Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners

Quotes of the Day:

“I have learned over the years that when one’s mind is made up, this diminishes fear;knowing what must be done does away with fear.”

– Rosa Parks

“Right action is better than knowledge; but in order to do what is right, we must know what is right.”

– Charlemagne

“Every man I meet is in some way my superior, and in that, I can learn of him.”

– Ralph Waldo Emerson

1. The True Test of Mission Command

2. Can the Quad Keep China Out of the Indian Ocean?

3. Joint patrols? Military deal? South Korea eyes ‘higher level’ security ties with Philippines

4. Army testing how existing equipment can be used differently as it seeks to 'transform-in-contact'

5. 5 members of Tufts men’s lacrosse team still hospitalized after workout with Navy SEAL training program graduate

6. ‘An evil axis’ — JP Morgan CEO issues stark economic warning over Russia, Iran, North Korea

7. Transition Of Operation Inherent Resolve To US-Iraq Bilateral Security Partnership To Be Announced Next Week

8. Revisiting Russian Information Warfare In Crimea – OpEd

9. Making Foreign Policy Great Again, One Trade War at a Time

10. Was Ukraine’s Kursk Incursion A Risk Worth Taking? – Analysis

11. The Navy Has a Warship That Could be Way Better Than Aircraft Carriers

12. Delta Force: The U.S. Military's Ultimate Special Forces Squad Russia Freaks Over

13. US close to sending $567 million in immediate security aid to Taiwan

14. Experts Want UN to Set Up Principles for Global AI Governance

15.1940s massacre threatens to tear Ukraine & Poland’s friendship apart

16. Army to close active information warfare unit, move to smaller units

17. Russian troops receive Musk’s Cybertrucks

18. India Mulls '3D Printing' Of Weapons During A Protracted War; Myanmar Rebels Already Ahead In The Game

19. How the Powerful Outmaneuvered the American Protest Movement

20. The Mysterious Trail of Hezbollah’s Exploding Pagers

1. The True Test of Mission Command

An excellent short history that provides an important perspective that we should learn from. I enjoyed reading this and this concluding paragraph is something all leaders should strive to achieve whether in combat with a military organization or in any other of life's endeavors. And as I reflect on my personal military experience I know now I was fortunate to work for leaders who embodied the qualities of Nelson-Smith who empowered and trusted us (though we never had to experience anything anywhere as severe as the lowering of the ramp into the waters in front of the beaches of Normandy). The most important thing I learned from my great bosses was that the true test was how well a unit performs in the absence of its leader.

As we expend great effort on "transforming in contact," this is arguably the enduring lesson upon which success or failure lies.

Thank you to Major Happel for writing this.

In conclusion, a leader who passes the true test of mission command is one who prepares their organization for success in their absence. Nelson-Smith achieved this by developing his subordinates to adapt to chaotic situations and empowering and trusting them to make decisions. Nelson-Smith nurtured a learning organization that was able to adapt quickly and flexibly. For D-Day, the operations order that Nelson-Smith delivered to the battalion outlined a simple and flexible plan. He did not try to forecast events but balanced his force so that they could respond effectively to a changing and chaotic situation. All of these factors combined created a recipe for success for the 1 HAMPS on D-Day. The die was already cast once the ramps dropped on D-Day. No intervention from the battalion commander or the second-in-command was required or occurred. Chaos ensued, yet the battalion went on to succeed that day. While the heroics of the Cota often attract the study of military professionals, perhaps also more notice should be taken of the Nelson-Smiths who, without much credit, prepared their units for war so effectively that their intervention during the battle was not required.

The True Test of Mission Command

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/SO-24/SO-24-Mission-Command/

Maj. Will Happel, British Army

Download the PDF

D-Day, 6 June 1944, by Leslie Arthur Wilcox, n.d., oil on canvas, 71 x 98 cm. On D-Day, 6 June 1944, the 1st Battalion, Hampshire Regiment led 231 Brigade ashore on Gold Beach as the spearhead of the invasion of Normandy. (Artwork courtesy of the Royal Hampshire Regiment Museum)

Military professionals often study historical leaders whose interventions and decisions at a critical moment have turned the course of a battle. Of course, these case studies yield many valuable lessons to developing leaders. However, there are many other great lessons to be learned from less obvious, less celebrated leaders. The mark of true mission command can be seen in an organization that achieves greatness with no intervention from the commander. Leaders who prepare their organization for success in their absence are those who develop their subordinates, foster a learning organization, and encourage adaptability. These leaders prepare their unit for operations by clearly communicating a simple and flexible plan and by nurturing trust across the force.

Military professionals should also study the leadership within an organization that achieves success without intervention or supervision from their commander. In the future, mastering the art of good mission command will be more important than ever. Commanders will get targeted and killed with greater frequency. Therefore, our organizations must be able to succeed in their commander’s absence.

Students of the Command and General Staff Officers’ Course will be familiar with Brig. Gen. Norman D. Cota’s exploits on D-Day. At 0730 on 6 June 1944, Cota landed on Omaha Beach with his “Bastard Brigade.”1 From this time until dusk, Cota’s direct leadership at critical points and his disregard for his own personal safety helped to prevent a potential disaster from unfolding in that sector of the D-Day landings.2 Cota was awarded the British Distinguished Service Order and the U.S. Distinguished Service Cross for his actions that day.3 Aspiring leaders today rightly study his actions to learn from his example. However, the fact that the attack stalled and Cota had to become so directly involved at the coalface is a possible symptom of inadequate preparation prior to the landings. At the same time Cota was landing, a British officer was wading ashore who was far less likely to be remembered for his actions on D-Day because he had very little direct impact on the how the battle unfolded. However, his leadership prior to the landings and his good use of mission command enabled his unit to achieve success in the most extreme circumstances.

On D-Day, Lt. Col. H. D. Nelson-Smith, MC, was the battalion commander of the 1st Battalion, Hampshire Regiment (1 HAMPS), which made up the right flank of 231st Brigade, 50th (UK) Infantry Division. The 1 HAMPS landed on the Jig Green sector of Gold Beach at 0730 as the first British troops ashore. The battalion ran into fierce resistance and shortly after landing, Nelson-Smith was wounded and evacuated to the regimental aid post, never to return to lead the battalion.4 To make matters worse, the battalion second-in-command landed at 0930 and was killed by a sniper as he left the landing craft.5 The commander of A Company and several platoon commanders were also killed or wounded on the beach.6 The battalion had landed further east than they planned and most of the radio sets had been destroyed by enemy fire or saltwater.7 Maj. Richard “Dick” Gosling, the battalion’s artillery battery commander, who had also been wounded, was unable to call for fire support that day.8 In the opening hours of D-Day, the 1 HAMPS faced utter chaos on Gold Beach. Yet despite this, the battalion was one of the few units that day to achieve almost all of its day one objectives before nightfall. This achievement is a symptom of good preparation and mission command. How was this possible? To answer this question, one must examine Nelson-Smith and the battalion’s preparations in the months and years leading up to D-Day.

Nelson-Smith served with the battalion continuously from 1936 to 1944. During this time the battalion was constantly overseas, from the North West Frontier in India 1936, Palestine in 1938, the Western Desert in 1940, and the Siege of Malta in 1942 to the invasion of Sicily and the Salerno landings in 1943.9 In October 1943, Nelson-Smith took the battalion back to a sealed camp in the New Forest, England, to prepare it for Operation Overlord.10 This was the first time the battalion had been home in twenty-three years, and it would only be there for eight months.11 The battalion would become like a family to Nelson-Smith. He cared deeply about his soldiers and subordinate development. This was evident in the three “A Basis for Training” documents the battalion used to prepare for D-Day.12 Emphasis was placed on leader selection and mission command.

From the 1st Battalion, Hampshire Regiment’s Battalion War Diary, a sketch from a patrol report made after a night patrol from one of the nights following D-Day. (Photo courtesy of the Royal Hampshire Regiment Museum)

Within “A Basis for Training – II,” the paragraph on fatigue emphasizes the importance of having energetic leaders to combat the inevitable apathy that sets in due to the weariness that combat causes.13 Nelson-Smith also directed that soldiers must support their commanders in physical and administrative tasks to enable their commanders’ better decision-making. In “A Basis for Training – III,” the paragraph on bravado explains the required temperament traits for good leaders and how brash and bravado in peace time does not often equal bravery in combat.14 These paragraphs show the consideration that Nelson-Smith was giving to selecting and developing his subordinates. Nelson-Smith placed high importance on his subordinates’ abilities to make decisions.

During training, Nelson-Smith helped to enforce good mission command in his subordinate leaders. More recently, the British Army describes mission command as a philosophy that empowers subordinates and encourages freedom and speed of action.15 By using mission orders to empower subordinates to generate agility and tempo, units can prevail in the most chaotic and demanding situations.16

The paragraph on rigidity in “A Basis for Training – III” summarizes the attitude at the time toward mission command. The paragraph said platoon leaders must act on their own judgment without waiting for orders from higher.17 Especially during the early stages of an operation, the platoon commanders would have the most accurate picture of the battle and are best placed to make decisions to adapt to chaotic situations. Therefore, in training, platoon commanders were encouraged to act first and report the outcomes afterward. This encouragement placed higher levels of trust in subordinate commanders. One of the tenets of mission command is trust as it speeds up decision-making and generates tempo.18 Under Nelson-Smith, the 1 HAMPS fostered high levels of trust and developed a good sense of mission command.

Through these documents, Nelson-Smith made an effort to simplify the orders process as much as possible. He made it the responsibility of every subordinate to know at least four bits of information before setting off on a task. The information subordinates must know was “Where am I going? What am I doing when I get there? Which way am I going? When am I going?”19 Nelson-Smith was reinforcing mission command within the unit by simplifying orders and making it a subordinate’s responsibility to figure out what basics were required of them.

The existence and use of these training documents show that, under Nelson-Smith, the 1 HAMPS were a learning organization. The structure for “A Basis for Training – I” was a two-column table with observations in the left-hand column and recommendations in the right-hand column.20 This structure is not dissimilar to the one the British Army still uses when learning from experience today. The 1 HAMPS’s ability to make candid observations on their own performance and on the enemy’s tactics to develop recommendations enabled them to learn quickly and adapt to a changing situation.

The 50th (Northumbrian) Division, 1944, by Anthony Imre Alexander Gross, 1944, ink, 392 mm x 573 mm. This full-length portrait features the three British battalion commanders of the 231 (Malta) Brigade (from left): Lt.-Col. H. D. Nelson-Smith, MC, 1st Battalion, Hampshire Regiment; Lt.-Col. A. W. Valentine, DSO, OBE, 2nd Battalion, Devonshire Regiment; and Lt.-Col. W. H. B. Ray, DSO, 1st Battalion, Dorset Regiment. (Artwork courtesy of the Imperial War Museums)

The battalion’s patrol reports are evidence of this learning cycle in action. The training documents dedicate several pages to patrols, observation posts, and reconnaissance.21 The reports and sketches that patrol commanders produced during the days and nights following D-Day show the high level of proficiency the battalion had for these activities.22

In his operations order for D-Day, Nelson-Smith managed to simplify the complex task ahead of them. He clearly and succinctly articulates the higher intent, scheme of maneuver, and the phases of the flanking forces.23 Nelson-Smith also managed to distill the battalion’s task into a pithy, one-sentence intent statement, “1 HAMPS will land on JIG GREEN BEACH WESTERN and clear enemy coastal ‘crust’ from LE HAMEL to MANVIEUX 8286.”24 This intent statement is reminiscent of Adm. Horatio Nelson’s signal, “Engage the enemy more closely”; one of only three tactical signals flown by Nelson throughout the Battle of Trafalgar.25 Nelson-Smith’s simple plan was backed up with sufficiently detailed annexes that equipped his subordinates with every known fact about the “coastal crust.” This combination of a simple plan and detailed coordinating instructions empowered Nelson-Smith’s subordinates to make their own decisions and seize the initiative within his intent.

1 HAMPS’s battle did not go according to plan. The battalion landed on Jig Green East instead of West, whereas the Duplex Drive (DD) tanks landed in the West, the commander was wounded and the second-in-command killed, the artillery and air force bombardments had been ineffective, the radios were inoperable, most of the AVRE (Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers) tanks were jammed in their landing craft, and one of the flail tanks exploded in the minefield.26 Some of the leaders had the situational awareness to realize they were landing in the wrong place. Lt. Alan Norman of A Company recalled looking through the slit in the landing craft’s ramp with his binoculars and noticing that they were too far to the east.27

This page from the 1st Battalion, Hampshire Regiment’s Battalion War Diary features “Officers Quitted during Week,” which shows the amount of leadership (not just the command and second in command) who were put out of action on D-Day. (Photo courtesy of the Royal Hampshire Regiment Museum)

The battalion landed in Jig Green East (not West) with A Company on the right and B Company on the left. A Company landed opposite WN36 (a platoon-sized defensive bunker) and B Company landed opposite the strongpoint Les Roquettes, both WN36 and Les Roquettes were originally objectives for the 1st Battalion, Dorsetshire Regiment.28 Both A and B Companies were able to clear these objectives, orient themselves and move west toward their original objectives. Helpfully, the intelligence annex of Nelson-Smith’s operations order contained detailed paragraphs on the strong point at Les Roquettes.29 Around this time, C and D Companies also landed on Jig Green East. Maj. David Warren MC, C Company commander, took over command of the battalion and directed them through the strong enemy positions at Le Hamel.30 It was 1700 before Le Hamel was cleared.31 D Company then cleared the radar station on the cliffs at Arromanches and B and C Companies went on to clear the town. Here the battalion reorganized and conducted patrols to Tracy-sur-Mer and made their report to the brigade commander.32

The story of the 1 HAMPS on D-Day is one of an adaptable organization that was well prepared, well briefed, and trusted to carry out their work. They passed the true test of mission command by gaining and maintaining the initiative, in the face of extreme adversity, with minimal supervision. This success was in no small part down to the leadership of Nelson-Smith, though he may not receive much credit for it.

In conclusion, a leader who passes the true test of mission command is one who prepares their organization for success in their absence. Nelson-Smith achieved this by developing his subordinates to adapt to chaotic situations and empowering and trusting them to make decisions. Nelson-Smith nurtured a learning organization that was able to adapt quickly and flexibly. For D-Day, the operations order that Nelson-Smith delivered to the battalion outlined a simple and flexible plan. He did not try to forecast events but balanced his force so that they could respond effectively to a changing and chaotic situation. All of these factors combined created a recipe for success for the 1 HAMPS on D-Day. The die was already cast once the ramps dropped on D-Day. No intervention from the battalion commander or the second-in-command was required or occurred. Chaos ensued, yet the battalion went on to succeed that day. While the heroics of the Cota often attract the study of military professionals, perhaps also more notice should be taken of the Nelson-Smiths who, without much credit, prepared their units for war so effectively that their intervention during the battle was not required.

In late 1944, Nelson-Smith returned to command 1st Battalion, 5th Welch Regiment, 53rd Division, in Holland and the Ardennes where he was again wounded and evacuated. He ended the war as a staff officer in 30 Corps headquarters and was awarded the Belgian Order of Leopold II and the Belgian Croix de Guerre.33

Notes

Thomas G. Bradbeer, “Major General Cota and the Battle of the Hürtgen Forest: A Failure Battle Command?” (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Command and General Staff College, Department of Military Leadership, 2023), 3, https://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/documents/cace/DCL/DCL_MGCota.pdf.
Ibid., 3–5.
Ibid., 5.
Max Hastings, Overlord: D-Day and the Battle for Normandy (New York: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 2019), 106; Harold Nelson-Smith, “Oral History,” recorded by Conrad Wood, Imperial War Museums, Catalogue Number 12959, 1993, 9:00–11:00, https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80012687; C. H. R. Howie, Battalion War Diary (Winchester, UK: Royal Hampshire Regiment Museum, 6 June 1944). Lt. Col. C. H. R. Howie served as commanding officer for 1st Battalion, Hampshire Regiment.
Andrew Holborn, The D-Day Landing on Gold Beach: 6 June 1944 (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 127.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Hastings, Overlord, 106.
“Brigadier H. D. Nelson-Smith MC Obituary,” Royal Hampshire Regiment Museum, n.d.
Ibid.
Ibid.
“A Basis for Training – I” (Winchester, UK: Royal Hampshire Regiment Museum, n.d.); “A Basis for Training – II” (Winchester, UK: Royal Hampshire Regiment Museum, n.d.); “A Basis for Training – III” (Winchester, UK: Royal Hampshire Regiment Museum, n.d.).
“A Basis for Training – II,” sheet 6.
“A Basis for Training – III,” sheet 2.
Army Doctrine Publication AC 71940, Land Operations (Andover, UK: Headquarters, Field Army, 2017), 6-4.
Ibid.
“A Basis for Training – III,” sheet 3.
AC 71940, Land Operations, 6-6.
“A Basis for Training – II,” sheet 3.
“A Basis for Training – I,” sheets 1–6.
Ibid., sheet 2; “A Basis for Training – II,” sheet 3.
Howie, Battalion War Diary.
H. D. Smith, “Hamps Operations Order for Operation Overlord,” in Battalion War Diary (Winchester, UK: Royal Hampshire Regiment Museum, 27 May 1944), sheet 1.
Ibid.
Andrew Gordon, The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command (Bungay, UK: Penguin Books, 2015), 159.
Nelson-Smith, “Oral History,” 2:00; Holborn, D-Day Landing on Gold Beach, 120.
Holborn, D-Day Landing on Gold Beach, 125.
Ibid., 124.
Smith, “Appendix A to Hamps Operations Order for Operation Overlord – Intelligence Summary,” Battalion War Diary, sheets 4 and 5.
“D Day – 6th June 1944,” Royal Hampshire Regiment Museum, accessed 13 June 2024, https://www.royalhampshireregiment.org/about-the-museum/timeline/d-day-1944/.
Holborn, D-Day Landing on Gold Beach, 158.
Ibid., 159.
“Brigadier H.D. Nelson-Smith MC Obituary.”

Maj. Will Happel, a student at the Command and General Staff School, has been an infantry officer in the British Army for eleven years, working most recently (2020–2023) in combat training centers (CTCs) in both the UK and United States. He has developed a keen interest for mission command during his career and has witnessed many different styles of it through firsthand experience at CTCs and through historical analysis. Happel had an article published in the Wavell Room in 2017 that had a similar thesis on mission command and being able to prepare organizations for success with minimal commander input.

2. Can the Quad Keep China Out of the Indian Ocean?

Excerpt:

This will be the final Quad summit for Biden and for Kishida, who is also stepping down from office. Which makes this a precarious moment: The grouping was largely defunct until the late 2017, when Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made tremendous efforts to revive it. Allowing it to fade into obscurity again would be a huge mistake. These four democracies have a great deal in common, and by working together they can blunt Chinese influence and keep the peace in one of the most important and vast sea spaces on earth.

Can the Quad Keep China Out of the Indian Ocean?

The US, Australia, India and Japan need to turn a loose alliance into a strong security partnership.

September 20, 2024 at 5:00 PM EDT

By James Stavridis

James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a retired US Navy admiral, former supreme allied commander of NATO, and dean emeritus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-09-20/can-the-quad-alliance-keep-china-out-of-the-indian-ocean?sref=hhjZtX76

This weekend, President Joe Biden is hosting the three other national leaders of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, a loose grouping among India, Australia, Japan and the US formed in 2004. Prime Ministers Anthony Albanese of Australia, Narendra Modi of India and Fumio Kishida of Japan will be coming to Delaware for a final in-person meeting with the outgoing president.

The Quad nations have some common agendas on trade, tariffs, the environment, fisheries and security. Looming over all is aggressive Chinese behavior in the Indo-Pacific, from the disputed India-China border in the Himalayas to Beijing’s claims of sovereignty over Japan’s Senkaku Islands.

But the most salient reason for the US to be embracing the Quad is the growing strategic importance of the Indian Ocean. Why is that vast body of water increasingly vital? And is the Quad strong enough to meet the growing challenge of Beijing?

I will always remember the first time I sailed into the Indian Ocean as a junior Navy officer, coming out of the Strait of Malacca, which separates it from the Pacific. After the densely packed waters of the South China Sea and the scary, Formula 1-like jockeying in the Malacca Strait — where massive tankers and warships sail at top speed through very narrow channels — the Indian Ocean provides a wide-open seascape where those standing watch can finally relax.

The Indian Ocean covers 20% of the world’s water surface and 40% of global coastline, and is ringed by a third of earth’s population. Nearly 100,000 ships transit it each year, almost a third of global cargo. The region also has more than half of the world’s proven reserves of oil and gas. Yet this is the least explored and exploited large ocean, partly because the major nations ringing it — India, Indonesia, South Africa, Pakistan, Australia — have not had aggressive maritime programs. That is changing rapidly.

India is expanding its military capabilities, notably for air and sea operations. Australia is procuring nuclear submarines in the AUKUS program with the US and UK, and plans to more than double its surface fleet. Indonesia and Pakistan have increasingly credible navies (unfortunately, the latter is getting help from the Chinese). Singapore is modernizing its fleet and increasing its patrolling of the eastern Indian Ocean.

For the US, the Quad should be the foundation of an Indian Ocean strategy. In November, India will host the 28th iteration of the Malabar exercises, a huge training operation originally between India and the US, but now for all Quad members (and occasionally other friendly nations). A major focus will be antisubmarine and anti-air warfare. The exercises will take place in the Bay of Bengal, where Chinese “research ships” — often cover for surveillance efforts — have been increasingly active.

The Navy should seek to link Malabar 2024 operations with units of the US Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain; new unmanned technologies being developed by its Task Force 59; and advanced US satellite and space warfare systems. Future Malabar exercises could lay the groundwork for Australian nuclear submarine operations; and the Quad should look to include some East African nations such as Kenya in the training.

The Quad also needs to look outside the military sphere. Proposals from previous summits for forging green supply chains across the Indo-Pacific, securing new undersea cables and setting up a health-emergency initiative need to become reality. And the Strengthening the Quad Act, passed by the house in February, needs Senate approval: it’s largely symbolic, but puts the US on the record as permanently committed to the coalition.

This will be the final Quad summit for Biden and for Kishida, who is also stepping down from office. Which makes this a precarious moment: The grouping was largely defunct until the late 2017, when Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made tremendous efforts to revive it. Allowing it to fade into obscurity again would be a huge mistake. These four democracies have a great deal in common, and by working together they can blunt Chinese influence and keep the peace in one of the most important and vast sea spaces on earth.

Stavridis is also vice chairman of global affairs at the Carlyle Group. He is on the boards of Aon, Fortinet and Ankura Consulting Group, and has advised Shield Capital, a firm that invests in the cybersecurity sector.

Joint patrols? Military deal? South Korea eyes ‘higher level’ security ties with Philippines

Sep 21, 2024 10:52 AM PHT

Bea Cupin

https://www.rappler.com/philippines/south-korea-elevated-maritime-security-cooperation/

INFO

'Korea can be one of the top candidates in its maritime cooperation activities,' says Seoul's envoy to Manila

MANILA, Philippines – The Philippines and South Korea are elevating their “partnership in maritime security to a higher level” as they mark 75 years of diplomatic relations this year, South Korean Ambassador to Manila Lee Sang-hwa said on Friday, September 20.

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a bilateral security conference, Lee said he expects South Korea and the Philippines to touch on a wide range of topics — from the blue economy to coast guard cooperation — when the two countries meet in Seoul for a November 2024 maritime dialogue.

In a keynote speech during the forum, Lee noted that South Korea only holds regular maritime dialogues with the Philippines among the countries in Southeast Asia.

“Having the next one in November…is a good indication of which direction we are moving ahead,” he told reporters.

Army testing how existing equipment can be used differently as it seeks to 'transform-in-contact'

1st Armored Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division tested drones, new command-and-control concepts and electromagnetic deception tools at a recent exercise.

Mark Pomerleau

September 20, 2024

defensescoop.com · by Mark Pomerleau · September 20, 2024

The Army is experimenting with different applications of its current systems to devise new concepts as a way to outpace emerging threats on the battlefield.

“Much of what we’re doing right now is just using what we have better and then experimenting within our units here to evolve with what we have today at the pace with which we’re observing change in the world,” Maj. Gen. Christopher Norrie, commander of 3rd Infantry Division, told reporters Friday during a media call. “Many of the innovations … were just using systems that we have, but in a much more efficient and commensurate way.”

The division’s 1st Armored Brigade recently tested new concepts and applications of equipment during a rotation at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California. Combat training center rotations are the most realistic combat scenarios the Army can create for units to train and to validate units.

The brigade sought to use drones, counter-drone technology and electromagnetic decoys in new and novel ways, some based off recent observations overseas.

“We’ve been transforming both in how we approach training and then how we’re innovating in the realm of UAS, counter-UAS and then electromagnetic to make us more lethal and more survivable on the battlefield. This approach was informed by how we trained and what we observed in Europe. We are observing the world and then we’re transforming in contact,” Norrie said.

These experimentation efforts are part of a larger Army initiative, dubbed transforming-in-contact, where the service plans to use deployments and troop rotations to test new equipment — mainly commercial off-the-shelf gear — that could allow units to be more responsive on a dynamic battlefield, especially with unmanned aerial systems, counter-UAS and electronic warfare.

In fact, many of the applications of capabilities and technologies utilized by 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division were lessons taken from 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division’s recent rotation at the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Johnson, Louisiana.

“We’re in close coordination with folks like a 2nd Brigade, 101st on how they executed their JRTC rotation at the same time we did our NTC. A lot of the things that we looked at rhymed with the things that they did down at JRTC,” Col. Jim Armstrong, commander of 1st Armored Brigade, 3rd ID, said. “We also had small UAS teams at the battalion level and had to man some of those counter-UAS teams. We were just with 2nd Brigade, 101st last week at the maneuver warfighting conference and shared a lot of those lessons across the Amy.”

The unit was able to communicate more effectively and more dispersed than in the past, enabled by diversity of transport and command-and-control systems. A key tenet of future warfighting is the need to move quickly and in a disaggregated manner to avoid being targeted by the enemy.

Soldiers were able to create a rear command post with intelligence, targeting and logistics personnel in a support area, allowing the main command post to be smaller, more mobile and more agile farther forward in the battlespace.

“We put some of our battalion command and control at different places on the battlefield. We kept our main big servers for our command post at Fort Stewart [in Georgia] that enabled the division to conduct cyber defense from there, and we took small servers the size of a briefcase forward to NTC, which allowed us to organize our command post differently,” Armstrong said. “That is a different organizing construct that I’m talking about, which is things that we have, that we just made a little different.”

Based on direct observations from Europe, the unit also utilized deception techniques to hide the real location of command posts in the digital environment from the opposing force at NTC. A critical lesson from Russia’s conflict in Ukraine — including the 2014 incursion and the larger invasion that began in 2022 — is that command posts’ electronic signatures must either be smaller or hidden in the larger digital noise because they can be discovered and targeted.

“They also utilized the deception command post to effectively hide command and control, as a needle within a needle stack or a field of needles out there. Those efforts were extremely effective at masking our own formations, while drawing the enemy out so that they could then be targeted here as well. All of that was informed by experiences in Europe. And those communications were essential to enabling and allowing that to happen,” Norrie said.

To start, 1st Armored Brigade looked at where brigades put their tactical operations centers in previous NTC rotations. It then recorded its own emissions in the spectrum and copied it to place on the battlefield as a decoy to the enemy.

“We knew that if it was successful, it would receive some kind of contact from the enemy. And we poised ourselves to be able to, as Gen. Norrie described, the enemy jammed and shot indirect fire at that decoy command post — and that causes them to unmask their assets and gives us an opportunity to not only destroy those specific assets, but then it preserves our real command post some more time before we have to make that next jump, which is why we got more mobile, because we know we can’t stay in one place long,” Armstrong said. “It requires you to be able to see yourself, to see the enemy and then to be able to act in the electromagnetic spectrum and team that with some physical domain things that when the enemy cues their different intelligence sources, that it looks like a real thing from multiple domains.”

While there are official program-of-record capabilities being developed that are designed to allow a unit to understand its digital footprint and then obfuscate or deceive the enemy where it is, 1st Armored Brigade used solider-developed emitters and existing equipment.

“The bulk of that equipment was us just taking our currently assigned equipment and repurposing it for deception. We took our legacy, if you will, satellite trailer and put it down there and turned it on a cueing schedule that matched what our command post was. We replicated FM and [Joint Battle Command Platform] signals. We put cell phones and WiFi pucks down there,” Armstrong said.

Other systems were soldier developed, similar to what 2nd Brigade, 101st did at JRTC strapping commercially available raspberry pi’s to drones. Those tools developed with 1st Armored Brigade were put through their paces with the 82nd Airborne Division recently during a rotation at JRTC, serving as testbeds for troops before bringing them to NTC.

Written by Mark Pomerleau

Mark Pomerleau is a reporter for DefenseScoop, covering information warfare and cyberspace.

In This Story

defensescoop.com · by Mark Pomerleau · September 20, 2024

5. 5 members of Tufts men’s lacrosse team still hospitalized after workout with Navy SEAL training program graduate

This was a major error on the part of Tufts. A recent graduate of BUD/S is not qualified to lead physical training in this way. Just because you have been exposed to something does not mean you can employ such techniques or are qualified to employ them. I am sure this recent graduate has no understanding of the science behind the techniques he experienced. To him he probably just thought anyone should be able to "gut it out" when exposed to intense training.

I am reminded of the idiots who argued early on during the GWOT that since we expose our SERE students to "enhanced interrogation" techniques that we could use those same techniques on "enemy combatants."

I guess the SEALs will have to add a new required training statement to BUD/S trainees informing them they are not qualified or authorized to use BUD/S physical training techniques on civilians or non-SEALs without supervision from actual qualified SEAL instructors.

5 members of Tufts men’s lacrosse team still hospitalized after workout with Navy SEAL training program graduate - Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

whdh.com · by Dakota Antelman · September 20, 2024

MEDFORD, MASS. (WHDH) - Five members of the Tufts men’s lacrosse team were still hospitalized as of Friday afternoon, days after student athletes participated in a workout with a recent graduate of a Navy SEAL training program, a university spokesperson said.

The voluntary supervised workout happened on Monday and lasted 45 minutes. A Tufts alumnus who recently completed the BUD/S Navy SEAL program led the workout, according to Tufts Executive Director of Media Relations Patrick Collins.

Collins said 12 members of the team were diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis after the workout. Also known as “rhabdo”, rhabdomyolysis happens when damaged muscle tissue releases its contents into the bloodstream, as described by the Centers of Disease Control.

Rhabdomyolysis is often the result of overexertion and can be life-threatening.

“You can essentially give anyone rhabdomyolysis if you push them with an exercise regimen that is past their capacity, so say you force someone to spin for an hour if they’ve never done it before in their lives, but they can run, so they can keep up with the activity,” said Dr. Todd Cutler, of Weill Cornell Medicine and New York-Presbyterian.

Though five students were in the hospital on Friday, Collins said the number of confirmed rhabdomyolysis cases and hospitalizations could change.

“Our thoughts are with the players and their families, and we are hoping for their quick return to good health under the care of local medical experts,” Collins said.

In the meantime, Collins said university officials “are closely monitoring the condition of the rest of the team.”

“You will see a lot of patients end up staying hospitalized for a long time, especially if the quads, the gluteus muscles, hamstrings — very big muscle bodies in the body — are involved. However, some of that extended hospitalization is probably not completely necessary in certain cases,” Cutler said.

Collins said Tufts postponed all team practices until each member of the team gets evaluated and medically cleared to participate.

“We are still learning about the circumstances surrounding this situation,” Collins said. “In light of its seriousness, the university is appointing an external, independent investigator to conduct a thorough review as quickly as possible, with a goal of taking any steps needed to support the safety of our student athletes.”

While members of the lacrosse team recover, fellow Tufts students shared their reactions.

“It’s tragic,” said Cameron McLeod, who is part of Tufts’ track and field team. “We always try to avoid it. But it happens and hopefully it’s a speedy recovery.”

Tess Player, who also participates in athletics programs at Tufts, said out of season training is “about going to what you’re comfortable with.”

“[You’re] pushing yourself to get better, obviously,” she said. “But we’re not ever trying to get someone hurt or get someone sick or anything like that.”

“I definitely feel like we want to make sure to keep all of our athletes safe,” said Tufts track and field team member Cole Anderson. “I just wish the best for those that had to go to the hospital.”

Join our Newsletter for the latest news right to your inbox

whdh.com · by Dakota Antelman · September 20, 2024

6. ‘An evil axis’ — JP Morgan CEO issues stark economic warning over Russia, Iran, North Korea

Some circular reporting but worth considering. But why did he leave out China?

The Dark Quad: Russia, Iran, north Korea (AND China)

Excerpt:

Dimon described "Iran, North Korea and Russia" as an "evil axis who are working every day on how to make it worse for the Western world and for America."

‘An evil axis’ — JP Morgan CEO issues stark economic warning over Russia, Iran, North Korea

Jamie Dimon said Russia is in cahoots with Iran and North Korea "working every day on how to make it worse for the Western world and for America."

by Chris York

September 19, 2024 6:43 PM4 min read

kyivindependent.com · by Chris York · September 19, 2024

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said people should be less focused on recent U.S. economic news, and instead worry about what he described as "an axis of evil" that could "affect the free and Democratic world for the next 100 years."

Speaking at the 2024 Financial Markets Quality Conference in Washington D.C. on Sept. 17, Dimon pointed to Russia’s war against Ukraine in answering questions about the first U.S. central bank interest cut in four years, and its potential impact on the global economy.

"The most important thing that dwarfs all other things, that's really far more important today than it's been probably since 1945 is the war in Ukraine, what's going on in Israel, in the Middle East, America's relations with China, and the attack fundamentally on the rule of law that was set up after World War II," Dimon, who is regarded as one of the world’s top bankers, said.

Dimon said that aside from the two world wars, "very few" wars and conflicts dramatically affected the global economy, but said the current global instability was affecting food supplies, migration, and oil supply "and it's getting worse all the time."

"It's serious," Dimon said, adding: "There's been almost a million casualties in the Ukraine war, something like 20,000 Ukrainian kids have been kidnapped and sent to Russia.

"It's on the border of Europe. There's the threat of nuclear blackmail," he added.

Russia has consistently issued threats, including nuclear ones, since the beginning of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

But as discussions between Ukraine and its Western allies over possible long-range missile strikes deep inside Russian territory have progressed in recent weeks, Russian President Vladimir Putin and other officials have upped their rhetoric, claiming that such a move would equate to NATO waging war with Moscow.

Dimon described "Iran, North Korea and Russia" as an "evil axis who are working every day on how to make it worse for the Western world and for America."

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, speaks during the 2024 Financial Markets Quality Conference at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Tuesday, Sept. 17, 2024 (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Since the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia has deepened ties with both North Korea and Iran.

Both Kyiv and Washington have previously said that Russia has been using North Korean-produced missiles to attack Ukraine. In March, Ukrainian prosecutors reported that Russia had fired around 50 such missiles to attack six Ukrainian oblasts since the beginning of the full-scale invasion.

In exchange for the ammunition, Russia reportedly provided North Korea with technology to help it deploy spy satellites as well as tanks and aircraft.

In late June, Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Pyongyang, where he signed a partnership agreement with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, which pledged to provide aid to one another if either will be attacked.

More recently, the U.S. confirmed on Sept. 10 that Iran has provided Russia with shipments of Fath-360 close-range ballistic missiles.

Tehran has also provided Moscow with thousands of Shahed kamikaze drones since the start of the all-out war.

"This may affect the free and democratic world for the next 100 years," Dimon said, adding people were "overly focused" on how the interest rate cut would affect markets.

"Honestly, most of us have already been through that stuff, it doesn't matter as much," he said.

"It's ratcheting up folks and it takes really strong American leadership and Western world leadership to do something about it. That's my number one concern."

The Kyiv IndependentChris York

kyivindependent.com · by Chris York · September 19, 2024

7. Transition Of Operation Inherent Resolve To US-Iraq Bilateral Security Partnership To Be Announced Next Week

Transition Of Operation Inherent Resolve To US-Iraq Bilateral Security Partnership To Be Announced Next Week

eurasiareview.com · September 20, 2024

By Matthew Olay

The United States is on track to announce next week the transition of the military’s anti-ISIS mission in Iraq to a bilateral defense partnership between the two countries, a pair of officials close to the matter told the media Friday.

The announcement would come 10 years after the U.S.’ establishment of the multi-national Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS and its military component, Combined Joint Task Force — Operation Inherent Resolve.

Talks about transitioning the military mission to a bilateral defense partnership began between the U.S. and Iraq in April. Although specific details concerning transitioning from CJTF-OIR to a bilateral partnership are still evolving, a senior administration official said that there is a broad consensus between all coalition members that the coalition will continue with its work well into the future.

“[The commission does] extraordinary work in terms of counter-terrorist financing, counter-foreign fighter flow … sharing information [and] sharing intelligence,” the official said, adding that the transition to a bilateral partnership is a way to deepen and enhance the coalition and cooperation between its member countries, as well as a means of strengthening the U.S.’ relationship with Iraq.

The official also made clear that, no matter what shape the future bilateral agreement takes — and regardless of whether other coalition countries move on from Iraq after 10 years — the U.S. remains committed to defeating ISIS.

“I think it’s fair to say we’ve had great success in territorially defeating ISIS in the core regions of Iraq and Syria. However, we are all very aware that with ISIS, you can [often] say [they’re] down, but they’re never quite out,” the official said.

“We remain fully committed to the defeat of ISIS … That is what we’re working on in Iraq and northeast Syria,” the official continued. “[It’s] something that is ongoing every day, and that will very much continue in the future.”

As one example of that, the Pentagon announced yesterday that U.S. and Syrian Democratic Forces launched a raid in Syria that killed four ISIS operatives.

The raid was designed to disrupt and degrade the terrorist organization’s ability “to organize and conduct attacks against civilians as well as U.S. citizens, allies and partners throughout the region and beyond,” Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said.

“The United States is the core [of the coalition], and we very much intend to continue to prosecute this mission against ISIS over the coming years,” the senior administration official said.

As the announcement of the transition of the coalition’s military mission in Iraq draws closer, one senior defense official said the U.S. will be “deepening the conversation” with Iraq regarding the nature of the bilateral security partnership.

“We believe [the talks] will be quite deep and quite intense because that’s what both sides want,” the official told reporters, adding that the Iraqis have made clear that they are committed to continuing to work to shape a strong bilateral security agreement with the U.S. and to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS.

“We already have gotten fairly advanced into those discussions about what that looks like in terms of the kinds of trainings, the kinds of presence [and] the kinds of support for [Iraq’s] capabilities,” the official said.

“But this is an iterative conversation that will continue through and beyond the announcement that we hope we’ll be in a position to make at the end of next week,” he added.

eurasiareview.com · September 20, 2024

8. Revisiting Russian Information Warfare In Crimea – OpEd

Excerpts:

The Russian invasion of Crimea carries lessons for the whole world. The Russian media carefully managed to manipulate the pro-Russian population who lived in Crimea. They were made to believe that they were victims of the incumbent government. The content usually consisted of false stories, images, videos and blogs about the Ukrainian government’s oppression against the pro-Russian race in Crimea. Initially, the Russian authorities focused more on social media for propaganda and then on mainstream media to shape domestic as well as international opinion, thus justifying the Crimean invasion.

Furthermore, information warfare requires fewer resources for any state to engage its adversary and achieve its objectives. An abundance of information gives a state an upper hand over the enemy. The occurrence of the internet, social networks and television has become a novel foundation for news; however, in times of war and crises, it is not a credible option because of the availability of wrong information which could easily impact the thinking of the masses. Information warfare is too old which dates back to the early times; however, it is more relevant today given the wider use of technology particularly social media platforms. This case study shows that public perception and propaganda are at the heart of warfare in contemporary times.

Revisiting Russian Information Warfare In Crimea – OpEd

September 20, 2024 0 Comments

By Muhammad Zaheer Khan

eurasiareview.com · September 20, 2024

Information warfare aims to create a narrative or propaganda among the enemy’s population by using various psychological operations, widely referred to as PSYOPS. In the 21st century, access to information has become very easy because of the extensive use and availability of the Internet, hence, making information warfare easier.

In such a world, people can easily be deceived and manipulated, specifically, the younger generation who are technology savvy. The information and psychological operations are aimed at spreading fear, hate, rumors and at the same time a sense of hope to create a particular narrative in the minds of the people. The 2014 annexation of Crimea by the Russian authorities is a well-depicted picture of information warfare. The operations were run so swiftly that only in a matter of weeks the Russian authorities took control of Crimea.

The foremost thing to successfully run the information warfare is creating a wrong sense of fear among the population of the adversary and Russia followed the same strategy. The majority of the Crimean population speaks the Russian language, which helped the Russian authorities in building a narrative in people’s minds. The Russian-speaking population was made to believe that their government was more unjust to the Russian masses residing in the territory. This chronicle was constructed using diverse networks like Print media, social media and other forms of communication channels.

To further its stance on Crimea, fake news was spread by Russian authorities that the territory always belonged to Russia. The campaign was so massively run that it even involved the top leadership of Russia – President Vladimir Putin stated on one of the occasions that “Crimean territory was part of the Russian Federation and the individuals on both sides accept this fact”. This rumor was shaped in order to justify their invasion on the Crimean state. In addition to that, Vladimir Putin stated that “The Russian administration already had held a plebiscite with the United Nations therefore it was a fair invasion”.

According to reports, in 2014, the Federation of Russia spent almost 19 million dollars to raise voices for the annexation of Crimea. To spread their agenda, several platforms including Telegram, X, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and some other state-controlled media outlets like Sputnik and Russian Today were used. One of the reports revealed that the Russian administration in collaboration with the ‘Internet Research Agency’ has rented more than thousands of people who were tasked to make 100 posts per day on social media in support of the Russian government.

In one instance, a story was shared showing a 13-year-old kid murdered by the Ukrainian army in a civic area of Ukraine. While nothing was true regarding the story, most of the pro-Russians believed it to be true. Another story was about a Ukrainian doctor named Igor Rosovsky, who was burned alive for supporting pro-nationalistic views about Crimea. This story was spread very swiftly and people believed it to be correct despite the baselessness of the story. People rented by the Russian authorities would generate false articles, blogs, and videos to gain international support for the annexation of Crimea.

One of the major roles was played by the Russian state control media including Sputnik and Russian Today. False reports about the cruelty against the Russian ethnic minority were aired to shape the perception of the people around the globe. These channels also portrayed Ukraine’s government as ‘Nazis’ and on the contrary presented kindly feeling towards the Russian government. According to details, a total of 71% of the Crimean population supported Russia’s invasion plan. Given so, their media remained successful in influencing the international community that Russia’s invasion was justified.

The Russian invasion of Crimea carries lessons for the whole world. The Russian media carefully managed to manipulate the pro-Russian population who lived in Crimea. They were made to believe that they were victims of the incumbent government. The content usually consisted of false stories, images, videos and blogs about the Ukrainian government’s oppression against the pro-Russian race in Crimea. Initially, the Russian authorities focused more on social media for propaganda and then on mainstream media to shape domestic as well as international opinion, thus justifying the Crimean invasion.

Furthermore, information warfare requires fewer resources for any state to engage its adversary and achieve its objectives. An abundance of information gives a state an upper hand over the enemy. The occurrence of the internet, social networks and television has become a novel foundation for news; however, in times of war and crises, it is not a credible option because of the availability of wrong information which could easily impact the thinking of the masses. Information warfare is too old which dates back to the early times; however, it is more relevant today given the wider use of technology particularly social media platforms. This case study shows that public perception and propaganda are at the heart of warfare in contemporary times.

eurasiareview.com · September 20, 2024

9. Making Foreign Policy Great Again, One Trade War at a Time

Excerpt:

It bears repeating: a strong stand is sometimes necessary in foreign policy, even amongst friends. NATO needed to be pushed, and Trump played that card well. But pushing and abandoning are two different things. Trump needs a measured approach and to recognize long-term benefits like keeping our allies close while our mutual rivals cohere against us. The U.S. could also go too far in pushing back on China economically and militarily. The same is true in the Middle East. A balanced approach is necessary. We are strong, even great, and the world knows it. Rosevelt said it well: “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far,” is the superior approach to simply being a selfish, pushy asshole to the global community. How does this make America great? It does not and can only diminish the steady, reliable, and enlightened reputation that generations of Americans have crafted for more than two centuries. If former President Trump is reelected, a modification to his approach could yield positive results, but only if he tacks towards a more moderate style that allows room for diplomacy to work and minds our long-term requirements, not just the needs of the day.

Making Foreign Policy Great Again, One Trade War at a Time

A Deep Dive On Trump’s Foreign Policy

Strategy Central, For and By Practitioners

By Monte Erfourth, September 21, 2024

https://www.strategycentral.io/post/making-foreign-policy-great-again-one-trade-war-at-a-time?postId=

Introduction

Donald Trump's foreign policy has often been characterized by its lack of definition and unpredictability, yet key themes have emerged that indicate a distinct vision, sometimes referred to as "America First." This approach seeks to prioritize U.S. interests, often at the expense of traditional multilateralism. Trump has consistently advocated for reducing the U.S. role in international agreements and institutions, pulling out of the Paris Climate Accords, the Iran nuclear deal, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. His trade policies reflect a protectionist stance, applying tariffs, especially in his dealings with China, in an effort to rebalance what he perceives as unfair international trade practices.

However, Trump's foreign policy is not isolationist in the traditional sense. He has emphasized peace through strength, increasing defense spending, creating the U.S. Space Force, and maintaining robust military alliances when they align with U.S. interests. Trump's rhetoric on NATO, for instance, often sounded hostile, but his administration strengthened NATO by pressuring European allies to increase their defense spending. His stance on the Middle East, including brokering the Abraham Accords and maintaining a hard line on Iran, reflects a focus on supporting traditional U.S. allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Critics argue that Trump's foreign policy lacks a coherent strategy, pointing to his erratic statements and reliance on tariffs and threats rather than diplomacy. While he prioritized disengaging from international entanglements that he believed undermined U.S. sovereignty, such as the Iran deal or global climate agreements, his policies still kept the U.S. deeply involved in regions like the Middle East and in strategic competition with China and Russia. This mix of retrenchment and military strength reveals a foreign policy vision that seeks to redefine America's global leadership on its own terms. It simply requires faith in a strongman image and an unsteady hand at the wheel of state.

Trump’s Foreign Policy Advisors

Donald Trump's foreign policy is significantly influenced by a small group of national security advisors and thinkers, each of whom brings distinct worldviews that shape Trump's approach to global affairs. Key figures such as Elbridge Colby emphasize a pivot away from Europe and toward China, advocating for prioritizing competition in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly concerning Taiwan. Other advisors like Fred Fleitz push for hardline stances on issues like the Russia-Ukraine war, with plans to broker ceasefires while threatening both sides with military or economic repercussions. Figures like Ric Grenell and Robert Lighthizer embody Trump's transactional and confrontational approach to diplomacy and trade, often advocating for aggressive tactics against traditional allies and rivals alike.

What ties these advisors together is their alignment with Trump's "America First" philosophy, which prioritizes U.S. interests through a combination of isolationist tendencies, economic nationalism, and skepticism toward international alliances. While Trump's advisors present varying views on global priorities—such as focusing on China over Europe or emphasizing economic decoupling—there is an underlying commonality in their belief that U.S. foreign policy should be less bound by multilateral agreements and more directed by immediate national benefits. These influences suggest that a second Trump term would continue the transactional, unpredictable style of foreign policy that characterized his first, with an intensified focus on limiting U.S. involvement in global commitments while exerting pressure on rivals like China and Russia.

How Trump Foreign Policy Differs From Biden

Donald Trump's foreign policy differs significantly from Joe Biden's in terms of both approach and execution. Trump favors an "America First" doctrine, emphasizing disengagement from international alliances and agreements he deems unfavorable to U.S. interests. He criticized long-standing partnerships, including NATO, and withdrew the U.S. from key international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal, focusing instead on transactional diplomacy and power politics. His policy toward China is confrontational, involving tariffs and economic restrictions aimed at curbing Chinese influence on U.S. trade. Trump’s foreign policy is heavily influenced by his belief in nationalism, often seeking to renegotiate or dismantle international commitments to prioritize U.S. sovereignty and economic strength.

In contrast, Biden’s foreign policy seeks to rebuild and strengthen international alliances, such as NATO, and restore the U.S.'s role in multilateral agreements, including rejoining the Paris Climate Accord. Biden focuses on coalition-building, diplomacy, and a return to traditional U.S. leadership on the global stage. His administration has taken a more cooperative stance on issues like climate change and international security, while continuing to manage strategic competition with China through diplomacy rather than economic confrontation alone. Both leaders, however, share some common ground, particularly in recognizing China as a major geopolitical competitor and emphasizing the need for a strong national defense, though their methods differ greatly.

Trump vs Biden On China

While Vice President Harris is now the Democratic nominee for President, comparing Trump and Biden’s record will be a likely predictor of the Trump-Harris difference on foreign policy. Donald Trump's and Joe Biden's foreign policies toward China would impact the U.S.-China relationship in different ways, with both focusing on competition but using contrasting methods. Trump’s approach to China is largely unilateral and confrontational. During his presidency, he imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, took a hard stance on trade deficits, and restricted Chinese tech companies like Huawei and TikTok. This method of direct confrontation led to strained relations, but also signaled a clear intent to curb China’s influence in the U.S. market. Trump’s policies tend to generate short-term impacts, marked by direct actions and less focus on long-term diplomatic channels.

Biden, on the other hand, emphasizes multilateralism, working with allies through frameworks like the Quad and AUKUS to counter China’s influence. His administration has maintained a strategic focus on competition but pursued a more structured and long-term approach, aiming to "de-risk" supply chains and bolster U.S. technology dominance. Biden’s strategy involves re-establishing diplomatic communication to manage competition and avoid conflict, while simultaneously strengthening alliances to contain China’s rise. Although more predictable and sustainable, Biden's approach could take longer to achieve substantial shifts in U.S.-China relations compared to Trump’s immediate and often forceful actions. Ultimately, Biden’s, and likely Harris’s, method might provide more stability and long-term success, while Trump’s could yield faster, though potentially more volatile, results.

Trump on Foreign Trade Policy – Trade War is Good

Donald Trump’s signature foreign policy approach is to use tariffs as a weapon to protect what he deems are U.S. interests. Trade policy during his presidency was marked by an aggressive use of tariffs, which he argued would boost American manufacturing and reduce the U.S. trade deficit. His administration-imposed tariffs on a wide range of imports from major trading partners like China, the European Union, and Canada. These tariffs targeted products such as steel, aluminum, and various consumer goods. Trump’s reasoning was that tariffs would help U.S. companies compete by raising the cost of foreign imports, thus encouraging more domestic production. However, economists argue that these tariffs also led to higher prices for American consumers and businesses, particularly in industries reliant on imported materials.

As he runs for president again in 2024, Trump has proposed escalating his trade war by introducing even more tariffs. His plans include a 10 percent tariff on most imports and a substantial 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods. Trump believes that increasing tariffs will further reduce the trade deficit and protect American jobs, particularly in manufacturing. He has also suggested shifting federal revenue reliance onto tariffs by cutting income taxes. Trump has also suggested applying a tariff on every imported good, no matter what country it comes from. While Trump’s supporters view tariffs as a tool for economic and political leverage, critics, including many economists, warn that such broad tariff measures could push the U.S. into a recession by driving up prices and disrupting global trade.

During his first term, Trump’s tariffs did lead to some positive outcomes for specific industries, such as steel and semiconductor production, which saw increases in U.S. output. However, the broader impact was mixed, as retaliatory tariffs from other countries hit American exports, particularly in agriculture. This resulted in a need for government subsidies to offset losses for farmers, and the overall effect on jobs was marginal. Studies indicate that while some manufacturing jobs were saved or created, the tariffs ultimately imposed significant costs on consumers and other sectors that rely on imports.

Economists are particularly concerned that Trump’s expanded tariff plans could worsen inflation, which remains elevated since 2021. With studies estimating that households could face additional costs of up to $2,350 annually from a universal 10 percent tariff, the burden would fall disproportionately on lower-income families. Despite these concerns, Trump remains steadfast in his belief that tariffs are an essential tool for rebalancing U.S. trade and protecting American industries.

Trump’s foreign trade policy would also be marked by a more confrontational stance toward geopolitical conflicts. His administration would likely use trade policy as a tool to address conflicts with nations like Russia and Iran, employing aggressive negotiations, sanctions, and unilateral actions to advance U.S. economic interests. In line with his "America First" agenda, Trump would expand efforts to support domestic industries, including agriculture and manufacturing, through tax cuts, subsidies, and protectionist measures. Central to his strategy would be holding trade partners accountable for perceived violations and unfair practices, ensuring compliance with trade agreements through tariffs and other enforcement mechanisms.

Trump Economic Policy

Donald Trump’s economic plan for his potential second term centers on aggressive measures aimed at tackling inflation, reducing the national debt, and boosting domestic energy production. He has promised to cut taxes, eliminate inflation, and increase U.S. energy output through policies such as "drill, baby, drill," which he claims will drive down energy and electricity prices by half within 12 to 18 months. Trump also vows to eliminate taxes on tips and Social Security while proposing to pay off the national debt, despite adding at least $5 trillion to it during his presidency.

A major focus of Trump’s economic agenda is lowering the cost of living and addressing inflation, which he blames on the current administration. He plans to cut government regulations and initiate broad tax cuts, including lowering corporate taxes even further. Trump also supports the mass deportation of immigrants, which he argues will help stabilize the labor market, though some economists warn this could exacerbate inflationary pressures by reducing the available workforce.

Trump's plan to tackle the national debt and inflation relies heavily on increasing domestic energy production and scaling back government regulations. However, his economic agenda has drawn criticism for lacking detailed plans on how he will achieve these ambitious goals. While his supporters believe that Trump's policies will create jobs and boost U.S. manufacturing, critics argue that the tax cuts and reliance on tariffs could worsen the national debt and increase costs for American consumers.

Trump on Defense and NATO

Trump's defense strategy involved questioning the US's role in NATO. He criticized member nations for not meeting defense spending targets and suggested reducing US involvement if European allies didn't increase their contributions, signaling a shift in US commitment to NATO's collective defense.

During his presidency, Trump authorized a significant increase in the U.S. defense budget, highlighted by the creation of the Space Force, a new branch of the military aimed at addressing growing competition in space. He emphasized the need for an updated missile defense strategy and advocated for the construction of a U.S. missile defense shield modeled on Israel’s Iron Dome. Additionally, Trump sought to reduce the U.S. military presence overseas, negotiating a deal with the Taliban to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

Trump's 2024 defense platform shows little difference from 2020. He intends to focus on increasing troop pay, strengthening the defense industrial base, and modernizing the nuclear deterrent. Trump's platform emphasizes expanding a national missile defense "dome" and removing "woke" Democrats from the national security ranks. Tensions in civil-military relations have been notable. Trump clashed with his second Joint Chiefs Chairman, Mark Milley, over events like January 6, 2021, and the Lafayette Square incident. While Trump criticized military leadership (calling for Milley's execution), he didn't fire many generals or admirals, and his comments didn’t seriously harm recruitment or retention—COVID-19 was a bigger issue. His stated desire to replace not just political appointees, but all of the senior DoD GS employees could be a serious blow to the apolitical and Constitutionally bound professionals currently in place. A professional, non-political military remains vital, and it would be a blow to democracy if that were compromised under future leadership.

Immigration and Border Security

Immigration was a hallmark of Trump’s presidency, and he continues to campaign on promises to reduce both legal and illegal immigration. His plans include mass deportations modeled after past U.S. operations and invoking the Alien Enemies Act to bypass legal processes in deporting cartel and gang members. Trump also plans to resume construction of a border wall, a project initiated during his first term and reinstate policies like the “Remain in Mexico” program and Title 42, which allows for the expulsion of migrants on public health grounds.

Trump has also committed to ending birthright citizenship and limiting asylum applications, focusing instead on a merit-based immigration system that prioritizes U.S. labor. He has vowed to expand his travel bans to include more countries, particularly those associated with terrorism, and roll back temporary protected status for several nations.

Russia–Ukraine

Trump’s stance on the ongoing war in Ukraine emphasizes a swift resolution, though he has been vague on the details. He has often praised Vladimir Putin, calling him “savvy” and “genius,” while also condemning the invasion of Ukraine as a “mistake.” Trump has challenged the current bipartisan support for Ukraine, stating that he would reconsider U.S. military aid and calling for European nations to bear a greater financial burden in the conflict.

As president, Trump took a mixed approach to Russia, maintaining sanctions on Moscow while also seeking closer diplomatic ties. He withdrew the U.S. from several key arms control treaties with Russia, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, citing violations by Russia. His administration was marked by controversies over alleged Russian interference in U.S. elections, leading to his first impeachment inquiry over withheld military aid to Ukraine.

Trump on Climate Change

Trump has consistently expressed skepticism about climate change, withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement during his presidency and pledging to do so again if reelected. He has vowed to dismantle key elements of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which provides incentives for clean energy production, instead favoring policies that bolster the fossil fuel industry. Under Trump’s leadership, environmental regulations were slashed to facilitate energy production, particularly through oil and gas drilling.

Trump’s energy strategy is centered on achieving total energy independence for the U.S., focusing on increasing domestic fossil fuel production, expediting drilling permits, and supporting nuclear energy development. He also advocates for the construction of additional oil pipelines and vows to eliminate Biden-era restrictions on natural gas exports, positioning the U.S. as a leader in global energy markets.

Conclusion

Donald Trump's foreign policy, centered around his "America First" doctrine, brought both innovation and disruption to America's global role. On the positive side, his administration emphasized strategic competition with China, revitalized NATO by pushing allies to increase defense spending, and brokered important agreements such as the Abraham Accords in the Middle East. However, Trump's unpredictability, reliance on tariffs, and withdrawal from key international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal created uncertainty and alienated traditional allies. In the long run, while his policies may have rebalanced certain aspects of trade and security, they also risked diminishing America's leadership in multilateral institutions and strained its diplomatic relationships. The lasting impact of Trump's foreign policy will likely be a more self-reliant but diplomatically isolated America, grappling with how to maintain global influence in an increasingly multipolar world. Ultimately, alienating allies and partners and creating global hostility through trade wars is likely to radically reduce the prestige and influence of the United States and allow a competitor to fill the void of a shrinking America.

Trump’s approach seems overly aggressive, short-term in results, and openly hostile towards friends as well as enemies. A strong hand against rivals is welcome given the underwhelming deterrent effects the U.S. has demonstrated since the end of the Cold War. In some ways, being erratic improves deterrence as unpredictability can cause rivals to hesitate. The downside undoubtedly outweighs the benefit as few business or national leaders gravitates towards disorder. Order is boring, but most effective.

A strong, balanced approach is crucial in foreign policy. It's important to push when necessary, as Trump did with NATO, but not to the point of abandonment. We need to keep our allies close, especially with the rise of partnerships between China, Russia, and Iran. Overly aggressive actions against China and in the Middle East could be detrimental. A patient and mature non-zero-sum approach is the key to successful foreign relations. We must maintain our strong, reliable, and civilized reputation on the world stage.

It bears repeating: a strong stand is sometimes necessary in foreign policy, even amongst friends. NATO needed to be pushed, and Trump played that card well. But pushing and abandoning are two different things. Trump needs a measured approach and to recognize long-term benefits like keeping our allies close while our mutual rivals cohere against us. The U.S. could also go too far in pushing back on China economically and militarily. The same is true in the Middle East. A balanced approach is necessary. We are strong, even great, and the world knows it. Rosevelt said it well: “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far,” is the superior approach to simply being a selfish, pushy asshole to the global community. How does this make America great? It does not and can only diminish the steady, reliable, and enlightened reputation that generations of Americans have crafted for more than two centuries. If former President Trump is reelected, a modification to his approach could yield positive results, but only if he tacks towards a more moderate style that allows room for diplomacy to work and minds our long-term requirements, not just the needs of the day.

End Notes

1. Agrawal, Ravi. "Who Is Influencing Trump's Foreign-Policy Views?" Foreign Policy. August 26, 2024. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/08/26/trumps-foreign-policy-influencers/.

2. Chen, Dingding, and Xinrong Zhu. "Biden vs Trump: Who Would Have a Bigger Impact on China-US Relations?" The Diplomat. December 12, 2023. https://thediplomat.com/2023/12/biden-vs-trump-who-would-have-a-bigger-impact-on-china-us-relations/.

3. Munson, Lester. "How Trump’s Foreign Policy Would Differ from Biden's." Asia Times. February 28, 2024. https://asiatimes.com/2024/02/how-trumps-foreign-policy-would-differ-from-bidens/.

4. FP Staff. "Does Trump Have a Foreign-Policy Vision?" Foreign Policy. April 23, 2024. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/04/23/does-trump-have-a-foreign-policy-vision/.

10. Was Ukraine’s Kursk Incursion A Risk Worth Taking? – Analysis

Excerpts:

Ukraine’s Western supporters remain divided on whether the military operation in Kursk was a wise decision. Critics point out that Ukraine has a limited amount of manpower and every soldier and armored vehicle is needed along the most precarious sections of the front line to prevent a Russian breakthrough.

However, proponents of the Kursk operation argue that controlling Russian territory might force Moscow to pull back troops from the front lines. At the very least, Ukraine’s military success has boosted morale and reminded Ukraine’s American and European supporters that it can achieve battlefield victories when given the right equipment and support.

Time will tell whether Ukraine’s gamble was worth it, but it serves as a reminder to expect the unexpected in warfare. Few would have imagined that a war, which Russian military planners had hoped would last only a few days, would result in hundreds of thousands of soldiers dead and wounded and Ukrainian control over a small portion of Russian territory.

Was Ukraine’s Kursk Incursion A Risk Worth Taking? – Analysis

September 21, 2024 0 Comments

By Arab News

By Luke Coffey

eurasiareview.com · September 20, 2024

By Luke Coffey

It has now been several weeks since Ukrainian forces crossed into Russia’s Kursk Oblast. This move caught many by surprise, including Russia and Ukraine’s allies in the West. It marked the first time in more than 80 years that Russian territory had fallen under the control of an outside power. After initially allocating about 1,000 troops and dozens of armored vehicles for the operation, it is estimated that Ukraine now has several thousand troops and hundreds of armored vehicles operating in Kursk.

This is not the first time that forces aligned with Ukraine have entered the territory of the Russian Federation. In May 2023 and again earlier this year, anti-Putin Russian forces from the Freedom of Russia Legion and the Russian Volunteer Corps entered Russia’s Belgorod Oblast and captured a few border towns. However, it is now clear that Ukraine’s current operation in neighboring Kursk Oblast is different.

Earlier incursions into Russian territory relied on ethnic Russian units and, if Ukrainian military units played a role, it was not made public and was likely minimal. This time, the operation in Kursk Oblast is predominantly being carried out by regular Ukrainian units. Ukrainian flags are being hoisted over municipal buildings and videos on social media show Ukrainian troops engaging with the local population and providing humanitarian support. Many videos show troops speaking in Ukrainian to the local Russian inhabitants, as this region has close cultural ties to Ukraine. Interestingly, the current front lines in Kursk are approximately in the same location as the border between the short-lived Ukrainian People’s Republic and the Bolsheviks in 1918.

Unlike the earlier incursions, which were merely raids with no intention of holding the captured territory, it is clear that Ukraine has every intention of holding onto the Russian territory under its control. Open-source intelligence and commercially available satellite imagery show Ukrainian forces constructing defensive positions.

Ukraine has already achieved most of its short-term objectives with the Kursk operation. Kyiv was in desperate need of a change in the narrative of the war after failing to make much battlefield progress over the past year. Ukraine’s successful, albeit limited, military operation in Kursk has done just that.

So far, it has been able to hold onto the territory it has captured, meaning that any future peace talks could involve trading the areas under Ukraine’s control for Russian-held territory. It is also likely that Ukraine had designs on the Kursk nuclear power plant, hoping to use it as leverage in negotiations for the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which Russia has controlled since the early days of the war. But so far Ukraine has come up short of achieving this objective. At the time of writing, Ukrainian forces were still about 50 km away from the Kursk plant.

One of Ukraine’s primary goals in entering Kursk may have been to force Russia to withdraw troops from other regions along the front line. In particular, the area around the small Ukrainian town of Pokrovsk in Donetsk has been a focal point of the fighting in recent weeks. The Ukrainians have fought staunchly to hold onto Pokrovsk because important regional rail and road networks converge in the area. However, Russia has been willing to sacrifice greatly to capture the town and is making weekly progress. Moving tens of thousands of Russian troops from one part of the battlefield hundreds of kilometers away to Kursk Oblast could take weeks, if not longer. Therefore, it is too early to tell if Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk will force Russia to pull back in other places, such as Pokrovsk.

Ukraine’s operation in Kursk has exposed a significant vulnerability in Russia’s defenses. It seems almost unbelievable that, after two and a half years of major warfare, Russia left an important section of its border largely undefended, allowing Ukraine to make rapid progress. Russia’s slow response to Ukraine’s Kursk operation also indicates dysfunction within Russia’s internal security apparatus. Local authorities in Kursk, Russia’s internal intelligence services, the Ministry of Defense and the Kremlin have not coordinated their response effectively.

The Russians have taken weeks to mobilize forces to counter the Ukrainian advances and there are reports that Russia has started counteroffensive operations in Kursk. However, Moscow’s progress has been slow. As Russian forces begin to counterattack, the Ukrainians have not only held the front lines in Kursk but have even made isolated tactical gains. If Kyiv intends to use the territory under its control in Kursk as leverage in future peace talks, it will be crucial for Ukraine to avoid overextending its forces in the region.

Ukraine’s Western supporters remain divided on whether the military operation in Kursk was a wise decision. Critics point out that Ukraine has a limited amount of manpower and every soldier and armored vehicle is needed along the most precarious sections of the front line to prevent a Russian breakthrough.

However, proponents of the Kursk operation argue that controlling Russian territory might force Moscow to pull back troops from the front lines. At the very least, Ukraine’s military success has boosted morale and reminded Ukraine’s American and European supporters that it can achieve battlefield victories when given the right equipment and support.

Time will tell whether Ukraine’s gamble was worth it, but it serves as a reminder to expect the unexpected in warfare. Few would have imagined that a war, which Russian military planners had hoped would last only a few days, would result in hundreds of thousands of soldiers dead and wounded and Ukrainian control over a small portion of Russian territory.

As the war enters its third winter, there is no end in sight.

Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey

eurasiareview.com · September 20, 2024

11. The Navy Has a Warship That Could be Way Better Than Aircraft Carriers

I will leave it to the Naval experts to evaluate this claim.

The Navy Has a Warship That Could be Way Better Than Aircraft Carriers

The National Interest · by Peter Suciu · September 20, 2024

Key Points You Need to Know Now: The U.S. Navy’s San Antonio-class amphibious transport docks (LPDs) represent a versatile and cost-effective solution for future naval power projection, as opposed to the very expensive aircraft carriers of today, like the Ford-class, which cost $120 billion.

-Capable of carrying up to 633 Marines, advanced vehicles, helicopters, and landing craft, these warships can execute a wide range of missions.

-Recently, the Navy commissioned the USS Richard M. McCool Jr. (LPD-29), honoring Medal of Honor recipient Capt. McCool. LPD-29 is the final Flight I variant of the San Antonio class, with 13 more advanced Flight II ships planned.

-The LPDs serve as sovereign sea bases, vital to the Navy-Marine Corps team in modern amphibious and expeditionary warfare.

Why the U.S. Navy Is Betting on San Antonio-Class LPDs for Future Conflicts

The U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered supercarriers are impressive warships able to project power around the globe. The problem is that the sea service doesn't have enough of them. They cost a lot of time and money to build, and massive crews are required to operate them.

The future could see smaller, more easily replaceable vessels that can still project considerable power around the globe. The Navy already operates such a warship – the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock, also known as a landing platform dock (LPD).

Each LPD is 684 feet long and 105 feet wide and can carry a landing force of 66 officers and 633 Marines.

According to the Navy, LPDs can "embark, transport, and land elements of a landing force for a variety of expeditionary warfare missions. They provide the Navy and Marine Corps with modern, sea-based platforms that are networked, survivable, and built to operate in the 21st century, with the MV-22 Osprey, the upgraded Amphibious Assault Vehicle, and future means by which Marines are delivered ashore."

The warships aren't battleships by any account, but they are armed with two 30 mm Bushmaster II cannons for surface defense, along with a pair of Rolling Airframe Missile launchers for air defense. LPDs can carry four CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters, two Landing Craft Air Cushions, one Landing Craft Utility, and 14 Assault Amphibious Vehicles.

The Newest LPD Has Arrived

A few weeks ago, the Navy commissioned USS Richard M. McCool Jr. (LPD-29) at a ceremony at Naval Air Station Pensacola. The warship was named to honor "U.S. Navy Capt. Richard M. McCool, Jr., Ret. who received the Medal of Honor in 1945 for the heroism he displayed after his ship, USS LSC 122, was attacked by kamikaze aircraft in the Battle of Okinawa."

LPD-29 is the first vessel named to honor Capt. McCool, and the 13th San Antonio-class LPD commissioned in the Navy. While a dozen were originally proposed, the sea service announced in 2018 that it would increase the size of the LPD fleet. USS Richard M. McCool Jr. is the final Flight I San Antonio-class vessel, while an additional 13 Flight II variants could be produced. Construction is underway on the first three.

During the commissioning ceremony for LPD-29, Navy leaders emphasized the importance of the vessels, which have been described as "sovereign sea bases from which Marines can carry out a wide variety of missions."

"LPD 29 represents a shift in what an amphibious warship is," said Gen. C.J. Mahoney, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps. "With the latest in integrated SPY-6 (air and missile defense radar system) and Next Generation Surface Search Technology, she enables reconnaissance and counter reconnaissance on the forward edge of the battlespace – making sense and decision space for the Fleet and Joint Force Commanders."

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti further reflected on the importance of the Navy-Marine Corps team and the San Antonio-class LPDs.

"The LPD plays an essential role on our Blue-Green team as the workhorse of our Amphibious Fleet, and soon McCool will set sail and begin embarking, transporting, and landing elements of our Navy-Marine Corps team," said Franchetti. "The commissioning of this warship puts another player with more capability on the field in America's Warfighting Navy, providing more options to our Nation’s leaders to deter and if necessary, fight and win our Nation’s wars in this decade and beyond."

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: [email protected].

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

The National Interest · by Peter Suciu · September 20, 2024

12. Delta Force: The U.S. Military's Ultimate Special Forces Squad Russia Freaks Over

Yes, I fall for this clickbait every time. I acknowledge my weakness.

Delta Force: The U.S. Military's Ultimate Special Forces Squad Russia Freaks Over

The National Interest · by Harrison Kass · September 20, 2024

Top 3 Points: Founded in 1977, Delta Force is the U.S. Army’s elite special operations unit, specializing in counterterrorism, hostage rescue, and special reconnaissance. Created by Green Beret Charles Beckwith, who was inspired by the British SAS, Delta Force became fully operational in 1979.

-Despite a disastrous first mission during the Iran hostage crisis, the unit has since grown into a highly effective and autonomous force. Delta Force recruits, often drawn from U.S. Army Rangers, endure a rigorous selection process, followed by extensive training in advanced combat, espionage, and demolition.

-Today, Delta Force remains a key player in America’s counterterrorism and global special operations.

Inside Delta Force: America’s Secretive Counterterrorism Unit

When Americans think of US special forces, the Navy SEALs are typically top of mind. But the U.S. Army’s Delta Force may have a righteous claim as America’s most elite special forces group.

Founded in 1977, Delta Force performs counterterrorism, hostage rescue, and special reconnaissance – much like their SEAL counterparts, albeit without the amphibious or underwater emphasis.

Founding Delta Force

The persistence of Charles Beckwith, a Green Beret who had served in Vietnam, led to Delta Force’s creation. Beckwith was convinced that the U.S.’ lack of an equivalent to the British SAS, a small and flexible unconventional warfare unit, was a glaring deficiency.

Beckwith began advocating for the creation of an autonomous special forces teams with a wide range of skills. Initially, Beckwith was rebuffed. But as the threat of international terrorism grew, the higher-ups began to recognize the value of the type of unit Beckwith was describing.

Delta Force was certified as fully mission-capable roughly two years after being founded, in 1979, just in time for one of the most significant international incidents of the late 20th century: the Iran hostage crisis. When Iranian students took American citizens hostage from the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Delta Force was assigned with designing a rescue plan. The plan came to be known as Operation Eagle Claw.

Operation Eagle Claw is remembered as an operational disaster so profound that it effectively sunk Jimmy Carter’s chances of re-election. The plan called for the forceful rescue of American hostages, with Delta Force members arriving overnight via helicopter.

Three of the eight helicopters failed, for various reasons, ending Delta Force’s bid to rescue the hostages. The incident prompted an investigation. It ultimately led to the founding of the “Night Stalkers” special forces helicopter squadron, and to a restructuring of Delta Force.

Recruiting Delta Force

The majority of Delta Force recruits come from the U.S. Army Rangers. The selection process lasts four weeks, and is conducted twice a year at Camp Dawson in West Virginia. During the selection process, recruits are subjected to a battery of physically and psychologically grueling tests. The attrition rate often exceeds 90%. For the recruits who make it through the selection gauntlet, another six months of Delta-specific training awaits.

The skills Delta Force members are expected to master vary widely, and consist mostly of what you’d expect: marksmanship, demolitions, executive protection, espionage, counter-surveillance, and the like. The finished product of the training course is an elite special forces operator who enjoys a special degree of autonomy and is even permitted relaxed grooming standards – a rarity in the U.S. military.

The Pentagon doesn’t often comment on Delta Force operations, leaving the unit with an air of mystery perhaps unmatched in the U.S. military community.

But we know that Delta Force is an oft-deployed unit, the tip of the spear, that has seen steady action in official and unofficial conflicts for nearly 50 years.

About the Author

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Image Credit: Shutterstock.

The National Interest · by Harrison Kass · September 20, 2024

13. US close to sending $567 million in immediate security aid to Taiwan

As much aid we as send to some countries perhaps we would have operational control of their militaries (note my HUGE attempt at sarcasm.)

But note the buried lede in the last two paragraphs.

Excerpts:

The April bill featured a further $2 billion in longer-term security aid for the region, $1.4 billion of which went to Taiwan in a separate package approved — though never announced — this summer. The U.S. green-lit the sale of $228 million in repairs and spare parts for military kit this week, adding to the $19 billion in such foreign military sales Taiwan is waiting on for delivery.

A Pentagon watchdog recently published a scathing report on the first round of support last year. It found that shipping issues caused by the American military led to aid arriving in Taiwan later than expected, covered in mold and in some cases expired. Fixing the issues cost the two sides a further $730,000.

“More broadly, the delivery of non-mission-capable items inhibits the [Defense Department’s] ability to achieve established security cooperation goals and may lead to loss of partner confidence in the United States,” the report said.

US close to sending $567 million in immediate security aid to Taiwan

Defense News · by Noah Robertson · September 20, 2024

The U.S. is in the final stages of sending almost $570 million in security assistance to Taiwan — the largest such package to date, and one sure to frustrate China — according to multiple congressional aides and a U.S. official.

The administration will use its fastest tool available to deliver the aid: directly shipping its own stocks, a process it’s heavily relied on to support Ukraine’s self-defense. This $567 million package has already received the Pentagon’s approval and is now awaiting the president’s signature.

As it stands, it would be almost double a package of $345 million sent last year. The president will likely approve the tranche before the fiscal year expires at the end of the month, said one aide and an official, who like others speaking for this story were not permitted to talk to the press and were granted anonymity.

The new package of aid has not been previously reported.

Taiwan is by far the most delicate issue in America’s relationship with China. Beijing maintains the democratically governed island is part of its rightful territory, and won’t rule out military force to one day unite with it. The U.S., meanwhile, is Taiwan’s oldest and largest supplier of military aid.

The impasse often leads to public displays of frustration. At this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue, Asia’s largest defense summit, China’s Minister of National Defense Adm. Dong Jun warned that supporters of Taiwanese “separatists” would be punished — shortly after China’s military held large drills around the island.

And in a briefing this week, a spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned U.S. military support, arguing it “sends a wrong message to ‘Taiwan independence’ separatist forces.”

Still, at a September defense conference hosted in Beijing, which a top Pentagon official for China attended, members of the People’s Liberation Army were gentler. The month before, U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan also traveled to China, where he met with senior members of the government and helped schedule a long-sought call between America’s top military leader in the region and his Chinese counterpart.

The security assistance will fund training, stockpiles, anti-armor weapons, air defense and multi-domain awareness, according to a U.S. official, who would not be more specific. It will also include drones, which are key to America and Taiwan’s “asymmetric” strategy to defend the island against China’s much larger military.

The ambiguity is typical for aid to Taiwan, which the U.S. rarely discusses in detail due to its sensitivity. Neither the Pentagon nor the National Security Council would comment for this story, except to say that America maintains the right to support Taiwan’s self-defense, per longstanding government policy.

“We have no comment on this matter. Taiwan will continue to enhance defense capabilities and closely work with the United States so as to actively uphold peace, stability and prosperity across the Taiwan Strait and in the Indo-Pacific region,” a spokesperson for Taiwan’s unofficial embassy in Washington said in a statement.

In an effort to hasten support for Taiwan, Congress gave the administration the authority to send Taiwan up to $1 billion in its own stocks each year — a more direct show of support than previous assistance from arms sales. That said, lawmakers didn’t give the Pentagon an actual budget, and the department has been loathe to send equipment it can’t replace.

After debating a further package of aid last year — one supported by members of the State Department and White House — Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin paused any further aid to Taiwan without funding.

That money arrived in April, when Congress included $1.9 billion to replenish U.S. stocks sent to countries in the Indo-Pacific. Leaders across the Pentagon have since been planning how to use that funding, most of which will go to Taiwan.

The package now close to approval went through several rounds of revisions, according to multiple officials. The Pentagon initially planned a smaller amount, but in a meeting of different parts of the administration this summer, multiple senior officials said it needed to be far larger — leading to the expanded $567 million figure.

The Pentagon is also now working on a third package of drawdown aid to Taiwan, which the government plans to complete by the end of the administration in January, the U.S. official said.

The April bill featured a further $2 billion in longer-term security aid for the region, $1.4 billion of which went to Taiwan in a separate package approved — though never announced — this summer. The U.S. green-lit the sale of $228 million in repairs and spare parts for military kit this week, adding to the $19 billion in such foreign military sales Taiwan is waiting on for delivery.

A Pentagon watchdog recently published a scathing report on the first round of support last year. It found that shipping issues caused by the American military led to aid arriving in Taiwan later than expected, covered in mold and in some cases expired. Fixing the issues cost the two sides a further $730,000.

“More broadly, the delivery of non-mission-capable items inhibits the [Defense Department’s] ability to achieve established security cooperation goals and may lead to loss of partner confidence in the United States,” the report said.

About Noah Robertson

Noah Robertson is the Pentagon reporter at Defense News. He previously covered national security for the Christian Science Monitor. He holds a bachelor’s degree in English and government from the College of William & Mary in his hometown of Williamsburg, Virginia.

14. Experts Want UN to Set Up Principles for Global AI Governance

And how effective would that be? And what if you removed ai from the headline? You are left with "Global Governance."

However, I do not think you can enforce "principles."

Excerpts:

When the secretary-general told reporters last year that he planned to appoint the advisory body, Guterres said he would react favorably to a new U.N. agency on artificial intelligence and suggested as a model the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is knowledge-based and has some regulatory powers.

But the advisory body said it wasn't recommending establishment of an agency.

Amandeep Singh Gill, the secretary-general's chief's envoy on technology and a member of the advisory body, told a news conference launching the report that for now an agency isn't needed, "but it's not saying that we would never need something like that." The board wants that possibility to be studied, he said.

The report was issued ahead of the Summit of the Future starting Sunday which Guterres has called to try to unite the world's divided nations and address the challenges and threats confronting humanity from conflicts and climate change to artificial intelligence and reforming the U.N.

Experts Want UN to Set Up Principles for Global AI Governance

As the technology makes rapid progress, observers say it's 'imperative' to establish the foundations for inclusive global institutions to track its evolution and establish safeguards.

Inc. · September 20, 2024

A high-powered U.N. advisory body said Thursday that global governance of artificial intelligence is "imperative" and urged the United Nations to lay the foundations for the first inclusive global institutions to regulate the fast-growing technology.

In a 100-page report, the group said AI "is transforming our world," offering tremendous potential for good from opening new areas of science and accelerating economic growth to improving public health, agriculture and optimizing energy grids.

But left ungoverned, it said, AI's benefits could be limited to a handful of countries, companies and individuals, while even more powerful systems than exist today "could upend the world of work," create autonomous weapons, and pose risks to peace and security.

The advisory body outlined principles that should guide formation of new institutions to govern AI including international law, and especially human rights law. It calls on all governments and parties involved in AI to work together to protect human rights.

The group made wide-ranging recommendations including establishing an international scientific panel on AI to create a global understanding of its capabilities and risks, and a global dialogue on AI governance at the U.N. to anchor future institutions on human rights principles and international law.

The recommendations also call for a global AI fund to ensure that the technology bridges the divide between rich and poor nations and promotes achievement of U.N. development goals for 2030, and a "Standards Exchange" to foster technical compatibility.

At present, the report said, only seven of the 193 U.N. member nations are party to seven recent prominent AI governance initiatives while 118 countries, primarily in the global South, "are missing entirely" from any conversation.

Among the initiatives are the European Union's first-ever legal framework to regulate AI, which entered into force on Aug. 1. This month,. the Group of 20 leading world economies agreed to establish guidelines for developing artificial intelligence, calling for "ethical, transparent, and accountable use of AI," with human oversight and compliance with privacy and human rights laws. And lawmakers in California -- home to many of the world's biggest AI companies -- recently adopted legislation to regulate AI which is before the governor.

The advisory board's report concluded on a positive but cautious note.

"As experts, we remain optimistic about the future of AI and its potential for good," the report said. "That optimism depends, however, on realism about the risks and the inadequacy of structures and incentives currently in place."

The board stressed that "The technology is too important, and the stakes are too high, to rely only on market forces and a fragmented patchwork of national and multilateral action."

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres appointed the advisory body last October, saying coordinated action is needed to keep the threat of artificial intelligence from becoming an uncontrolled "monster."

The group comprises 39 prominent AI leaders from 33 countries -- chosen from over 2,000 nominations. They represent all regions of the world, are serving in their personal capacity, and include experts from government, the private sector and civil society.

Guterres commended the group's work Thursday, expressing full support for its recommendations "which provide a blueprint to build on existing efforts and together, shape an international AI architecture that is inclusive, agile and effective -- for today and the future."

When the secretary-general told reporters last year that he planned to appoint the advisory body, Guterres said he would react favorably to a new U.N. agency on artificial intelligence and suggested as a model the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is knowledge-based and has some regulatory powers.

But the advisory body said it wasn't recommending establishment of an agency.

Amandeep Singh Gill, the secretary-general's chief's envoy on technology and a member of the advisory body, told a news conference launching the report that for now an agency isn't needed, "but it's not saying that we would never need something like that." The board wants that possibility to be studied, he said.

The report was issued ahead of the Summit of the Future starting Sunday which Guterres has called to try to unite the world's divided nations and address the challenges and threats confronting humanity from conflicts and climate change to artificial intelligence and reforming the U.N.

Inc. · September 20, 2024

15. 1940s massacre threatens to tear Ukraine & Poland’s friendship apart

Some more history of which I was unaware. Those affected by such history have memories that will never fade over generations (as in other regions of the world - I am thinking of Northeast Asia).

Two things that are unalterable and must be understood: history and geography.

Excerpts:

“No one is hiding the fact that the issue of the Volhynian tragedy, which is being discussed again, is linked to Ukraine's accession to the EU. This is political blackmail, and it's not fair, both politically and ethically,” Ukrainian historian Pavlo Hai-Nyzhnyk told The Counteroffensive.

According to Hai-Nyzhnyk, the Volhynian tragedy will remain a springboard for manipulation for some time to come, as the issue has become too politicized.

Instead, professional historians should deal with the issue to finally arrive at a common vision of the past.

Cichocki disagreed.

“There's no need to say ‘let's leave history to historians.’ No, the economy is not left to economists, health care is not left to doctors. The past and identity are what everyone is concerned about today,” Bartosz Cichocki said.

1940s massacre threatens to tear Ukraine & Poland’s friendship apart

The killings in Volyn are a historical event with serious repercussions for Ukraine’s future. Poland, one of its closest allies, threatens to block Ukraine EU membership unless their demands are met.

https://www.counteroffensive.news/p/1940s-massacre-threatens-to-tear?utm

Mariana Lastovyria

Sep 21, 2024

Editor’s note: This deep dive into the historical scar tissue between two allies is only possible due to the support of our paid subscribers. Help us illuminate this war, its history and its impact on the future by upgrading to a paid subscription today!

Upgrade now!

Today, Ukrainians are widely seen as an example of resistance against war criminals.

Yet, for decades, they have also faced accusations of genocide: many Poles claim that Ukrainians tried to wipe out their nation.

More than 80 years ago, Ukrainian nationalists killed thousands of Poles in the western regions of Ukraine. Sometimes, the killings were indiscriminate. They targeted children, women, the elderly, and other civilians. In retaliation, Poles carried out numerous revenge attacks against the Ukrainian population.

These bloody events, known as the Volhynian Massacre, occurred between 1942 and 1943. During this time, different estimates suggest that anywhere from 35,000 to 100,000 Poles were killed by Ukrainians. Almost 10,000 died on the Ukrainian side. But both sides still haven’t reached an agreement on the real number of victims.

It happened almost a century ago, but these historical events have real world implications for Ukraine’s future – it is a bitter point between two countries that are otherwise close allies due to Russian aggression, and a point of friction that could keep Ukraine out of the EU.

People hold a banner with the words ‘eternal disgrace’ with a photo of Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera during a commemoration service of Polish victims of the Volhynian massacre on July 14, 2019 in Warsaw, Poland. (Photo by Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, Poland has been a reliable partner of Ukraine, sheltering more than 5 million Ukrainians. The Poles have consistently advocated Ukraine's accession to the EU and NATO, and have supported Ukraine with ammunition and weapons since the first hours of the full-scale invasion.

But Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said recently that Ukraine would not be allowed to join the EU until it allows “exhuming the victims of the Volhynian Massacre.” And it was a serious cause of tension earlier this week when Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski visited with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv.

Share this post

Next year Poland will take over the rotating presidency of the European Union. The country may use Ukraine's aspirations for European integration to pressure Kyiv to resolve the Volhynian issue. Ukraine's future directly depends on its accession to the EU and the support of its Western partners, which may be jeopardized by these deteriorating relations.

In 2016 Poland officially recognized these events, which took place in the Volhynian region of modern-day Ukraine, as a genocide of the Polish population carried out by the Ukrainian insurgent army (UPA).

“Ukraine imposes restrictions on access to the graves of Poles killed in this crime. Although there is no formal ban on exhumation, it is virtually impossible to obtain all the documents, permission to search and remove the remains,” Bartosz Cichocki, former Polish ambassador to Ukraine, told The Counteroffensive.

Former Ambassador of Poland to Ukraine Bartosz Cichocki gives an interview to the Ukrinform Ukrainian National News Agency (Photo by Hennadii Minchenko/ Ukrinform/Future Publishing via Getty Images)

He was the only EU ambassador who did not leave Kyiv when Russia launched a full-scale invasion and other countries were evacuating their representatives en masse to their homelands. Cichocki decided then that such a gesture would demonstrate Poland's unwavering support in the war against Russia. It would also signal to other countries not to fear coming to Ukraine. During his diplomatic mission, which lasted until 2023, Cichocki coordinated the provision of military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine from Poland.

In the first months of the full-scale war, Poland became a refuge for millions of Ukrainians, as well as a hub for the supply of weapons to Ukraine.

But the ghosts of the bloody past still haunt both countries.

“After Russia's full-scale aggression, it was much easier for me to talk to Ukrainians about the Volhynian massacre, because the suspicion that the Poles were profiting from using these things to achieve hidden goals disappeared,” the Polish diplomat claimed. “But this period of trust is over.”

Ambassador of the Republic of Poland to Ukraine Bartosz Jan Cichocki attends the handover ceremony of humanitarian assistance sent to eastern Ukraine (Photo by Kovalyov Oleksiy/ Ukrinform/Future Publishing via Getty Images)

Ukraine does not recognize the killing of Poles in Volhynian as genocide. Ukrainian historians tend to interpret this period as ‘ethnic cleansing.’ This is also a serious war crime, but it is of a different nature. Genocide is aimed at the total destruction of a national group, whereas ethnic cleansing seeks to expel that group from a particular territory.

Ukrainian historians, like Pavlo Hai-Nyzhnyk, also argue that the events in Volhynian should not be viewed in isolation, but rather within the broader context of the historical conflicts of the interwar period. After the First World War, at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, Poland guaranteed the Ukrainian population autonomy within the modern western Ukrainian territories that were then part of it. This included the formation of local governments and the right to use the Ukrainian language.

However, this approach was quickly reversed. Poland curtailed democratic institutions. They banned the use of the word ‘Ukraine’ or ‘Ukrainian’ and replaced it with ‘Rusyn’ which was used to refer to East Slavic peoples in general.

Education in the Ukrainian language became impossible. In addition, in the 1920s Poland massively resettled its citizens to western Ukrainian lands. About 300,000 Polish officers, war veterans and ordinary Poles took the opportunity to get land in Volhynian.

Ukrainians resisted these policies.

Portrait of Polish Prime Minister Jozef Pilsudski in uniform, 1927. (Photo by Central Press/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

In 1930, at the initiative of Polish Prime Minister Józef Piłsudski, ‘pacification,’ which means ‘reconciliation’ in Latin, was introduced to suppress liberation sentiments. It was an open policy of repression against the Ukrainians, who were subjected to mass beatings, arrests, rape, and destruction of private and public property.

In addition, the Poles attempted to forcibly convert the historically Orthodox Ukrainians to Catholicism. At that time, the Poles not only agitated for a religious shift, but also burned and destroyed the majority of Ukrainian churches in several regions, according to the historian Pavlo Hai-Nyzhnyk.

Cichocki does not deny the crimes committed by the Polish side, especially by the Polish army, which in turn organized terror against the Ukrainian population.

But, like other Poles, Cichocki demands that Ukraine recognize the crimes of the UPA and Ukrainian nationalist leaders.

“The policy towards national minorities in the Second Polish Republic was a failure. Today, no one erects monuments or glorifies these mistakes… We are not responsible for what our ancestors did. What matters is how we deal with it today,” Cichocki remarked.

Following the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, glorifying the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and leading Ukrainian nationalists became part of Ukrainian politics.

They were the ones who laid the groundwork for and fought for Ukrainian independence during the Nazi, Soviet, and Polish occupations of Ukraine. Ukrainian society now rallies around these images to symbolize its struggle for freedom.

The Polish people have a very negative attitude towards this. Even though the UPA was initially fighting against Poles who collaborated with the Nazis, they later began attacks on ordinary peasants.

“Because of Poland's repressive policy toward Ukrainians and the Church, Ukrainian youth became radicalized. And this left its mark on subsequent events,” Ukrainian historian Pavlo Hai-Nyzhnyk told The Counteroffensive. “But as for the events in Volhynian, we will not see any orders from the Ukrainian insurgent army to terrorize the civilian population.”

Monument of UPA’s leader, Roman Sukhevych, 2019. Source: https://galka.if.ua/

Polish diplomat Bartosz Cichocki is categorically opposed to the glorification of the UPA. He was always against the unveiling of monuments and the naming of streets in honor of Ukrainian nationalists.

In particular, two years before Russia's full-scale invasion, in 2020, Cichocki issued a joint statement with the Israeli ambassador against the erection of a monument to UPA leader Roman Shukhevych, who was accused of anti-Semitism and extermination of Poles. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry summoned Cichocki over the incident.

But like other Poles, Cichocki remains steadfast.

Monument to Ukrainian insurgent army, Hruszowice, Poland. Photo by Waldek Sosnowski/Forum

Poles continue to insist that the Volhynian tragedy was a Ukrainian-coordinated action to kill Polish civilians. In 2016, when the Polish government declared the events of 1942-1943 a genocide, a wave of vandalism of Ukrainian monuments swept across Poland. In particular, in 2017, a Ukrainian monument honoring the UPA was demolished in the Polish village of Hruszowice. As a result, Ukraine banned the search and exhumation of Polish remains.

The Poles request for exhumations are aimed at determining the exact number of victims of the Volhynian tragedy, so they are increasingly raising this issue.

The Ukrainian side, however, refers to the Memorandum on Cooperation in the Field of National Memory between the Ministries of Culture of the two countries, signed in June 2022. This document is an agreement between the parties on exhumation. A Polish-Ukrainian working group with experts from specialized institutions of both countries will be established within its framework. Due to the danger of attacks, the memorandum allows exhumations to take place three months after the end of martial law in Ukraine.

President of Poland Andrzej Duda visits Gdansk to lay flowers and pray under the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia victims monument. (Photo by Michal Fludra/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

“No one is hiding the fact that the issue of the Volhynian tragedy, which is being discussed again, is linked to Ukraine's accession to the EU. This is political blackmail, and it's not fair, both politically and ethically,” Ukrainian historian Pavlo Hai-Nyzhnyk told The Counteroffensive.

According to Hai-Nyzhnyk, the Volhynian tragedy will remain a springboard for manipulation for some time to come, as the issue has become too politicized.

Instead, professional historians should deal with the issue to finally arrive at a common vision of the past.

Cichocki disagreed.

“There's no need to say ‘let's leave history to historians.’ No, the economy is not left to economists, health care is not left to doctors. The past and identity are what everyone is concerned about today,” Bartosz Cichocki said.

The Counteroffensive with Tim Mak is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribed

16. Army to close active information warfare unit, move to smaller units

I am ignorant and was unaware of this. (and I live right around the corner from this organization next to Fort Belvoir! I wish I had known because I would have tried to work there. Too late now but I would love to have seen its work on influence operations in Korea.) I did not know it focused on civil affairs or PSYOP or was the only Army unit to do so. (I supposed the 1st SF Command and its subordinate Civil Affairs and PSYOP units are not part of the Army).

But on a less sarcastic note, this is probably a wise move. The red teaming capability in particular needs to be integrated across the force and in operational units. But the very first paragraph tells the correct story though the deactivation/inactivation of the organization may seem counterintuitive.

Excerpt:

The Army is deactivating its last standing active-duty information operations command as part of the military’s shift to joint operations and a broader realization that information warfare is and will be significant in future wars.

...

In July, U.S. Army Cyber Command’s 1st Information Operations Command held its last change of command ceremony at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The command was the Army’s only active-duty command focused on civil affairs, cyber warfare and psychological operations, also known colloquially as a PSYOP which aim to influence the beliefs and actions of other countries’ populations. An exact date for the unit’s official deactivation was not immediately clear.

Army to close active information warfare unit, move to smaller units

“They were a parking space for cyber red teaming before cyber red teaming really became a common thing within the military.”

Patty Nieberg

Posted on Sep 20, 2024 10:59 AM EDT

taskandpurpose.com

The Army is deactivating its last standing active-duty information operations command as part of the military’s shift to joint operations and a broader realization that information warfare is and will be significant in future wars.

With that in mind, the Army wants soldiers conducting information operations closer to the future fight and integrated into the different geographic regions.

In July, U.S. Army Cyber Command’s 1st Information Operations Command held its last change of command ceremony at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The command was the Army’s only active-duty command focused on civil affairs, cyber warfare and psychological operations, also known colloquially as a PSYOP which aim to influence the beliefs and actions of other countries’ populations. An exact date for the unit’s official deactivation was not immediately clear.

“There was a little bit of a mismatch between what the functions were in [1st Information Operations Command] which had kind of accreted a variety of jobs over the years that weren’t all really truly related,” said Aaron Pearce, U.S. Army Cyber Command’s director for information warfare. “They were a parking space for cyber red teaming before cyber red teaming really became a common thing within the military.”

The Army’s cyber red teams emulate adversaries to highlight vulnerabilities in the broader U.S. and military networks to make improvements. The Army recently stood up a red team focused on exploiting cybersecurity weaknesses in artificial intelligence systems. The service has also created Expeditionary Cyber-Electromagnetic Activities Teams which have joined national training center rotations where they replicate real-world cyber operations in the field.

They are just one of several new units the Army is standing up as it pivots to a battlespace where information warfare is key — especially online where information moves fast and goes unchecked. In the midst of the actual hand-to-hand combat in Russia and Ukraine, another information war is playing out on the internet. According to NATO, Russia has used trolls to make posts and comments imitating real people, bots to automate messages and fabricated news to push messages with misleading information to push their own narratives.

The shift, according to Pearce, is part of the military’s understanding that information beyond the classified realm, meaning from public sources, is becoming “more central to the battlefield and that it’s important to all types of units, not just specialized units, but the maneuver commanders themselves.”

Earlier this month, the Army held a joint exercise focused on open-source intelligence with Finland, using AI algorithms to sift through data and flag specific keywords and phrases in certain geographic locations. They also used private sector satellite data that helped soldiers detect infrastructure changes, military asset movements, and other data points for strategic assessments.

Previously, the Army looked at information operations as “just a planning coordinating function at the command level,” Pearce said. But the Army’s new focus is to take data from all of the new AI-enabled and sensing technology along with open source information to help commanders be proactive in battle.

“It’s really turning information and trying to have an effect with it, not just reacting to it,” he added.

At a tech conference in August, Lt. Gen. Maria Barrett, commander of Army Cyber Command, said the 1st Information Operations command gave the Army insight into what information advantage could be when it was first stood up in 2002.

Subscribe to Task & Purpose today. Get the latest military news and culture in your inbox daily.

“We don’t want the same capabilities, though,” she said. “We want an evolved capability, and so it starts with, ironically, inactivating the 1st IO Brigade.”

The changes have come in spite of broader recruiting and retention problems facing the Army – specifically in its psychological operations (PSYOP) units. In March, a report by the Department of Defense’s Inspector General found that the Army didn’t have enough PSYOP soldiers to fight the information war with China and Russia, due to not recruiting, training, or retaining a sufficient workforce to meet the growing demand for PSYOP operations.

The inspector general also said that the lack of PSYOP-trained active duty soldiers has forced the service to rely on reservists to “fill the global, full-time requirements for conventional MISO.” The result of diminished active duty PSYOP soldiers, according to the watchdog report, has led to an increased risk of burnout among remaining soldiers.

However, the Army says the command’s deactivation will not impact existing PSYOP units.

“PSYOP as a function” will be a piece of the puzzle that in-theater unit detachments use in their assessments that are passed on to commanders who make the final decisions in combat, Pearce said.

Since 2006, PSYOP soldiers have been assigned to units in either U.S. Army Special Operations Command and the Army Reserve Command, leading to a difference in training among active-duty and Reserve PSYOP soldiers. In April, commanding general for the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, or SWCS, announced it would standardize the varied PSYOP training among the full and part-time soldiers working those jobs.

Closer to the battlefield

During counterinsurgency fights in Iraq and Afghanistan, commanders had to request field support teams who were proficient in information operations to augment special operations command staff on the ground, Pearce said. Under the new model, the Army plans to have information warfare specialists embedded in the different regions where the U.S. military has a footprint.

The Theater Information Advantage Detachments, TIADs, will look at answering “how do we influence the adversary, how do we counter adversary information warfare campaigns against those forces” and take information from the battlefield and region into their analysis, he said.

The Army’s new Multi-Domain Task Forces will overlap with the TIADs in terms of soldier occupation specialties but they will also include soldiers with artillery backgrounds. Three will be assigned to the Pacific, one with Army forces based in Europe focused on Africa and another in the Middle East. One headquarters is currently in Germany and another is stationed in Hawaii, according to the Army.

Multi-domain operations occur “below the threshold of armed conflict,” and use space, cyber, air, sea, and land to “accomplish missions at least cost,” according to analysis by the Congressional Research Service. “During conflict, they are how Army forces close with and destroy the enemy, defeat enemy formations, seize critical terrain, and control populations and resources to deliver sustainable political outcomes.”

In terms of next steps, Army civilians assigned to the 1st Information Operations Command will remain within the Army Cyber Command. Military personnel from the command may take on positions in the new units or move to other areas depending on need.

The latest on Task & Purpose

Four Marines trained an Air Force base to take the Marine Corps fitness test. The Air Force gave them medals for it
Sailor proudly rocks ‘E-4 Mafia’ patch as he stands watch on USS Abraham Lincoln
The A-10 era is over for this legendary Air Force attack squadron
A comprehensive guide to the shoulder tabs Army soldiers wear on their uniforms
101st Airborne Division troops headed to Middle East, 3rd Infantry will go to Europe

taskandpurpose.com

17. Russian troops receive Musk’s Cybertrucks

I have to say Musk designed a badass looking vehicle. I saw one of these parked at the Army Navy Club in Arlington a few weeks ago. (less the gun turret)

I guess there are no export controls on Tesla vehicles.

Photo at the link.

Russian troops receive Musk’s Cybertrucks

https://defence-blog.com/russian-troops-receive-musks-cybertrucks/?amphttps://defence-blog.com/russian-troops-receive-musks-cybertrucks/?amp

By Dylan Malyasov- Sep 20, 2024

Kremlin-backed Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov has claimed that he provided two modified Tesla Cybertrucks to Russian forces operating in occupied Ukrainian territory.

The futuristic vehicles, armed with machine guns, are reportedly in use by troops participating in what Russia refers to as the “special military operation.”

“Two more Cybertrucks have been sent to the zone of the special military operation,” Kadyrov stated. “Western technology performs well against its own Western ‘Ukronazis.’ Mobility, convenience, maneuverability—such qualities of the electric vehicle are highly valued here. Remote deactivation has not affected them. The machines are operating normally without failures,” he added.

In August, Kadyrov shared a video of himself driving a Cybertruck around the grounds of his palace, demonstrating the vehicle’s capabilities. The truck had been fitted with a machine gun turret, and Kadyrov donned an ammunition belt as he posed in front of the weapon.At that time, Kadyrov announced that the vehicle would be sent to the Donbas frontlines and hinted that he anticipated more innovations from Tesla’s founder, Elon Musk, for use in Russia’s war against Ukraine.

Tesla has not issued a comment on the reported use of its vehicles in the war, and the extent to which these Cybertrucks are utilized remains unclear.

18. India Mulls '3D Printing' Of Weapons During A Protracted War; Myanmar Rebels Already Ahead In The Game

The Myanmar/Burma rebels are showing us how to transform in contact just as are the Ukrainians.

India Mulls '3D Printing' Of Weapons During A Protracted War; Myanmar Rebels Already Ahead In The Game

eurasiantimes.com · by Ritu Sharma · September 20, 2024

The battlefields are changing, and so is the duration of wars. Wars are getting protracted, putting pressure on weapon stockpiles. India, which faces the potential challenge of two fronts, is also aware of this development. In future conflicts, 3D printing, known as Additive Manufacturing, can help the Indian forces plug this critical gap in supply.

Technology is not futuristic, but it is already here. In the hands of rebels and non-state actors, it has provided an endless supply of weapons. In Myanmar, images of 3D-printed drones made by rebels have been catalyzing the civil war in the country.

The 3D printers are producing in-house weapons for the rebels, including drones, mortar stabilizers, and other munitions for the Karenni Nationalities Defence Force (KNDF), which was outgunned by the Myanmar Junta.

Ukraine’s cheap drones have revolutionized the way wars are fought, but the use of 3D printers in Myanmar has further shown that wars can be prolonged on a shoestring budget.

Akin To A ‘Nuclear Blast’ — Ukraine’s Sensational Strike On Russia Stuns Kremlin; Kalashnikov Unveils Ultimate Tank-Killer UAV

“Without 3D printing, someone can manufacture a very high-quality weapon,” Yannick Veilleux-Lepage, assistant professor of political science at the Royal Military College of Canada, has been quoted in the media. “But that does require a great deal of skill. You need to be a competent metal worker, and that takes a long time. With a 3D-printed firearm, it doesn’t take very long to go from no skill to (creating) something lethal. That’s how things are changing, the lethality and the ease of it.”

Air Raid Sirens Buzz China, Nationwide; People Go Standstill! Chinese Say, Never Forget ‘National Humiliation’

Additive manufacturing (AM), also known as three-dimensional (3D) printing, is a “process of joining materials to make parts from 3D model data, usually layer by layer.”

3D Printing creates the part and material simultaneously. This improves production speed and flexibility but requires careful control of the additive manufacturing process. It can be used to build parts that cannot be made any other way, uniquely combine materials, produce obsolete parts, rapidly prototype, and create tools and specialized job aids.

For India, the technology can help produce specific missile components, particularly rocket motors.

“Additive manufacturing (3D printing) can surely speed up missile key component manufacturing. For example, the inertial navigation system platform design and implementation, internal component design, and mounting assemblies can be expedited through additive manufacturing,” Indian Navy official Commander Milind Kulshrestha (retired) told the EurAsian Times.

The technique can be beneficial for missiles such as very short-range air defense systems (VSHORADS) and Man Portable Anti-Tank Guided Missiles. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is exploring 3D printing with private sector players. 3D printing a motor could take a mere 3-4 days, compared to the 3-4 weeks through precision manufacturing.

‘Most Powerful’ Non-Nuclear Blast — When Israel Was Initially Blamed For Earth-Shattering Explosion In Lebanon

In 2024, Indian space startup Agnikul Cosmos successfully launched the nation’s first 3D-printed rocket engine, paving the way for reduced time and costs associated with building rockets and boosting the country’s spacefaring capabilities. This capability has numerous applications.

“Traditional Precision machining is an expensive and time-consuming activity, and redesign is a laborious procedure. Whereas in additive manufacturing, these things can be done on CAD (3D Modelling software) and directly implemented on a 3D printer, a device now within working reach and scope of most startups (whereas Precision machining is only limited to a few areas and PSUs),” Commander Kulshrestha added.

The 3D Printing process is essentially a factory-in-a-box, digitally controlled production line that can be easily turned on or off.

Additive Manufacturing allows production to be distributed and scaled across multiple machines and locations. It also allows parts to be fabricated when needed. This can reduce equipment downtime, increase maintenance and repair efficiency, and reduce cost, supporting the need for “resilient and agile logistics.”

59 Years Of 1965 War – How India’s ‘Sabre Slaying’ Siblings Brought The PAF To Its Knees During ‘Short War’

The US forces have already been using the technology. For instance, the US Marine Corps can use it to print a sensor housing to secure a gap in the perimeter of a base; Army field repair units print a low-cost cap to protect a million-dollar lens on a tank, and the US Air Force is using AM to replace obsolete parts for the C-5 at five percent of the cost.

The Pentagon’s AM strategy, released in 2021, included experimenting with 3D-printed missile parts, re-engineering parts for its Black Hawk helicopters, and customizing personnel earplugs.

Taking Goliath Down With 3D Printers

While world militaries explore 3D Printers to ease their supply chains, non-state actors are using them to reduce the gap between two sides in asymmetrical warfare.

Earlier in 2024, videos surfaced of Myanmar’s rebels launching a barrage of 3D-printed drones into the jungle. Before graduating to drones, Myanmar’s rebels manufactured FGC-9s, 3D-printed semiautomatic rifles. In 2018, a gun designer using the moniker JStark1809 created the blueprint for the weapon.

The Arakan Army (AA) captured the junta enclave of Paletwa after weeks of fighting.

Over several years, several iterations of the design were uploaded online, including on Odysee, an open-source blockchain-based media website. FGC stands for “f*ck gun control,” as the gun can be manufactured without any regulated commercial gun components.

The gun is made of a mixture of custom 3D-printed parts, readily manufacturable metal components, and store-bought screws, springs, and bolts. JStark’s motto, “live free or die,” is engraved on a tag around 3D’s neck.

The FGC-9 was manufactured at the beginning of the coup and the rebels in the frontline were using it. However, the plastic firearms did not pass the muster of a battlefield weapon. The rebels started to use the 3D-printed guns for defensive action or for carrying out guerrilla attacks.

In December 2022, the rebels graduated to 3D-printing a drone. The first iteration was called the Liberator MK1. It was a small, fixed-wing reusable drone capable of carrying up to 1.5 kilograms of explosives. The frame of the drone was 3D-printed and then covered with fiberglass. The other components—its battery, motor, and control surfaces- were reported to have been smuggled across the border from Thailand.

The drone is compact and can be transported on a scooter. In February 2024, the Mk2 variant of the drone was launched. It costs around US $5,000 to produce a drone and can be assembled in under two days. For the rebels in Myanmar, 3D printing has leveled the battlefield by giving them weapons bypassing the conventional supply chain.

Ritu Sharma has written on defense and foreign affairs for over a decade. She holds a Master’s Degree in Conflict Studies and Management of Peace from the University of Erfurt, Germany. Her areas of interest include Asia-Pacific, the South China Sea, and Aviation history.
She can be reached at ritu.sharma (at) mail.com

eurasiantimes.com · by Ritu Sharma · September 20, 2024

19. How the Powerful Outmaneuvered the American Protest Movement

Something to consider for those who study social movement theory.

Opinion

Zeynep Tufekci

How the Powerful Outmaneuvered the American Protest Movement

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/21/opinion/campus-protests-internet-america.html?utm

By Zeynep Tufekci

Opinion Columnist

Sept. 21, 2024

The year 2024 started out looking as if it would be a momentous one for political protests. All winter and spring, college campuses were aflame in anger and conflict and as summer approached, the Democratic National Convention threatened to be engulfed by street demonstrations in a potential repeat of the tumultuous 1968 party convention.

The year was momentous, all right, but not for the reasons it seemed. Mass protests had already been showing diminishing returns, sometimes drawing big crowds but rarely getting proportionally big results. Now, 2024 looks like the end of the road, at least for the kind of power that such mass protests once had, a power that has defined political action in America and in democracies around the world for decades.

Look at the campuses that seized so much attention last winter and spring. Over the summer, while protesters scattered to pursue internships or wait tables or help out at home, many institutions quietly changed the rules regarding political action. Mother Jones reported that dozens of institutions of higher education, in charge of nearly 100 campuses, were “effectively banning many forms of protest” with new regulations going far beyond the “time, space and manner” restrictions that were already in place.

Students will still raise their voices, of course, but don’t count on seeing many big encampments, nor administrators paralyzed for months on end, unsure how to deal. The balance of power has tilted sharply back in their favor, where it is likely to stay for a while.

The Democratic convention, meanwhile, saw sizable, energetic marches most days opposing Israel’s actions in Gaza — a stance that Democrats overwhelmingly support. But when the dust settled, there was no sign of any shift in policy from the Kamala Harris camp. It wouldn’t even let a single Palestinian American, a Georgia state legislator, give a brief speech mentioning the plight of Palestinians while wholeheartedly endorsing Harris.

If anything, the antiwar movement departed Chicago in a weaker position, with less leverage than it had when it arrived.

Thousands of people surging into the street or taking over college campuses, cheering on fiery speeches, presenting demands, chanting slogans — that familiar model won’t go away entirely. Especially not if a certain former president wins re-election, an event that could prompt millions to march. But as much as it pains me to say it, protesting just doesn’t get results anymore. Not the way it used to. Not in that form. It can’t.

Those in power have figured out how to outmaneuver protesters: by keeping peaceful demonstrators far out of sight, organizing an overwhelming police response that brings the threat of long prison sentences, and circulating images of the most disruptive outliers that makes the whole movement look bad.

It works. And the organizers have failed to keep up.

The digital platforms they rely on make it difficult to impose any discipline on the message being communicated. Crackpot agitators and off-the-wall causes attach themselves more easily than ever. Conflict erupts. Fueled by the drama-loving algorithms of social media platforms, the movements descend into ugly public bickering.

Hell, no, we won’t go! The whole world is watching! No justice, no peace! R.I.P. the era when big protest marches, civil disobedience and campus encampments so often changed the course of history. It was a good run, wasn’t it?

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

The irony is that the very tool that has undermined the power of the protests — the internet — initially contributed to some of the most spectacular protests in history, starting with the convention of the World Trade Organization in Seattle in 1999.

I had gotten word about the Seattle demonstrations the same way most of the protesters did: through email lists, a major novelty at the time.

It was magical. Tens of thousands of demonstrators assembled from seemingly out of nowhere. They took everyone — elected officials, the news media, the delegates in the convention center — by surprise, in a way that would previously have been impossible. The police were bewildered by the protesters’ ability to communicate among themselves at scale, in real time, to take over intersections and deftly circumvent obstacles and keep everyone else several steps behind. The whole thing brought the W.T.O. proceedings practically to a halt and gave the world a new way to think about globalization: Whom does it actually benefit?

In 2011, that model expanded to include occupations. Protesters camped out in Zuccotti Park, near Wall Street in Lower Manhattan, inspired similar occupations around the world, with the same spirit of anarchic fun also playing out online. That movement gave the world a new way to think about inequality: the 1 percent versus the 99 percent.

But considering the popularity and energy of these movements, they didn’t change the world that much. Two decades later, globalization still favors corporations. Wealth is as inequitably distributed as ever. Other large protest movements — the Iraq antiwar movement, which I participated in, and the Arab Spring, which I studied and observed — were ground down or ignored.

By 2024, the authorities had the response down pat. In Chicago last month, protesters were assigned a circular marching route at least half a mile away from the convention site. The area was secured by two concentric fences and several more barriers. Protesters could be as loud as they wanted to be and they still wouldn’t even be heard anywhere near the arena.

It was quite a decent crowd — not as many as some had expected, but I counted thousands of people energetically marching on multiple days.

But big numbers alone can’t have the impact they once did because they no longer signal the same threat. The 1963 March on Washington took several months of extensive effort and planning, a show of immense strength and organizational ability that could keep the pressure on long after the protest ended. By comparison the Occupy movement came together much more easily, in just a few weeks. It produced one of the largest ever days of global protest, but what does that even mean when the internet juices so much of the prep work? “Biggest ever” protests keep occurring to little avail. The Women’s March in 2017 was considered the largest single-day protest in U.S. history, but Donald Trump is once again back as the Republican nominee in a toss-up race.

The factors that have defanged big marches have made direct action and confrontational tactics lose their bite, too. With police officers responding in overwhelming numbers and courts doling out lengthy sentences, today’s disrupters often lack the discipline and preparation required to pull off effective civil disobedience.

In Chicago, the few protesters who tried to defy the barricades were arrested immediately. Police officers vastly outnumbered them.

With the news media swarming them, those protesters got some publicity but it was a double-edged sword: In addition to news outlets, right-wing media personalities and streamers flocked to the scene to try to use it to portray Chicago as a city in chaos.

As a scholar of social movements and an alumna of more protests than I can count, I know that to distance itself from discordant voices, a movement needs designated spokespeople who make clear what it stands for and what it denounces. That kind of message discipline is always hard, but it’s an even bigger challenge when participants all have their own social media accounts and people are quick to say they are being silenced. In 2024 it became almost impossible.

In the few weeks before the convention, a lot of drama erupted — especially on TikTok — between some Black activists and those with Palestinian or Arab heritage. These groups had previously worked in tandem, but now recriminations and ugly accusations spread virally as pro-Palestinian voices decried Harris as a warmonger and Black voices accused them of undermining a candidate of color — all fueled by ever more strident comments.

Who were these commenters inflaming the conflict? Why did so many appear not even to live in the United States? Did TikTok’s Chinese corporate overlords pick the winners? Whatever the answers, the venom was online but the results were felt on the streets: Black Lives Matter protests, so visible in Chicago in 2020, seemed almost completely absent during the Democratic convention.

The internal tensions that social movements have always faced become especially paralyzing when they play out in public, amplified by the algorithms that favor conflict. Without a counterbalancing organizational structure, there’s no way to bridge those differences and build consensus.

All of this might help explain why, during the Republican convention in Milwaukee, there were no big protests at all, despite the provocations of Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, and the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Maybe the odds were stacked so high against protesters that they didn’t even bother.

That’s not necessarily how it will play out on college campuses. Students have already begun making their voices heard. But many campus administrations (no doubt at the fervent behest of trustees) have spent the summer carefully preparing. They intend to return student protests to the status they occupied before this last extraordinary year: a common occurrence with little impact beyond the campus gates.

History, of course, is full of innovation and counter-innovation. Protests will reinvent themselves eventually. So what form does the future of political protest take? If the past is any indication, the answers will surprise us all.

After a tumultuous century of uprisings and conflict, in the mid-19th century, Paris imposed a new street plan that turned narrow roads into majestic boulevards — not merely for the aesthetics but also to make them harder for protesters to barricade. A century later, however, those boulevards were where the 1968 movement exploded with flair, creativity and impact.

For activists, finding a way forward will mean figuring out new ways to leverage the power of social media without surrendering to its destructive effects. It will mean a new understanding of impact that goes beyond virality and self-expression. It will mea — ah, what do I know?

I don’t have an easy answer, and I know that the protesters probably wouldn’t listen to me even if I did, just as I wouldn’t have listened to some scholar of protest movements when I was in their shoes. Each generation needs to creatively, purposefully find its own way.

All I know is that protests and mass demonstrations of dissent are a necessary part of a healthy democracy. I can’t wait to see what this generation comes up with.

The attack on the militant group has led to investigations into the supply chain behind the devices that detonated this past week

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hezbollah-exploding-pagers-israel-supply-chain-a4937b48?mod=hp_lead_pos7

By Georgi KantchevFollow

in London, Thomas GroveFollow

in Warsaw and Joyu WangFollow

in Taipei

Sept. 20, 2024 7:00 pm ET

The puzzle of how thousands of pagers were sabotaged in an Israeli attack on Hezbollah this past week has sparked investigations into the supply chain behind them, leading investigators to a labyrinth of shadowy companies and individuals spanning Asia and Eastern Europe.

Global Trail of Exploding Pagers

A label on a pager in Lebanon led to shadowy companies from Asia to Eastern Europe.

Hungary

Taiwan

Bulgaria

Lebanon

Hezbollah has started an investigation into the supply-chain breach.

The label on one of the pagers indicated it had been made by Gold Apollo in Taiwan.

Gold Apollo said the licensing to make

the pagers had been bought by

BAC Consulting, a company in Budapest.

Bulgarian authorities later opened a probe into Norta Global, based in Sofia.

Source: staff reports

Daniel Kiss, Carl Churchill/WSJ

The search for who was behind the manufacturing, sale and distribution of the pagers has pointed to some companies that were created in recent years, with little to no paper trail of their activities and run by mysterious business people with a vague online footprint and little experience in the telecommunications industry.

For decades, Iran and the militant groups it supports, such as Hezbollah, have used shell companies across the Middle East and Mediterranean to obtain funds and equipment while evading sanctions. Israel has in turn created its own shadowy networks to infiltrate the supply chains used by Iran and the militant groups it backs.

Tuesday’s attack is one of a handful of examples in which Israel has likely penetrated Hezbollah’s communications supply chain, said a person familiar with Israeli operations abroad. “But it’s the first time it ended with a bang like this,” he said.

People briefed on the operation said Israel breached Hezbollah’s supply chain and laced the batteries of the devices with explosives. The devices were then detonated remotely.

Hezbollah has begun an investigation into the supply-chain breach.

Who made the pagers?

The pager trail started in Taiwan this past week, after a label on one of the devices that exploded in Lebanon indicated it had been made by Gold Apollo, a Taiwan company. After reporters descended on the company’s offices in the hours after the attack, the company said it hadn’t made the pagers. It said the licensing to make them had been bought by a little-known Hungarian company called BAC Consulting.

Taiwan prosecutors on Wednesday began an investigation to determine whether there are links between Gold Apollo and the attack. On Thursday, national-security investigators summoned two executives from Gold Apollo and BAC Consulting, which operates in Taiwan under the name Apollo Systems. Authorities raided offices of both companies at four locations in Taipei on Thursday. Gold Apollo has denied any links to the attack.

How explosives could work inside electronic devices

Explosives need a power source, which can be the battery of the electronic device, and a detonator. An alphanumeric code sent to the devices could have activated a microdetonator.

There is enough space within each pager to insert a small amount of explosives. Only 2 to 4 grams of military-grade explosive is needed for the explosion seen in videos.

explosives

battery

microdetonator

While not large, an omnidirectional explosion can cause serious injuries or fatalities because of proximity.

Detonation waves move through explosive at about 6,000 meters a second

A handful of explosives could have been used, including PETN, RDX or HMX. These are highly explosive granular solids usually mixed with materials that make them safer to handle, often called plastic explosives.

These explosives can be detectable as they have chemicals that can be sniffed by dogs or identified by vapor sampling.

Fragmentation moves at about 1,000 meters a second

Note: The diagram is a schematic.

Source: Trevor Lawrence, Cranfield University Ordnance Test and Evaluation Center

“No specific evidence has been found to suggest any Taiwanese were involved in the terrorist blast attack,” the prosecutor’s office said Friday.

Apollo Systems has rented a co-working space in the Taipei area since April for about $90 a month, according to Taiwan Asset Management Corp., which manages the office space. The company was registered in Taiwan in April, with its listed activities including telecommunication equipment sales, consulting and translation.

In Hungary, BAC Consulting was registered in 2022 to carry out dozens of business activities ranging from selling telecommunications devices to producing computer games. Registered to a sleepy residential area in Budapest, the Hungarian capital, the company had sales last year of some $600,000.

Only one person was registered as both the sole employee and chief executive, a woman named Cristiana Bársony-Arcidiacono, who has a complicated and wide-ranging background. A LinkedIn account for Bársony-Arcidiacono describes her as an evaluation expert on funding for the European Commission. The account says she interned for the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2008-09. Bársony-Arcidiacono didn’t respond to requests for comment.

A walkie-talkie that exploded inside a house in Lebanon. Photo: Associated Press

People who said they knew Bársony-Arcidiacono described her as an elusive figure who would often appear for stretches of time and then leave. In Budapest, acquaintances of Bársony-Arcidiacono said she had a halting command of Hungarian, was interested in drawing, traveled often and hadn’t been seen since the start of the year.

By midweek, BAC Consulting’s website had been taken offline.

Zoltán Kovács, a Hungarian government spokesman, said that the company is a trading intermediary. He said that it had no manufacturing site in Hungary and that the pagers had never been in Hungary.

More companies and countries

A Hungarian media outlet, Telex.hu, reported that pagers were sold to Hezbollah by a Bulgarian company known as Norta Global Ltd. Bulgarian authorities immediately opened a probe into the company, which was registered in the capital, Sofia, by a Norwegian citizen in April 2022, a month before BAC was registered in Hungary.

A police officer attempting to enter an office of Gold Apollo, in Taiwan, where the pager trail started. Photo: Annabelle Chih/Getty Images

Since then, Norta Global has transferred a total of 1.6 million euros, equivalent to $1.8 million, to BAC Consulting, according to people familiar with the Bulgarian investigation.

The Bulgarian state security agency said that no pagers like the ones blown up this past week were manufactured, imported or exported in Bulgaria but that it was investigating the company’s involvement.

The company’s activity is listed as “technological project management,” according to Bulgaria’s corporate registry. But little about Norta Global suggests it was very active in Bulgaria.

The firm has no listed employees and is registered at the same central Sofia address as around 200 other companies. The company email address is using a free Bulgarian email service provider. Its registered phone number is Norwegian and went straight to voicemail.

An office building in Budapest where BAC Consulting is said to be registered. Photo: Marton Monus/Reuters

Last year the company had revenue of around $750,000 from consulting activities, according to the register’s data, and made no profit.

A website for the company had been taken offline as of Thursday. An archived version advertised services including consulting, technology integration, recruitment and outsourcing.

“Are you looking for an agile company to help you succeed or to find that tech solution just right for you? Look no further,” the website read.

Bulgaria’s security agency said that the company didn’t carry out financial operations falling under antiterrorism laws and had no business dealings with sanctioned individuals.

A building where Norta Global is based in Sofia, Bulgaria. Photo: Valentina Petrova/Associated Press

Norta Global is headed by a Norwegian national listed as Rinson Jose in corporate documents. On a LinkedIn profile with the same name, Jose is listed as an “entrepreneur” at Oslo-based NortaLink, which provides technology consulting. Its website’s URL isn’t currently in use.

Oslo police on Thursday said an investigation had started in the case. Neither Norta Global nor Jose responded to requests for comment.

Dov Lieber in Tel Aviv and Benoit Faucon in London contributed to this article.

Write to Georgi Kantchev at georgi.kantchev@wsj.com, Thomas Grove at thomas.grove@wsj.com and Joyu Wang at joyu.wang@wsj.com

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

V/R

David Maxwell

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."

Access NSS HERE

Company Name | Website