption is incorrect. As David Ucko and Thomas Marks have written, the two sets of challenges—traditional and nontraditional—share crucial traits:
Both employ diverse lines of attack to undermine resolve and build leverage, often by exploiting vulnerabilities within target societies—economic, social, and/or political. Both weaponize narratives to confuse analysis, co-opt contested audiences, and lower the cost of action. And both revolve around questions of legitimacy, or the right to lead, so as to shape new and long-lasting political realities.4

Evening view of the Blue Shield Casino, owned by the King Romans Group, in the Golden Triangle Special Economic Zone in Bokeo Province, Laos. China’s influence in the region goes beyond electric grid control and environmentally disastrous dam building. Chinese casinos and microcommunities—hotbeds for human trafficking, illegal weapons sales, methamphetamine shipping, and wildlife smuggling—undermine local economies and build dependence on cash infusions from Beijing. (Photo courtesy of Slleong via Wikimedia Commons)
“Whole-of-government” needs defining for the purposes of this article. There are numerous ways to define this term, including several acronyms that attempt to capture the idea. “DIME” will be used here to define a whole-of-government strategy that encompasses the diplomatic, informational, military, and economic instruments of power. A few caveats should be made regarding nonstate actors and DIME. First, nonstate actors may not have a government, as in whole-of-government. Second, nonstate actors may not have a formally recognized nation to govern, utilizing elements of national power. Third, nonstate actors may not have a standing military, represented by the “M” in DIME. Despite these realities, nonstate actors may nevertheless behave similarly to a government that may govern territory like the way a recognized nation does and may engage in military-like activities. Examples include the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria during the height of the “caliphate,” the Maute and Abu Sayyaf groups in Marawi (which attempted to govern but never truly got there), the Taliban in Afghanistan today, and numerous other insurgent groups throughout history who have governed or attempted to govern. This is not to imply that there is no difference between state and nonstate actors. Instead, the point is that nonstate actors sometimes behave in ways similar to state actors and, as a result, one should not limit one’s thinking to nation states alone when considering whole-of-government irregular competition. Nonstate actors may employ the instruments of power found in DIME.
Finally, it must be acknowledged that several U.S. adversaries—with particular emphasis on China and Russia but knowing that others do it as well—manage to execute whole-of-society irregular competition as their authoritarian reach allows mobilization of resources beyond just the government. While whole-of-society action may be ideal in effecting irregular competition, authoritarianism is contrary to U.S. principles and, as a result, this expansion of irregular competition activity to mobilize society itself is likely out of reach for the United States. U.S. education about irregular competition, however, should not be discounted.
Adversarial Irregular Competition Demonstrated

To view the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance (Washington, DC: The White House, March 2021), visit https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NSC-1v2.pdf.
While it can be said that irregular competition—as defined above—has been employed in various forms for centuries, research here is focused on the turn of the twenty-first century onward as the global technological and threat landscapes have evolved considerably since then. America’s adversaries are adept at operating in this space. As former White House national security advisor Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster emphasized throughout his book Battlegrounds, these actors synergize disinformation, denial, disruptive technologies, coercion, and other tactics to accomplish strategic objectives below the threshold of what might elicit a military response.5
Examples originating from the Chinese Communist Party alone include
  • artificial island-building and fishing fleet intimidation in the South China Sea;
  • debt diplomacy and economic coercion throughout the Indo-Pacific, along the Silk Road, and into Africa to influence state behavior in ways beneficial to China; economic espionage and theft of intellectual property;
  • military intimidation of Taiwan;
  • funding research on alternative approaches to international law to rewrite history; efforts to influence politics in Australia and New Zealand; hostage diplomacy;
  • seizing unmanned underwater vessels;
  • internment and genocide of Uighurs in Xingjian to cleanse Chinese soil of indigenous non-Chinese cultures;
  • co-opting small countries in Southeast Asia;
  • river patrols, casinos, and the establishment of Chinese microcommunities in the Mekong River Basin to exert influence on host nations;
  • strong-arming the extradition of overseas critics back to China; and
  • influencing foreign media, sports, and Hollywood organizations to maintain a positive image of China.6
In the case of Russia, irregular competition has become a steady-state endeavor. This can be seen in
  • the employment of the Wagner Group and other nonuniformed proxies in Syria, Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia, and elsewhere;
  • employment of the Night Wolves Motorcycle Gang to execute information operations and proxy conflict in Australia and Ukraine;
  • election meddling in Europe and America;
  • financing foreign political parties like the repressive Maduro regime in Venezuela;
  • energy coercion;
  • flying close to U.S. warships in attempts to elicit an overreaction;
  • cyber-enabled disinformation campaigns; and
  • poisoning of critics.7
Iran sponsors terrorism globally, often through proxies. It also illegally transfers and sells weapons, and routinely uses armed small boats to harass UK and U.S. warships.8 North Korea utilizes irregular competition by routinely threatening other nations with nuclear devastation, which has resulted in its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, as well as its successful assassination of individuals considered to be a political threat.9
From a position of weakness, nonstate actors often employ components of irregular competition to gain a relative advantage over better-resourced adversaries. These initiatives include, but are not limited to,
  • disinformation campaigns to purport government illegitimacy;
  • propaganda initiatives to incite violence;
  • money laundering and the creation of shell companies/fake nongovernmental organizations to support terrorism;
  • the use of piracy, kidnapping for ransom, cybercrime, and other forms of transnational organized crime to raise funds for illicit operations;
  • sarin attacks on public transportation; and
  • online radicalization to recruit new members.10

Figure. Irregular Competition as a Subcomponent of Strategic Competition
(Figure by author)
Enlarge the figure
Numerous other examples exist from other countries and organizations that may be categorized as irregular competition as well, so the above list should not be considered exhaustive. Instead, the purpose of the examples provided is to inform the reader of the tremendous depth and breadth of this elusive operating environment. This ambiguous arena with unclear parameters and often conflicting definitions is the background for this research.
Irregular Competition as a Subcomponent of Strategic Competition
“Irregular competition” should be understood as one of two subcomponents of strategic competition. The other subcomponent is “traditional competition.” The National Security Strategy does not contemplate such a construct so the figure is provided for illustration. Traditional competition is predominantly government focused while irregular competition is people focused. The emphasis of this article is on irregular competition, not traditional competition, so little will be discussed about the latter. It is crucial to note, however, that the figure cannot adequately emphasize the overlap that exists between irregular and traditional competition. Lines between the two are not clear but are instead blurred and cross-cutting; activities can and should occur in both at the same time and are not mutually exclusive.
As depicted in the figure, the DIME instruments of power in irregular competition manifest differently than they do in traditional competition. The diplomatic instrument of power, for example, is manifested in irregular competition as political warfare. In his book On Political War, which remains a seminal work on the subject, author Paul Smith describes political warfare as the use of “political means to compel an opponent to do one’s will, based on hostile intent.”11 It is a calculated interaction between an actor and a target audience, including a competitor’s government, military, and/or general population, which uses a variety of techniques to coerce certain actions, thereby gaining relative advantage over an opponent.12 Furthermore, political warfare’s coercive nature leads to the weakening or destroying of an opponent’s political, social, or societal will, and forces a course of action favorable to an actor’s interest.
The informational instrument of power is manifested in irregular competition as propaganda and psychological operations. According to Smith, propaganda is driven by national objectives, has many aspects, and has a hostile and coercive political purpose. Psychological operations, on the other hand, are driven by strategic and tactical military objectives and may be intended for hostile military and civilian populations. Whether propaganda or psychological operations are discharged, the primary vehicle is the use of “words, images, and ideas,” which, when combined, may enable information and disinformation campaigns to alter a target audience’s opinions. It involves heartening friends and disheartening enemies, of gaining help for one’s cause and causing the abandonment of the enemies.13 Propaganda and psychological operations involve both information and disinformation and may be cyber-enabled.
The military instrument of power is manifested in irregular competition as irregular warfare, where the security sector of both state and nonstate actors attempts to influence populations and affect legitimacy. The U.S. Department of Defense’s Summary of the Irregular Warfare Annex makes clear that irregular warfare favors indirect and asymmetric approaches, though it may employ the full range of military and other capabilities.14 According to the U.S. military, irregular warfare includes five primary activities: unconventional warfare (enabling resistance movements), foreign internal defense (supporting another country’s security programs), counterterrorism, stability operations, and counterinsurgency. Beyond what is formally written in military doctrine, irregular warfare might also encompass such things as support to political warfare (defined earlier), counter-unconventional warfare (countering an adversary’s will and capability to enable a resistance movement), proxy warfare, military information support operations (also known as psychological operations), cyberspace operations, countering threat networks, countering threat finance, civil-military operations, and security cooperation. As evident above, the military’s irregular warfare construct is quite expansive.
The economic instrument of power is manifested in irregular competition as economic pressure, persuasion, coercion, and/or subversion. In adapting Smith’s writing to the subject of irregular competition, activities undertaken in the economic space are intended to inflict necessary economic damage to force political change. Conduct here will differ according to whether the actor is authoritative or democratic since standards, laws, norms, and the ability to mobilize an actor’s resources differ. Economic activities in irregular competition support furthering political goals without the use of direct confrontation. With the interconnectedness of global economies, economic activity executed as part of any irregular competition strategy must be carefully calculated and integrated with all other instruments of power to achieve political objectives but not provoke direct conflict.
Concluding Thoughts
Very few people agree on the finer points surrounding irregular competition and this article will surely not rectify that. Irregular competition is a sensitive subject, but the United States, its partners, and its adversaries are all involved in it … one way or another. To paraphrase a quote from Leon Trotsky, you may not be interested in irregular competition, but irregular competition is interested in you.15
When studying literature, or congressional testimony, or military doctrine, it is understood that gray-zone or hybrid warfare activities are those conducted by adversaries. They are threats that must be identified, prevented, countered, or mitigated. Irregular competition, on the other hand, is a proactive tool that the United States and its adversaries may both employ to confront and deter. Political, cultural, religious, legal, psychological, and historical factors among diverse populations must all be considered on this journey. This is a people-centric struggle in which cognitive awareness and emotional intelligence are more important than military power. Additionally, any irregular competition strategy must be flexible enough to transform with space, cyber, surveillance, social media, and other technological innovations. Cold War era irregular competition constructs like “resistance” and “subversion,” for example, are important and relevant in this campaign but must be adapted to the current operating environment where adversaries are plugged in and hyper-networked. This expanding physical and virtual operating space makes working by, with, and through like-minded partners more important than ever. The threat space is bigger than any one actor can manage. As U.S. Gen. Richard Clarke noted, we must look to the multinational community, “leverage exporters of security, and pull them in with shared interests.”16

An undated photo of Russia’s Trefoil military base in the Arctic. An essential region for Russia’s aggressive military, economic, and political aspirations, the Arctic has become a focal point for irregular competition. Russia exploits weak governing mechanisms to advance its own military posturing, natural resource claims, and projection through the Northern Sea Route. (Photo courtesy of Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation via Wikimedia Commons)
Irregular competition as depicted by the four-pillar model presented in the figure is truly a “whole-of-government” endeavor. Unfortunately, most who spend time thinking about such matters are not able to mobilize the whole government. For example, the U.S. military’s special operations community thinks, plans, and trains on the concept of irregular warfare with great consistency. Unfortunately, irregular warfare alone, implemented primarily by the security sector, is not enough. Despite attempts to envision irregular warfare as whole-of-government and something bigger than the military, the literature and practice as it exists today is military-centric and incapable of orchestrating all the instruments of power highlighted in the figure. In fairness to those who study and practice irregular warfare, those professionals are well aware of irregular warfare’s shortcomings; they have labeled irregular warfare efforts as only “whole-of-department,” and they understand that the military alone is not in a position to lead a whole-of-government endeavor in this space.
To rely on one, two, or even three elements of the DIME construct in implementing irregular competition is insufficient. All four instruments combined are essential to planning, synchronizing, and leading a true whole-of-government campaign. It is in fact a “campaign” that is needed since this word implies that any strategy developed must be continuously refined and executed over many years, perhaps decades.
The ideas highlighted here likely lead to more questions that must be addressed but go beyond the scope of this article. These questions include but are not limited to the following: Who should lead such a whole-of-government effort? What does it look like to take the strategic objectives of irregular competition and translate them into pragmatic activities? What are the political costs and benefits of implementing such a strategy? How do we educate and inform our own citizens as well as our foreign partners of the importance of irregular competition? While these questions must be carefully considered and answered, the United States and its friends must first simply embrace the concept of whole-of-government irregular competition itself. This requires political will that transcends administrations and rarely provides legislators with quick evidence of success in exchange for the cost of doing business in this space.
This article and the model it proposes are not intended to take the place of existing doctrine or practice. Those who are well read on U.S. doctrine will immediately realize that the definitions presented in this work are a hybrid of many things. The reader is encouraged to focus on the overarching idea of whole-of-government irregular competition rather than any organizational or cultural dogma encoded in doctrine. Furthermore, this article is not meant to imply that an irregular competition strategy should replace any current plan or policy. On the contrary, the intent is to illuminate the unfortunate reality that no whole-of-government strategy for irregular competition exists—and that the United States needs one to complement and render its strategic competition objectives achievable. The principles of irregular competition discussed here appear occasionally in disjointed, unrelated, incomplete literature or doctrine—not policy—mostly geared toward the military. No policy exists. There is no obligation within the U.S. government for institutions to collectively think about the principles of irregular competition, no office or individual charged with synchronizing a holistic effort, no institution empowered to provide interagency education on the subject (although the military is considering it), and no strategic plan to build a multinational irregular competition network of like-minded partners and allies. As the Defense Department itself has written, “No single U.S. Government department or agency has primacy in the prosecution of irregular conflict or adversarial competition.”17
The question asked in the opening of this article was “how may the United States conceptually model a whole-of-government approach to irregular competition?” The answer to this question is a whole-of-government irregular competition policy model, illustrated in the figure, that includes four pillars: political warfare (the diplomatic element of power), propaganda and psychological operations (the information element of power, which may be cyber-enabled), irregular warfare (the military element of power), and economic pressure, persuasion, coercion, and/or subversion (the economic element of power). Without whole-of-government synchronization, numerous agencies, organizations, and individuals across the U.S. government are left to execute their irregular competition programs—if they even exist—without common understanding, direction, or purpose. If the United States instead develops a whole-of-government irregular competition strategy with the four elements outlined in this article, the country will increase its capacity to deter and confront adversarial state and nonstate actors in this new era of competition.
 
The views expressed here are the author’s alone and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Department of Defense or the U.S. government.
Notes
  1. The White House, National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Washington, DC: The White House, 2017), accessed 12 April 2022, https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/nss/NSS2017.pdf.
  2. The White House, Interim National Security Strategic Guidance (Washington, DC: The White House, 2021), accessed 12 April 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NSC-1v2.pdf.
  3. John Arquilla, “Perils of the Gray Zone: Paradigms Lost, Paradoxes Regained,” PRISM 7 no. 3 (2018): 122, accessed 12 April 2022, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26470539; Lyle Morris et al., Gaining Competitive Advantage in the Gray Zone: Response Options for Coercive Aggression Below the Threshold of Major War (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2019): iii, accessed 12 April 2022, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2942.html; Hal Brands, “Paradoxes of the Gray Zone” (January 2016), 9, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2737593; Mark Hoffman and Martin O. Hofmann, “Challenges and Opportunities in Gray Zone ‘Combat,’” in Advances in Cross-Cultural Decision Making (Los Angeles: Springer, July 2017), 155–66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60747-4_15; Elizabeth K. Kiessling, “Gray Zone Tactics and the Principle of Non-Intervention: Can ‘One of the Vaguest Branches of International Law’ Solve the Gray Zone Problem?,” Harvard National Security Journal 12, no. 1 (2021): 116–63, accessed 12 April 2022, https://harvardnsj.org/2021/02/gray-zone-tactics-and-the-principle-of-non-intervention-can-one-of-the-vaguest-branches-of-international-law-solve-the-gray-zone-problem/.
  4. David Ucko and Thomas Marks, Crafting Strategy for Irregular Warfare: A Framework for Analysis and Action (Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 2020), 4, accessed 12 April 2022, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/2245731/crafting-strategy-for-irregular-warfare-a-framework-for-analysis-and-action/fbclid/IwAR2gtE34ADXb-ZZh6IcjKxHN4O1tOtKTYM-kFJpAf1qT2aVaw-kydLuwBjM/.
  5. H. R. McMaster, Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World (New York: HarperCollins, 2020): 17–18, 26, 33.
  6. Roland Rajah, Alexandre Dayant, and Jonathan Pryke, Ocean of Debt? Belt and Road and Debt Diplomacy in the Pacific (Sydney: Lowy Institute for International Policy, October 2019), accessed 12 April 2022, https://think-asia.org/handle/11540/11721; Hearing on China’s Non-Traditional Espionage against the United States: The Threat and Potential Policy Responses, Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 115th Cong. (2018) (statement of E. W. “Bill” Priestap, Assistant Director, Counterintelligence Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation), accessed 12 April 2022, https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/12-12-18%20Priestap%20Testimony.pdf; Christopher Wray, “Responding Effectively to the Chinese Economic Espionage Threat” (speech, Department of Justice China Initiative Conference, Center for Strategic and International Studies [CSIS], Washington, DC, 6 February 2020), accessed 12 April 2022, https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/responding-effectively-to-the-chinese-economic-espionage-threat; Morris et al., Gaining Competitive Advantage in the Gray Zone, 30–39; Daniel De Wit, “Competing through Cooperation: Leveraging Security Cooperation to Counter Chinese and Russian Influence in Africa,” Marine Corps University Journal 10, no. 2 (Fall 2019): 162, https://doi.org/10.21140/mcuj.2019100210; Scott Kennedy, “Beijing Suffers Major Loss from Its Hostage Diplomacy,” CSIS, 29 September 2021, accessed 12 April 2022, https://www.csis.org/analysis/beijing-suffers-major-loss-its-hostage-diplomacy; Kiessling, “Gray Zone Tactics and the Principle of Non-Intervention,” 127; Joanne Smith Finley, “Why Scholars and Activists Increasingly Fear a Uyghur Genocide in Xinjiang,” Journal of Genocide Research 23, no. 3 (2021): 348–70, https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2020.1848109; Julia Stern, “Genocide in China: Uighur Re-education Camps and International Response,” Immigration and Human Rights Law Review 3, no. 1 (2021), accessed 12 April 2022, https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/ihrlr/vol3/iss1/2; Kerry Gershaneck, Political Warfare: Strategies for Combating China’s Plan to “Win Without Fighting” (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University Press, 2020), 71, accessed 12 April 2022, https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/Political%20Warfare_web.pdf; Tim Doescher, “How China Is Taking Control of Hollywood,” 13 December 2018, in Heritage Explains, podcast, accessed 12 April 2022, https://www.heritage.org/asia/heritage-explains/how-china-taking-control-hollywood.
  7. “Band of Brothers: The Wagner Group and the Russian State,” The Post-Soviet Post (blog), CSIS, 21 September 2020, accessed 12 April 2022, https://www.csis.org/blogs/post-soviet-post/band-brothers-wagner-group-and-russian-state; Kira Harris, “Russia’s Fifth Column: The Influence of the Night Wolves Motorcycle Club,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 43, no. 4 (2020): 259–73, https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2018.1455373; Kira Harris, “Russia’s Night Wolves in Australia,” Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism (2021), https://doi.org/10.1080/18335330.2021.2014549; Matthew Lauder, “Wolves of the Russian Spring: An Examination of the Night Wolves as a Proxy for the Russian Government,” Canadian Military Journal 18, no. 3 (Summer 2018): 6–16, accessed 12 April 2022, http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol18/no3/page5-eng.asp; “An Enduring Relationship–From Russia, With Love,” The Post-Soviet Post (blog), CSIS, 24 September 2020, accessed 12 April 2022, https://www.csis.org/blogs/post-soviet-post/enduring-relationship-russia-love; Morris et al., Gaining Competitive Advantage in the Gray Zone, 48–70; “Russia Responsible for Navalny Poisoning, Rights Experts Say,” United Nations News, 1 March 2021, accessed 12 April 2022, https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1086012.
  8. Daniel Michaels and Margaret Coker, “Arms Seized by Thailand Were Iran-Bound,” Wall Street Journal (website), 21 December 2009, accessed 12 April 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB126134401523799287; Kiessling, “Gray Zone Tactics and the Principle of Non-Intervention,” 129; “State Sponsors of Terrorism,” Department of State, accessed 12 April 2022, https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/; Daniel Byman, “Putting the North Korea Terrorism Designation in Context,” Order from Chaos (blog), The Brookings Institution, 21 November 2017, accessed 12 April 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/11/21/putting-the-north-korea-terrorism-designation-in-context/; J. U. Chin, “Killing Kim: Political Sanctuary, Assassination, and Why Kim Jong-nam’s Death Won’t Be the Last,” Asia and the Pacific Policy Society, 28 February 2017, accessed 12 April 2022, http://ecite.utas.edu.au/121986/.
  9. Fabian Maximilian Teichmann, “Recent Trends in Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing,” Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance 27, no. 1 (2019): 22, https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRC-03-2018-0042; Sam Mullins, “Twenty-Five Years of Terrorism and Insurgency in Southeast Asia” in Hindsight, Insight, Foresight: Thinking About Security in the Indo-Pacific, ed. Alexander Vuving (Honolulu: Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, 2020), 112–13, accessed 12 April 2022, https://apcss.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/07-mullins-25thA.pdf; Bilveer Singh, “Crime-Terror Nexus in Southeast Asia: Case Study of the Abu Sayyaf Group,” Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses 10, no. 9 (September 2018): 6–10, accessed 12 April 2022, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26487539; Shyam Tekwani, “Political Violence in South Asia, 1995-2020,” in Vuving, Hindsight, Insight, Foresight, 91, accessed 12 April 2022 https://apcss.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/06-tekwani-25A.pdf.
  10. Kaukab Jamal Zuberi, “Use of Cyber Space by Terrorist Organizations,” International Journal for Electronic Crime Investigation 2, no. 1 (2018): 6, accessed 12 April 2022, http://ojs.lgu.edu.pk/index.php/ijeci/article/view/258.
  11. Paul A. Smith, On Political War (Washington, DC: National Defense University Press), 3, 7.
  12. Ibid.
  13. Ibid.; Angelo Codevilla, “Political Warfare: A Set of Means for Achieving Political Ends,” in Strategic Influence: Public Diplomacy, Counterpropaganda and Political Warfare, ed. J. Michael Waller (Washington, DC: Institute of World Politics Press, 2009), 206.
  14. Department of Defense, Summary of the Irregular Warfare Annex to the National Defense Strategy (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 2020), 2, accessed 12 April 2022, https://media.defense.gov/2020/Oct/02/2002510472/-1/-1/0/Irregular-Warfare-Annex-to-the-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.PDF.
  15. Alan Furst, Night Soldiers: A Novel (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1988).
  16. Richard Clarke and Linda Robinson “Special Operations Forces and Great Power Competition,” 5 November 2021, in Irregular Warfare Podcast, produced by the Irregular Warfare Initiative, accessed 12 April 2022, https://mwi.usma.edu/special-operations-forces-and-great-power-competition/.
  17. Department of Defense, Summary of the Irregular Warfare Annex to the National Defense Strategy, 5.
 
J. “Lumpy” Lumbaca is a Department of Defense civilian professor at the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Hawaii. He is a retired U.S. Army Special Forces officer currently pursuing advanced research related to international competition and conflict.



5. Why buildings on Fort Bragg are named after these former Special Forces soldiers
It was an honor to serve with Nate Chapman in 1st Special Forces Group. I am glad the Army and the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School are ensuring he (along with Russell Volckmann) are never forgotten. They will inspire future US Army special operations soldiers.


Why buildings on Fort Bragg are named after these former Special Forces soldiers
The Fayetteville Observer



0:13
0:56
FORT BRAGG — Construction of new buildings at Fort Bragg where Special Forces, civil affairs and psychological operations train are named after the first Special Forces soldier killed in Afghanistan and a “father of Special Forces,” leaders said. 
The John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School revealed the completion of the multi-million dollar buildings during a ceremony Thursday. 
The 1st Special Warfare Training Group’s building was chosen by leaders to be named in honor of former Brig. Gen. Russell Volckmann, and an advanced skills building was chosen to be named after Sgt. 1st Class Nathan Chapman.  
“These facilities are named after some of our Army’s greatest special operations heroes,” said Maj. Gen. Patrick Roberson, commander of the Special Warfare Center and School. “I think that’s fitting. Those names, those ideas, those memories are going to inspire both our cadre and our students that walk through here, and their memories are going to be housed in the walls of these buildings forever.” 
Who the buildings honor
Volkmann is considered a founding father of Special Forces along with former Col. Aaron Bank, guests at a building dedication ceremony were told Thursday. 
According to Volckmann’s biography, he commissioned into the Army as an infantry officer from West Point in 1934. 
During World War II, he became a leader of the Philippine Commonwealth army and an advisor to the guerilla resistance against Japanese forces in the Philippines. 
After the war, he developed a doctrine of unconventional warfare that became “the cornerstone of Special Forces operations.” 
Volkmann also served as assistant commander of the 82nd Airborne Division before retiring from the Army in 1957, according to his biography. He died in 1982.
Chapman, who was born into a military family at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, was a communications sergeant assigned to 3rd Battalion, 1st Special Forces Group. 
He joined the Army in July 1988 and completed Special Forces training in December 1992. 
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks on American soil, Chapman volunteered for a joint mission with members of an interagency group. 

He was killed in action on Jan. 4, 2002, “while conducting a sensitive mission with interagency partners,” guests were told Thursday. 
Chapman was the first American soldier killed by enemy fire during Operation Enduring Freedom. 
Need for the buildings
Retired Lt. Gen. Bennet Sacolick, who commanded the Special Warfare Center and School from 2010 to 2012, described the project as 12 years in the making. 
Sacolick said it initially was a low-priority project, ranking about 96 out of 100 projects for the United States Special Operations Command until he “ambushed” a delegation of congressional leaders to show them the dated buildings that were used. 
“All of a sudden, priority went from a 96 to an 8, which meant funding,” he said. 
Brig Gen. Jason Kelly, commander of the Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division, said the project is a $91 million investment for soldiers. 
Volckmann Hall is three stories with more than 138,000 square feet that will serve as training space for Special Forces, civil affairs and military information soldiers, along with providing space for unit commanders, cadre and support staff, Kelly said. 
Staff writer Rachael Riley can be reached at rriley@fayobserver.com or 910-486-3528. 

6.James Mattis just got married in the most Marine way possible
He must have found someone who is his intellectual equal. :-) 

Mattis, who served as defense secretary from January 2017 until December 2018, wed physicist Christina Lomasney on Saturday, Garrett Ross of Politico first revealed.


James Mattis just got married in the most Marine way possible
“Not surprising for a Marine, the couple met in a bar.”
BY JEFF SCHOGOL | PUBLISHED JUN 28, 2022 11:30 AM
taskandpurpose.com · by Jeff Schogol · June 28, 2022
SHARE
Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis has finally gotten married after decades of putting his devotion to the Marine Corps and the rest of the U.S. military above his personal life. And he did it in the most Marine way possible:

Mattis, who served as defense secretary from January 2017 until December 2018, wed physicist Christina Lomasney on Saturday, Garrett Ross of Politico first revealed. The couple were reportedly married by a priest and then they had a second ceremony at Las Vegas’ Little Church of the West that involved an Elvis impersonator in which Retired Navy Vice Adm. Robert Harward was the best man. Politico posted pictures of both events.
“Not surprising for a Marine, the couple met in a bar,” Politico reported. “The reception for friends and family was at The Palazzo at Rosina.”
Mattis has long eschewed matrimony so he could be completely focused on the profession of combat arms. He was once engaged to a woman who asked him to leave the Marine Corps for her, Dexter Filkins wrote for the New Yorker in 2017. Mattis initially agreed to resign, but his friends talked him out of it and the woman ultimately called the wedding off just three days before the ceremony.
Subscribe to Task & Purpose Today. Get the latest in military news, entertainment, and gear in your inbox daily.
Years later, Mattis – then a brigadier general – decided to be the duty officer on Christmas so that a young major didn’t have to spend the holiday away from his family.
“I’m a bachelor and I thought, ‘Why should the major miss out on the fun of having Christmas with his family?’ And so, I took the duty for him,” former Marine Commandant Gen. Charles Krulak recalled Mattis telling him at the time.
Mattis was – and remains – wildly popular with Marines. His trademark “knife hand” has become a celebrated gesture within the Marine Corps, so much so that Mattis was asked what the kill-casualty radius of his unsheathed hand was. Mattis’ answer: “As far as you can throw it.”
A devotee of Meditations, by Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, Mattis earned a reputation as a “warrior monk” for his cerebral approach to leading troops. He advised Marines shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, “Engage your brain before you engage your weapon.”
When he was later asked by a colleague about how important it is for military officers to read when they are often too busy to do so, Mattis famously explained why he is such a voracious reader – and why officers should always make time to read.
“Thanks to my reading, I have never been caught flat-footed by any situation, never at a loss for how any problem has been addressed (successfully or unsuccessfully) before,” Mattis replied. “It doesn’t give me all the answers, but it lights what is often a dark path ahead.”
During his tenure as defense secretary, Mattis increasingly became at odds with former President Donald Trump. Mattis eventually resigned over Trump’s initial decision in 2018 to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria – which Trump later reversed.
He approached leading the Pentagon with the type of stoicism that would make Marcus Aurelius proud.
“I’m not paid for my feelings,” Mattis told reporters in February 2018, “I save those for my girlfriend.”
The latest on Task & Purpose
Want to write for Task & Purpose? Click here. Or check out the latest stories on our homepage.

Jeff Schogol is the senior Pentagon reporter for Task & Purpose. He has covered the military for 15 years. You can email him at schogol@taskandpurpose.com, direct message @JeffSchogol on Twitter, or reach him on WhatsApp and Signal at 703-909-6488. Contact the author here.

taskandpurpose.com · by Jeff Schogol · June 28, 2022


7. Why Has China Increased Military Flights off Taiwan Coast?

Excerpts:
On Friday, a U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft flew over the Taiwan Strait and a day later the U.S. Navy sent a warship to the adjacent South China Sea.
China’s “assertive” acts followed by U.S. responses could spark another mishap like the emergency landing of a U.S. spy plane in 2001, said Andrew Yang, secretary-general of the Chinese Council of Advanced Policy Studies think tank in Taiwan.
“Escalation is a negative phenomenon,” he said. “There’s no dialogue — negative — and then you have very robust military action in this region. It’s dangerous.”
China’s embassy in Washington, D.C. did not reply Monday to a request for comment.


Why Has China Increased Military Flights off Taiwan Coast?​
June 28, 2022 6:41 AM
​
taipei, taiwan —
China has increased the number of military flights into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone at sea. Analysts believe the move is designed to send a message to the U.S. rather than to threaten the island itself, analysts say.
Since mid-2020, the People’s Liberation Army-Air Force has flown a small number of fighters and bombers over part of the Taiwanese air defense identification zone (ADIZ) almost daily.
But the island’s Ministry of National Defense says China flew 29 flights on Tuesday and 22 on Thursday. Maps released by the ministry indicate that on both Tuesday and Thursday at least one plane arced around the Taiwan south coast, though well offshore, before doubling back. The planes all went through a corner of Taiwan’s air defense zone at sea west of the port city Kaohsiung.
China has claimed Taiwan as its territory since the Chinese civil war of the 1940s, when Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists lost to Mao Zedong’s Communists and rebased in Taipei. Beijing says it will use force, if needed, to unite the two sides.
“The dominant narrative inside China is that the USA is increasingly promoting Taiwan independence as a way to contain China,” said Denny Roy, senior fellow at the East-West Center think tank in Hawaii. “The Chinese are now watching for evidence that would confirm this. Lacking a creative new approach, Beijing has doubled down on what has become its standard form of hostile military signaling.”
On June 13, China’s foreign ministry said Beijing has sovereignty over the Taiwan Strait, drawing a rebuttal from the United States four days later. The United States further called on China on June 17 to end its “provocative actions” and to “respect international law” in the adjacent South China Sea.
Washington considers the strait between Taiwan and China international waters that should be open to its Asia allies from Tokyo through Manila. The U.S. government informally supports Taiwan, though the pair lacks formal diplomatic ties.
Beijing separately claims most of the South China Sea, a resource-rich waterway disputed by Taiwan and four Southeast Asian countries. Washington believes it too should be open to international traffic.
A week earlier, Washington had approved plans to sell warship parts and related technical support to Taiwan worth $120 million. Last month, U.S. President Joe Biden said the U.S. would defend Taiwan if China attacked.
Analysts point to these exchanges as likely reasons for the surge in overflights. Other spikes over the past two years followed flashpoint events. For example, the presence of a U.S. nuclear-powered submarine last year.
“Originally, when the PLA airplanes or fighters and the like started visiting the ADIZ, it was for a different reason, but nowadays the frequency has increased for a recent reason,” said Lin Chong-pin, a retired strategic studies professor in Taiwan.
Warily watching
Taiwanese people have grown used to Chinese military movement nearby and often say Beijing’s 1995-1996 missile tests were more of a threat than the ADIZ flights. China conducted the tests in advance of Taiwan’s first democratic presidential election where Taiwanese people elected a leader who believed China and Taiwan should be separately ruled.
Citizens on the island that lies just 160 kilometers from China are warily watching the events which follow a lack of Taipei-Beijing dialogue since 2016 and ex-U.S. President Donald Trump’s tough stance on China, said Ku Chung-hua, a standing board member in Taipei with the advocacy group Citizens’ Congress Watch. He blamed Sino-U.S. competition for recent overflights.
“Here in Taiwan, the people’s attitude I think has changed to think that Taiwan-China relations can’t go back (to before 2016) but doesn’t seem to be worried so much that China would directly use weapons to unify Taiwan,” Ku said.
He said the “scariest” period of confrontation came during the 1996 missile tests which caused some Taiwanese citizens to emigrate out of fear.
More than 90% of Taiwanese people told a government Mainland Affairs Council survey this month they oppose China’s ADIZ flights, a council spokesperson told VOA on Monday.
Dangerous escalation?
On Friday, a U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft flew over the Taiwan Strait and a day later the U.S. Navy sent a warship to the adjacent South China Sea.
China’s “assertive” acts followed by U.S. responses could spark another mishap like the emergency landing of a U.S. spy plane in 2001, said Andrew Yang, secretary-general of the Chinese Council of Advanced Policy Studies think tank in Taiwan.
“Escalation is a negative phenomenon,” he said. “There’s no dialogue — negative — and then you have very robust military action in this region. It’s dangerous.”
China’s embassy in Washington, D.C. did not reply Monday to a request for comment.

8. Pressure grows for Taiwan to boost its defense force

So seven years to get Stingers to Taiwan and they may be delayed further?

Excerpt:

What to watch: The U.S. approved the sale of 250 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to Taiwan in 2019, but Taiwanese defense officials expressed concern in May that the high demand for Stinger missiles in Ukraine may delay the delivery to Taiwan, expected by 2026.

Pressure grows for Taiwan to boost its defense force
Axios · by Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian · June 28, 2022
The Taiwanese military is still organized around the strategies once required for its decades-long goal of retaking mainland China, rather than repelling a possible Chinese military invasion.
Why it matters: Focusing on power projection instead of defense means Taiwan's armed forces may not have the weapons and plans in place to deter an attack, analysts say.
  • Russia's invasion of Ukraine has shaken many in Taiwan, where both civilians and the Ministry of Defense are seriously considering how they would fight back if Beijing attacked.
  • But experts say Taiwan has invested relatively few resources into waging the type of asymmetric warfare Ukraine has used to effectively repel Russia's larger military.
Where it stands: Taiwan's generals have been slow to update their mindset, according to analysts.
  • "Taiwanese senior military leaders are resistant to transforming into a defense-focused force instead of a power projection force," said Ivan Kanapathy, former National Security Council director for China, Taiwan and Mongolia and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
  • The Taiwanese military, known as the Republic of China Armed Forces, is still focused on acquiring expensive heavy armor like tanks and big-ticket vessels and weapons required for launching a land invasion from the sea. Those offensive capabilities are easy targets for Chinese missiles launched from the mainland, and they aren't very useful in defending against a Chinese attack.
  • Instead, it should be buying more truck-mounted missile launchers and surface-to-air missiles, Kanapathy told Axios. "They just need to deny air superiority from the [People’s Liberation Army]," he added.
  • "Taiwan is committed to safeguarding freedom and democracy by strengthening self-defense, enhancing asymmetric capabilities and mobilizing our population, while expanding cooperation with the U.S. and like-minded partners," the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, Taiwan’s de facto embassy in D.C., told Axios in a statement.
The Biden administration is pushing leaders in Taipei to purchase defensive weapons from the U.S. and discouraging further sales of tanks and anti-submarine helicopters, which U.S. officials believe would do little to counter a full-scale attack.
  • Retired U.S. Adm. James Stavridis has also called on Taiwan to acquire smart mines, cybersecurity, and "special forces who can neutralize Chinese advance teams, and air defense systems."
  • "There has been this wake-up call in the Pentagon to make sure Taiwan is serious, and we need to get serious too," Bonnie Glaser, director of the Asia program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, told the New York Times in May.
  • Taiwan's military knows it has weaknesses and wants more assistance from the U.S. and its allies, experts say. “The Taiwanese troops barely have opportunities to conduct exercises with the allies,” Shu Hsiao-huang, an analyst at the Taiwanese government-affiliated Institute for National Defense and Security Research, said in May.
Background: In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party defeated the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) after a years-long civil war. The KMT fled China to the island of Taiwan off the southern Chinese coast, relocating the capital of the Republic of China from Nanjing to Taipei. The CCP established the People's Republic of China on the mainland.
  • Both sides vowed to retake what they had lost and unify China under their own flag. But it's worth noting, said Jessica Drun, nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub, that "the PRC government has never had jurisdictional control over Taiwan."
  • For the first few decades, the two competing governments were somewhat evenly matched. Taiwan may have even had the upper hand. Taiwan had diplomatic relations with powerful countries and the backing of the United States, while China suffered through years of domestic upheavals and economic devastation.
  • But starting in the 1960s and 1970s, as China's domestic and foreign policies evolved, Beijing convinced most of Taiwan's diplomatic allies to switch sides, oversaw dramatic economic growth, and launched a rapid military modernization.
  • China is now an economic, technological and military giant with a population of 1.4 billion, dwarfing Taiwan economically and militarily. And leaders in Beijing have made clear that unification by force is on the table.
For Taiwan's military, its current problems run deeper than its hardware.
  • Taiwan's Ministry of Defense is staffed almost entirely by military officers, and the country lacks a well-developed security studies academic community. This means defense policy is shaped by career military officers whose perspectives have all been shaped by lifelong loyalty to the same institution, and there are few alternative information sources outside the military itself.
  • Before Taiwan's transition to democracy in the late 1980s, it was an authoritarian one-party state run by the KMT, and the military served as the KMT's muscle. As a result, distrust in Taiwan between politicians and the military lingers, preventing more proactive oversight of defense policies.
  • Due to that distrust, among other factors, many Taiwanese in the general public also do not see a military career "as a respectable career choice," says Drun.
  • Scandals and corruption have also plagued the Taiwanese armed forces, and it has struggled to recruit talent.
What they're saying: It would be "politically costly to impose change on the historically Kuomintang-leaning military bureaucracy," Michael Hunzeker, associate director of the Center for Security Policy Studies at George Mason University, wrote in November.
  • "Nor does the Democratic Progressive Party have a deep 'bench' of civilian defense experts who can help to translate top-level political guidance into an actionable plan, especially in the face of entrenched resistance."
What to watch: The U.S. approved the sale of 250 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to Taiwan in 2019, but Taiwanese defense officials expressed concern in May that the high demand for Stinger missiles in Ukraine may delay the delivery to Taiwan, expected by 2026.
Axios · by Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian · June 28, 2022

9.  Lawmakers want DoD to parse cyber roles, explore partnerships with CISA and colleges



​Excerpts:
While Chris Inglis, the first appointed director, has made it his mantra to further spell out cybersecurity roles inside and outside of government, Bolton said within DoD, it’s still largely a turf battle between two components that have the most influence over cyber operations: U.S. Cyber Command and the Office of the Secretary for Defense for Policy.
"Resolving this issue isn't as easy as requesting a congressional report, but I applaud Congress for trying," she said.
Montgomery believes it's "very clear" that the department needs something akin to an assistant secretary of defense for cyber who could act as the primary cybersecurity policy advisor to the secretary of defense. Without a dedicated cyber branch of the armed forces (Montgomery said the Solarium and lawmakers kicked the idea around but the Trump administration was more interested in standing up a new Space Force) DoD cyber operations must be more organized at the top because "you don't have that unity of command that a single force would have given you."



​
Lawmakers want DoD to parse cyber roles, explore partnerships with CISA and colleges
scmagazine.com · by Derek B. Johnson · June 27, 2022
Both Democratic and Republican-controlled Congresses have spent years pushing federal departments to draw clearer lines around their respective cyber lanes, outlining their distinct roles and responsibilities in the executive branch’s cybersecurity ecosystem. Now, lawmakers are increasingly looking to push those departments to turn those same exercises inward.
On Friday, the House Appropriations Committee released its spending bill for the Department of Defense. In a companion report, members direct the secretary of defense to provide them with a report within 90 days of the bill’s passage detailing how Pentagon leadership delineates roles and responsibilities within cyberspace among its different component agencies. Reciting a long list of high-level DoD positions and offices, they write that it “remains unclear … which offices and positions at the Department of Defense are responsible for cyber, cybersecurity, and cyberspace policy and activities.”
“For example, at quick glance the Committee finds a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber Policy and a Deputy Principal Cyber Advisor for Cyber Policy in the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. In the office of the Chief Information Officer, also part of USD, there exists a Principal Director for Cyber Security, a Deputy CIO for Cybersecurity, and a Principal Deputy CIO who is noted as the primary advisor to the Secretary of Defense for cybersecurity,” the committee wrote. “The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), which reports to the CIO, has a Cyber Security and Analytics organization. U.S. Cyber Command ‘directs, synchronizes, and coordinates cyberspace planning and operations,’ as noted in its mission statement and directly reports to the Secretary of Defense. The Department also has a Defense Cyber Crime Center which may also have responsibilities for cyber activities and policy.”
The committee wants the report to include an organizational chart listing each office with responsibility over cyber activities, descriptions and distinctions between each position and their reporting structure to Pentagon leadership.
It’s the second time in the past week that Congress has introduced language directing a federal department to clarify its internal cyber hierarchy. During a House Armed Services Committee markup of the National Defense Authorization Act, the committee adopted an amendment from Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., that would require the Department of Homeland Security and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to sketch out roles and responsibilities in cyberspace for each component agency and clarify how those roles would interact in the face of an incident response engagement within the federal government.
Tatyana Bolton, policy director for cybersecurity and emerging technologies at R-Street who was also a senior advisor to the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, told SC Media that internal coherence on cybersecurity activities between component agencies under the same department is a real problem within the federal government and the military specifically.
“As it is with anything, this is about power and access. Most major agencies have not just one office, but multiple offices that handle cybersecurity, and not one, but multiple leaders vying to be the ‘principal advisor’ for cyber. Nowhere is that struggle more real than in the DoD, given their enormous breadth of responsibility,” said Bolton.
Mark Montgomery, who served as the executive director of the Solarium and helped write many DoD-specific recommendations that were passed into U.S. law, said the language reflects the frustration of Congress and others that defense leaders have not been able to sketch out a clear vision of how their cybersecurity hierarchy works despite multiple efforts in recent years to get answers. This failure comes even as the creation of the Office of the National Cyber Director — a key Solarium recommendation adopted by lawmakers — and the further empowerment of CISA has brought more coherence to the way civilian agencies approach cyber.
"We’ve given a lot of guidance to DoD over the last three [defense authorization] cycles and to some degree, they have to start explaining what their new organization looks like," said Montgomery, now senior director of the Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation at hawkish foreign policy non-profit Foundation for Defense of Democracies. "If you’re looking purely at the [Office of the Secretary of Defense] staff organizations, it has not gotten cleaner and more streamlined, and I would contrast this with the non-DoD side of the government, which I think has gotten significantly better organized and efficient."
While Chris Inglis, the first appointed director, has made it his mantra to further spell out cybersecurity roles inside and outside of government, Bolton said within DoD, it’s still largely a turf battle between two components that have the most influence over cyber operations: U.S. Cyber Command and the Office of the Secretary for Defense for Policy.
"Resolving this issue isn't as easy as requesting a congressional report, but I applaud Congress for trying," she said.
Montgomery believes it's "very clear" that the department needs something akin to an assistant secretary of defense for cyber who could act as the primary cybersecurity policy advisor to the secretary of defense. Without a dedicated cyber branch of the armed forces (Montgomery said the Solarium and lawmakers kicked the idea around but the Trump administration was more interested in standing up a new Space Force) DoD cyber operations must be more organized at the top because "you don't have that unity of command that a single force would have given you."
Cyber workforce and information-sharing partnerships
The legislation also pushes the department’s chief information office to look at opportunities to collaborate with CISA on a commercial cyber threat intelligence shared service. CISA has already set up a program to offer similar services to other civilian agencies, state fusion centers and information sharing and analysis centers, and lawmakers on the committee believe it’s an idea the Pentagon should adopt for its own cybersecurity ecosystem. It also directs the secretary of defense to provide “supplementary support” to CISA where needed to respond to hacks from countries like Russia and China.
Earlier this year, Cyber Command announced a partnership with dozens of universities and colleges dedicated to building up the nation’s cybersecurity workforce and familiarizing students with military cyber programs. The partnership, part of the agency’s Academic Engagement Network, will give students at the university access to guest lecturers from U.S. CyberCom officials, non-public webinars about “pressing technical problems and non-technical problems” in cyberspace and other communications about changes in the cyber domain from the military agency. Similar efforts across the department to engage with and prepare college students for a post-graduation cybersecurity career could help cut down on bureaucratic hurdles and delays that prevent DoD and other departments from hiring as quickly as their private sector competitors.
“The Committee believes that the Department of Defense should collaborate with colleges and universities to recruit cyber-focused students during their junior or senior years, with the intent that upon graduation the student will have a completed security clearance,” the committee wrote.
scmagazine.com · by Derek B. Johnson · June 27, 2022



10. Biden’s Endgame Shouldn’t Be Victory for Ukraine



​Sigh....And what is next? Romania? Poland?​

Biden’s Endgame Shouldn’t Be Victory for Ukraine
Foreign Policy · by Tulsi Gabbard, Daniel L. Davis · June 27, 2022
An expert's point of view on a current event.
There is no realistic scenario for Ukraine to win. Washington should push for a settlement.
By Tulsi Gabbard, a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and Daniel L. Davis, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities.
Ukrainian soldiers fire a French CAESAR self-propelled howitzer at Russian positions near the front line in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine on June 15.
Ukrainian soldiers fire a French CAESAR self-propelled howitzer at Russian positions near the front line in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine on June 15. ARIS MESSINIS/AFP via Getty Images
After returning from a visit to the front near Kherson, Ukraine, on June 19, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that his military would continue to fight Russia and “return everything that’s ours,” after having earlier made clear his intent to “liberate our Crimea as well.” While those goals are understandable, the harsh realities emerging on the bloody battlefields of eastern Ukraine make it increasingly likely that the longer Kyiv seeks to achieve military victory, the more likely it is ultimately to be defeated. U.S. policy, guided by U.S. interests, should change to reflect this reality.
Early in the war, many in Ukraine and the West were buoyed by the clear failure of the Kremlin’s army to conquer Kyiv and force the government to surrender, as evidenced by Russia’s shocking loss of thousands of tanks and other armored vehicles—and tens of thousands of its troops—especially on the Kyiv and Kharkiv fronts. The Ukrainian Armed Forces, in contrast, fought heroically and effectively, performing well above expectations. In response, the United States and dozens of other Western countries accelerated the delivery of weapons and ammunition to Kyiv.
As much as Ukraine welcomes every piece of equipment, however, the deliveries have been a clunky mixture of modern and antiquated, Western and Soviet. Numerous systems require specialized training, specific maintenance systems, and ammunition of various calibers that are often mutually exclusive to each weapon system. All of this requires a massive and complicated logistics system to keep the weapons supplied and functioning—one that doesn’t currently exist in Ukraine and continues to be improvised.
After returning from a visit to the front near Kherson, Ukraine, on June 19, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that his military would continue to fight Russia and “return everything that’s ours,” after having earlier made clear his intent to “liberate our Crimea as well.” While those goals are understandable, the harsh realities emerging on the bloody battlefields of eastern Ukraine make it increasingly likely that the longer Kyiv seeks to achieve military victory, the more likely it is ultimately to be defeated. U.S. policy, guided by U.S. interests, should change to reflect this reality.
Early in the war, many in Ukraine and the West were buoyed by the clear failure of the Kremlin’s army to conquer Kyiv and force the government to surrender, as evidenced by Russia’s shocking loss of thousands of tanks and other armored vehicles—and tens of thousands of its troops—especially on the Kyiv and Kharkiv fronts. The Ukrainian Armed Forces, in contrast, fought heroically and effectively, performing well above expectations. In response, the United States and dozens of other Western countries accelerated the delivery of weapons and ammunition to Kyiv.
As much as Ukraine welcomes every piece of equipment, however, the deliveries have been a clunky mixture of modern and antiquated, Western and Soviet. Numerous systems require specialized training, specific maintenance systems, and ammunition of various calibers that are often mutually exclusive to each weapon system. All of this requires a massive and complicated logistics system to keep the weapons supplied and functioning—one that doesn’t currently exist in Ukraine and continues to be improvised.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian leaders have been clamoring for more weapons, warning that the quantities sent or pledged so far are grossly insufficient. Ukrainian Presidential Advisor Mykhailo Podolyak wrote last week that in addition to the equipment already promised, Ukraine still needs “1000 howitzers caliber 155 mm; 300 MLRS [multiple launch rocket launchers]; 500 tanks; 2000 armored vehicles; [and] 1000 drones.” The scale of these requests illustrates how difficult it will be for the Ukrainian forces to hold out against the Russian onslaught in their country’s east, let alone turn the tide to defeat it.
Ignore reality long enough, and it is possible Ukraine could outright lose the war and, along with it, the leverage it currently possesses.
Since Russia changed tack and prioritized firepower over maneuver in the Donbas fight, its forces have been pummeling Ukrainian troops with upwards of a staggering 70,000 shells per day and a significant number of heavy rockets. Additionally, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s forces are conducting as many as 300 air sorties over Ukraine per day. Ukraine, in contrast, is firing an estimated one-tenth as many shells—and sometimes flies only three to five air sorties per day.
This disparity in firepower is driving Ukrainian casualties beyond what we believe it can sustain, with up to 200 soldiers reportedly killed each day and around 500 wounded. The toll on Kyiv’s equipment is just as devastating: Most of the Soviet-era equipment Ukraine possessed at the beginning of the war has been destroyed, and it has run out of entire categories of ammunition. No military can sustain those kinds of losses and continue to offer effective resistance—as evidenced by Ukraine’s recent loss of several towns and villages to the Russian invaders and near-encirclement on the Donbas front.
Policies in Kyiv and Washington seem to ignore these battlefield realities. Last week, Zelensky reiterated his plans to regain all Ukrainian territory lost to Russia since the first invasion in 2014—currently about 20 percent of Ukraine. On the prospects for a negotiated settlement, he added one day later that “there is no time for talking” to Russia.
U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks recently said the Pentagon is “well equipped” to support Ukraine for five, 10, or 20 years into the future. Yet our own substantial experience deployed in combat leads us to wonder if Ukraine can hold out for five to 10 months, much less one or two decades.
While there is still time, and Kyiv still controls 80 percent of its territory, a change in U.S. policy would provide a chance to save Ukrainian lives and prevent further territorial losses. At minimum, the Biden administration should de-emphasize its goals of weakening Russia and instead prioritize diplomacy, helping Kyiv and Moscow find a negotiated end to the war. It is in the U.S. national interest to prevent the war from escalating in Ukraine or expanding beyond it. Avoiding the risk of direct U.S.-Russian or NATO-Russian confrontation is vital because of the dire global consequences of a nuclear war. The world is already at a greater risk of nuclear war than at any time since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.
While it is up to Kyiv and Moscow to decide how and when this war ends, U.S. weapons and other aid are underwriting Ukraine’s war effort. Just as Ukraine has agency, so too does the United States—and U.S. interests are not identical to Ukraine’s.
Any settlement will grapple with complex issues, such as territorial concessions and Ukraine’s status as a neutral country. As unpalatable as the options are, they become harder to swallow the more gains Russia makes on the battlefield, as is almost certain to happen in the Battle of Donbas.
It is in the best interests of Ukraine, Europe, the United States, and the world for this war to end. It is crucial at this important junction that the United States in particular, and the West in general, base policy on the combat realities in Ukraine—and not recklessly seek an unattainable outcome. Ignore reality long enough, and it is possible Ukraine could outright lose the war and, along with it, the leverage it currently possesses.
Tulsi Gabbard is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, was a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and is currently a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve. Twitter: @TulsiGabbard
Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow at Defense Priorities, a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, and the author of The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America. Twitter: @DanielLDavis1

11. G-7 nations must reject China’s Taiwan Strait claim
Excerpts:
Washington will enhance its credibility in leading other nations to stand up to Chinese aggression when it finally dispenses with its ambiguous, counterproductive policy on defending Taiwan. When Chinese military officers directly asked the question in 1996, the Clinton administration’s lead China official answered, “We don’t know; it would depend on the circumstances.” He did not mention the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act (TRA).
A decade later, U.S. administrations began invoking the TRA’s mandate that Washington provide defensive arms, but without reference to a direct U.S. role. Blinken mentioned for the first time the TRA requirement that the U.S. “maintain the capacity … to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion” against Taiwan, but didn’t address Biden’s pledge to do so.
As the U.S. moves closer to recognizing Taiwan’s separate political identity, there remains another critical TRA provision that has gone unnoted for 43 years, with the potential to revolutionize a half-century of U.S.-China relations — that recognition of China “rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means.”


G-7 nations must reject China’s Taiwan Strait claim
BY JOSEPH BOSCO, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 06/28/22 10:00 AM ET
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
The Hill · by Rebecca Beitsch · June 28, 2022
History will record that the United States and NATO, after repeatedly encouraging Ukraine’s membership, failed abysmally to deter or defeat Russia’s ongoing aggression and the consequent death, destruction and loss of Ukrainian sovereignty.
China has learned important lessons in pursuing its own ambitions against Taiwan, including the critical role of maritime domain control. Russia’s domination of the Black Sea is a model for China’s designs on the Taiwan Strait. Chinese leader Xi Jinping is claiming the strait as exclusively Chinese waters, just as Russian President Vladimir Putin effectively has made the Black Sea a Russian lake.
As Russia blockades the Ukrainian ports of Mariupol and Odessa, preventing the export of life-sustaining grain to Africa and the Mideast, China will seek to close off Taiwan’s key ports, Kaohsiung and Keelung, and potentially strangle the island’s economy.
President Biden set the tone for NATO’s response when he declared that America will neither intervene directly, such as by imposing a no-fly zone, nor provide the most effective defensive arms Ukraine urgently needs. He fears that either would lead to direct Russia-U.S.conflict, saying “that’s called World War III.”
On three occasions, however, Biden stated that the U.S. would directly intervene to protect Taiwan against nuclear-armed China. Yet, each time, administration officials have disavowed any change in the decades-long U.S. policy of “strategic ambiguity” on defending Taiwan.
Given China’s increasingly aggressive actions and rhetoric against Taiwan, and the emerging evolution under both the Trump and Biden administrations to a one China/one Taiwan policy, Beijing and Washington are on a collision course. Avoiding military conflict requires a multinational, multidimensional campaign to prevent a Chinese miscalculation.
As with Russia on Ukraine, China’s challenge is not just to Taiwan but to the entire rules-based international order and the survival of regional democracies. China’s missile firings to protest Taiwan’s first direct presidential election in 1996 closed the Taiwan Strait, a long-established international waterway, to commercial shipping and aviation.
Now, Beijing is arrogating to itself the right to control the strait, connecting the East and South China Seas, on a permanent basis. Seagoing nations, and countries that depend on their commerce, need to oppose China’s fabricated assertion of maritime sovereignty. In addition to mobilizing a collective diplomatic, information and sanctions campaign, Washington and its allies must implement two legal initiatives for contesting illegal maritime claims — one through direct action, and the other using the established international dispute mechanism.
Contrasting with Western passivity in the face of Russia’s control of the Black Sea, the G-7, at its meeting this week, should call for NATO and the European Union to organize a regime of collective Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS) to assert international access to the Taiwan Strait. Since the U.S. Navy has conducted such FONOPS regularly for several years, it is well-suited to lead the exercises. It also could provide escort services, similar to what it did during the Iran-Iraq war for commercial oil tankers defying Iran’s claim of sovereignty over the Persian Gulf.
At the same time, nations that have been conducting their own transits through the strait — such as the United Kingdom, France, Canada and Australia — should join with other affected parties and file a legal action before the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea seeking arbitration of China’s Taiwan Strait claim. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) “obligat[es] State Parties … to settle their disputes peacefully,” as does the U.N. Security Council, but the Chinese and Russian vetoes prevent meaningful council action.
While not itself an UNCLOS member, America fully supports its principles and decisions — in direct contrast to China, which has ratified the convention but flagrantly flouts its rules. Washington applauded the tribunal’s 2016 ruling in favor of the Philippines and against China’s illegal South China Sea claims that are akin to its present assertion over the Taiwan Strait.
This two-track legal/operational strategy is consistent with the U.S. position that Secretary of State Antony Blinken laid out last month: “We’ll continue to oppose Beijing’s aggressive and unlawful activities in the South and East China Seas. … We’ll support the region’s coastal states in upholding their maritime rights. We’ll work with allies and partners to uphold freedom of navigation and overflight. … And we’ll continue to fly and sail wherever international law allows.”
The approach also implements the principle that Adm. Timothy Keating, commander of the Pacific Command, declared he took the USS Kitty Hawk Battle Group through the strait over Beijing’s vehement objections in 2007: “We don’t need China’s permission to go through the Taiwan Straits in international waters.”
Unfortunately, however, that was the last transit by a U.S. carrier and the first since the 1995 Taiwan Strait Crisis, making only two such passages in the 50 years since President Nixon pulled the Seventh Fleet out in a preemptive concession to Mao Zedong, paving the way for Nixon’s visit to Beijing and more U.S. concessions. Years later, Nixon rued that his flawed opening to China “may have created a Frankenstein,” and he concluded that China and Taiwan “are permanently separated politically.”
Now, Beijing has expanded its posture beyond a China-Taiwan or China-U.S. issue, and is asserting an expansive claim against the entire commercial world that utilizes, or benefits from, the Taiwan Strait — just as it did earlier in the South China Sea. The Biden administration should respond by organizing a multinational Freedom of Navigation Flotilla through the Strait, led by a Navy carrier strike force.
Washington will enhance its credibility in leading other nations to stand up to Chinese aggression when it finally dispenses with its ambiguous, counterproductive policy on defending Taiwan. When Chinese military officers directly asked the question in 1996, the Clinton administration’s lead China official answered, “We don’t know; it would depend on the circumstances.” He did not mention the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act (TRA).
A decade later, U.S. administrations began invoking the TRA’s mandate that Washington provide defensive arms, but without reference to a direct U.S. role. Blinken mentioned for the first time the TRA requirement that the U.S. “maintain the capacity … to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion” against Taiwan, but didn’t address Biden’s pledge to do so.
As the U.S. moves closer to recognizing Taiwan’s separate political identity, there remains another critical TRA provision that has gone unnoted for 43 years, with the potential to revolutionize a half-century of U.S.-China relations — that recognition of China “rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means.”
Joseph Bosco served as China country director for the secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2006 and as Asia-Pacific director of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief from 2009 to 2010. He served in the Pentagon when Vladimir Putin invaded Georgia and was involved in Department of Defense discussions about the U.S. response. Follow him on Twitter @BoscoJosephA.
The Hill · by Rebecca Beitsch · June 28, 2022


12. America Is Losing Its Value Proposition


Excerpts:
None of this is written in a spirit of naive belief in an innocent American past. The country’s value appeal has always been a tightrope walk. In the postwar years, as it girded for competition with the Soviet Union, the United States invoked the advantages of freedom and democracy that it claimed for itself, even while denying such things to many of its own citizens, namely African Americans who were the victims of legalized segregation, restrictions on voting aimed at minimizing their representation, and widespread racial violence.
U.S. diplomacy faced media criticism and official pushback from countries in Europe, Asia, and Latin America in this era for Washington’s hypocrisy over democracy, which was still largely denied to the country’s Black minority. Steeped in denialism, former U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall commissioned a report that argued America’s racial problems had “largely ceased to be of major significance” to the country’s place in the world, a conclusion he supported.
A biting 1947 editorial in the Crisis, the NAACP’s journal, was far more realistic: “Mr. Truman and the American people can peer far beyond the seas, wring their hands, and choke with rage at an election in [communist] Poland, but they are strangely dumb at a similar election in South Carolina or Mississippi.”
Today, I fear for the United States not only because of the decay in its political culture and values, but also because this country has been so important as a font of energy, ideas, and symbols for others who seek to democratize and reform.
The influence of America’s model expanded dramatically in the decade or two after Marshall not because it mouthed ideals and denied reality, but because the society waged open struggle with its many imperfections involving the citizens’ rights of women and members of minority groups. For this country to avoid catastrophe it will have to renew the spirit of civic struggle in the critical decade ahead.



America Is Losing Its Value Proposition
Foreign Policy · by Howard W. French · June 28, 2022
An expert's point of view on a current event.
The future will not be pretty for the United States if it cannot rediscover some of the idealism that marked its long rise.
Howard W. French
By Howard W. French, a columnist at Foreign Policy.
An upside down U.S. flag is shown with the U.S. Supreme Court building in the background.
An abortion rights activist flies an upside down U.S. flag outside of the U.S. Supreme Court during a protest in Washington on June 26. SAMUEL CORUM/AFP via Getty Images
The United States’ sharp rise as a global power in the decades following World War II was built on a three-legged stool, and in the absence of any of its pillars, the country’s strength and influence would have been vastly reduced.
The first of these legs was, of course, the country’s economic strength, which gave it the ability to accomplish astonishing feats. During World War II, this meant producing a staggering 122 aircraft carriers, as well as airplanes in correspondingly great quantities. Broad-shouldered efforts like these armed not only U.S. forces but also those of its allies, including the Soviet Union, helping to ensure the defeat of Japan and Germany. Once peace was won, American wealth famously underwrote recovery in Europe and Asia, including among its just-defeated principal adversaries.
U.S. leadership in military power and technology in the war’s aftermath has never been surrendered, giving Washington the ability to dominate every ocean, establish bases on every continent, and continually set the pace in innovation. It is true that power so daunting often led the United States astray, unnecessarily inflicting awful tolls on other peoples, from Vietnam to Iraq, and in numerous smaller conflicts. But the United States remained strong despite all the misguided decisions and the terrible wastefulness of these wars because of its third pillar.
This leg consisted of the basic value proposition that the country so often seemed to incarnate in others’ eyes, which was bound up in ideas of openness, democracy, relentless progress, and, perhaps most of all, freedom. This last word involves a concept that is easier to invoke than it is to define to universal satisfaction, and throughout its history, the United States has had serious issues living up to this ideal. But as someone who has traveled in well over 100 countries and who lives in the beautiful ethnic mosaic that is New York City, I have always been impressed by the strength and resilience of America’s appeal to people from nearly every horizon on this somewhat abstract basis.
Now, however, more than any time in my more than four decades in journalism, I have grown doubtful about the durability of this pillar going forward. In fact, although Americans have largely seemed oblivious, their image in the rest of the world has already been taking damaging hits for some time. For three decades I have been concerned, for example, as the country has squandered its capacity for effecting positive change elsewhere. It committed few resources and little effort to helping the so-called developing world to recover from the prolonged disaster of the Cold War.
Fighting against something, in this instance endless campaigning against Islamist extremism, prevented the United States from fighting for something—say, helping lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the least developed parts of the world or working hard and with much greater consistency to promote democracy elsewhere. These failures allowed China to replace a United States asleep at the switch as the provider of public goods of first (and too often only) resort in Africa and Central Asia, and increasingly on other continents as well.
Domestically, meanwhile, the United States has been breaking with its deep roots as an immigrant nation, shutting out others even as economists say that the country’s own future prosperity will require a continued and steady influx of newcomers. This self-inflicted damage accelerated during the Trump administration, with racialized rhetoric that was openly hostile to nonwhite immigrants, along with ceaseless calls to build a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border to keep foreigners out.
The U.S. tailspin reached a new phase with the events surrounding the insurrection against the seat of the country’s democracy on Jan. 6, 2021, egged on by a defeated outgoing president. People around the world who are attracted to what they associate with American ideals watched this spectacle with shock and dismay. I know this from having heard from countless friends around the world who wrote to me or communicated their dismay via social media. Some asked me questions like, “If this can happen in the United States, a leader in democracy, what will it mean for my country?” This, it turns out, is a question of extreme significance to which I will return in a moment.
First, though, it is important to say that in some ways the events of Jan. 6, as disturbing at they were, pale in comparison to the clear signs of decadence that have followed, with most members of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s Republican Party unable to find a voice to speak frankly about the insurrection or even still openly defending him. This crisis of legitimacy goes beyond the political class, though. In large numbers, Republican voters also express continuing doubts about President Joe Biden’s factually indisputable victory in the 2020 election, with many still supporting Trump despite the insurrection.
It is just in the last month, though, that the full specter of peril hanging over America’s value proposition has completely dawned on me. This has come with the recent dramatic U.S. Supreme Court decisions that, regardless of whatever internal U.S. debates have to say about the matters in play, the rest of the world will largely regard as signs of a society that is speeding off the rails. Some of my earliest memories of overseas travel involve conversations as a college student with people in Africa and Europe about the outsized place of guns in American life. A friend in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, who was about to visit the United States for the first time asked me if it were true that one often begins hearing gunfire right from the moment of descent from landing aircraft.
People in other lands don’t understand the extreme attachment to guns that inhabits much of the U.S. population or what this has to do with the often-invoked but underexamined words of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What, many will ask, does a Supreme Court decision that appears to open the way for the almost unrestricted carrying of weapons even in crowded urban environments like New York City have to do with a “well regulated Militia” defending the security of the state?
Last week’s ruling that removed a constitutional right to abortion is likely to continue the United States’ debasement in the eyes of others. Leaders of many allied or friendly democracies were quick to denounce this decision, with even the Conservative British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, whose own behavior has increasingly delegitimized him, finding a perch of high ground from which to condemn as a “big step backwards.”
My personal views are firmly liberal in this matter, but I do not denounce this decision as someone who believes there is no room whatsoever for a debate on the rules around abortion. The signs of decay I detect in this ruling emanate from the rank cynicism of the politics that produced it.
Here, I speak of the unprecedented maneuvering of the Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell to deny a confirmation hearing to former President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill a vacancy on the court, Merrick Garland, on the basis that it was improper to appoint someone in an election year—only to turn around and expedite the confirmation of a new conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett, less than a month before the 2020 presidential election.
As with so much in this column, there was worse to come in terms of damage to the country’s political system. Both Barrett and the immediately previous Republican appointee to the court, Brett Kavanaugh, solemnly told U.S. senators that the country’s laws surrounding abortion were settled matters and would be treated as such. Then, at the first opportunity, they overturned Roe v. Wade.
Politics is a rough game everywhere, but when all principles fall away, as appears to be happening in the United States, beware of a hard fall. The future will not be pretty for the United States if it cannot rediscover some of the idealism that marked its long rise.
None of this is written in a spirit of naive belief in an innocent American past. The country’s value appeal has always been a tightrope walk. In the postwar years, as it girded for competition with the Soviet Union, the United States invoked the advantages of freedom and democracy that it claimed for itself, even while denying such things to many of its own citizens, namely African Americans who were the victims of legalized segregation, restrictions on voting aimed at minimizing their representation, and widespread racial violence.
U.S. diplomacy faced media criticism and official pushback from countries in Europe, Asia, and Latin America in this era for Washington’s hypocrisy over democracy, which was still largely denied to the country’s Black minority. Steeped in denialism, former U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall commissioned a report that argued America’s racial problems had “largely ceased to be of major significance” to the country’s place in the world, a conclusion he supported.
A biting 1947 editorial in the Crisis, the NAACP’s journal, was far more realistic: “Mr. Truman and the American people can peer far beyond the seas, wring their hands, and choke with rage at an election in [communist] Poland, but they are strangely dumb at a similar election in South Carolina or Mississippi.”
Today, I fear for the United States not only because of the decay in its political culture and values, but also because this country has been so important as a font of energy, ideas, and symbols for others who seek to democratize and reform.
The influence of America’s model expanded dramatically in the decade or two after Marshall not because it mouthed ideals and denied reality, but because the society waged open struggle with its many imperfections involving the citizens’ rights of women and members of minority groups. For this country to avoid catastrophe it will have to renew the spirit of civic struggle in the critical decade ahead.
Howard W. French is a columnist at Foreign Policy, a professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, and a longtime foreign correspondent. His latest book is Born in Blackness: Africa, Africans and the Making of the Modern World, 1471 to the Second World War. Twitter: @hofrench

13.  Opinion | The Future of the West Is in Question


Excerpts:
The war in Ukraine puts before us one crucial question: Does the transatlantic free world still want to occupy a position of leadership? Do we still believe in the universality of values such as freedom and the right of national self-determination? Do we have determination to defend them? If not, we have already lost our future. However, if the flame that has enlivened our civilization for centuries is still smoldering, it is high time we rekindled it and did everything in our power to save Ukraine.


Opinion | The Future of the West Is in Question
Magazine
Opinion | The Future of the West Is in Question
Without more forceful intervention in Ukraine's war, the consequences for the U.S. and Europe could be devastating.

A Ukrainian serviceman looks at the ruins of the sports complex of the National Technical University in Kharkiv, Ukraine, Friday, June 24, 2022, damaged during a night shelling. | Andrii Marienko/AP Photo
Opinion by Mateusz Morawiecki
06/27/2022 12:00 PM EDT
Mateusz Morawiecki is the prime minister of Poland.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine surely heralded the end of an era of illusions. The subsequent criminal actions of the Russian army — the massacre of civilians in Bucha, Borodyanka, Mariupol and Irpin — have proven that post-Soviet Russia is not the country the West had imagined. A confluence of old-fashioned nationalism, imperialism and colonialism supercharged by hyper-modern propaganda tools: This is the image of a 21st-century totalitarian state. It is the true face of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, and one must be a cynic not to recognize it. And yet, just diagnosing the disease is not a cure. It is not enough for us to discard our illusions regarding Russia, we must also cast off the illusions toward ourselves.
More than 120 days have passed since the beginning of the war. Ukraine and its military can be proud of the steadfast resistance they have put up against one of the supposedly most powerful armies in the world. On Feb. 24, no one gave the Ukrainians a chance of more than several days of survival. Meanwhile, they not only defended Kyiv, but pushed back the enemy far to the east.

However, only now have we reached the critical point of this conflict. Many assumed that Putin’s aim was a blitzkrieg and the seizure of all Ukraine. Russia’s enormous potential notwithstanding, taking control of a country as large as Ukraine, with more than 40 million inhabitants, would always be a nearly impossible task. However, Russia’s main objective remains not only that of paralyzing Ukraine but of further destabilizing the West. And despite the successes of Ukrainian troops, Russia is moving forward with its central goal, destroying industry, roads and schools along the way. While Ukraine has surpassed expectations to fend off Russia for this long, unless the U.S. and Europe intervene more forcefully, a protracted war could mean not only Ukraine’s downfall but — in the long term — the rise of a new global hegemony, which will be able to marginalize the Western world.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently said Russia occupies 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory. The scale of Putin’s bloody land grab is as if the U.S. were deprived of Texas, California, Montana, Arizona, Oklahoma and New Jersey. Russia is like a python, which seizes its prey and waits until it is weak enough so that it can swallow it whole. Procrastination and passivity will play in favor of the invader. That is why it is so important the West stop deluding ourselves that the support we have thus far provided for the Ukrainian army is sufficient.
The latest intelligence reports confirm that the Russians are strengthening their presence in the occupied territories of Kherson and Zaporizhia. They are not only increasing the numbers of their troops but also exploiting moments of Ukrainian fatigue to build fortifications that will prevent an effective counter-offensive. Ukraine is trapped. The normal functioning of the economy is largely impossible today, and Russia is crippling grain and food exports.
This is no longer a local conflict. Around the world, food market deficits, especially those that may occur in Africa and the Middle East, are catalysts of yet another migration crisis. This is exactly what Putin wants. Russia’s actions already have global consequences in the form of Putin-flation. And the further effects are difficult to even estimate.
Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Pakistan, Tunisia, Morocco and countries of the Sahel are among the indirect victims of this war and the resulting food crisis. None of these are oases of peace. Each of them could easily fall into the orbit of stronger Russian influence.
And as for the elephant in the room, China — the largest importer of food from Ukraine — certainly, the war in Ukraine will not deal a blow to its economic position. It may, however, be an incentive to become more active in taking over global assets. The “Chinese Dragon” could seize this opportunity to make a giant leap forward.
The geopolitical passivity of the Western world carries the risk of its marginalization. History teaches that prolonged conflicts bleed both sides, but dictatorships have an advantage over democracies. They are not accountable to their societies and can pay the price of blood, even with opposition from their citizens. We should not forget the lessons of Afghanistan and Vietnam: Both of these tragic clashes proved that a lack of decisiveness and an entanglement in many years of guerrilla warfare ultimately bring only losses. But those failures did not lead to the rapid decay of the global world order for one reason only: There were no candidates for a new hegemon.
Now everything is different. A defeat of Ukraine will have more far-reaching consequences than the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan or the defeat in Vietnam. If Ukraine falls, the foundations on which we have built our plans for the future will also collapse.
The U.S. and Europe may be replaced by China — or China in tandem with Russia. We will find ourselves in a completely new chapter of world history, one that could be written in extremely bloody verses. There are increasing signs that the lack of decisive measures against Russia may be critical for Taiwan. China sees Russia’s relative weakness and, at the same time, it sees how much weaker the West is if it cannot stop a declining empire.
The war in Ukraine puts before us one crucial question: Does the transatlantic free world still want to occupy a position of leadership? Do we still believe in the universality of values such as freedom and the right of national self-determination? Do we have determination to defend them? If not, we have already lost our future. However, if the flame that has enlivened our civilization for centuries is still smoldering, it is high time we rekindled it and did everything in our power to save Ukraine.





14. Want 'strategic thinkers'? You'll have to transform the military culture

Critique from a professor at the Eisenhower School of Strategy at NDU.

Excerpts:
It is a culture that sanctifies command and, accordingly, demands unquestioning obedience to rank- and position-based authority, discourages dissent, forbids disobedience to orders and even expectations, expressed or implied, and underplays the importance of consensus building. Action (getting things done) always takes precedence over reflection (thinking things through); and implementation (carrying out the direction of others) trumps origination (generating new ideas), meaning that critical and creative thinking are undervalued and frequently go unrewarded.
Reactive crisis management, rather than proactive crisis prevention, is the operative norm. Secrecy (withholding privileged information) invariably overrides transparency (exposing or sharing information). Training (applied, job-related skill development) regularly takes priority over education (general intellectual development). Writing, as both reflection of and stimulus to sound thinking, almost always takes the form of formulaic, strictly formatted decision memos and point papers, rather than expository expression.
And, finally, PME institutions themselves, which are both educational institutions and military organizations, consistently opt for the latter over the former as their reason for being and the source of their legitimacy. All of these facets of military culture have a pronounced, inhibiting effect on the quality of thinking of those in uniform.
Henceforth, if we are to confront our strategic failings abroad by acknowledging the intellectual limitations of today’s generals and admirals, it is imperative that we accurately diagnose the source of those limitations, avoid uninformed and shallow accusations, and place blame where it properly belongs: on military culture itself.





Want 'strategic thinkers'? You'll have to transform the military culture - Responsible Statecraft
responsiblestatecraft.org · by Gregory Foster · June 27, 2022
Want ‘strategic thinkers’? You’ll have to transform the military culture
Some want to blame the war colleges but really they are just a product of the institution, which fosters the wrong skill sets.

Want ‘strategic thinkers’? You’ll have to transform the military culture
For some years now, observers of military and security affairs have levied rightful criticism at America’s growing string of military failures abroad. We don’t win wars anymore. We don’t prevent wars. We can’t end wars.
At the heart of these repeated operational failures, many think, are deeply embedded intellectual failings that reflect inexcusably underdeveloped strategic understanding on the part of America’s current generation of generals and admirals.
At least since the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) document appeared, such criticism has led to accusations that the U.S. military’s Professional Military Education (PME) system, especially the senior, “war college” level of that system, is to blame. The 2018 NDS, then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis’s homage to his own thinking, made this unsubstantiated assertion:
PME has stagnated, focused more on the accomplishment of mandatory credit at the expense of lethality and ingenuity. We will emphasize intellectual leadership and military professionalism in the art and science of warfighting, deepening our knowledge of history while embracing new technology and techniques to counter competitors. PME will emphasize independence of action in warfighting concepts. . . .
Regrettably, such uninformed accusations fail to recognize that the real culprit in producing a generation of intellectually challenged senior military leaders isn’t the military’s professional schooling system. It is military culture itself, the selfsame culture in which and by which Mattis — and others like him — have been indoctrinated. More about that momentarily.
It is especially ironic that a tactically minded soldier like Mattis would levy such ill-founded claims about “strategic thinking” against PME. His familiarity with PME was limited to being a student in the junior Marine Amphibious Warfare School, the mid-level Marine Command and Staff College, and the senior National War College. He was never an instructor or administrator at any military school. It is also a reflection of his tactical military hard-wiring that he would associate intellect and education with “lethality” and “warfighting,” two chest-thumping rhetorical labels totally antithetical to the development of the mind.
Mattis’s anti-PME bias led, at his direction, to the 2019 creation of the Secretary of Defense Strategic Thinkers Program (STP), a master’s degree-granting enterprise conducted under contract to DoD by the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. The thinking behind this, obviously, was that rather than seeking to enhance and elevate the quality of the existing educational programs of the military’s schools by reorganizing, reformulating parochial guidance, or improving instructor, student, and managerial quality, it is preferable to just farm things out to a name-brand civilian institution and take credit for establishing a gimmicky new program ostensibly best positioned to produce bona fide “strategic thinkers.”
The most recent treatment of the subject, a commentary by retired Air Force Brigadier General Paula Thornhill, an associate professor in the Hopkins program (as well as a former dean at the National War College), keeps alive the only thinly veiled criticism of PME. The supposed superiority of the STP, she suggests, lies in its use of small, tutorial-style seminars, wargames, staff rides, and civilian-based public policy instruction — as if these aren’t methods employed by PME institutions already.
Her abbreviated description of the STP prompts a number of questions for those who know anything about strategic education: Do these tutorial-style seminars rely on didactic lectures and passive learning, or on Socratic dialogue that some say is the singularly necessary precondition for developing strategic thinking? Is there more sophisticated, more realistic wargaming expertise in a civilian institution that is somehow superior to the wargames and exercises employed at PME institutions? And do such wargames actually test the intellectual mettle of participants more than, say, serious Socratic questioning and dialogue? Can staff rides – over battlefields like Gettysburg, the Somme, Normandy, Inchon, or Khe Sanh, for example – actually develop strategic deliberation and insight, or are they little more than militarily-oriented terrain walks?
The STP is, by design, an elitist program: you apply, you compete, and you’re either selected or not, presumably on the basis of merit. PME schools, on the other hand, are populist institutions whose students are involuntarily selected by their parent services and organizations based on past performance and future potential in operational assignments, not on academic achievement or intellectual acumen. It is a normal distribution of generally high-performing operational types who lay no claim to academic or intellectual superiority.
So how, if at all, can we compare these two avenues for producing strategic thinkers?
Faculty. There is literally nothing to distinguish STP and PME faculties from one another. As with any educational or training undertaking, faculty expertise and quality is a crapshoot, a random walk through teacherdom. In all cases, regardless of locale, students may end up with either exceptional or mediocre, narrow- or broad-gauged, visionary or myopic faculty, depending on how the pedagogical stars align.
Curricula. Curricula for any programs that claim to produce strategic thinkers don’t lend themselves to ready comparison, not least because there is no template that prescribes what constitutes or best contributes to strategic thinking.
The foundational principle that underlies all leadership development programs is that leadership isn’t strictly innate; it can be learned and acquired. And, because strategic leadership is fundamentally an intellectual rather than a behavioral enterprise, strategic thinking therefore can also be developed.
What is too rarely recognized, much less articulated, is that strategic thinking is qualitatively distinct from garden-variety thinking, regardless of domain or context, be it political, bureaucratic, ideological, legalistic, or scientific. It transcends military thinking, which by nature is narrowly tactical and operational, and the conduct of war (arguably the result of non-strategic thinking). Its focus is on the future, on the holistic big picture, on the nth-order consequences of action or inaction, on underlying causes rather than the symptoms of the moment.
What remains unanswered if not unanswerable is what disciplines and what subjects are essential or even best suited to the development of strategic thinking: military affairs? history? political science? international relations? philosophy? geography? law? economics? demographics? What about art, music, literature, or religion? Civil-military relations? Ethics? Political institutions and processes? Organizational theory? Forecasting? Regional and cultural studies? There is no right answer.
Students. Ultimately, it is the quality of students — the experience, expertise, values, attitudes, and intellectual wherewithal they bring to these programs — that matters most. Students are both the random raw material that feeds into the educational enterprise and the marginally less random finished product that comes out at the other end.
Thus, in the final analysis, it is the culture that surrounds and shapes these individuals — before, during, and after their educational interlude — that ought to be of central concern in judging their present and future performance as strategic thinkers.
The culture those in uniform inhabit is with them forever, from the beginning to the end of their professional careers. Their educational involvement is but a brief interlude that may be influential in some modest measure at a particular point in time, but it certainly isn’t – and shouldn’t be thought of as – determinative.
By the time military officers — lieutenant colonels and colonels, or the Navy equivalent — are eligible for senior PME, they have at least 15 years of professional experience in operational assignments under their belt. Following their abbreviated academic experience, it will be another ten years before a small percentage of them reach senior rank. All that time, their culture is with them and within them. They are fully socialized in a hierarchical, authoritarian institution that preaches, extols the virtues of, and lays singular claim to the practice of leadership, but in reality nurtures and rewards dutiful followership.
It is a culture that sanctifies command and, accordingly, demands unquestioning obedience to rank- and position-based authority, discourages dissent, forbids disobedience to orders and even expectations, expressed or implied, and underplays the importance of consensus building. Action (getting things done) always takes precedence over reflection (thinking things through); and implementation (carrying out the direction of others) trumps origination (generating new ideas), meaning that critical and creative thinking are undervalued and frequently go unrewarded.
Reactive crisis management, rather than proactive crisis prevention, is the operative norm. Secrecy (withholding privileged information) invariably overrides transparency (exposing or sharing information). Training (applied, job-related skill development) regularly takes priority over education (general intellectual development). Writing, as both reflection of and stimulus to sound thinking, almost always takes the form of formulaic, strictly formatted decision memos and point papers, rather than expository expression.
And, finally, PME institutions themselves, which are both educational institutions and military organizations, consistently opt for the latter over the former as their reason for being and the source of their legitimacy. All of these facets of military culture have a pronounced, inhibiting effect on the quality of thinking of those in uniform.
Henceforth, if we are to confront our strategic failings abroad by acknowledging the intellectual limitations of today’s generals and admirals, it is imperative that we accurately diagnose the source of those limitations, avoid uninformed and shallow accusations, and place blame where it properly belongs: on military culture itself.
Written by


15. Maria Ressa: News organization Rappler ordered to shut down by Philippines government


​Oh no. I did not think the Philippines could get worse when it comes to freedom of the press. This is unbelievable.

Maria Ressa: News organization Rappler ordered to shut down by Philippines government
Axios · by Nathan Bomey · June 28, 2022
HONOLULU — Nobel Peace Prize laureate and journalist Maria Ressa said Tuesday that the Philippine government has ordered her news organization to shut down.
Why it matters: Ressa's Rappler has exposed Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's "bloody war on drugs" and documented the government's propagation of disinformation.
  • Ressa, a Filipino American, said in a keynote address at the East-West Center's International Media Conference in Honolulu that the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission issued the decree Tuesday.
  • She said Rappler would fight the order, which "affirmed" an earlier decision to revoke the organization's certificates of incorporation.
  • "We’re not shutting down. Well, I’m not supposed to say that," Ressa said. "We are entitled to appeal this decision and will do so, especially since the proceedings were highly irregular."
  • The Philippine embassy in the U.S. did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment.
Catch up quick: Ressa shared the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize with Russian journalist Dmitry Muratov after using her platform to raise awareness of Duterte's alleged abuses.
  • She was previously convicted in the Philippines of "cyber libel" and could serve prison time in a case widely seen as politically motivated.
Of note: Ressa has been a vocal critic of social media platforms for failing to prevent the flow of falsehoods.
  • "Most people, they don't realize they're being manipulated, that these platforms are biased against facts," Ressa previously told Axios Editor In Chief Sara Goo in an exclusive interview published Tuesday morning. "You don't get facts. It's toxic sludge. Social media encourages anger, hate, conspiracy theories. There's violence," and it's getting worse, she added.
What we're watching: Whether the newly-elected president of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., takes a different approach when he takes office later this week. Ressa told Axios after her speech that the timing of the order is "not a good sign. But we've seen these signs before."
  • "Who knows what the new administration will do. If the rule of law wins, these cases [against me and Rappler] will be thrown out. I look forward to a new administration and their upgrading of the rule of law," Ressa told Goo.
Editor's note: This post was updated with new details throughout.
Axios · by Nathan Bomey · June 28, 2022​



16. Ukraine Is the Korean War Redux


A view from Norway:

Excerpts:

The war in Ukraine is both accelerating and consolidating the geopolitical divide between the West and a Sino-Russian axis.
First, the war in Ukraine increases Russia’s dependency on China. 
...
Second, the war in Ukraine solidifies a hardened European view of China as a potential security threat. 
...
Third, the war in Ukraine intensifies the Sino-U.S. economic divide and will accelerate efforts to limit interdependency.
...
Finally, the war in Ukraine has given NATO and the trans-Atlantic community a revived sense of unity. 
​Sobering conclusion:

Geography is also the very reason why the U.S.-China rivalry is likely to be more unstable than the Cold War. In contrast to the land-focused Cold War, the main theater of U.S.-Chinese rivalry will be naval, with the vast expanse of the Indo-Pacific a potentially less predictable environment. Competing for command of the oceans increases the likelihood for incidents at sea, and contesting the influence over island states, naval bases, and partners in the region may make it tempting to start a limited war at sea with uncertain escalatory mechanisms. In addition, the unraveling and decoupling that is already underway will create more friction than the world saw at the time of the Korean War, where a system that was already divided and polarized was merely frozen in place. The past three decades of globalization have seduced many into thinking that great-power conflict is obsolete and belongs to a dark past. The war in Ukraine has awakened the world to a different reality.​

Ukraine Is the Korean War Redux
Foreign Policy · by Jo Inge Bekkevold · June 28, 2022
Russia’s invasion heralds the transition to a new global order—but it will be less stable than the Cold War.
By Jo Inge Bekkevold, a senior China fellow at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies.
United Nations troops fight in the streets of Seoul, South Korea, on Sept. 20, 1950.
United Nations troops fight in the streets of Seoul, South Korea, on Sept. 20, 1950. NATIONAL ARCHIVES/AFP via Getty Images
Which conflict in history offers the greatest parallels to Russia’s war in Ukraine? The answer is undoubtedly the Korean War. Although different in origin and scale, both conflicts are regional wars with worldwide implications—heralding, accelerating, and solidifying the transition to a new bipolar global order. These parallels, and a few key differences, offer important lessons for the future.
When the Korean War started in 1950, the international system was just beginning to settle into a bipolar power structure, with the United States and the Soviet Union as the two dominant powers. Having just begun, the Cold War was still in an early, dangerous phase—not the highly stable Cold War of the 1970s and 1980s many people still remember. Today, as Russian troops ravage Ukraine, the international system is once again in the middle of an unstable transition to a new bipolar power structure—this time with the United States and China as near-peer competitors and rivals. The Korean War had a lasting impact on the U.S.-Soviet Cold War rivalry and shaped many of the rules of the Cold War. Today, it is already obvious that the war in Ukraine strongly informs the new era of Sino-U.S. rivalry, even if the West’s main antagonist in this war is Moscow, not Beijing.
North Korean troops crossed the border into South Korea in June 1950. The three years of war that followed not only sealed the fate of the Korean nation as divided for decades to come, but it also had long-term implications for the world order. The signals of change had been present for some time already. Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had famously announced in 1946 that an “iron curtain” had descended across the European continent; after the Chinese communists took control of the mainland in 1949, then-Chinese leader Mao Zedong traveled to Moscow to sign a friendship treaty with his Soviet counterpart, Joseph Stalin. However, the Korean War strongly contributed to moving world politics toward a U.S.-Soviet divide. The war played a major role intensifying the Cold War on a global scale. It also consolidated NATO as an alliance.
The war in Ukraine heralds the start of another such geopolitical reorganization. During the last three to four years, the rise of China has triggered a vocal debate about whether the Sino-U.S. rivalry will turn into a new cold war, where the United States seeks to contain China. Already, all signs point toward the return of a bipolar power structure in the international system. Nevertheless, the war in Ukraine is both accelerating and consolidating the geopolitical divide between the United States and its allies on one side and a Sino-Russian axis on the other—much as the Korean War did for the original Cold War. It does so in four major ways.
The war in Ukraine is both accelerating and consolidating the geopolitical divide between the West and a Sino-Russian axis.
First, the war in Ukraine increases Russia’s dependency on China. The Sino-Russian partnership has steadily improved during the last decade, including by expanding economic cooperation, creating an energy partnership, conducting military exercises, practicing high-tech collaboration, and attending regular high-level meetings. There has even been a tourism boom. China is Russia’s No. 1 trading partner, and China now imports more crude oil from Russia than from any other country, with natural gas deliveries expected to grow quickly through newly constructed pipelines. Strong ties between Beijing and Moscow are a growing concern in Washington and European capitals, but with Russia now largely isolated from the West, the war in Ukraine strengthens China’s sway over a weakened Russia.
Second, the war in Ukraine solidifies a hardened European view of China as a potential security threat. Security issues have traditionally occupied a very minor role in Europe’s outlook on China, but this has recently started to change. The European Union declared China a “systemic rival” in 2019, reflecting a realization in Europe that its partnership with China was offering more challenges and fewer opportunities. European countries set new limits on their economic interactions with China—for example, by largely excluding Huawei and other Chinese telecommunications companies from building 5G infrastructure. Last year, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg claimed that “China is coming closer to us”—and China’s unqualified support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has further strengthened this view in many European capitals. In particular, the Sino-Russian declaration of an unlimited partnership just 20 days before Moscow launched its invasion, caused unease in Europe. In the statement, released when tens of thousands of Russian troops were already assembling on the Ukrainian border, the two countries called on NATO to rule out its expansion into Eastern Europe. Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign-policy chief, called the statement an “act of defiance.” That China has emerged as a security challenge for Europe is reflected in NATO’s new Strategic Concept, which the bloc’s leaders are expected to endorse at the NATO summit this week in Madrid.
Third, the war in Ukraine intensifies the Sino-U.S. economic divide and will accelerate efforts to limit interdependency. In a bipolar rivalry, the two dominant great powers will view economic interdependency as making them mutually vulnerable. This is why, over the past three or four years, the United States and China have taken the first modest steps to decouple their close economic ties. In Beijing, the swift and strong Western response sanctioning the Russian economy has further escalated Chinese concerns about its dependency on Western technology and markets, motivating China to increase its self-sufficiency. Similarly, Europe’s dependence on Russia for its energy security is not an example Washington wants to duplicate in its relations with Beijing.
Finally, the war in Ukraine has given NATO and the trans-Atlantic community a revived sense of unity. After a few years of growing concerns in Europe and the United States about a growing rift between the two, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reversed the trend. The United States is now increasing its military presence in Europe while European NATO members are expanding their defense expenditures. Europe is finally responding to numerous calls by a long series of U.S. presidents for more balanced burden-sharing within the alliance.
The new era of Sino-U.S. rivalry will resemble the Cold War in many ways but also have unique features. The U.S.-Soviet Cold War rivalry was dangerously unstable in its early phases. The Korean War informed U.S. strategy in three specific ways: Korea and other regions once viewed as being of peripheral interest now became vital, and a perimeter defense strategy was implemented to contain the Soviet bloc across all of Eurasia. After Korea, Washington prepared for additional proxy wars and focused on its arms race with Moscow by increasing conventional and nuclear forces in close cooperation with its allies. Eventually, the Cold War’s main focus on the European land theater allowed the strategy of massive retaliation to emerge—which had a strong deterring effect on any attempts to cross the fixed line dividing continental Europe. As a result of these emerging strategies, the Cold War after Korea turned out to be highly polarized but relatively static and stable.
The Sino-U.S. rivalry, as it is now emerging, is likely to be less polarized—but also less stable. It will be less polarized due to the high level of interdependence that preceded it. China has risen within the U.S.-led liberal international order ever since then-U.S. President Richard Nixon played the “China card” against the Soviet Union in 1971. China’s economic interdependence with the United States and Europe today will likely lessen the polarizing effect of bipolarity. Furthermore, the Cold War predominantly remained a rivalry between the Soviet Union as a quasi-autarkic continental power and the United States as a sea power—a distinct role division that contributed to polarization. China, on the other hand, is now both a land and sea power, a situation that favors trade and connectivity.
Moreover, China’s geography reduces the U.S.-China geopolitical divide. From its position in the Eurasian heartland, the Soviet Union posed a threat to all Eurasian rimlands from Europe to the Far East. China’s location in the East Asian rimlands, on the other hand, limits its military reach beyond the Indo-Pacific, which will mitigate the effect of China’s rise This may also lead to diverging threat perceptions among the United States and various allies less directly affected by it—reducing balancing efforts against China. Over the long term, China’s limited geographic reach may represent a challenge to trans-Atlantic unity.
Geography is also the very reason why the U.S.-China rivalry is likely to be more unstable than the Cold War. In contrast to the land-focused Cold War, the main theater of U.S.-Chinese rivalry will be naval, with the vast expanse of the Indo-Pacific a potentially less predictable environment. Competing for command of the oceans increases the likelihood for incidents at sea, and contesting the influence over island states, naval bases, and partners in the region may make it tempting to start a limited war at sea with uncertain escalatory mechanisms. In addition, the unraveling and decoupling that is already underway will create more friction than the world saw at the time of the Korean War, where a system that was already divided and polarized was merely frozen in place. The past three decades of globalization have seduced many into thinking that great-power conflict is obsolete and belongs to a dark past. The war in Ukraine has awakened the world to a different reality.
Jo Inge Bekkevold is a senior China fellow at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies and a former Norwegian diplomat.


17. Pentagon watchdog to evaluate US intelligence sharing in support of Ukraine



Pentagon watchdog to evaluate US intelligence sharing in support of Ukraine
The Hill · by Jordan Williams · June 28, 2022
The Pentagon’s watchdog arm has announced it will look into the extent to which the Defense Department shares intelligence with European partners in support of Ukraine in its war with Russia.
The goal of the evaluation is to determine the degree to which the U.S. military “developed, planned, and executed cross-domain intelligence sharing” with its European partners, according to a Monday memo from the Defense Department’s inspector general.
The Biden administration has been open about sharing battlefield intelligence with the Ukrainians in its now four-month war with Russia, but U.S. officials have stressed that Kyiv is responsible for deciding what it targets and when.
To share such information, the White House in early March modified existing guidance for the Pentagon and U.S. spy agencies on sending data to the Ukrainian government, pushing aside bureaucratic roadblocks to intelligence sharing, The Wall Street Journal reported at the time.
The watchdog will now look at such U.S. efforts, particularly at U.S. European Command (Eucom) headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, at Special Operations Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla., the Eucom Joint Analysis Center and other locations, as it begins its investigation this month.
The Office of the Inspector General also scrutinizing the Pentagon’s plans to resupply its stockpiles of weapons and equipment — an evaluation announced last week as the U.S. military continues to transfer lethal aid to Ukraine.
In a separate undertaking, the watchdog is also looking at how the Defense Department tracks the use of funds to support Kyiv’s fight.
The Hill · by Jordan Williams · June 28, 2022
18. The One China Policy Is a Lie

An interesting short historical perspective:

Much of Beijing’s legal claim to Taiwan today rests on the 1943 Cairo Conference. Chang Kai-Shek, who led the Republic of China from 1928 until his death in 1975, but fled into exile on Taiwan after Mao’s 1949 victory, signed onto a joint statement at the conference’s conclusion which declared, “All the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be returned to the Republic of China.”
Other Chinese officials argue that the United Nations accepts Beijing’s “One China” interpretation. The late UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan did embrace the “One China” policy, but the UN Charter gave him no authority to do so. That is the realm of international treaties. The 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, which finalized peace with Japan, read, “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.” Notably, however, the Treaty did not transfer sovereignty to any other state. This is why Chinese communist authorities base their arguments on the Cairo Declaration, even though the Treaty of San Francisco supplanted it.
In a 1936 interview with journalist and author Edgar Snow, Mao himself treated Taiwan as distinct from China.
“It is the immediate task of China to regain all our lost territories, not merely to defend our sovereignty below the Great Wall,” Mao said. “We do not, however, include Korea, formerly a Chinese colony, but when we have re-established the independence of the lost territories of China, and if the Koreans wish to break away from the chains of Japanese imperialism, we will extend them our enthusiastic help in their struggle for independence. The same things applies to Formosa.”
During his first meeting with Premier Zhou Enlai, Kissinger was conciliatory. “If the Korean War hadn’t occurred…Taiwan would probably be today a part of the PRC,” he said. Kissinger may have wanted to ingratiate with a historical hypothetical, but history is not on Communist China’s side. It is tragic that a half-century later, Sullivan appears willing to embrace a Beijing narrative that Communist authorities wove out of whole cloth rather than call his Chinese counterparts out on a lie built on repetition rather than fact.


The One China Policy Is a Lie
19fortyfive.com · by ByMichael Rubin · June 28, 2022
Seeking to both assuage China and to clarify confusion left by President Joe Biden’s off-the-cuff remarks about Taiwan, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan earlier this month reiterated America’s “One China” policy while speaking at a Washington think tank. He should not have.
Put aside the unseemliness of unelected, unconfirmed staffers correcting a sitting president – an action that only reinforces the notion among foreigners that Biden is senile and not in control of his own administration. The reality is that the One China notion was born from the ambition of Mao Zedong, chairman of China’s Communist Party, and Henry Kissinger, who as national security advisor helped broker détente with Beijing.
Four years before Sullivan was born, President Richard Nixon acquiesced to the One China idea in the Shanghai Communique. But Nixon’s agreement was never as clear as Beijing claims. Rather than unequivocally endorse Mao’s statement that “the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government of China; Taiwan is a province of China,” Nixon said the “United States Government does not challenge that position” but instead “reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.”
Taiwan Was Never Part of China
Frankly, even that concession was too much. The American Enterprise Institute recently produced an edited collection entitled Defending Taiwan with contributions from Giselle Donnelly, Michael Beckley, Zack Cooper, Allison Schwartz, Hal Brands, Sheena Chestnut Greitens, Klon Kitchen, Mackenzie Eaglen, and Paul Wolfowitz, among others. My contribution was a deep dive into the question of whether Taiwan was ever really part of China. Short answer: It was not.
Historically and legally, “One China” is a lie.
History matters. Taiwan has not been under mainland Chinese control since 1894, when Japan wrested the island from Qing Dynasty control. Put another way, China has had less practical say in the governance of Taiwan than the European colonial powers who dominated Asian and African states until the middle of the last century.
Yet mainland China’s claim to historical ownership of Taiwan is even more tenuous. While the Qing Dynasty in theory ruled Taiwan for two centuries before the Japanese invaded, they never fully established control. Every few years, Taiwan erupted into rebellion. In effect, the Qing ruled in name only, but Taiwan’s aborigines and mainland immigrants had de facto autonomy. A broader irony, however, is that the Qing were only the second Chinese dynasty that the Han did not rule. Indeed, Han Chinese long argued the Qing were really foreign interlopers. In effect, Chinese nationalists cite Qing control after dismissing the Qing’s “Chineseness” for centuries. Further, in the centuries before Qing control, the Dutch and Portuguese controlled the island – or at least its accessible coasts. Indeed, while the Portuguese called Taiwan “Isla Formosa” or “Beautiful Island,” theories about the origin of the name “Taiwan” range from a bastardization of the Chinese for “Eastern Barbarians” – which would hardly indicate Chinese control – to the aboriginal word for “foreigners” used in reference to Chinese settlers.
Mainland China’s legal claims are equally tenuous.
Legal Mythologies
Much of Beijing’s legal claim to Taiwan today rests on the 1943 Cairo Conference. Chang Kai-Shek, who led the Republic of China from 1928 until his death in 1975, but fled into exile on Taiwan after Mao’s 1949 victory, signed onto a joint statement at the conference’s conclusion which declared, “All the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be returned to the Republic of China.”
Other Chinese officials argue that the United Nations accepts Beijing’s “One China” interpretation. The late UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan did embrace the “One China” policy, but the UN Charter gave him no authority to do so. That is the realm of international treaties. The 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, which finalized peace with Japan, read, “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.” Notably, however, the Treaty did not transfer sovereignty to any other state. This is why Chinese communist authorities base their arguments on the Cairo Declaration, even though the Treaty of San Francisco supplanted it.
In a 1936 interview with journalist and author Edgar Snow, Mao himself treated Taiwan as distinct from China.
“It is the immediate task of China to regain all our lost territories, not merely to defend our sovereignty below the Great Wall,” Mao said. “We do not, however, include Korea, formerly a Chinese colony, but when we have re-established the independence of the lost territories of China, and if the Koreans wish to break away from the chains of Japanese imperialism, we will extend them our enthusiastic help in their struggle for independence. The same things applies to Formosa.”
During his first meeting with Premier Zhou Enlai, Kissinger was conciliatory. “If the Korean War hadn’t occurred…Taiwan would probably be today a part of the PRC,” he said. Kissinger may have wanted to ingratiate with a historical hypothetical, but history is not on Communist China’s side. It is tragic that a half-century later, Sullivan appears willing to embrace a Beijing narrative that Communist authorities wove out of whole cloth rather than call his Chinese counterparts out on a lie built on repetition rather than fact.
Expert Biography – Now a 1945 Contributing Editor, Dr. Michael Rubin is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Dr. Rubin is the author, coauthor, and coeditor of several books exploring diplomacy, Iranian history, Arab culture, Kurdish studies, and Shi’ite politics, including “Seven Pillars: What Really Causes Instability in the Middle East?” (AEI Press, 2019); “Kurdistan Rising” (AEI Press, 2016); “Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes” (Encounter Books, 2014); and “Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos” (Palgrave, 2005).
19fortyfive.com · by ByMichael Rubin · June 28, 2022

​19. NATO ties to Finland and Sweden could aid US with useful tactics for the Pacific, naval experts say

​


NATO ties to Finland and Sweden could aid US with useful tactics for the Pacific, naval experts say
Stars and Stripes · by Alison Bath · June 28, 2022
The Finnish ship FNS Hanko sails with Standing NATO Maritime Group One during a passing exercise in the Baltic Sea in 2017. Should Finland and Sweden join NATO, they could help the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps develop tactics useful in deterring China in parts of the Indo-Pacific region. (Christian Valverde/NATO)

If Sweden and Finland succeed in joining NATO, their addition could provide the fringe benefit of enhancing U.S. strategies and tactics against a rival far removed from Atlantic waters, according to analysts.
Navy and Marine Corps personnel carrying out operations to deter China would do well to pick up some pointers from their counterparts in the two aspirants to the trans-Atlantic alliance, they say.
The Swedish and Finnish navies excel in exploiting the geography of the Baltic Sea region by using small, elusive, missile-armed surface patrol craft and conventional submarines to mask their whereabouts, said James Holmes, who chairs the maritime strategy program at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, R.I.
Honed by decades of countering Russian aggression, the skills of their naval forces include proficiency at operating near islands or major landmasses and mingling with nonmilitary surface traffic to elude detection, tracking and targeting.
Such a skill set would be “useful in expeditionary advanced base operations, the U.S. Marine Corps’ concept for fighting in the western Pacific,” Holmes said, adding that the same abilities also would be useful for stiffening Taiwan’s defense.
“If you want to go small, as the U.S. Navy and USMC talk all the time about doing, then why not ask those who are small and thus clever at harnessing such advantages as they have?” Holmes said.
The Swedish support ship HSwMS Carlskrona, right, and the Finnish pollution control vessel FNS Louhi sail with the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, not seen, during an exercise in the Baltic Sea, May 17, 2022. Should Finland and Sweden join NATO, they could help the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps develop tactics useful in deterring China in parts of the Indo-Pacific region. (Taylor Parker/U.S. Navy)
Sweden and Finland formally applied in May for NATO membership, but Turkey objected, citing concerns about their perceived support for Kurdish groups that Ankara considers terrorist organizations. Earlier this month, Turkey threatened to delay the membership process by as much as a year.
On Tuesday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan dropped his objections during a meeting with Swedish and Finnish leaders ahead of this week’s NATO summit in Madrid. The next step is for the legislatures of each ally to grant approval.
Lessons on topics such as how to use topography to evade detection by an aggressor could come more easily for American sailors and Marines if Sweden and Finland are admitted to NATO, said Bryan Clark, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Defense Concepts and Technology.
Their navies also could deploy ships with NATO carrier strike groups, further increasing learning and integration opportunities, Clark said. Both countries are closely aligned with the U.S. and NATO, frequently participating in exercises such as the U.S.-led BALTOPS.
But their partner status means they are not part of the alliance command structure, which limits their ability to fully integrate, Clark said.
Holmes, Clark and other analysts also stress that the potential benefits of accepting the two countries into NATO must be measured against the additional commitments the alliance would shoulder, such as helping Finland defend the more than 800-mile border it shares with Russia.
Finnish minelayer FNS Haemeenmaa sails during an exercise with the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge in the Baltic Sea, May 16, 2022. Should Finland and Sweden join NATO, they could help the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps develop tactics useful in deterring China in parts of the Indo-Pacific region. (Taylor Parker/U.S. Navy)
“(Sweden and Finland) would need a lot of help from NATO and the U.S. to defend themselves if Russia really wanted to invade,” said Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
As a direct result of Russia’s unprovoked full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, both countries jettisoned decades of neutrality and sought to bring their national defense under NATO’s collective security umbrella.
Russian President Vladimir Putin cited NATO’s enlargement in the former Moscow-dominated Eastern bloc as one supposed justification for attacking Ukraine, which for several years has expressed a desire for membership in the alliance.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Putin’s calculations had backfired, as the accession of Finland and Sweden would bring more NATO to Russia’s doorstep, not less.
NATO and the U.S. have more to gain than lose if Sweden and Finland join the alliance, said retired Adm. James Foggo, who led U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa and Allied Joint Forces Command Naples from 2017-2020.
Admitting them would make NATO more robust, give it more capability and provide more security, said Foggo, who is now the dean of the Center for Maritime Strategy at the Navy League. And regardless of alliance status, if Russia invaded Finland, the conflict likely would soon spill over into a NATO country, requiring intervention, he said.
“So why not extend that forward perimeter even further along the border of a sovereign nation who is friendly to the West, a good ally and a good partner and frankly an exceptional fighting force?” Foggo said.

Stars and Stripes · by Alison Bath · June 28, 2022


20. U.S. popular support for Ukraine aid declines amid ongoing economic woes

To repeat General Mattis' words, "America doesn't lose wars. It loses interest."


U.S. popular support for Ukraine aid declines amid ongoing economic woes
Newsweek · by Jalen Small · June 28, 2022
Top national security experts now predict that the war in Ukraine will go on longer than first anticipated.
"A war Vladimir Putin thought would be over in a matter of days has now stretched on for months," U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said during a press conference in Berlin on Sunday.
The Secretary-General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, shared a similar assessment earlier this month, when he told the Washington Post that the fighting could easily drag into an "unresolved conflict," with neither side willing to make the concessions necessary for any deal.
"We need to be prepared that this may actually drag on for a long time," he said.

An elderly woman walks away from a burning house garage after shelling in the city of Lysytsansk at the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbas on May 30, 2022, on the 96th day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Since failing to capture Kyiv in the war's early stages, Russia's army has narrowed its focus, hammering Donbas cities with artillery and missile barrages as it seeks to consolidate its control. Photo by ARIS MESSINIS/AFP via Getty Images
While governments have committed to supporting Ukraine until diplomatic terms can be negotiated, the domestic politics of an extended war are less straightforward.
And as the war reaches its 125th day, polls suggest that Americans are growing anxious about the its rising costs.
The Devex Funding Platform found that the U.S. and other foreign governments gave more than $100 billion in economic and military aid to Ukraine between February 24 and June 7. Data from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy reveals that the U.S. has given more than all other donor nations and institutions combined.
But considering the rising inflation and political uncertainty at home, Bruce Stokes, Visiting Senior Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, said the European experts he has spoken with are worried that both American and European resolve to support Ukraine will eventually waver.
"Europeans are asking questions about America's steadfastness and their own," he told Newsweek. "There seems to be an uncertainty about America's political system, which might translate into uncertainty about America's role in Ukraine."
Polling data from the Morning Consult suggests that American support for financial assistance to Ukraine has already atrophied.
Some 86% of American voters are at least somewhat concerned about Russia's invasion of Ukraine, according to the Russia-Ukraine Crisis Tracker. However, only 46% of American voters currently agree that the government should impose sanctions on Russia, even if it causes the price of goods to rise — down from the 56% who agreed with the statement in April.
Data also showed that for the fourth straight week, the share of U.S. voters who say their government should impose sanctions on Russian oil and natural gas, even if it causes energy prices to rise, are now in the minority, down from a high of 55% in April to just 46% this week.
Compared to Democrats, approval for these policies among Republicans is even lower. While 55% of Democrats support it, only 39% of Republicans support sanctions regardless of the rising prices of goods. And while 55% of Democrats support sanctions despite rising gas prices, just 42% of Republicans feel the same way.
These disparities may speak to the rising power of what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnel has dubbed "isolationist sentiment" in the party.
Despite his public statements, the share of Republican voters who say the United States is doing "too much" to halt Russia's invasion of Ukraine has increased, from 13% in March to 23% in the latest survey.
And while it received unanimous support from Democrats, 57 Republicans in the House and 11 in the Senate voted against the Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act in May, which eventually passed, to deliver $40 billion in aid to Ukraine.
On the international stage, Biden officials have tried to assuage fears about wavering domestic support.
After the U.S. Department of Defense announced $450 million more in military aid on Thursday, bringing total U.S. security assistance during this conflict to $6.1 billion, Secretary of State Antony Blinken reaffirmed the country's commitment to Ukraine.
"We are giving Ukraine the support it needs to defend itself for as long as it takes, and we will continue to do so," he said.
But while officials assert these commitments, Stokes points out that Biden's foreign policy decisions and his handling of the economy will be judged on the ballot during the upcoming midterm elections in November.
And with Biden's current approval ratings at a term-low 36%, he added that there is some reason for European allies to doubt the ability of the U.S. to follow through on certain long-term commitments.
Only 21% of Americans have a "great deal" of confidence in Joe Biden's ability to handle the situation in Ukraine, according to an A.P. poll conducted in May. That percentage falls to just 2% among Republicans.
Citing public opinion data from the U.S., Stokes said, "there is evidence that a portion of the American public is saying, 'we support what we are doing in Ukraine,' but there's also some hesitancy emerging about how much more we should do."
Former President Donald Trump, who repeatedly criticized NATO throughout his presidency, is helping to stoke some of this disapproval.
At his Save America rally in Illinois on Saturday, he criticized Biden's foreign policy strategy and described America as a once-great nation.
"Two years ago, it was the greatest nation in the world," he told the crowd. "But it is no longer a great nation; it is a nation in decline. It is no longer energy independent or energy dominant like it was just two years ago."
"It surrendered in Afghanistan, and it allowed Russia to devastate a country (Ukraine), killing hundreds of thousands of people. It will only get worse," he later warned, adding, "It would never have happened with me."
Stokes said these intensifying attacks from some Republicans, combined with low approval ratings and rising inflation, bring uncertainty to Biden's foreign policy strategy in the future.
"Trump raised serious doubts in Europeans minds about whether they could trust the United States going forward," he told Newsweek.
"What Europeans fear is that America will one day say, 'The war is over, we are going to pivot back to Asia, this is your problem, and go rebuild Ukraine,''' he said.
"So I think that one should worry about, not only declining support for the war now, but whether the support would be there to rebuild Ukraine, assuming we get the opportunity to do so," he added.
Newsweek · by Jalen Small · June 28, 2022


21. Biden must rally against a Russia-led UN ‘cybercrime treaty’

Excerpts:
The U.S. should rally like-minded nations that support an open and free internet to push back against Russia and China’s authoritarian bloc. During the negotiations, the U.S. should insist on narrowing down the definition of “cybercrime” so it does not become a facade for Sino-Russian free speech witch-hunt. China and Russia have sought to control international organizations via working groups and the U.S. and like-minded nations need to raise awareness of Sino-Russian manipulation via the Open-Ended Working Group. Currently, the Budapest Convention regulates cybercrime and although this treaty is not perfect, it better protects digital human rights.
Make no mistake, the U.N. is no panacea and it will not prevent malign digital actors from China and Russia from committing cybercrimes globally. To the contrary, for as long as the United States fails to rally allies to the cause of digital freedom and cedes global regulation to the notoriously unreliable United Nations, human rights and internet freedom will be at risk.

​

Biden must rally against a Russia-led UN ‘cybercrime treaty’
BY IVANA STRADNER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 06/28/22 7:00 AM ET
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
The Hill · by Niall Stanage · June 28, 2022
In the midst of Russian-led cyber attacks against Ukraine and attempts to probe critical United States infrastructure, the United Nations began negotiations to draft a new cybercrime treaty. Improbably, this global law enforcement initiative is championed by Moscow and supported by Beijing. Weird? A little, but a closer look reveals that the initiative has little to do with combating cybercrime. Russia and China seek to legitimize authoritarian internet control and undermine digital human rights. And the Biden administration needs to mobilize to arrest momentum toward a Sino-Russian cybersecurity coup at the U.N.
The U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution last year on countering cybercrime globally. It plans to complete a draft treaty by 2023. The Kremlin’s cyber envoy celebrated the U.N. resolution as a “triumphant success of Russian diplomacy.” It’s easy to understand his excitement.
While the Kremlin’s focus on U.N. cyber regulation may seem counterintuitive given Moscow’s blatant disregard for international law, Russian President Vladimir Putin is adept at manipulating international institutions. Instead of abandoning the U.N., which would disadvantage Russia, Putin wants to co-opt it to suit the Kremlin’s needs.
Russia has been trying to regulate cyberspace globally since 1998. However, Moscow refused to sign the 2001 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime because it threatened Russia’s digital sovereignty. After almost a decade of trying to replace it, in 2018 the Kremlin saw an opportunity to tilt the playing field in its favor. That year, the United States and Russia launched competing initiatives to set the terms of debate for a new global cybersecurity treaty. The Russia-led initiative won out in 2019, partially due to America’s reduced involvement in international institutions under the Trump administration, which allowed Moscow to rally like-minded nations.
The Russian-led resolution provides a vague definition of cybercrime that suits the Kremlin’s interests. This year, 130 civil society organizations and academics across the globe signed a letter warning that this treaty could undermine human rights, including freedom of expression and access to information. No surprise, as the Moscow-led U.N. resolution is modeled after Russia’s restrictive domestic internet policies.
At home, the Kremlin restricts access to social media and secure communication platforms. In 2019, Putin signed the “sovereign internet law” allowing Russia to restrict social media platforms in order to protect Russia’s “digital sovereignty.” The law theoretically allows Russia to impose fines on platforms that do not block forbidden content such as calls for suicide, child pornography, or information on drug use; but they are often invoked when Western social media platforms do not bend to the will of the Kremlin. Earlier this year, Putin signed additional legislation threatening prison for those who oppose government talking points on the war in Ukraine.
Many in the West should understand that for authoritarian regimes, information control is ideological. Russia wants to use its homegrown “Runet” instead of the global internet; Beijing is no different. China has its “Golden Shield Project,” a digital security system that allows the government to surveil its citizens on the internet and censor their access to online content. If adopted, the U.N. treaty drafted by the Kremlin would help them legitimize their efforts by giving Russia’s “sovereign internet law” and China’s “Golden Shield Project” international legitimacy. Russia and China reiterated readiness to strengthen cooperation in cyberspace in 2021 when they signed an agreement “on cooperation in ensuring international information security.”
In October, the Biden administration ceded to the Kremlin and naively submitted a joint U.S.-Russia resolution on international information security, which Moscow used to co-opt Washington. The resolution favored the Kremlin’s language and the Russian government called it a “historic moment.” Instead of “cybersecurity,” the conventional word in American discourse, it spoke of “information security,” the favored Russian military buzzword, which, in addition to its technical aspects, also includes the psychological side of Russian information operations.
The U.S. should rally like-minded nations that support an open and free internet to push back against Russia and China’s authoritarian bloc. During the negotiations, the U.S. should insist on narrowing down the definition of “cybercrime” so it does not become a facade for Sino-Russian free speech witch-hunt. China and Russia have sought to control international organizations via working groups and the U.S. and like-minded nations need to raise awareness of Sino-Russian manipulation via the Open-Ended Working Group. Currently, the Budapest Convention regulates cybercrime and although this treaty is not perfect, it better protects digital human rights.
Make no mistake, the U.N. is no panacea and it will not prevent malign digital actors from China and Russia from committing cybercrimes globally. To the contrary, for as long as the United States fails to rally allies to the cause of digital freedom and cedes global regulation to the notoriously unreliable United Nations, human rights and internet freedom will be at risk.
Ivana Stradner is an adviser to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where her work focuses on Russia’s information warfare. Follow her on Twitter @ivanastradner.
The Hill · by Niall Stanage · June 28, 2022


​22. Turkey Supports Hamas, Which Means an Alliance With Israel Isn't Going To Happen




Turkey Supports Hamas, Which Means an Alliance With Israel Isn't Going To Happen
After years of watching Erdoğan gut Turkey’s institutions and offer jihadists of all stripes a warm welcome, Israel no longer trusts its former ally.
JONATHAN SCHANZER
JUNE 28 2022

Hay Eytan Cohen Yanarocak’s excellent essay of June 7 asks three vital questions. First, can Israel and Turkey restore their alliance? Second, how do recent world events affect this effort? Lastly, is reconciliation desirable?
Let’s work backwards. There is no doubt that reconciliation with Turkey is desirable, at least from Israel’s perspective. The tensions with Turkey are unwanted across the security establishment. And normalization with Muslim states is broadly welcomed by the public. Turkey, for its part, is now also signaling that it wishes to reconcile after years of antagonizing the Jewish state and supporting its enemies. One might ask, however, whether Ankara’s intentions are pure. The effort to draw Israel near appears to stem from the presumption that Jewish power is the key to realigning with Washington. That’s not the ideal motivation. But rapprochement for any reason is probably preferable to open hostilities.
Regarding the second question, Yanarocak has done an admirable job examining the ways in which recent global crises and opportunities may impact decision-making in Ankara and Jerusalem. But the operative word is “may.” These are unknowns.
The key question, in my view, is the author’s first one: can Israel and Turkey restore their alliance? This is worth unpacking further.
I recently asked a senior Israeli diplomat what he believed would come of the recent efforts to reset relations. His answer was disheartening. He predicted that Turkey and Israel would at no time soon enjoy a warm peace akin to what Jerusalem now enjoys with the United Arab Emirates. Rather, he predicted that the relationship would look like the “cold peace” that has historically characterized ties between Israel and Egypt. As he then went on to clarify, he did not have in mind the current lukewarm relations with Abdel Fatah el-Sisi’s Egypt, but rather the cold peace of the 1980s to early 2000s, when Hosni Mubarak was in power and—despite robust security cooperation—anti-Israel sentiment was effectively state policy. Such is the profoundly hostile atmosphere that the Turkish strongman Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has carefully cultivated during his two-decade rule.
The Israeli military brass is no less pessimistic. Under no foreseeable circumstance will the IDF restore the defense ties of the 1990s, when it shared some of its coveted technology with the Turkish military. Trust has been thoroughly eroded by Ankara’s cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda affiliate groups in Syria, and even Islamic State. Equally corrosive is the Erdoğan government’s permissive attitude toward the presence of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on its soil, as recently revealed by the narrowly thwarted plots against Israelis.
More troubling still, perhaps, is the Turkish government’s support for Hamas. The Islamist group’s political activists, fundraisers, and even terrorist operatives roam freely throughout the country with the blessing of Erdoğan, who has frequently hosted its most senior leaders and posed for pictures with them. Take, for instance, Saleh Arouri, a top Hamas military commander, who planned and financed the 2014 kidnapping and killing of three teenagers in the West Bank, thus sparking that year’s war in Gaza. Today, Arouri shuttles between Lebanon and Turkey, assembling Hamas rocket arsenals in Lebanon that are intended to draw the latter country into a two-front conflict with Israel at a later date. This was revealed in a letter to the UN submitted by the Israeli delegation in 2018.
Yes, the Turkish military has traditionally been a bastion of secularism to counter this kind of jihadist activity in Turkey. But that has simply ceased to be the case. Israel’s defense establishment no longer trusts its Turkish counterparts to fulfill their historic role of anti-Islamist bulwark after years of watching jihadists of all stripes, Sunni and Shiite alike, enjoy a warm welcome in the country. Retired Israeli military figures have said as much to me in off-the-record conversations.
These concerns date back at least to the failed coup of June 2016, which gave Erdoğan a pretext to purge the defense establishment of loyalists of the Pennsylvania-based religious scholar Fethullah Gulen. Erdoğan proceeded to gut the military and rebuild it to his liking. Formerly the strongest check on the president’s power, it is now a shell of what it once was, unable to safeguard the secular character of the Turkish state that had been the vision of the founding father of the modern republic, Kamal Ataturk.
And the military is not the only institution that Erdoğan has gutted. The police, the judiciary, and the media are among the other pillars of Turkish society that he has slowly dismantled. The end result is a country under tight centralized control. For Israel, then, rapprochement is only as dependable as Erdoğan himself. And the Turkish strongman’s antagonistic foreign policy has been consistently colored by populism and Islamism, both of which traditionally feed on anti-Israel sentiment in the Muslim world.
Those who still hold out hope for Turkey’s future point to the elections slated to take place next year, which could theoretically topple Erdoğan. To be sure, there are liberal forces at work doing everything possible to bring that about. But at this point, with so many levers of control at his fingertips, pessimists (or perhaps realists) fear that Erdoğan will not allow that to happen.
Despite all of this, there are still those in Israel who suggest that the trade relationship alone justifies preserving the fiction of peace with Turkey. In 2020, Israeli exports to Turkey totaled some $1.5 billion, with Turkish exports to Israel exceeding $4.6 billion. Many Israelis enjoy vacations in nearby Turkey—a half million in 2019 alone. And many more like to transit the convenient Istanbul airport when flying to the Far East and Europe.
Yet after the recent revelations of Iranian operatives trying to kidnap Israelis in Turkey, Jerusalem is warning citizens not to travel there. Turkey, for its part, is already struggling with a burgeoning economic crisis, and can little afford to lose the influx of Israeli tourism dollars. It is also concerned that the news of Iranian terrorists roaming free in the country may deter other nationals from visiting. Sensitive to this, Israeli leaders—including President Isaac Herzog and Foreign Minister (and soon-to-be interim Prime Minister) Yair Lapid—have tried to work with the Turks to mitigate the damage, in a clear effort to keep rapprochement on track.
Whether these efforts are worthwhile remains to be seen. At best, reconciliation is a long-term investment—a bet on the future of Turkey, long after Erdoğan is gone. Until then, Israel can try to perpetuate the fiction of mending fences with a regime that is increasingly autocratic and consistently anti-Israel. Indeed, cold peace is an optimistic outcome for a government that still hosts a Hamas headquarters in the heart of Istanbul.
Will the government that follows be able to break meaningfully from Erdoğan’s corrupted institutions and disgraceful policies? That remains to be seen. But I am not sanguine.




23. Anti-personnel landmines still play a vital part in defending against an invader





Anti-personnel landmines still play a vital part in defending against an invader - Breaking Defense
"We can all agree that unexploded ordnance is horrific," writes David E. Johnson. "Nevertheless, anti-personnel landmines, when used legally, provide a vital tool for resisting an invader."
breakingdefense.com · by David E. Johnson · June 28, 2022
A “Danger Mine” sign is taped around the area as Ukrainian bomb disposal experts and de-mining teams clear a lake and field of unexploded munitions and mines in Horenka suburb on May 27, 2022 in Kyiv, Ukraine. (Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)
On June 21, President Joe Biden met a campaign promise by rolling back Trump-era changes made to America’s anti-personnel landmine policy. It was a move met with applause by the nonproliferation community — but in the following op-ed, David E. Johnson of the RAND Corporation writes that landmines still have a potential war to play in war.
The Biden administration’s recent announcement of its intention to adhere to the provisions of the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel landmines has real consequences. Going forward, the United States will not use, stockpile, produce, or transfer those weapons any longer. Maintaining sufficient stocks for the unique situation of defending South Korea is the one exception; all other anti-personnel landmines will be destroyed.
This decision is the latest in the long controversy over the use of anti-personnel landmines and, more broadly, what means are moral in war. Indeed, the Biden policy is a return to that of the Obama administration, which had been reversed by the Trump administration. These policy changes can be made at the presidential level, because the Ottawa Convention against anti-personnel land mines is not, by strict definition, a “treaty.” Treaties must be ratified by a two-third affirmative vote in the Senate, which is unimaginable in the current US political landscape. What is somewhat surprising is that the war in Ukraine seems to not have changed the minds of those convinced that anti-personnel landmines weapons must be banned.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley explained the importance of landmines for the Ukrainians during his April testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying “I do think land mines are important, especially if you’re in the defense…. The landmines are being effectively used by Ukrainian forces to shape the avenues of approach by Russian armed forces… anti-tank or anti-personal mines are very effective when used in combat.” (Interestingly, a State official in June stated that Ukraine is not using anti-personnel landmines, despite Milley’s testimony implying their use in April.)
Milley was on solid ground during the hearing, but now appears out of step with the Biden administration’s stated policy. A particular difference of opinion would seem to be his statements that anti-personnel landmines are necessary in conjunction with anti-tank landmines in order to keep enemy soldiers from moving and disarming these larger landmines; anti-tank landmines have pressure activated fuses that require the weight of a vehicle to set them off, meaning they are (relatively) easy to move or disarm by a trained professional. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Milley raised these concerns with the White House, per an anonymous State official, but were apparently overruled.
Despite couching his comments in pure battlefield terminology, Milley had to know he was entering a minefield himself with opponents who passionately believe that anti-personnel landmines must be completely banned.
There is strong support in the Senate for banning anti-personnel landmines. A resolution by Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, a long time champion of banning anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions, is representative: “Let us be the country that not only denounces their use in Ukraine, but denounces and renounces their use everywhere.”
Within days of the hearing the US Campaign to Ban Landmines – US Cluster Munition Coalition issued a press release, supported by a number of organizations, that “condemns use of anti-personnel landmines regardless of potential military value.” They soon followed up with a letter to Biden entreating him “to ban their use, production, acquisition, and transfer and to swiftly accede to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, aka the Ottawa Convention of which more than 160 nations have signed..
The problem with anti-personnel landmines — and another weapon often labeled as inhumane, cluster munitions — is that they do not always function properly. The unexploded weapon can be detonated years later by an unsuspecting civilian. Milley understands this danger and noted that this is a technical problem that can be solved by making the mine deactivate after a specified time and become inert.
But to those who believe that use of these weapons can never be justified, none of Miley’s arguments are relevant. It does not matter that the mines could be rendered inert — they should be banned so that they can never be used again. It’s a lovely idea, but one that may simply be unrealistic in conflicts of resistance.
We can all agree that unexploded ordnance is horrific, particularly when it injures or kills unsuspecting civilians long after a conflict ends. Nevertheless, anti-personnel landmines, when used legally, provide a vital tool for resisting an invader. It is beyond the pale to think of denying them to the Ukrainians as they fight for their survival.
Similar outrage has appeared periodically about Russians wantonly using weapons that are supposedly banned by the Geneva Convention. Their employment of thermobarics, white phosphorous — as well as cluster munitions and landmines — were erroneously characterized as illegal, because the weapons themselves are illegal. In the early days of the Ukraine War, these accusations were a common refrain in the media.
These weapons are horrible as are all weapons of war. They are not, however, illegal. Furthermore, they are in the arsenals of many nations because they are effective. The illegality is in their use — as with all weapons ranging from rifle bullets to cruise missiles — when they are employed indiscriminately against civilians.
Ironically, anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions are generally small and have a relatively a small radius of damage as compared to weapons that are dumb and even more deadly. Fragmentation from the US Mk84 2,000 pound bomb will kill people up to 360 meters from its point of impact. Its blast can cause severe injuries out to 800 meters. Antipersonnel landmines and the small munitions that come from a cluster munition round are more like the US MK32 hand grenade, which has an effective casualty radius of two meters in open areas.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley speaks during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the conclusion of military operations in Afghanistan and plans for future counterterrorism operations on Capitol Hill on September 28, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Patrick Semansky-Pool/Getty Images)
These discussions that avoid the reality of the effectiveness of anti-personnel landmines and other weapons are generally among nations that have not been involved in a large-scale war against a well-armed, competent aggressor since World War II. Thus, the view has evolved, during over 70 years of relative peace, that some weapons are irredeemably wrong. This perspective, right or wrong, was possible because the weapons were not necessary in the future conflicts that the signatories envisioned.
As we are seeing in Ukraine, the future envisioned when the Ottawa Convention was signed — a peaceful, post-Cold War world—is not reality. The Ukrainians find themselves trying to thwart a well-armed, ruthless aggressor. As they must, they are using every legal weapon at their disposal. This should be the case for other nations facing similar aggression in the future.
What would advocates of the absolute ban of anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions tell the Ukrainians? That is better that they suffer more casualties, if not lose the war, so long as they still maintain their moral superiority? Or, consider an American soldier guarding a border somewhere in the future. Tell that trooper that although there are weapons that could slow an enemy invasion by bolstering his defensive position, he will not have them because they are inhumane and, therefore, inappropriate. We would all be well served to recall the words of the Union Civil War General William T. Sherman: “War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.”
What separates the morality of the weapons being used in the ongoing war in Ukraine is not the means, but the purpose of their employment. In the case of Ukraine, defense versus Russian aggression.
Consequently, it is absolutely proper for the Ukrainians to use these weapons in their defense to stop the Russians in their immoral and illegal act of aggression. The same would hold true for any state, to include the signatories of the conventions banning their use, in similar circumstances.
The possibility of future Russian aggression is no longer a wargaming scenario to test concepts and capabilities; it is a threat that must be mitigated. Given that NATO is a defensive alliance, anti-personnel landmines, cluster munitions, and other legal but shunned weapons may have a vital role to play in the defense of the alliance. Indeed, they would be vital in defending the small, isolated Baltic States if Russia ever invaded. Their defense would likely be as difficult as that of South Korea.
Insistence on an absolute ban on weapons such as anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions, rather than taking a more realistic view of their military necessity, is dangerous because ignoring their utility can undermine the ability to prevail in the larger moral struggle. Anti-personnel landmines can be a danger to civilians, but the US exception for their use in South Korea shows that they still have a vital role to play in war.
It is likely too late to revisit the Biden decision, but at some point the implications of the war in Ukraine need to be assessed to understand what means the United States, it allies, and partners will require to defend against possible aggression by Russia and China—neither of whom are signatories to the Ottawa Convention. These are the adversaries for which every administration since Obama’s have told the military to prepare. If anti-personnel landmines figure into this calculus, then the military should be directed to do what Milley said was possible: develop anti-personnel landmines that render themselves inert or self-destruct so that they will pose no future hazard.
Bottom line: mines work. And I imagine the Ukrainians would agree that dealing with unexploded ordnance is surely preferable to living under Russian occupation.
David Johnson is a retired Army colonel. He is a principal researcher at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation and an adjunct scholar at the Modern War Institute at West Point. He is the author of Fast Tanks and Heavy Bombers: Innovation in the US Army 1917-1945. From 2012-2014 he founded and directed the Chief of Staff of the Army Strategic Studies Group for General Raymond T. Odierno.


24. Show Me the Money: Boost the Pacific Deterrence Initiative


Or money talks and BS walks.  

Excerpts:
Even without dedicated funding, the initiative has served as a political catalyst, particularly on Capitol Hill. It has provided Congress a regional lens through which to interpret a sprawling defense budget. It has broadened understanding of what is needed to maintain U.S. military advantage in the Indo-Pacific. And it has made possible otherwise unlikely policy outcomes, such as funding for missile defense in Guam that languished for years prior to the initiative’s establishment.
That said, the political boost of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative is wearing off, and the limits of the initiative as a budget display are increasingly evident. Congress and the Pentagon have yet to provide the same kind or level of funding in the Indo-Pacific that has proven “absolutely vital” in Europe. Congressional increases to the defense budget in recent years have not been effectively targeted or implemented to address capability gaps and capacity shortfalls in the Indo-Pacific on a sustained programmatic basis.
As it considers fiscal year 2023 defense authorization and appropriations bills, Congress should not merely add money to various accounts that compose the Pacific Deterrence Initiative for a single year. Instead, it should transform the initiative into a dedicated appropriations account — one whose funding is separate from and in addition to the budgets of the military services, managed directly by the Office of the Secretary of Defense in consultation with U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, and competitively allocated to the programs, projects, and activities that best advance joint requirements in the Indo-Pacific theater.


Show Me the Money: Boost the Pacific Deterrence Initiative - War on the Rocks
warontherocks.com · by Dustin Walker · June 29, 2022
Eight years ago, Vladimir Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine and illegal seizure of Crimea forced the United States to get serious about deterrence in Europe — and pay for it. In the proceeding years, the United States dedicated nearly $30 billion to the European Deterrence Initiative to reinvigorate U.S. military posture and capabilities on the continent.
Two years ago, Congress decided on a bipartisan basis that a similar effort was needed in the Indo-Pacific region — not to respond to a war, but to prevent one. And so, it established the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. But a legislative compromise meant the initiative did not provide dedicated funding like its European predecessor did, or as its advocates had originally intended. Instead, the Pacific Deterrence Initiative was created as a “budget display,” a transparency measure meant to capture significant Indo-Pacific efforts across the defense budget and enable Congress “to track these efforts over time, assess their progress, and make adjustments when necessary.”
Even without dedicated funding, the initiative has served as a political catalyst, particularly on Capitol Hill. It has provided Congress a regional lens through which to interpret a sprawling defense budget. It has broadened understanding of what is needed to maintain U.S. military advantage in the Indo-Pacific. And it has made possible otherwise unlikely policy outcomes, such as funding for missile defense in Guam that languished for years prior to the initiative’s establishment.
That said, the political boost of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative is wearing off, and the limits of the initiative as a budget display are increasingly evident. Congress and the Pentagon have yet to provide the same kind or level of funding in the Indo-Pacific that has proven “absolutely vital” in Europe. Congressional increases to the defense budget in recent years have not been effectively targeted or implemented to address capability gaps and capacity shortfalls in the Indo-Pacific on a sustained programmatic basis.
As it considers fiscal year 2023 defense authorization and appropriations bills, Congress should not merely add money to various accounts that compose the Pacific Deterrence Initiative for a single year. Instead, it should transform the initiative into a dedicated appropriations account — one whose funding is separate from and in addition to the budgets of the military services, managed directly by the Office of the Secretary of Defense in consultation with U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, and competitively allocated to the programs, projects, and activities that best advance joint requirements in the Indo-Pacific theater.
Timing and Strategy
Why does the Pacific Deterrence Initiative need to change now? The simple fact is that the current speed, scope, and scale of change in the Department of Defense is inadequate to ensure credible deterrence in the Indo-Pacific.
As China’s military capability and capacity have grown rapidly and simultaneously, the Pentagon has spent the last 10 years (with few exceptions) sacrificing near-term investment in readiness and posture for long-term investment in modernization and research and development. It has sought to build a “future force,” whose date of arrival moves further and further away (2025, 2030, 2035 …) even as the date of concern about Beijing’s military modernization and its ambition to control Taiwan creeps closer and closer (2049, 2035, 2027 …). Even as speculation mounts thatXi Jinping intends to achieve unification with Taiwan during his tenure and Beijing is more seriously weighing initiating a conflict, the Pentagon continues the same course. Meanwhile, U.S. military capabilities and posture in the Indo-Pacific region have changed only marginally in the last decade. New operational concepts have been introduced, but the joint capabilities necessary to execute them remain under-resourced: posture, logistics, integrated air and missile defense, persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, command and control, and more.

The Pentagon’s fiscal year 2023 request for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative epitomizes the fundamental lack of urgency, ambition, and imagination necessary to meet the pacing challenge posed by China. Funding for the initiative is inadequate. The Pentagon’s requirements. Moreover, the Pentagon projected that the initiative would shrink by more than a quarter to $4.4 billion by fiscal year 2027 — a portentous date by which China aims to accelerate its military modernization with an eye on Taiwan.
Too much of the Pentagon’s request for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative reflects the cost of sustaining rather than improving current capabilities and posture. A sizable portion of the initiative funds maintenance of existing facilities, operation of steady-state forces, and execution of legacy posture initiatives. No notable shifts of forces west of the international date line are funded. No major changes are evident in the scale or scope of security cooperation activities with regional allies and partners. And so on.
The $1.2 billion in military construction funds requested in the Pacific Deterrence Initiative request does little to close the Pentagon’s persistent “say-do” gap on regional force posture. Despite the Pentagon’s focus on a more distributed posture, over three-quarters of posture funding in the initiative is concentrated in Japan and Guam — more than a third of that at Kadena Air Base alone. In a familiar pattern, projects in the Second Island Chain, Oceania, and Southeast Asia account for a small portion of investment.
Meanwhile, only a small percentage of posture funds in the Pacific Deterrence Initiative request represents new investment in posture directly tied to making U.S. forces west of the international date line more capable, distributed, and resilient. Instead, some projects mark the continuation of posture plans long pre-dating the initiative. For example, the effort to build a new airfield at Tinian — funded at $191 million in the budget request — has been underway since 2012. Other projects simply don’t belong in the initiative, such as the $316 million for three projects associated with the Defense Policy Review Initiative to relocate Marines from Okinawa to Guam. Completing this as quickly as possible is a political imperative for the U.S.-Japan alliance. But it will not meaningfully improve U.S. deterrence posture in the region and, thus, does not advance the objectives of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative.
The Pacific Deterrence Initiative includes significant “planning and design” funds for future posture projects in the Indo-Pacific. But until backed by real military construction funds, these “planning and design” funds are the Pentagon equivalent of “look but don’t touch.” When it comes to investing in the more capable, distributed, and resilient force posture we need in the Indo-Pacific, the answer still seems to be as it was for Macbeth, “Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow.”
Posture is not the only area for which the Pentagon requested questionable funding in the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. For example, the initiative includes a request for over $300 million in Army funding related to integrated air and missile defense: modification of Patriot missiles, modernization of Sentinel radars, and research and development funds for the But budget materials draw no direct connection between these funds and activities in the Indo-Pacific theater. By contrast, funding in the European Deterrence Initiative for procurement of Patriot Missile Segment Enhancement missiles is specifically associated with a U.S. European Command munitions starter set to be pre-positioned in theater. Congress should press the Army on whether funding included in the Pacific Deterrence Initiative is contributing specifically and directly to Indo-Pacific operational needs.
Consider another example. At $1 billion, funding for the Strategic Capabilities Office (specifically, its Advanced Innovative Technologies program element) makes up one-sixth of the Pentagon’s Pacific Deterrence Initiative request. In recent years, the Strategic Capabilities Office has appropriately focused many of its technology development, demonstration, and transition efforts on China . However, the Pentagon only identified one specific project funded in the Pacific Deterrence Initiative — the Hypervelocity Gun Weapons System at $151 million — in fiscal year 2023. Congress needs to scrutinize the remaining $850 million to ensure these projects are directly focused on operational challenges in the Indo-Pacific and, if appropriate, have identified transition partners with intent to field these capabilities in theater in near term.
Put the “Budget Display” in the Rearview Mirror
Why would a dedicated appropriations account prove more effective than a budget display in effectively prioritizing the Indo-Pacific requirements? The establishment of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative as a budget display was a worthwhile compromise that has achieved important initial progress. But unless and until Congress transforms the initiative into a dedicated appropriations account, the initiative’s weaknesses evident in this year’s budget request will persist.
A budget display will not fundamentally affect how the Pentagon approaches resourcing theater requirements. The Pentagon builds its Pacific Deterrence Initiative request by conducting a post-hoc labeling drill in which the Pentagon determines which investments already planned, programmed, and budgeted meet the objectives of the initiative. In other words, inside the Pentagon, the Pacific Deterrence Initiative does not drive budget decisions, but reflects them. This is why the Pentagon’s request for the initiative reads as a grab-bag of investments — a hastily-composed Pacific anthology lacking indicia of intelligent design and composed of fragments torn from loosely related works. A dedicated appropriations account with bipartisan support from Congress would force the Pentagon to adopt a more substantive approach to developing and implementing the Pacific Deterrence Initiative as part of its Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution cycle. This would not only elevate the Indo-Pacific as driving force in Pentagon planning, it would also improve the Pentagon’s ability to absorb and execute congressional appropriations increases above the budget request intended for the Indo-Pacific.
A budget display will not sufficiently incentivize the military services to shift investment from platform-centric modernization toward joint and enabling capabilities in the Indo-Pacific theater. Seized by their own internal budget pressures, the services (with the possible exception of the Marine Corps) will not sacrifice significant sums of their own budget authority for theater-specific warfighting needs — not amid persistent budget uncertainty fanned by the Biden administration’s diminishment of defense, not while confronting the crushing modernization bills of the “Terrible 20s,” not with service cultures organized around platform-centered operational communities, and not with pernicious pockets of parochialism lurking on Capitol Hill.
Anticipated growth in Indo-Pacific requirements makes adequate resourcing from the military services under current budgetary constraints even less likely. In its independent assessment to Congress, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command identified $9.1 billion in theater requirements for fiscal year 2023, of which the budget request included $7.6 billion. But as it aims to against China in the coming years, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command projects its requirements over fiscal years 2024–2027 to average $16.7 billion annually. This substantial increase is driven by the command’s intensified focus on cyber and space capabilities as well as its previously articulated and increasingly refined posture and infrastructure needs. To put it mildly, earning support for theater requirements at this scale will be an uphill battle inside the Pentagon regardless of the administration in power.
Under these circumstances, the military services are incentivized to keep theater-specific spending on joint requirements to a minimum while broadly interpreting spending on existing programs, projects, and activities as meeting the objectives of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. This protects funding for service priorities while mollifying Congress by filling the initiative’s budget display to some acceptable level. But as the fiscal year 2023 budget request demonstrates, it dilutes the focus and quality of the initiative.
A dedicated appropriations account, controlled by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and competitively awarded, would reverse these incentives. Instead of trying to preserve budget authority to spend according to their preferences, the military services and other defense agencies would be fighting to win new budget authority. Instead of a loose interpretation of service priorities as theater requirements, a competitive dynamic would tighten focus on Indo-Pacific needs. Officials in the Pentagon and in U.S. European Command used to emphasize keeping the European Deterrence Initiative “clean” — that is, laser-focused on European requirements and free from service programs, projects, and activities that were generally applicable across theaters. A dedicated appropriations account for the Indo-Pacific would have a similar disciplinary effect.
Everyone’s a Critic?
Skepticism in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill prevented the Pacific Deterrence Initiative from becoming a dedicated appropriations account two years ago. What did opponents say then, and what are they saying now?
Back in 2020, the Trump administration expressed concern that the Pacific Deterrence Initiative would “limit DOD’s flexibility.” Indeed, some in Congress felt the same way about their own flexibility in wielding the power of the purse. Put simply, a dedicated appropriations account for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative renders some portion of defense funds less fungible for defense officials or lawmakers to move around and use as they see fit. That flexibility might be worth preserving if Indo-Pacific requirements were already effectively prioritized. But they are not. Some limited flexibility is justified to ensure a level of funding more consistent with theater needs.
Two years ago, a checkered past with appropriations accounts outside the base defense budget spoiled both executive and legislative branch appetites for dedicated Indo-Pacific appropriations. The account was widely panned as a slush fund, openly used to circumvent sequestration. Neither the Trump administration nor progressive Democrats wanted to see a repeat. For a brief period, the European Deterrence Initiative also came under scrutiny from the likes of the Government Accountability Office for lack of prioritization, failure to account for sustainment costs, and insufficient long-term planning. While these issues were subsequently addressed, they colored perceptions of standalone regional initiatives. A dedicated appropriations account for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative would no doubt require disciplined planning in the Pentagon and robust oversight from the Congress. Both are possible. And recent experience has provided lessons that can be incorporated from the outset to ensure successful execution in accordance with congressional intent.
Another concern is that dedicated appropriations would give too much power to U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, or somehow prevent the Pentagon from effectively auditing the command’s requests. This charge is spurious. U.S. Indo-Pacific Command has and should have a prominent voice in articulating Indo-Pacific requirements. Indeed, Congress has recently seen fit to boost that voice by requiring in law an annual independent assessment from the command on theater requirements and resourcing. While this assessment is as good a summary of Indo-Pacific needs as any, it is not gospel. It is subject to the same debate inside the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill as any other aspect of the budget. Moreover, a dedicated appropriations account should remain under the control of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and should be awarded through a competitive process that provides an opportunity for a variety of Pentagon stakeholders to be heard.
Finally, some skeptics feel the Pacific Deterrence Initiative should be discarded because it is too narrow and fails to fully capture the Pentagon’s real level of investment activities geared toward the China challenge. Rather than focus on specific categories of investment, these critics argue Congress needs to see the defense budget in its full context, including the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on procurement, advanced technologies, and readiness funding.
It is true that the Pacific Deterrence Initiative does not capture all Pentagon spending related to China. That’s because it was not intended to. Congress designed the initiative — to borrow a phrase — to bring balance to the force, correcting the Pentagon’s tendency to overemphasize procurement of major weapons systems while under-resourcing joint and enabling capabilities, particularly those required by new operational concepts.
For example, lawmakers argued in these pages two years ago that “it doesn’t matter how many F-35s the military buys if very few are stationed in the region, their primary bases have little defense against Chinese missiles, they don’t have secondary airfields to operate from, they can’t access pre-positioned stocks of fuel and munitions, or they can’t be repaired in theater and get back in the fight when it counts.” This insight still rings true today. Services need no special direction to buy major platforms. But it appears such direction is necessary to meet joint requirements in the Indo-Pacific. That is what a dedicated appropriations account will provide.
To be clear, the Pacific Deterrence Initiative — whether as a budget display or a dedicated appropriations account — is not a panacea. It will not fully mitigate the consequences of the Goldwater-Nichols “divorce between force providers and force employers,” or mend the “broader schism in the Pentagon processes between near- and long-term planning.” Congress must continue to pursue more fundamental reforms aimed at more effectively developing, fielding, integrating, and posturing military capabilities to be employed by the combatant commands. This is work that cannot be outsourced to commissions but must be the sustained enterprise of congressional oversight and legislation.
In Search of a Pivot
It took Putin invading Ukraine and annexing Crimea for the United States to get serious about deterrence in Europe and pay for it. Now for a second time, we’ve seen Putin wage war against Ukraine. We’ve been reminded that peace is not guaranteed, that no continent is beyond the reach of war, that some tyrants believe conquest still pays, and that power politics are a reality of our present, not just our past. Must we wait for tragedy in the Indo-Pacific before we respond with the urgency, ambition, and imagination that is required? It’s time to put real money behind the Pacific Deterrence Initiative before it’s too late.
Dustin Walker is a non-resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He was a professional staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee from 2015 to 2020, during which he served as the lead adviser to Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., on the development of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative.
warontherocks.com · by Dustin Walker · June 29, 2022

25. Air Force welcomes its first female commando with little fanfare






Air Force welcomes its first female commando with little fanfare
A woman joined one of the most elite careers in the military for the first time ever last week, but the Air Force has been low-key about it.
BY DAVID ROZA | PUBLISHED JUN 28, 2022 9:00 AM
taskandpurpose.com · by David Roza · June 28, 2022
SHARE
The type of news that usually draws attention from major media outlets and advocacy groups went largely unnoticed over the weekend. On Friday, Air Force Times first reported that an Air Force captain had just become the branch’s first female special tactics officer, an achievement akin to becoming the first female Green Beret in the Army. In most cases, this kind of news marks a major crack in the glass ceiling that hangs over women in the military, who are still not welcomed by many of their male peers and superiors.
When the Army announced in 2020 that a woman had earned the prized Green Beret for the first time; or when it announced the first female Ranger School graduates in 2015, the news came with considerable fanfare.
“From here, you will go forward and join the storied formation of the Green Berets where you will do what you are trained to do: challenge assumptions, break down barriers, smash through stereotypes, innovate, and achieve the impossible,” Lt. Gen. Fran Beaudette, then-commanding general for U.S. Army Special Operations Command, said at the time in a press release about the first female Green Beret.
Airmen from the Kentucky Air National Guard’s 123rd Special Tactics Squadron engage targets during an ambush exercise in Grubbnäsudden, Sweden, Jan. 18, 2022. (U.S. Air National Guard photo by Phil Speck)
The Air Force has been comparatively more subdued about news relating to women in its special operations fields. When Military.com first reported in March 2020 that an Air Force officer had become the first woman to complete the special tactics officer phase two assessment, the Air Force did not reveal the airman’s name due to privacy reasons. The Army also did not reveal the name of its first female Green Beret after she joined that career field due to security policy, though the branch did put out a formal press release announcing the news.
Subscribe to Task & Purpose Today. Get the latest in military news, entertainment, and gear in your inbox daily.
The news of the airman’s accomplishment comes months after Air Force Special Operations Command was accused of lowering its standards so that she could pass through the pipeline. AFSOC was also accused of pushing the airman through the process against her own protests that she was receiving special treatment. The head of AFSOC said those allegations were false or missing context, and a subsequent Air Force Inspector General investigation found no standards had been lowered specifically for the airman’s benefit. A spokesperson for Air Force Special Operations Command said that the controversy had no bearing on the Air Force’s decision not to widely publicize the airman’s accomplishment.
“As a command, we are incredibly proud of the history made last week as the first female graduated Combat Control School and became the Air Force’s first female Special Tactics Officer,” Capt. Savannah Stephens told Task & Purpose. “However, due to privacy and operational concerns, we are choosing not to identify her publicly or highlight the graduation in order to protect the integrity of future operational assignments she may have. The investigation and attention her training has received made no impact to this decision.”
Generally, AFSOC does not publicly identify or highlight special operators in order to protect them, Stephens said, including the female special tactics officer. Still, we may learn more about her in the future.
“We hope that a few years from now we’ll be able to highlight her accomplishments, as well as others that will continue to make history as we pivot to the AFSOC we will need, but for now we’re going to maintain the privacy and identities of all candidates going through the various training pipelines,” Stephens said.
U.S. Air Force Special Tactics Officer and Combat Rescue Officer candidates perform pushups during an assessment and selection March 22, 2021, at Hurlburt Field, Florida. STO/CRO selection is an arduous process, that screens candidates to become leaders in the elite Air Force Special Warfare community, leading global access, precision strike and personnel recovery. (Staff Sgt. Ridge Shan/U.S. Air Force)
The Air Force special warfare selection process and training pipeline are among the most difficult in the world. For example, the two-year combat controller training pipeline historically washes out 70 to 80% of its candidates. Air Force combat controllers and pararescue jumpers are trained to the same technical and physical standards as other special operators such as Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs. However, combat controllers and PJs also receive extensive training in the form of air traffic control and combat medicine, respectively, so they can control crowded airspace, call in airstrikes, or, in the case of PJs, evacuate wounded friendly troops from deep behind enemy lines.
For the newly-minted Air Force Special Tactics Officer, the scarlet beret she wore for the first time last week was a while in the making. Earlier in January, an anonymous member of the Air Force special operations community wrote a letter detailing how the female candidate quit the career field’s selection process and training pipeline multiple times, only to be reinstated by the leadership of AFSOC and the 24th Special Operations Wing.
The candidate “became known for quitting and getting preferential treatment,” the story said. “She quit during various points of her training, and yet all accounts were ‘brushed under the rug’ since she was closely looked at, and her status monitored by Congress and AFSOC leadership (O-6 and above) on a weekly basis.”
The head of Air Force Special Operations Command, Lt. Gen. James “Jim” Slife wrote on Facebook that “most of what the author asserted about this trainee’s experience is either factually incorrect or missing important context which would completely change the perception.” Slife then asked the Secretary of the Air Force, Frank Kendall, on Jan. 7 to direct the branch’s Inspector General to review the situation.
The anonymous letter kicked off a firestorm of controversy in the Air Force special warfare community, especially when Air Force Times reported that the trainee herself protested the training standards being lowered for her.
“I believe the change in standards invalidated me with a majority of my team,” the captain wrote in an April 2021 memo obtained by Air Force Times. “One [instructor] cadre member had a conversation with a student and said that the cadre ‘rioted’ when they found out the PT test was changing back to lesser standards.”
U.S. Air Force Special Tactics operators spread out on a berm to provide security at the landing zone and observe their target during operability training with 14th Weapons Squadron air assets at Eglin Range, Florida, April 22, 2020. (Staff Sgt. Rose Gudex/U.S. Air Force)
This is not the first time the military has been accused of lowering the standards for female service members attempting elite qualifications. In 2015, then-Rep. Steve Russell of Oklahoma asked the Army to reveal the training documents for the first female Ranger School graduates. The request followed rumors that the women had received “special treatment,” according to Army Times.
The Inspector General found that leaders did not specifically lower qualification standards to benefit the female trainee, Air Force Times reported. However, she restarted training multiple times since 2018 due to loopholes or favorable interpretation of the rules, which can also happen with male candidates, Air Force Times wrote. The investigation revealed some interesting nuances about how quitting is handled in the special tactics training pipeline. Cultural norms change over time, the investigation found.
“Witnesses testified 10+ years ago, when a candidate got out of the pool, the candidate may have been immediately removed from the [assessment and selection],” investigators wrote.
Now things are different. A director of the 24th Special Operations Wing told investigators that when a candidate tries to quit “we try to let them cool down for a minute or so and then the cadre lead and chief or the senior member … have a discussion with them … ‘hey, you know, what’s going on?’”
The director said that “[i]n order to quit with us, you get your ruck, you put it on your back, and you give your rifle up,” but the female candidate never did that at any point during the pipeline. She did exit the pool during a training session, but “She never said the words ‘I quit’ or ‘I self-eliminate,’ but rather expressed concern about letting her team down because she was struggling with a specific pool drill,” a cadre leader told investigators. The cadre then asked the candidate if she was quitting, to which she said no, and soon after reentered the pool.
The investigation stated that candidates have three chances to “quit by action,” as the female candidate did in the pool, and it’s not uncommon for male candidates to “stop training” too, one witness said. “[I]t happens often with male candidates as well, especially going through those pool sessions…it is not an abnormal occurrence…,” the witness said.
The female candidate had also quit during a solo land navigation course on her first time attempting the pipeline in 2021, but she was allowed to try again this year, Air Force Times reported.
“She’s not the first person that’s quit,” one senior enlisted leader told investigators. “There’s been many successful people that have quit and then come back, and redone it.”
Special Warfare Training Wing (SWTW) members honor the fallen with memorial pushups after the SWTW activation ceremony at Joint Base San Antonio-Medina Base, Texas Oct. 10, 2018. SWTW unifies resources, training, and advocacy to build Special Warfare Airmen for the future battlefield by focusing on the human weapon system. (Andrew C. Patterson/U.S. Air Force)
Maj. Meg Tucker, an Army Kiowa pilot and Psychological Operations officer, wrote in February that “special operations leaders are probably under immense congressional pressure to put more women in the most elite military jobs,” which, if forced, can lead to controversies like the one that has dogged Air Force Special Operations Command. However, she has yet to meet a woman who actually wants to be placed under lower standards.
“As the owner of a small business that provides women with tactical fitness training programs, I can say with confidence that no one who is seriously vying for admission into these notoriously competitive schools, irrespective of gender, wants the standards lowered for them,” she said. “I have never encountered a woman inbound to an assessment or selection that wanted handouts. “
The spotlight often shines harshly on the first female service members to break into a new military career field, but it appears to fade shortly afterward. Tucker noted that just a few years after the first female soldiers received Ranger tabs, there are now a hundred more like them, and there are now multiple women serving as Green Berets. Air Force Times also reported that four other women are in the special warfare training pipeline at the moment, including two special tactics officer candidates, one enlisted special reconnaissance candidate, and an enlisted tactical air control party candidate. Perhaps if they graduate their pipelines, it will be treated with a similar lack of fanfare, and maybe that’s for the best.
“I look forward to the day when female firsts are no longer making headlines,” Tucker wrote, “when the trails have been blazed, gender no longer dictates fitness for service, and the door remains open for the next lethal American to walk through and take up the burden of serving as a special operations warrior.”
The latest on Task & Purpose
Want to write for Task & Purpose? Click here. Or check out the latest stories on our homepage.

David covers the Air Force, Space Force and anything Star Wars-related. He joined Task & Purpose in 2019, after covering local news in Maine and FDA policy in Washington D.C. David loves hearing the stories of individual airmen and their families and sharing the human side of America’s most tech-heavy military branch. Contact the author here.

taskandpurpose.com · by David Roza · June 28, 2022


26. An Opinion Series on Innovation: How the Intelligence Community Kills Ideas

I look forward to Part II. 

This is probably one of the most succinct explanations of bureaucracy I have ever read:

Idea rejection in bureaucracies is often a clueless crime scene. There are no fingerprints because no one says, “No.” Managers and co-workers use passive-aggressive put-downs, grimaces, or admonishments like:

Excerpts:
What works when implementing change or spurring creativity? Take human nature into account when launching a transformation initiative. Despite the fact that humans are innately risk-averse, we see innovation all around. But how does this happen?
Step 1 is to define what makes people tick. We can do that by reviewing the current findings in psychology and neuroscience—for example, brain imaging is fine-tuned enough to give us an understanding of why humans are risk-averse and what managers can do to overcome it. I’ll dive into this more in part two of this series.
Step 2 is to apply leadership techniques that conform with the findings from Step 1—guiding employees around their innate change resistance. Best of all, this new way of leading and managing is less painful and easier to apply than current practices. I’ll focus more on that in part three of this series.
In Part II, I’ll visit a neuroscience lab and peer inside the brain to learn what went on in Matt’s head as his idea was killed. We’ll see how the tragedy goes deeper than just one fewer idea in the IC. The managers drowned his initiative—we’ll look into an fMRI to see why they may as well have fitted Matt’s motivation with tiny concrete shoes, wrapped it in chains, and tossed it over the side of a boat. And then we’ll ask whether the IC afford this.

An Opinion Series on Innovation: How the Intelligence Community Kills Ideas
Alternative Perspectives
June 28th, 2022 by Mike Mears, |

Mike Mears retired as the CIA’s Chief of Human Capital where he founded and headed the CIA Leadership Academy. He is a trainer and leadership consultant to government and private sector organizations. Prior to CIA, Mike was senior vice president at GE investments where he managed private equity funds, was a turnaround specialist, and a Six Sigma Black Belt. Before that, he launched eleven small business start-ups, and was president of a fast-food company. Mike served as commander of a nuclear missile site, a general’s aide, and was decorated for valor as a U.S. Army combat platoon leader in Vietnam.
OPINION — I recently saw a creative idea killed. Like a professional hit, the kill was silent and non-attributable. Managers essentially neutralized the employee—let’s call him Matt. I’m confident Matt will never make another suggestion, much less offer another game-changing idea, again.
Idea rejection in bureaucracies is often a clueless crime scene. There are no fingerprints because no one says, “No.” Managers and co-workers use passive-aggressive put-downs, grimaces, or admonishments like:
  • We tried it before.
  • Don’t rock the boat; be a team player.
  • It won’t work here; we’re different.
  • The boss will never buy it.
  • We have mission to do—no time for this.
In this case, like hyenas circling a fresh kill, several managers ganged up to ravage Matt’s idea—probably because it was a bit provocative and none of the managers had time to implement it. Here is the gauntlet they forced him to run:
  • Appear before a panel of those same managers to brief the idea. (None of the managers offered positive responses or encouragement during or after the brief.)
  • The panel reassigned Matt to a new location to work on the idea.
  • They required him to report to another manager who was not known for innovative receptiveness.
  • They advised Matt to stop talking to outsiders (IC colleagues) about the idea.
  • They required that he write a detailed execution plan.
  • Then, he had to work up a detailed budget.
  • He had to coordinate with legal.
  • Finally, Matt had to go on a roadshow to formally brief everyone who might be affected.
Of course, big ideas that impact multiple units need to be vetted, but in this case, the employee had to do it all himself, with no top cover or buy-in. In effect, the managers forced the idea through the organizational meat grinder to polish, pulverize, and contort it until it became a minor adjustment to the status quo—the perfect way to anonymously choke innovation.
It worked. The exhausted employee abandoned his treasured idea, and news of the gauntlet sent a clear signal to other employees not to come up with any pesky new ideas or potentially game-changing problem solutions.
What stops innovation?
A CIA Director once asked me, “Mike, why aren’t Agency employees being more creative?”
Then, he added, “I’ve told them I wanted more innovation.”
Like most organizational leaders, he tried to logically sell a cultural and motivational message to be more innovative. In most cases, that doesn’t stick because our minds don’t work that way. Principles, values, and fears outweigh logic. For example, how often has your logic won a political argument?
If I could replay the conversation and answer him today, I would mention three powerful idea-killing forces that hinder innovation and will stop a CIA Director from unleashing change:
  • Survival instinct (Human nature)
  • Cultural rigidity (Organizational nature)
  • Leadership
Survival instinct
Human change resistance is a survival mechanism buried in all of our minds. It protects us from foolhardy or potentially dangerous ideas.
Rejecting ideas, especially terrible ones, got humans safely through the past 100,000 years or so. You’ll understand how potent change resistance is if you’ve ever tried to lose weight, quit smoking, or start an exercise program. Change resistance acts as a hidden brake inside our unconscious minds to slow us—even when we are trying to execute beneficial ideas.
The Cipher Brief hosts expert-level briefings on national security issues for Subscriber+Members that help provide context around today’s national security issues and what they mean for business. Upgrade your status to Subscriber+ today.
Ideas are not created equal. Some are better than others. However, ideas—good or bad—are a gift to be treated with respect by management. A manager who gives a quick no, issues a put-down, or injects a little humiliation ensures employees won’t offer another idea because it is a part of the human survival instinct to avoid pain. If you’ve ever been rejected you understand the pain Matt felt.
Culture
At times, various reviews and blue-ribbon reports on intelligence community activities call for the need for “transformation” or “culture change.” The monographs leave IC managers in the dark about what culture is, much less how to change it.
Simple definition: Culture is the way we do things around here. Another way to think about it is that culture is shared habits, or the cumulative effect of individual’s behaviors.
Examples of culture include whether we call executives by their first name, how new employees are treated when onboarding, how freely employees and managers share ideas, dress codes, and even the amount of stress placed on internal correspondence that is error free. All of these are shared, habitual workplace behaviors.
Breaking individual habits, such as diet, smoking, and exercise, are problematic. Breaking shared habits in culture is trickier, and this is where I rephrase management guru Peter Drucker’s expression, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast,” to, “Culture eats executives for snacks.”
When I asked several hundred IC employees to describe their culture, they listed Mission first. That’s good. However, other descriptors crept into the top 10, including Caution and Control. Needless to say, if one aspires to be a “learning organization” or an “agile organization,” caution and control are severe inhibitors.
A prudent level of caution and control makes sense because of the nature of intel work. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of the IC’s work does not involve life-and-death matters, and that’s where innovation becomes crucial. Yet, there is little personal upside to innovation for many employees in the IC, just lots of downside. As one person told me:
When someone proposes a new idea that fails, they are punished. If it succeeds, they aren’t rewarded; or everyone else takes credit.
Leadership
The leadership chain, including supervisors, managers, and executives, decides what ideas to accept or block. Let’s look at three innovation inhibitors:
  1. The absence of defined Senior Intelligence Service (SIS) roles
  2. Management turnover
  3. Leadership quality
The absence of defined SIS roles
We’ve all heard IC executives say, “I do mission.” But if the mission is choked by red tape, overwhelmed by technological change, and facing ever-changing adversaries, is “doing the mission” enough?
Some call an SIS promotion a “crown.” It is certainly a capstone to a career, but it should carry responsibility in addition to recognition of a successful career. For instance, are SIS officers shapers and keepers of the culture? Do they know how to change culture? Do they have a duty to reduce bureaucracy and inefficient processes? Do they have a role in removing barriers from employees? Should they act as “champions” to listen, coach, and provide top cover for innovation?
Too often, new SIS officers spend energy addressing problems in their unit, but do not act in concert with other executives in solving the broader organizational issues, no matter how pressing they may be. In effect, each SIS officer operates in their own bubble and not linked to the others.
I had discussions with change guru John Kotter about transforming the IC. He was aware of the turnover issue, and over the years, we had a running joke. When we bumped into one another, I’d ask, “What’s the first step to transform a large East Coast intelligence organization?” His reply was always, “You need a unified, committed leadership team at the top.” High turnover insures that can’t happen.
As part of their promotion process, potential SIS officers should think through their responsibility to improve the overall organization and submit a detailed write-up of how they intend to do it.
Without a well-defined role, new SIS officers find themselves in the position of a teenager writing an English paper without a thesis statement.
Management turnover
Even if SIS roles were understood and reinforced, we face calamitous management turnover rates from the director level down to the supervisors. Each time a manager changes position, reporting lines are ruptured, vision and direction changes, and relationship bonds are fractured. None of the other elite organizations I consult with match the damaging 22-month turnover I found in one IC organization.
As a result of frequent job switching, enlightened managers don’t stay in place long enough to provide innovation cover—their tours are often curtailed early to solve a pressing problem elsewhere. Innovation lacks time to sprout, much less blossom, before the next manager arrives with a new agenda. Rapid turnover can be justified in specific overseas postings, but not in headquarters.
Short management tours make management accountability more difficult—bad leaders can move on before seniors can assess the damage they’ve done. In addition, rapid turnover hampers long-term thinking—executives focus on getting results over the next 18 months rather than launching the needed long-range programs and executing long-term improvement efforts.
Today’s constant barrage of information makes it easy for countries to wage disinformation campaigns and your emotions are the weapon of choice. Learn how disinformation works and how we can fight it in this short video. This is one link you can feel good about sharing.
Leadership quality
Years ago, I collected employee ratings on the 8,000 IC bosses they served over their careers. I was delighted at the percentage of both “Good” and “Outstanding” leaders, but the percentage of leaders they rated as “Poor” or “Awful” was disturbing because even a small percentage of bad leaders can have an outsized impact on organizational performance.
Bad leaders engender lower employee performance, create organizational distrust, and force some of the best employees to resign. However, they also generate cultural problems. in the short run, culture affects all the managers, but in the long run, the managers collectively affect culture. In this case, an autocratic boss develops his own microculture, one that is marked by higher psychological fear and far less innovation. Because culture is “sticky,” a bad boss can negatively affect an organization for up to five years after transferring out.
In organizations with two-year management turnover, a poor leader can ricochet around and serve in and “infect” three separate units within five years. The residual effect of lowered employee performance shows how a small percentage of bad leaders can have an outsized organizational impact.
In closing
Hundreds of long-gone, private-sector firms ignored the need for radical innovation, including Swiss watchmakers, Compaq, and Blockbuster. Hopefully, the IC can innovate fast enough that HUMINT and other vital IC functions are not added to the list.
Widely used change and transformation models often don’t deliver what they promise. They may pay lip service to the importance of employees’ and managers’ change resistance, the power of culture, and the difficulty of sustaining management commitment, yet these models too often underestimate the tenacity of these barriers.
What works when implementing change or spurring creativity? Take human nature into account when launching a transformation initiative. Despite the fact that humans are innately risk-averse, we see innovation all around. But how does this happen?
Step 1 is to define what makes people tick. We can do that by reviewing the current findings in psychology and neuroscience—for example, brain imaging is fine-tuned enough to give us an understanding of why humans are risk-averse and what managers can do to overcome it. I’ll dive into this more in part two of this series.
Step 2 is to apply leadership techniques that conform with the findings from Step 1—guiding employees around their innate change resistance. Best of all, this new way of leading and managing is less painful and easier to apply than current practices. I’ll focus more on that in part three of this series.
In Part II, I’ll visit a neuroscience lab and peer inside the brain to learn what went on in Matt’s head as his idea was killed. We’ll see how the tragedy goes deeper than just one fewer idea in the IC. The managers drowned his initiative—we’ll look into an fMRI to see why they may as well have fitted Matt’s motivation with tiny concrete shoes, wrapped it in chains, and tossed it over the side of a boat. And then we’ll ask whether the IC afford this.
This is an opinion piece, which means the views of the author are one perspective on an important issue. Have an opinion to contribute? Drop a note to [email protected]
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.



27. Special Ops Tech Pulled in Different Directions

Every time I see an article about SOF hardware I think we demand two articles about the SOF human in keeping with the SOF truth that human are more important than hardware.

Excerpts:

Russia’s challenges maintaining supply lines in a contested environment is one major lesson learned, said Army Col. Joe Blanton, program executive officer-special operations forces support activity, which provides logistical support to a variety of special operations vehicles. The Russia-Ukraine war is worth watching despite a shift to challenging China, he said.
“What were those challenges and what can we anticipate in our future operating environment that we can learn from today to start to drive those material solutions?” Blanton asked.
“Not only SOCOM, but I think everybody is looking at it as a contested environment,” he said. The lesson is that lacking logistical support can end or stymie an operation, he said.
His office will be creating a new program manager, who will look at how to provide logistical support to forces that are operating in contested or austere environments, he added.


Special Ops Tech Pulled in Different Directions
nationaldefensemagazine.org · by Stew Magnuson
6/28/2022
By

Defense Dept. photo
TAMPA, Florida — With a pivot to the Indo-Pacific, its fingers still on the pulse of the Middle East, and the potential for expanding conflict in Eastern Europe, Special Operations Command has its hands full.
But that’s not unusual, Army Gen. Richard Clarke, SOCOM commandant, said recently.
Some 6,000 special operators are currently serving with partners in 80 nations, he said in a keynote speech at the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference, which was organized by the National Defense Industrial Association.
Clarke embraced the Defense Department’s strategic pivot to the Indo-Pacific as the U.S. military ends more than two decades of focusing on counterterrorism.
“China will become the most capable adversary, and they are rapidly modernizing. The Department of Defense has dubbed them our pacing threat,” he said.
In the same speech, he described a recent trip to the Middle East to visit an information operations center. He also highlighted a mission in Syria, where U.S. special operators and their Syrian allies conducted a night raid to eliminate an ISIS leader.
“Our operators executed yet another surgical operation that was even more complex than the [Osama bin Laden] raid that had taken place a decade earlier, using exquisite capabilities, honed from over two decades of combat,” Clarke said.
SOCOM is in the process of writing a Special Operations Forces 2040 document that will look at some of the challenges the command will face at the end of the next decade, Clarke said.
“We’ve got to look at the pacing threat [of] China — that they’re going to continue to evolve,” he said. If a technology “is not moving us in a position or capability to assist us with the Chinese fight, then we need to look at it,” he said.
Clarke also emphasized the command’s global reach, mentioning training in February that took place with Norway in the Arctic and in West Africa with partners and allies there.
Pentagon leaders, meanwhile, have said Russian aggression is an immediate problem, but China is the long-term threat.
Lisa Sanders, SOCOM science and technology director, said the command’s technology development enterprise is making the shift to weapons and systems better suited to the Indo-Pacific and for contending with peer adversaries. The command already has a reputation for quickly fielding advanced technologies that give its operators an edge. Yet, counterterrorism raids and hostage rescues will remain bread-and-butter missions for special operations forces, she added.
“We still have a requirement to do counterterrorism and there will be one for the foreseeable future,” she told reporters on the sidelines of the conference.
Plus, it’s hard to predict future crises, Sanders said, noting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an example.
SOCOM acquisition executives have observed how Russia has fared in Ukraine and come up with some insights that may inform them how they approach developing technologies to go against peer and near-peer adversaries.
James Smith, SOCOM acquisition executive, said there is open and frequent communication between the command’s technology developers and leaders in the intelligence and operations fields, as well as air, land and sea components and European commanders, who are all keeping him abreast of what’s happening in Ukraine along with new and emerging threats.
“Not for operational purposes, but to inform us how we man, train and equip Special Operations Forces,” Smith said in a press briefing.
“I would say in large part, the National Defense Strategy that just came out, and even the one that preceded it in 2018, were very prescient on what we’re seeing in Ukraine today,” he said.
It confirms the technology road that SOCOM is traveling, he said, with platforms such as unmanned systems, autonomous unmanned systems and collaborative autonomous unmanned systems.
Navy Capt. Randy Slaff, program executive officer-maritime, said “the fact that we have this happening right in front of us as we’re really clicking and starting moving out on this modernization effort, I think is going to be a benefit for how we shape the portfolios across all the PEOs,” he said.
Russia’s challenges maintaining supply lines in a contested environment is one major lesson learned, said Army Col. Joe Blanton, program executive officer-special operations forces support activity, which provides logistical support to a variety of special operations vehicles. The Russia-Ukraine war is worth watching despite a shift to challenging China, he said.
“What were those challenges and what can we anticipate in our future operating environment that we can learn from today to start to drive those material solutions?” Blanton asked.
“Not only SOCOM, but I think everybody is looking at it as a contested environment,” he said. The lesson is that lacking logistical support can end or stymie an operation, he said.
His office will be creating a new program manager, who will look at how to provide logistical support to forces that are operating in contested or austere environments, he added.
Sanders said the war in Ukraine has reinforced current thinking in military circles that future battlefields will operate at a much faster pace. Technologies that will help take the cognitive load off commanders will be required as events unfold quickly, she said.
“Reducing that cognitive burden will allow those decisions to be better and more impactful … Because things are happening so fast, and new mistakes are known immediately,” she said.
“I think that the point that the … future is going to rely upon the information and decision space is absolutely true,” she said.
Geoff Downer, program executive officer-rotary wing, said Ukraine is giving SOCOM a vision of how it will be fighting in the future. “Look at where unmanned systems are and the value that they provide on the battlefield,” he said.
Ukrainian forces have been using a variety of small unmanned aerial vehicles to assist in targeting Russian vehicles, along with loitering munitions that can fly over then dive bomb to destroy targets from above.
“These unmanned aerial systems — whether they’re ground launched, whether they’re air launched or what have you — they increase the reach on the battlefield and increases the lethality,” he said.
Art Coon, deputy program executive officer-command, control, communications and computers, said the Ukraine war has reinforced the need for modernization. “It shows that we’re on a good path,” he said. It reinforces how vital networks are as Russian command and control broke down in the beginning stages of the war. “It has definitely provided an example of why that’s important,” he said.
Air Force Col. Ken Kuebler, program executive officer-fixed wing, compared the Ukraine invasion to a crisis point that helps “us galvanize around what we need to do. We’ve been saying, ‘hey, we need to make sure we can go against peer-to-peer competition in conflict, with integrated deterrence,’” he said.
The PEOs must look at their portfolios and see what will or won’t work if going against a larger, better equipped opponent, he added.
An interconnected world also means less “invisibility” for special operators who are accustomed to conducting clandestine missions, Sanders said.
With most everyone carrying smartphones with cameras that can geo-tag images and transmit them to the world, invisibility is growing harder.
Russian forces have discovered this the hard way with Ukrainians taking pictures of fighting vehicles, transmitting them via social media along with location data and giving fighting forces instant targeting data.
“Tweets against tanks” has become a new buzzword.
And the phenomenon is not new. A Pakistani man living near Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad famously tweeted out a complaint about loud helicopters overhead the night of May 12, 2011. That was the public’s first indication that Navy SEALs were raiding the Bin Laden compound.
The “quiet professional” who operates at night may no longer be a valid assumption, she said.
While the Ukraine war has reinforced SOCOM leaders’ thinking on what a conflict with a formidable military might look like in Europe, there are still unique challenges in the Indo-Pacific to address.
For one, there are vast distances of water to traverse.
Sanders said: “Of all the priorities we talk about, the maritime domain is really difficult.”
Take alternative precision navigation and timing as an example, she said. In a contested GPS environment, alternatives to the space-based system are required. However, most GPS alternatives are based on reading geographical features. “The ocean looks the same. So that’s a challenge in that domain,” she said.
Along with difficulty of operating over vast distances in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, special operators will also have to perform missions on land, which will mostly likely mean large cities, Sanders said.
When it comes to employing next generation sensor and communications in large urban areas, all the “energy bouncing around” creates difficult conditions, she said. “It’s not that easy to see things and communicate. There is lot of jamming, intentional and unintentional,” she added.
Outside of cities, special operators may also have to contend with jungles with triple canopies, along with weather conditions such as high heat and humidity, she said.
“We have not really done a lot of things in the jungle environment in 25 years. Those are very, very harsh environments and very hard to operate in,” she said.
Clarke vowed to give special operators the technology they need. “We will pursue new forms of mobility to get [special operators] to the edges of the battlefield, new tools to test their decision advantage and new technologies to ensure that they can communicate and lead for most important missions.”
While technology is crucial, the commander stressed the importance of alliances and partnerships. There is no substitution for the human factor, he said.
“You cannot surge trust in a crisis. That’s why our alliances and our partnerships are an unmatched advantage,” he said.
nationaldefensemagazine.org · by Stew Magnuson

28. NATO’s Hard Road Ahead


Excerpts:
Transatlantic institutions need to adapt accordingly. NATO can handle some, but certainly not all, of these cross-cutting issues. It has been quite adept at integrating cybersecurity into its agenda, and the alliance has begun a constructive conversation about the geopolitical consequences of China’s rise. Notably, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea are attending the Madrid Summit as observers. But on energy security, economic sanctions, digital governance, technological supply lines, climate, and a host of other issues, the EU is the more appropriate interlocutor. The United Kingdom, however, no longer has a seat at the EU table in Brussels, further complicating the task of creating transatlantic institutions adapted to global interdependence.
Deeper linkages between NATO and the EU offer one avenue for better integrating the geopolitical and the geoeconomic. Another option would be to establish a new transatlantic council charged with addressing policy issues in a way that transcends and breaks down institutional and bureaucratic barriers. This body could include representatives from NATO and the EU as well as select member states, providing oversight of a dynamic and diverse transatlantic agenda. The recently established U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council provides a good example of an institutional innovation aimed at enabling policy to keep up with technological change. The fallout from the war makes amply clear how profoundly globalization and interdependence are creating the need for new forms of transatlantic governance and cooperation. Of equal importance, any new oversight body needs to closely monitor the increasingly intimate connections between foreign policy and domestic politics. Should leaders on either side of the Atlantic overlook such connections, they do so at their own peril and that of transatlantic solidarity.
NATO remains an essential pillar of an enduring transatlantic community of shared interests and values. It has amply demonstrated its relevance, efficacy, and unity in marshaling a resolute response to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. It is now time for NATO to start moving toward a cease-fire and diplomatic endgame in Ukraine, in no small part to maintain transatlantic solidarity and guard against homegrown threats to liberal democracy that may pose an even greater threat to the Atlantic community than Putin. This pivot needs to be part of a broader effort to build a transatlantic architecture fit for purpose amid the interdependence of the twenty-first century.





NATO’s Hard Road Ahead
The Greatest Threats to Alliance Unity Will Come After the Madrid Summit
June 29, 2022
Foreign Affairs · by Charles A. Kupchan · June 29, 2022
Thanks to Russian President Vladimir Putin, NATO’s Madrid Summit takes place this week against the backdrop of a resurgent Western alliance. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine compels NATO to return to its founding mission of providing collective defense against Russia. Members of the alliance are demonstrating remarkable unity and resolve as they funnel arms to Ukraine, increase defense spending, bolster the alliance’s eastern flank, and impose severe economic sanctions against Russia.
The invasion of Ukraine has shown that NATO is back, but the reality is that it never went away. The alliance was actually in good shape even before Putin launched his errant war, which is one of the reasons that it has been able to respond to developments in Ukraine with such alacrity and solidarity. Since the Cold War’s end, NATO has demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt to the times, undertaking operations far afield, including in Afghanistan and in the Balkans, and opening its doors to Europe’s new democracies. As a consequence of the war in Ukraine, an already strong NATO just got stronger.
But despite its clean bill of health and demonstrable unity, NATO faces a thicket of thorny issues, and discussions in Madrid will only just begin to address them. The war in Ukraine will, of course, dominate the summit. The conversation is poised to focus on the easy part: getting more arms to the frontlines. But NATO also needs to take up the hard part: when and how to marry the flow of weapons to a diplomatic strategy aimed at producing a cease-fire and follow-on negotiations over territory. The urgency of making that pivot stems from the need not just to end the death and destruction but to limit the war’s economic spillover, which could threaten the Atlantic alliance from within by eroding solidarity and weakening the West’s democratic foundations. The conflict in Ukraine also puts on NATO’s agenda a set of additional challenges: managing the future of enlargement, channeling Europe’s growing geopolitical aspirations, and building a transatlantic architecture that can accommodate the ever more complex and diverse issues facing the West.
A DIPLOMATIC ENDGAME
The transatlantic effort to support Ukraine has focused on providing the country the weapons it needs to defend itself. That is as it should be. Kyiv needs more firepower to resist, and even reverse, Russian advances in Ukraine’s east and south. The goal, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, is to “defend every meter of our land.” Washington has so far been unwilling to caution Kyiv against seeking the full expulsion of Russian troops from its land. “We’re not going to tell the Ukrainians how to negotiate, what to negotiate and when to negotiate,” Colin Kahl, the undersecretary of defense for policy, has stated. “They’re going to set those terms for themselves.”
But it is time for NATO to focus on a diplomatic endgame and capitalize on its successful effort to strengthen Ukraine’s hand by facilitating a cease-fire and follow-on negotiations. Since Ukraine’s initial military successes, momentum on the battlefield has shifted to Russia’s advantage, which is one of the reasons France, Germany, Italy, and other U.S. allies are pressing for a turn toward diplomacy. Washington has so far resisted. As President Joe Biden put it in early June, “I will not pressure the Ukrainian government—in private or public—to make any territorial concessions.”

But Washington can hold off for only so long. At issue is not just maintaining transatlantic solidarity by picking up the European call for a strategy that includes a pathway to a diplomatic settlement. Even with additional weaponry, Ukraine likely lacks the combat power to drive Russian forces from all its territory or even to restore the territorial status quo of February. Continuing the war may well mean more loss of life and territory, not battlefield gains for Kyiv. And the longer the war goes on, the higher the risk of escalation, whether by design or by accident, and the more prolonged and severe its disruptions to the global economy and food supply.
Of particular concern are the war’s economic effects on NATO members themselves, including the potential impact of rampant inflation on American politics. The domestic foundations of U.S. foreign policy are much more fragile than they once were. The bipartisan centrism that prevailed during the Cold War is long gone, giving way not just to polarization but to a potent strain of neo-isolationist sentiment. Former President Donald Trump’s “America first” foreign policy was a symptom more than a cause of this inward turn. Biden’s “foreign policy for the middle class” signals that Democrats, too, are sensitive to the electorate’s desire for Washington to spend more time and resources solving problems at home instead of abroad. Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan delivered on that front. His ambitious agenda for domestic investment and renewal also aimed at improving the lives of Americans, getting the middle class back on its feet, and rebuilding the nation’s political center.
As a consequence of the war in Ukraine, an already strong NATO just got stronger.
The war in Ukraine, along with perpetual congressional gridlock, has sidelined this critical agenda of domestic repair. To be sure, the provision of military and economic assistance to Ukraine enjoys an unusual level of bipartisan support. Nonetheless, time is not on the side of bipartisanship, which is poised to dissipate as the November midterms near. The war, coming on top of the supply disruptions caused by the pandemic, is contributing to economic conditions that are playing into the hands of “America first” Republicans. Inflation is at 40-year highs; the price of gas, food, and other essential items keeps climbing. The stock market is swooning amid talk of an impending recession. The war in Ukraine is hardly the sole cause of these economic tribulations, but it is certainly playing an important role. It is also soaking up the Biden administration’s precious time and political capital.
With these economic conditions as a backdrop, the midterms are poised to put the House and, probably, the Senate in Republican hands. The complexion of the Republican cohort that would call the shots in Congress is impossible to predict, but the party is likely to tilt further in the “America first” direction. J. D. Vance, buoyed by an endorsement from Trump, recently won a hotly contested Senate primary in Ohio. His views of the war in Ukraine may be emblematic of what is to come: “I think it’s ridiculous that we are focused on this border in Ukraine. I got to be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.”
It is worth keeping in mind that Trump withheld military assistance to Ukraine to extract political dirt on Biden, regularly insulted NATO allies, and expressed interest in withdrawing the United States from NATO. He, or some other “America first” Republican, could well return to such wayward policies if elected. A political or constitutional crisis of some sort is also a possibility. Just before Putin invaded Ukraine, a poll revealed that 64 percent of Americans fear that U.S. democracy is “in crisis and at risk of failing.” This is all to say that electoral outcomes in Ohio may have at least as much impact on European security and the future of liberal democracy as military outcomes in the Donbas.
Europe, too, needs to keep a watchful eye on the domestic front. Europeans have demonstrated remarkable generosity in hosting millions of Ukrainian refugees, but the warm welcome may wear thin and could well produce a political backlash; previous waves of immigration have strengthened the hand of illiberal populists. In the meantime, food shortages in Africa exacerbated by the war in Ukraine could trigger a humanitarian crisis and confront Europeans with yet another influx of desperate migrants. Persistent inflation and the prospect of energy shortages next winter could also weaken Europe’s impressive resolve in standing up to Russia. As Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister, warned earlier this month, “We are in a gas crisis. Gas is a scarce commodity from now on. . . . This will affect industrial production and become a big burden for many consumers.”

The domestic foundations of U.S. foreign policy are much more fragile than they once were.
Italy’s government is already wobbling due to internal disputes over the provision of arms to Ukraine and German leaders continue to squabble over the delivery heavy weapons. Emmanuel Macron may have been reelected in France in April, but some 40 percent of the electorate voted for Marine Le Pen, the far-right candidate who is a fan of Putin and pledged to withdraw her country from NATO’s military command. That Macron lost an absolute majority in the lower house of parliament is a further sign of popular discontent. Le Pen’s party, the National Rally, surged from eight to 89 seats.
The West’s sanctions against Moscow, even as they take a toll on the global economy, have so far failed to have the intended effect in Russia. Because of the soaring price of crude, Russia continues to enjoy ample oil revenues. And even though the value of the ruble plunged when Russia launched its invasion in February, it has rebounded and recently hit a seven-year high against the dollar. The United States and its G-7 partners agreed earlier this week to pursue further measures to restrict trade with Russia and also discussed putting a price cap on purchases of Russian oil to ease inflationary pressures and lower Russia’s revenues. The potential impact of these next steps remains uncertain.
Yes, the West must stand by Ukraine, punish Russian expansionism, and defend against further acts of aggression. But it also needs to weigh these priorities against the imperative of preventing illiberal populists from taking power on both sides of the Atlantic. The price of gas in Ohio or Bavaria seems of trivial relevance against the backdrop of Ukraine’s valiant fight for its freedom. But managing the war in Ukraine also means navigating the dangerous shoals of American and European politics. Ukraine would certainly not be the beneficiary should “America first” Republicans come to power in the United States or pro-Moscow populists gain ground in Europe.
It would indeed be cruel irony if NATO succeeds in helping Kyiv thwart Putin’s predatory ambition only to see the Atlantic democracies fall prey to threats from within. Even as they send more howitzers and drones to Ukraine, NATO leaders need to pay close attention to the economic and political blowback from the war on their own societies. When they do so, they will better appreciate the need to facilitate a cease-fire and support Ukraine’s cause at the negotiating table.
Moving from war to negotiations, of course, does not offer a quick fix to the economic dislocations produced by the conflict; sanctions against Russia could well remain in place for quite some time. But diplomacy ultimately offers the only pathway to easing the geopolitical tensions that continue to disrupt energy and food supplies and contribute to inflationary pressures.
EUROPE’S GRAY ZONE
NATO members will have their hands full dealing with the war in Ukraine, managing fraught relations with Russia, reinforcing the alliance’s eastern flank, and after the fighting ends, participating in post-conflict reconstruction. But they must also begin looking beyond the war and its immediate consequences to draw broader lessons.
The conflict in Ukraine has made clear the need for fresh thinking about advancing security in Europe’s “gray zone,” the lands between NATO and Russia. Even as the war grinds on, a constructive conversation is emerging over Ukraine’s potential geopolitical status moving forward. How this issue evolves may provide a model for Georgia, Moldova, and other countries that have been looking to the West but may not be destined for NATO membership now that Russia has thrown down the gauntlet in Ukraine.
Three intertwined approaches are taking shape to advance the security needs of countries in Europe’s gray zone. First, permanent neutrality offers these states a means of strengthening their sovereignty and independence while taking into consideration Russia’s objections to the further eastward enlargement of NATO. Ukraine embraced neutrality after it separated from the Soviet Union in 1991. It was not until 2019, in response to Russia’s 2014 land grab in Crimea and the Donbas, that Ukraine enshrined in its constitution its intention to join NATO. According to Putin, the prospect of Ukraine’s membership in the alliance played a role in his decision to invade again. In his February 24 address to the nation justifying the “special military operation,” Putin pointed to “the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia. . . . I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.” During the early weeks of the war, Kyiv seemed ready to embrace a return to neutrality. Should that outcome emerge as part of a negotiated settlement to the war, Ukraine’s neutrality may serve as model for the region.

Greater clarity on NATO’s future could help dampen rivalry between Russia and the West.
Second, neutrality would be accompanied by security assurances from a coalition of willing countries. Such assurances would fall short of the formal defense guarantees that would accompany NATO membership, but they would commit signatories to help maintain the security and nonaligned status of countries in Europe’s gray zone. These arrangements would go beyond previous levels of Western support, likely entailing additional military training and arms transfers during peacetime and robust military support should the states enjoying such assurances face attack. Ukraine again serves as a good model. NATO members are not sending troops to Ukraine to join the fight, but they are providing Ukraine with the wherewithal to defend itself. When the war ends, Ukraine could well find itself in a state of armed neutrality, with ongoing economic and military support from NATO members strengthening its hand in the negotiations over territory that may well follow a cease-fire.
The third plank of security in the gray zone would be membership in the EU. Brussels has already granted Ukraine and Moldova candidate status, while Georgia is in the waiting room. Although accession negotiations can take a decade or perhaps longer, candidate status provides aspirants a political shot in the arm and gives their governments the leverage they need to tackle corruption and implement onerous economic and political reforms—key steps that Ukraine needs to take to extract itself from the oligarchic legacy of its past. EU membership would eventually mark formal institutional inclusion in the community of Atlantic democracies, while avoiding the provocation of Russia that would come with membership in NATO. As Putin put it recently when confronted with the prospect of Ukrainian entry into the EU, “We have nothing against it. It’s their sovereign decision to join economic unions or not. . . . It’s their business, the business of the Ukrainian people.”
In this scenario, NATO would take in Finland and Sweden, and the alliance would eventually integrate aspirants in the Balkans. But it would go no further. Setting a transparent limit on NATO’s eastward enlargement and instead looking to the EU to extend its reach into Europe’s gray zone may finally enable the West and Russia to set aside an issue that has bedeviled their relationship since NATO enlargement began soon after the end of the Cold War. Even if Putin has used NATO expansion as a pretext for his land grabs, greater clarity on NATO’s future could help dampen rivalry between Russia and the West.
THE EUROPEAN PILLAR
The war in Ukraine has been a geopolitical wake-up call for Europe—and NATO should capitalize on this moment. Europe has made numerous false starts over the years at acquiring more geopolitical strength and responsibility, but this time, thanks to Russia, the effort may well yield more impressive results. Russian aggression has already prompted Europeans to make new and substantial investments in military capability. Germany has allocated 100 billion euros to upgrade its dilapidated military and has agreed to meet NATO’s benchmark of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense. Other European nations have announced sizable increases in their defense budgets. Translating these investments into war-fighting capability will take time and require coordination across national boundaries and between NATO and the EU. But these investments, and Germany’s turnaround in particular, have the potential to be a game-changer, finally endowing Europe with the greater geopolitical heft that that it needs in a world in which great-power rivalry is back. The United States should keep the pressure on its allies and work with them to take full advantage of their new readiness to shoulder greater defense burdens.
A more capable Europe will make for a stronger Atlantic partnership. Democrats and Republicans alike have long complained that NATO needs a sturdier European pillar. Whatever party is in power in Washington, the Atlantic link will be in better shape if Europe brings more geopolitical heft to the table. With Russia now threatening NATO’s eastern flank and tensions in the western Pacific also putting new demands on U.S. resources, Washington will appreciate having more European capability. And even though a renewed Russian threat will keep U.S. forces in Europe for the foreseeable future, Europe needs to be able to act on its own when necessary.
INSTITUTIONS FIT FOR PURPOSE
Although the Russian invasion of Ukraine constitutes a traditional act of territorial aggression, it also reveals just how complicated the security agenda has become. The implications of the conflict cut across a wide variety of issues. Military affairs and intelligence are front and center, but so is energy security. Stepping away from reliance on Russian fossil fuels may be a strategic necessity, but it also has negative effects on climate change as Europe reopens shuttered coal-fired electricity plants and as energy producers pump more oil and gas. Cybersecurity, food security, supply chains, migration, relations with China, the international payments system—the war has left few issues untouched.
Transatlantic institutions need to adapt accordingly. NATO can handle some, but certainly not all, of these cross-cutting issues. It has been quite adept at integrating cybersecurity into its agenda, and the alliance has begun a constructive conversation about the geopolitical consequences of China’s rise. Notably, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea are attending the Madrid Summit as observers. But on energy security, economic sanctions, digital governance, technological supply lines, climate, and a host of other issues, the EU is the more appropriate interlocutor. The United Kingdom, however, no longer has a seat at the EU table in Brussels, further complicating the task of creating transatlantic institutions adapted to global interdependence.
Deeper linkages between NATO and the EU offer one avenue for better integrating the geopolitical and the geoeconomic. Another option would be to establish a new transatlantic council charged with addressing policy issues in a way that transcends and breaks down institutional and bureaucratic barriers. This body could include representatives from NATO and the EU as well as select member states, providing oversight of a dynamic and diverse transatlantic agenda. The recently established U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council provides a good example of an institutional innovation aimed at enabling policy to keep up with technological change. The fallout from the war makes amply clear how profoundly globalization and interdependence are creating the need for new forms of transatlantic governance and cooperation. Of equal importance, any new oversight body needs to closely monitor the increasingly intimate connections between foreign policy and domestic politics. Should leaders on either side of the Atlantic overlook such connections, they do so at their own peril and that of transatlantic solidarity.

NATO remains an essential pillar of an enduring transatlantic community of shared interests and values. It has amply demonstrated its relevance, efficacy, and unity in marshaling a resolute response to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. It is now time for NATO to start moving toward a cease-fire and diplomatic endgame in Ukraine, in no small part to maintain transatlantic solidarity and guard against homegrown threats to liberal democracy that may pose an even greater threat to the Atlantic community than Putin. This pivot needs to be part of a broader effort to build a transatlantic architecture fit for purpose amid the interdependence of the twenty-first century.
Foreign Affairs · by Charles A. Kupchan · June 29, 2022


29. The Real Key to Victory in Ukraine

Excerpts:

How long this support lasts will depend on the public mood in Western countries. Support for Ukraine remains relatively high in the United States, in European countries, and in allied countries such as Australia, Japan, and South Korea. Yet popular opinion about the war is more mixed in parts of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, where Russia has more influence and where it has concentrated its disinformation campaigns. If inflation, food shortages, and supply chain disruptions persist, countries in these regions could push to scale back sanctions on Russia or reduce aid to Ukraine.
But just as important as the international climate is what happens in Ukraine itself. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees have returned home in recent months. Repatriation on this scale could initially strain food and health resources, but it could also help revive the economy and labor market, facilitate the movement of supplies and medical support to the frontlines in the east, and provide a morale boost to the nation as a whole. Already, commercial goods have begun to move more freely in western Ukraine, indicating that the overall logistical situation is improving. Getting the west of the country—and especially cities such as Kyiv—up and running again will help relieve some of the food and medical shortages in the east. Finally, reports of increased resistance and sabotage in Russian-occupied areas suggest that Ukrainians could yet disrupt Moscow’s supply lines—thereby eroding its ability to sustain the offensive.
As the war in Ukraine has transformed into one of attrition, the importance of sustainment has been elevated, perhaps above all else. Although a decisive military victory in which the Ukrainians expel Russian forces from their entire territory seems increasingly unlikely, Kyiv could still stymie Moscow’s progress and strengthen its position for future negotiations by continuing to surge reinforcements and supplies to the frontlines. If the past four months of war have revealed anything, it is that underestimating Ukraine is a mistake. The United States and its allies must do their part to help Ukraine sustain the fight.




The Real Key to Victory in Ukraine
Why Sustaining the Fight Is Everything in a War of Attrition
June 29, 2022
Foreign Affairs · by Kirstin J. H. Brathwaite and Margarita Konaev · June 29, 2022
The war in Ukraine has settled into a grinding fight for yards. Ukrainian and Russian forces are shelling each other with medium- and long-range artillery, leaving the already battered villages and towns of the Donbas caught in the crossfire. Like the brutal battles of World War I, the current conflict has seen only small swaths of territory change hands, often being captured and recaptured from one week to the next. Although talk of a rapid victory for either side has largely disappeared from the headlines, analysts and officials still debate what piece of heavy military equipment or new technology might turn the tide in Ukraine’s favor. With Russia running low on supplies and manpower, for instance, retired U.S. Army General Ben Hodges told The Washington Post last week that an influx of more sophisticated Western weaponry could allow the Ukrainians to turn back Russian advances and go on the counteroffensive.
This emerging war of attrition, however, is more likely to come down to “sustainment”—the ability of each side to ensure a relentless influx of troops, ammunition, and heavy equipment to the frontlines in the east, especially as the conflict drags on and international attention dissipates. Logistics, financial management, personnel services, and health services will all be central to this effort, determining which side is better able to replace its depleted units, resupply and maintain its equipment, and source food, fuel, and ammunition. The Russian military is clearly showing signs of strain, especially when it comes to reinforcing its troops after heavy losses. But so are the Ukrainians, who in recent weeks have warned that they are running out of ammunition and losing as many as 200 soldiers per day.
In a conflict that is increasingly likely to end—or at least be contained—with a negotiated settlement or cease-fire, sustainment could provide vital leverage for Ukraine. By reinforcing its troops and resupplying and maintaining its equipment, Ukraine may not be able to beat the Russians back, but it could deny them major gains, sapping their resources and will to fight. Western military assistance, especially the provision of arms and training, will be critical for sustainment. But so will domestic factors such as the return of Ukrainian refugees, the recovery of the country’s economy, and the emergence of a Ukrainian resistance in Russian-occupied areas. Sustaining the fight against Moscow, in other words, will take political, economic, and military commitment from the Ukrainian people as well as from the United States and other NATO countries. The challenge, however, is that sustainment will become increasingly costly as the war continues and Western countries find it increasingly difficult to muster the political will to uphold their commitments to Ukraine.
SIGNS OF STRAIN
Early in the war, Russia gave little thought to sustainment, rushing forward a vast force without setting up supply depots or establishing full air control. As the Ukrainians slowed Russia’s advance, distance and weather compounded Moscow’s logistical problems—and Russian soldiers paid a heavy price. The shift of the fighting to eastern Ukraine has eased some of these logistical challenges for Moscow. The frontlines are now closer to Russia and linked by rail and road to Russia and Russian-occupied territory. But Moscow’s initial blunders burned through many of its resources, undercutting Russia’s ability to resupply and sustain its forces even in the east. Unable to reliably import supplies and parts because of Western sanctions, Moscow is now digging deep into its Soviet era stockpiles for weapons such as mines and tanks.
Russia is having even more trouble shoring up its manpower. Estimates of casualties vary widely and are likely distorted by political calculations on both sides, but Moscow is clearly struggling to reinforce its fighting forces. Russia’s lower house of parliament, the Duma, recently removed the upper age cap for contractual service in the Russian army in order to expand the pool of eligible recruits that can be sent into battle.

For their part, the Ukrainians are also showing signs of strain. Before Russia’s invasion in February, Ukraine had been making significant progress in reforming its military, increasing civilian control, limiting corruption, streamlining command and control, and modernizing its force structure to better align with NATO’s model. These and other changes helped Ukraine fend off Russia’s initial assault, thwarting the Kremlin’s ill-fated plan to take Kyiv and other major Ukrainian cities. But the reform process was in no way complete when Russia invaded, and it has understandably slowed in the midst of a major war.

In a conflict that is likely to end with a negotiated settlement, sustainment could provide vital leverage for Ukraine.
One critical element of sustainment involves moving forces to the locations where they are needed most and reinforcing or replacing depleted units. These functions become harder as a war drags on and military and civilian casualties mount. The forces stationed in the east of Ukraine are some of the country’s best and most experienced fighters, but they have taken the brunt of the losses ever since Russia began concentrating its attack on the Donbas. Ukrainian leaders had been relatively tight-lipped about the scale of Ukrainian losses until last month, when a senior presidential aide revealed that between 100 and 200 troops were being killed every day.
At that rate, retaining the manpower needed to prevent further territorial losses, let alone win territory back, will require significant reinforcements. And Ukraine’s troop reserves are not infinite. Indeed, interviews with volunteers who joined the territorial defense forces in western Ukraine paint a dire picture of troops being rushed eastward to the front without adequate training, weapons, or support. Getting reinforcements and supplies to the frontlines has also gotten harder as roads and rail networks have been destroyed in the fighting and as Russia has threatened Ukrainian supply lines in parts of the east, especially now that Ukrainian forces have made a tactical retreat from the beleaguered city of Sievierodonetsk.
HELP WANTED
It is clear that Ukraine needs additional Western military support. The country had limited defense production capacity even before the war, and over the last four months Russia has destroyed or captured much of that capacity. Russia has also targeted many Ukrainian ammunition depots. As a result, Ukraine’s sustainment effort will hinge in part on the resupply of Western ammunition, rockets, drones, and other heavy equipment.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the U.S. defense industry has endeavored to make this possible. Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the much-vaunted Javelin antitank missiles that Washington has supplied to Ukraine, promised in May to nearly double its annual output to meet demand, albeit over the next few years. Raytheon, meanwhile, has been supplying Ukraine with Stinger antiaircraft missiles. But even U.S. defense giants have limits. Raytheon has already said it will not be able to increase production of Stingers until 2023 because it lacks parts, and some U.S. lawmakers have expressed concern that arms shipments to Ukraine are depleting U.S. stockpiles of these weapons. The U.S. Department of Defense is clearly facing its own sustainment demons, struggling to increase the production of these and other supplies because of pandemic-related shortages and generally lackluster defense industrial capacity.
Just as important as resupplying weapons and ammunition is training the Ukrainian soldiers and civilian volunteers who are using this equipment. Advanced weapons systems delivered by the United States and other NATO countries are only useful if Ukrainian soldiers know how to use and maintain them—skills that are difficult and take time to learn. The U.S. Army’s Javelin training course is 80 hours long, for example, while training on a mobile artillery rocket system made by Lockheed Martin can take up to two months. (The first of these Lockheed Martin systems was confirmed to be in use in Ukraine last week, suggesting that training is moving faster than expected.)


It is clear that Ukraine needs additional Western military support.
Since U.S. military advisers had to withdraw from Ukraine to avoid the possibility of direct confrontation with Russian forces, training on these and other systems must take place outside the country. Ukrainian soldiers have traveled to U.S. bases in Germany and Poland to learn how to operate artillery, air defense radar systems, drones, armored personnel carriers, and according to some reports, even sophisticated electronic warfare systems supplied by the United States and other countries. These troops will now be able train their fellow soldiers back in Ukraine. But efforts such as these impose difficult tradeoffs. On the one hand, they enable Ukraine to employ new military capabilities. On the other, they take skilled soldiers out of the fight at precisely the moment when manpower needs are at their most acute.
Then there is the maintenance challenge. Artillery and radar systems, as well as other advanced military equipment, require specialized and often highly technical training to maintain. Ukrainian troops have received some of this maintenance training in Germany and Poland—for instance, on artillery pieces known as M777 howitzers. But maintenance of even these relatively basic weapons is complicated by the fact that they are manufactured using the imperial measurement system while Ukrainian wrenches use the metric system. This means that American-made wrenches must accompany every American-made howitzer—one more complication in an already intricate and fragile supply chain that flows from Poland overland into western Ukraine and then to the frontlines in the east of the country.
TEST OF WILLS
The strength of Ukraine’s sustainment effort will depend in part on what happens in Washington and other Western capitals. Since January 2021, the United States has spent $6.8 billion on security assistance to Ukraine. U.S. President Joe Biden announced an additional $40 billion last month, half of which will be dedicated to military assistance. Other NATO members have also provided substantial support, including Estonia, Slovakia, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. And earlier this month, European leaders met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv, promising continued aid and affirming their support for Ukraine’s accession to the EU.
How long this support lasts will depend on the public mood in Western countries. Support for Ukraine remains relatively high in the United States, in European countries, and in allied countries such as Australia, Japan, and South Korea. Yet popular opinion about the war is more mixed in parts of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, where Russia has more influence and where it has concentrated its disinformation campaigns. If inflation, food shortages, and supply chain disruptions persist, countries in these regions could push to scale back sanctions on Russia or reduce aid to Ukraine.
But just as important as the international climate is what happens in Ukraine itself. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees have returned home in recent months. Repatriation on this scale could initially strain food and health resources, but it could also help revive the economy and labor market, facilitate the movement of supplies and medical support to the frontlines in the east, and provide a morale boost to the nation as a whole. Already, commercial goods have begun to move more freely in western Ukraine, indicating that the overall logistical situation is improving. Getting the west of the country—and especially cities such as Kyiv—up and running again will help relieve some of the food and medical shortages in the east. Finally, reports of increased resistance and sabotage in Russian-occupied areas suggest that Ukrainians could yet disrupt Moscow’s supply lines—thereby eroding its ability to sustain the offensive.
As the war in Ukraine has transformed into one of attrition, the importance of sustainment has been elevated, perhaps above all else. Although a decisive military victory in which the Ukrainians expel Russian forces from their entire territory seems increasingly unlikely, Kyiv could still stymie Moscow’s progress and strengthen its position for future negotiations by continuing to surge reinforcements and supplies to the frontlines. If the past four months of war have revealed anything, it is that underestimating Ukraine is a mistake. The United States and its allies must do their part to help Ukraine sustain the fight.

Foreign Affairs · by Kirstin J. H. Brathwaite and Margarita Konaev · June 29, 2022
30. US special operators are picking up a softer skill as they refocus on countering China

Ask and ye shall receive. Here is an article supporting the SOF truth, humans are more important than hardware.

US special operators are picking up a softer skill as they refocus on countering China
Business Insider · by Stavros Atlamazoglou

A US Army Green Beret with Albanian special-forces soldiers during an exercise in Albania, July 23, 2021.
US Army/Sgt. Devin J. Andrews
  • As competition with China increases, US special operators are investing in language skills to counter Chinese influence.
  • At a recent Senate hearing, special-operations leaders described the importance of operators who are proficient in foreign languages.

As the US military's focus on competition with China grows, the US special-operations community is investing in a softer skill to counter Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region.
At a Senate Armed Services subcommittee hearing in late April, leaders of the US special-operations community highlighted the importance of and need for special operators who are proficient in foreign languages.
Countering China through language

A US Army Green Beret discusses close quarters battle with Philippine national police and coast guard special operations forces in Palawan, May 30, 2022.
US Army/Sgt. 1st Class Jared N. Gehmann
During the hearing, Brig. Gen. Jonathan Braga, commanding general of US Army Special Operations Command, said the units he commands — including the Army Special Forces groups, Civil Affairs, and Psychological Operations teams — are arguably the most proficient and invested in language skills within the US special-operations community.
Among those units, Braga said, language skills are "maintained throughout through sustained training" and are tailored to specific regions because those units "stay regionally aligned."
US special operators have a worldwide presence and are deployed to more than 60 countries at any given time, where they train foreign forces or participate in deterrence and combat operations.
Braga said that despite putting a lot of effort into language skills, members of the US special-operations community can't speak the language of every country to which they might deploy.

A US Green Beret and Royal Thai Army soldiers stack up to enter a building during Exercise Cobra Gold 21 in Lopburi, Thailand, August 6, 2021.
US Army
"They're operating around the globe," supporting the priorities of every combatant command, Braga said, "but language is absolutely critical to being part of that interoperability. It's not just equipment, and it also shows that you care."
Those relationships that language skills foster and sustain are extremely value in great-power competition, whether the US is trying to maintain deterrence or fight a full-blown war.
"Human beings communicate by body language, chemistry, and words," said Lino Miani, a former Army Special Forces officer. "It is the combination of the three that really allows people to form bonds and communicate instinctively in the way that war sometimes demands."
To measure language skill, the US military uses the Defense Language Proficiency Test, which has four levels — 0 to 3. The training needed to use the language effectively can take anywhere from a few months to more than a year, depending on the complexity of the language.
"War is a complex endeavor and it's not always enough to just be stronger than the enemy," said Miani, who is chief executive officer of AeroEye, a security firm offering aerial surveillance services.
"Troops on the ground, particularly special-operations troops that are often isolated and/or embedded with allies or surrogates, will depend on their ability to understand complexity not just for mission accomplishment, but for survival," Miani added. "Language skills are the basic foundation of that understanding."

US Marines with 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion and Philippine Marine Special Forces Group troops start a fire during jungle training in the Philippines, September 29, 2015.
US Marine Corps/Lance Cpl. Juan Bustos
During the hearing, Maj. Gen. James Glynn, who at the time was commanding general of Marine Forces Special Operations Command, said that his command has shifted its focus to some of the "more significant languages" in the Indo-Pacific region, including Mandarin Chinese.
US troops should be skilled in Chinese, but the language has limited use, especially for official purposes, in many of the countries where US special-operators often work, Miani said. Proficiency in languages spoken in those countries is vital to reassuring partners and deterring foes.
While the Chinese have influence in those countries, "our success in those geographic areas will be more dependent on our skill with other languages, like Korean, Thai, Indonesian, or Tagalog," added Miani, who is president of the Combat Diver Foundation.
More language, more missions

A Japan sailor and a US Naval Special Warfare operator cover each during a drill aboard USS Frank Cable, August 27, 2021.
US Navy/Ensign Amara Timberlake
Some special operators develop more language skills because of their mission sets. US Army Green Berets have a focus on foreign internal defense — the training, advising, and leading of partner forces — and as such have long focused on language skills.
But over the last two decades there has been a wider push for language capabilities among special-operations units.
"Language and culture have been part of our training pipeline since inception, and so every critical skills operator that is created or has been created over the course of the last 15 years goes through a language unique to the theater in which we intend or they are most likely to deploy," Glynn said about MARSOC.

An information technology specialist with US Naval Special Warfare sets up satellite communications with Palauan security forces, December 9, 2013.
US Navy/MCS2 Timothy Wilson
One reason for the push was that during the global war on terror, better language skills often meant more missions, which in turn meant more funding and greater relevance for the unit.
At one point, foreign internal defense was the hottest mission set, and every unit — even Navy SEALs and Delta Force, which tend to focus on direct-action operations — jumped at the opportunity to conduct it in order to be deployed.
"Understanding our adversary through his own language and culture is important, but it is also important to understand our potential allies," Miani said. "Language skills are the basic foundation of this understanding."
Stavros Atlamazoglou is a defense journalist specializing in special operations, a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ), and a Johns Hopkins University graduate.

Business Insider · by Stavros Atlamazoglou


​



De Oppresso Liber,
David Maxwell
Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation
Senior Advisor, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy
Editor, Small Wars Journal
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
VIDEO "WHEREBY" Link: https://whereby.com/david-maxwell
Phone: 202-573-8647

V/R
David Maxwell
Senior Fellow
Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Phone: 202-573-8647
Personal Email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com
Web Site: www.fdd.org
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
Subscribe to FDD’s new podcast, Foreign Podicy
FDD is a Washington-based nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

If you do not read anything else in the 2017 National Security Strategy read this on page 14:

"A democracy is only as resilient as its people. An informed and engaged citizenry is the fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. For generations, our society has protected free press, free speech, and free thought. Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data. The American public and private sectors must recognize this and work together to defend our way of life. No external threat can be allowed to shake our shared commitment to our values, undermine our system of government, or divide our Nation."
Company Name | Website
basicImage