Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners


Happy Birthday Devil Dogs:

“The Marines fought almost solely on esprit de corps, I was certain. It was inconceivable to most Marines that they should let another Marine down, or that they could be responsible for dimming the bright reputation of their Corps. The Marines simply assumed that they were the world’s best fighting men.”
- Robert Sherrod


Quotes of the Day:

"Life is short and truth works far and lives long: let us speak the truth." 
- Arthur Schopenhauer

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future."
- George Orwell, 1984.

“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame… as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world…aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.
[...]
“My point is that one person is responsible. Always. [...] In terms of morals there is no such thing as ‘state.’ Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress



1. Pentagon intensifies effort to evacuate families of Defense Department service members from Afghanistan
2. Aircraft Carrier Target In Desert Is China’s Deterrence Message To US – Analysis
3. Military Surgeons Are Losing Medical Skills, Study Says. Could Off-Base Care Be Why?
4. Second U.S. Aircraft Carrier Missile Target Spotted in Chinese Desert
5. The Marine Corps wants you for psychological operations
6. Chinese forces exercise near Taiwan in response to US visit
7. China has a big inflation problem and it's pushing up prices worldwide
8. Xi says China is ready to work with U.S. on condition of 'mutual respect'
9. China’s Treatment of Uighurs Shapes Policy on Afghanistan
10. Retired Taiwanese general says China has right to patrol 'its territory' in Taiwan's ADIZ
11. China launches combat drills, dubs U.S. lawmakers’ Taiwan trip ‘sneaky’
12.  FDD | Taliban appoints Kabul Attack Network commander as provincial governor
13. FDD | Turkish Airlines in EU Crosshairs for Facilitating Lukashenko’s “Hybrid Warfare” With Belarus Flights
14. Chill out about global warming
15. Detained Afghan pilots to fly out of Tajikistan on U.S.-brokered flight
16. New charges filed against jailed US journalist in Myanmar
17. Saudi Arabia Turns Toward China
18. No ‘surrender’ — What really happened between US and British Marines at a training exercise
19. China Is Evading U.S. Spies — and the White House Is Worried
20. The “Strategic Counterinsurgency” Model: Escaping a One-Dimensional Strategic Worldview


1. Pentagon intensifies effort to evacuate families of Defense Department service members from Afghanistan
Leave no one behind.

Pentagon intensifies effort to evacuate families of Defense Department service members from Afghanistan
CNN · by Oren Liebermann, CNN
(CNN)The Pentagon has intensified its effort to evacuate the families of Defense Department service members and civilians from Afghanistan, creating a system to track the number of immediate family members who remain there more than two months after the US withdrawal.
In a memo, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl asked Defense service members and civilians to submit via email relevant information about their immediate family still in Afghanistan -- data that had previously been tracked by the services. Elevating the data collection to within the purview of the under secretary of defense will make it easier to pass this information on to the State Department, which leads the effort to evacuate American citizens, green card holders and others from the country.
"I think it's safe to say ... that we would expect dozens of service members would have concerns over family members," Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said at a news briefing Monday.

The memo, first reported by NBC News, was written last Thursday and refers specifically to immediate family members, defined as spouses or unmarried children under the age of 21.
The number of extended family members of US troops and Defense Department civilians remains unclear, a defense official told CNN, and it could be a much higher number than immediate family members. For extended family, the Pentagon says it will assist the State Department and the coordinator for Afghanistan relocation efforts "as they develop mechanisms that may facilitate the safe departures for such individuals from Afghanistan in the future."
Read More
"Given the current situation in Afghanistan and the absence of an in-country US embassy presence, there are a number of challenges related to departures of Afghan nationals, including those of unique interest to DoD," Kahl wrote. "However, DoD, will continue to provide support in this relocation effort to the greatest possible extent."
The Pentagon's efforts to evacuate American citizens and allies from Afghanistan officially ended with the withdrawal of US forces from Kabul at the end of August. Since then, the State Department has led the evacuation effort and worked with US allies such as Qatar to continue them.

Last week, the State Department said it was in touch with 289 Americans who remain in Afghanistan. Of those, 81 are ready to leave the country, Deputy Secretary for Management Brian McKeon told House lawmakers.
The effort to evacuate the family members of US service members and Defense Department civilians from Afghanistan is part of a much broader relocation and resettlement effort that has seen the US bring approximately 77,000 Afghans into the country as part of Operation Allies Welcome.
The Biden administration has struggled with the sudden influx of evacuees with no clear timeline on how long they may stay at military bases. More than 50,000 remain at military facilities as they complete their visa processing.
On Monday, the Department of Homeland Security said the US is planning to waive fees for many of the Afghan evacuees to apply for work permits and legal permanent resident status. The waiver means that the evacuees, many of whom arrived in the United States with very little, will be exempt from paying costly application fees to get authorization to work or apply for lawful permanent residence.
CNN · by Oren Liebermann, CNN


2.Aircraft Carrier Target In Desert Is China’s Deterrence Message To US – Analysis
Of course it is a message. They want us to see this. BUt what are we not seeing?

Excerpt:

But in an interview with RFA, John Blaxland, professor of International Security and Intelligence Studies at the Strategic and Defense Studies Centre at the Australian National University, said this latest satellite discovery may have been deliberate on China’s part in order to send a message to both the U.S. and Taiwan.

Aircraft Carrier Target In Desert Is China’s Deterrence Message To US – Analysis
eurasiareview.com · by RFA · November 9, 2021
The reported building of an aircraft carrier-shaped missile target range in China’s Xinjiang region can be seen as a thinly veiled message of deterrence to Taiwan and its ally the United States, a respected security analyst said.
China has denied any knowledge of the development of missile targets in the shape of U.S. military ships, as revealed by the U.S. space technology and intelligence company Maxar.
But in an interview with RFA, John Blaxland, professor of International Security and Intelligence Studies at the Strategic and Defense Studies Centre at the Australian National University, said this latest satellite discovery may have been deliberate on China’s part in order to send a message to both the U.S. and Taiwan.
Satellite imagery captured in October but only released by Maxar Technologies on Sunday showed structures that looked like a full-scale aircraft carrier and at least two other warships in the Taklamakan desert in Xinjiang, northwest China.
The images led to suggestions that the mock-ups may be used as training targets for Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) in the case of naval clashes with the U.S. However when asked about them on Monday, China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin said he was “not aware of the situation.”
China has been developing ASBM systems in recent years amid growing tension in the waters around it including the South China Sea and across the Taiwan Strait.

“China must have known that the United States would be in the position to monitor through satellites significant developments on the ground,” Blaxland said, adding: “They know it [the range] will be discovered.”
“And they’re quite happy to send signals through that to the U.S. about their preparedness to confront, attack and destroy American aircraft carriers that have been dominant military platforms that enable the U.S. to project power globally in a way unchallenged since 1945.”
USNI News, a news portal specializing in the U.S. Navy, said that what it calls the target range includes the full-scale outline of a U.S. carrier and at least two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. It says the facility also has “an extensive rail system.”
It notes that an Oct. 9 image from Maxar shows a 75 meter-long target with extensive instrumentation on a 6 meter-wide rail that helps it move and enables target acquisition testing.
“This new range shows that China continues to focus on anti-carrier capabilities, with an emphasis on U.S. Navy warships,” USNI News said.
Blaxland said the development of the range “seems quite an elaborate effort” as it is costly to build such full-scale moving mock-ups.
“I would have thought they’d be able to simulate with computer-generated systems without having to go to such extreme but it’s always good to test the systems out on a large target like a moving simulated aircraft carrier in the desert,” he said.
“Furthermore, China probably feels that money is no object when it comes to sending messages about challenging America’s naval dominance in the Western Pacific.”
Cross-Strait tensions
The news of the target range comes as cross-Strait tensions have intensified in recent months.
In the first five days of October, Taiwan reported around 150 incursions of Chinese fighter jets, bombers and other military aircraft into its Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ). Taiwan’s defense minister Chiu Kuo-cheng on Oct. 6 admitted that tensions with China were “at their worst in 40 years.”
Just last Saturday, Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense said 16 Chinese fighter jets had entered its ADIZ.
The building of the new target range may also be part of the display of China’s military might in order to “ratchet up intimidation towards Taiwan,” according to Blaxland.
“It will be sending a very loud signal to the United States that if it wants to stay in the game and remain a prominent and pre-eminent power in East Asia in support of its allies, it will need to take a considerably different approach and muscle up,” he said.
China has been developing several anti-ship ballistic missile programs. The latest Department of Defense’s annual report on China’s military suggests that in July 2019, the Chinese military “conducted its first-ever confirmed live-fire launch into the South China Sea, firing six DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) into the waters north of the Spratly Islands.”
At the same time, the People’s Liberation Army is seeking to develop a longer range land-based ASBM, the DF-26, as well as anti-ship missiles that can be fired from aircraft and warships.
“Quantitively, the U.S. now has been well eclipsed (by China) in East Asia, so it needs to build its conventional military capabilities,” said Blaxland.
“But there’s a significant knock-on effect for U.S. allies as well and that’s one of the reasons why Australia is now on a more urgent basis pressing to build its military capabilities and acquire nuclear-propulsion submarines.”
eurasiareview.com · by RFA · November 9, 2021

3. Military Surgeons Are Losing Medical Skills, Study Says. Could Off-Base Care Be Why?
My family will continue to offer ourselves up as training aids to military doctors. The Army gave me a new hip in 2019 and the skill of the surgeon and the care by the Fort Belvoir Community Hospital was exceptional (as it has been with every visit and every procedure we have experienced).

Military Surgeons Are Losing Medical Skills, Study Says. Could Off-Base Care Be Why?
military.com · by Patricia Kime · November 8, 2021
U.S. military surgeons are losing their skills at a "precipitous rate" as the number of surgical procedures performed in military hospitals has declined, a study has found.
The number of general surgery procedures dropped by nearly 26% from 2015 to 2019, while surgical readiness -- measured by the military health system's standards for general surgery -- declined by 19.1%.
According to the study, published Oct. 27 in JAMA Surgery, 16.7% of general surgeons in the military in 2015 met the military's surgical standards, while just 10.1% met the threshold in 2019. The standards, defined by the knowledge, skills and abilities, or KSAs, established for deployed surgeons, are designed to ensure that a surgeon can perform in combat settings.
Members of the Defense Health Board, an advisory committee to the secretary of defense on military medical issues, and military trauma surgeons have long raised concerns over the loss of skills following the decline of combat operations and the relatively low number of procedures done in military facilities compared with civilian hospitals.
The study, led by Dr. Michael Dalton of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston, is the first to contain data to back these concerns, according to the authors.
"The findings of this study suggest that loss of surgical workload has resulted in further decreases in military surgeon readiness and may require substantial changes in patient care flow in the U.S. Military Health System to reverse the change," the authors wrote.
The reduction of surgical volume at military hospitals occurred at the same time that civilian facilities saw a 3.2% increase in surgical care for Tricare patients, including military personnel, families and retirees.
But that increase in procedures in civilian settings was not large enough to "fully account for the loss of procedures at military treatment facilities."
The authors didn't say what accounted for the difference between the loss of procedures at military hospitals and the smaller gains at civilian hospitals but added that further declines in procedures at military hospitals would lead to the continuing erosion of skills.
Dalton noted that when patients leave military hospitals for civilian care, the military facilities lose the opportunity to treat -- and gain experience from -- those patients. The procedures also come at a financial cost to the Defense Department, with civilian care, known as "purchased care," representing the largest share of the Pentagon's health care spending.
The military health system is five years into a health reform initiative that has placed control of military hospitals and clinics under the Defense Health Agency and realigned the services' medical forces to focus on supporting active-duty personnel and operations.
As part of the plan, the ArmyNavy and Air Force are expected to trim more than 12,000 uniformed medical billets, and non-military patients likely will receive their care either in the community under the Tricare health program or, depending on duty location, by civilian or contract physicians at military facilities.
The study authors recommended that the military health system retain patients to ensure that military hospitals can continue to provide high-quality care, focusing on patients whose surgical needs would directly correlate to combat casualty care.
They also suggested that partnerships permitting military surgeons to train and work in civilian trauma centers and allowing military facilities to treat civilians for trauma injuries, as is done at Naval Medical Center Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, would help sustain surgeons' skills.
In an accompanying commentary, also in JAMA Surgery, Dr. Lesly Dossett and Dr. Justin Dimick of Michigan Medicine said that partnerships don't provide the team training needed for frontline surgical procedures, including anesthesia, nursing and surgical techs.
"The increasing regionalization of complex surgical procedures and decreased volumes at military treatment facilities may create an environment in which maintaining expeditionary-ready surgeons via an active-duty and military treatment facility-based model is no longer feasible on a large scale," Dossett and Dimick said.
"Instead, military medicine may need to re-examine the optimal strategy in procuring the services of expeditionary-ready surgical teams, including the broader use of reservists who maintain busy clinical practices while not deployed or the use of civilian contractors, a strategy that has been used for other military support roles," they wrote.
Eileen Huck, deputy director for health care at the National Military Family Association, said the study illustrates the "complex demands on the military health system" and should be taken seriously by those driving health care reform at the Pentagon.
The Defense Department must balance three priorities, according to Huck: medical care of the force, training of military medical providers and care for beneficiaries.
This study indicates that there is a need for "introspection and analysis," she said.
"I think it should compel DoD to pause and think before it moves forward with right-sizing," referring to the plan to cut medical billets, Huck said in an interview with Military.com on Friday. "We're restructuring the military treatment facilities, and if we're moving beneficiaries out, what does that do to the patient loads for our providers? How will they be able to maintain their skills and expertise?"
For the study, Dalton analyzed the general surgery workload across 147 sites in the military health system and the knowledge, skills and abilities metrics established for deployed surgeons by the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences and the American College of Surgeons.
The authors noted that the study may have potentially undercounted case volumes for military surgeons, and they were unable to include surgeries done by military surgeons at civilian facilities, such as those done under partnerships with those facilities.
In a report published in August on the military medical personnel force reductions, the Defense Department said it was committed to "adjusting the timing, location and scope of the changes as necessary," depending on availability of care in the community and operational requirements.
Pentagon officials said they would hold public forums with beneficiaries before any reductions are made and are subject to pandemic constraints.
-- Patricia Kime can be reached at Patricia.Kime@Monster.com. Follow her on Twitter @patriciakime.
military.com · by Patricia Kime · November 8, 2021

4.  Second U.S. Aircraft Carrier Missile Target Spotted in Chinese Desert
The desert, like the ocean, is a big palace. Perhaps they are trying to make it a challenge for the PLAF pilots to search for and attack these targets. Or they are just making sure we get the message and they are putting these mock-ups in all the known flight paths of our satellites.

Second U.S. Aircraft Carrier Missile Target Spotted in Chinese Desert - USNI News
news.usni.org · by H I Sutton · November 9, 2021
Target in the shape of a U.S. carrier in the Xinjiang region. Satellite image ©2021 Maxar Technologies Used with Permission
A second suspected missile target in the shape of a U.S. aircraft carrier has been spotted in a rural Chinese desert, according to satellite photos obtained by USNI News.
The site consists of a single aircraft carrier target, miles from the nearest town in the Xinjiang region, according to photos provided to USNI News by satellite imagery company Maxar. The carrier target is about 300 miles away from a larger suspected missile range in the Taklamakan Desert, first reported by USNI News on Sunday. The two sites share similar characteristics and are aligned on a map with the carriers facing the same direction – as if in a convoy. Like the first, this new target shares the same dimensions as a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier.
Work on the new target started on or before June 25, based on a historical review of satellite imagery. The main task of building it was carried out in October and the target now appears newly finished.
H I Sutton Illustration for USNI News Satellite image ©2021 Maxar Technologies Used with Permission
Unlike the first, however, this target is not full-scale. It is about half the size of a U.S. Nimitz-class carrier at 173 meters, or 568 feet, in length. The site appears to be anchored in the ground, more like the destroyer targets at the first site. It is outlined by upright poles with what appear to be small radar reflectors or instrumentation. Unlike the other carrier target, it has a clear island, which appears to have much larger radar reflectors.
The new site shows up clearly on synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellite imagery. High-resolution imagery provided by Maxar confirmed the site and provides additional details.
Blue Forces Are The Enemy In Chinese Wargames
Model of the Land-based System Integrated Electronic Blue Military System via Chinese Language Internet
China’s rapid naval expansion has made the People’s Liberation Army Navy the largest maritime force in the world, which has become a major concern for the U.S., according to the latest Pentagon report on Chinese military power. A major aspect of the People’s Liberation Army’s expansion is the rapid adoption of cutting-edge weaponry – including hypersonic missiles, particularly ‘carrier killer’ anti-ship ballistic missiles, according to the report.
Testing the new anti-ship weapons has become a priority for the Chinese. Earlier this year in a military equipment show, the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) displayed a scale model of the rail-mounted target seen at the first site in the Taklamakan Desert. An almost identical version was displayed in model form at this year’s Zhuhai Airshow held from Sept. 28 through Oct. 3. It was labeled: “Land-based Integrated Electronic Blue Army System.” This points to the radar signature aspect of the targets as well as their visual effect, according to imagery reviewed by USNI News.
It’s clear that the models displayed are meant to represent the enemy forces in Chinese exercises. In the Chinese military, the opposing forces are labeled “blue,” while their own are red forces – the opposite of the U.S. and NATO.

Detailed Photos of the mobile target at the RRR facility H I Sutton Illustration for USNI News Satellite image ©2021 Maxar Technologies Used with Permission
Placing the targets in the interior allows the entire missile flight to take place over their own territory and gives China greater control of the airspace around the site. Keeping the tests away from the sea ensures that any debris cannot be recovered by other navies in the way it could from the ocean floor. Both factors will make it difficult to gather intelligence on the weapons tests.
It is unclear whether the target is fully finished yet, or whether more will be added to make it more like the first site with multiple targets in different formats. There does not appear to be the same level of range instrumentation as the first site, according to the photos, suggesting that it is not yet fully operational.
While the detailed analysis of these sites may take some time, the scale of these ranges and the degree of effort put into them, confirm the Pentagon’s claim there’s an expansion of China’s ASBM program.
Related
news.usni.org · by H I Sutton · November 9, 2021

5.  The Marine Corps wants you for psychological operations

The Marine Corps wants you for psychological operations
marinecorpstimes.com · by Todd South · November 8, 2021
The Marine Corps wants Devil Dogs to look at a career that’s all about getting inside the adversary’s head.
The Corps is expanding its psychological operations military occupational specialty by opening up lateral moves and offering reenlistment bonuses of between $30,000 to $40,000 depending on the Marine’s current enlistment status and qualifications.
“As a lateral move only MOS, our near term goal is to find and select the best-qualified candidates for the community,” Maj. Greg Carroll, with Headquarters Marine Corps’ Information, Plans and Strategy told Marine Corps Times.
A Marine with less than 10 years of service who is eligible to reenlist in the fiscal year 2022 can move into the 0521 MOS with a reenlistment bonus of between $30,240 and $37,800, Carroll said.
Zone A Marines, those with 17 months of service but not more than six years and reenlisting for the first time, are eligible for a $40,000 bonus, Carroll said.
RELATED

The Corps plans to create another primary track field for its information warriors.
They’ll need to be either a corporal or sergeant from any MOS. Sergeants must have less than 18 months of time in grade. All lateral movers will commit to serve at least 48 months once approved for the MOS switch, according to the message.
Those who move won’t be alone.
The Corps aims to have 149 Marines with the 0521 MOS in its ranks next year. That will grow to at least 214 by fiscal year 2026, under current plans, Carroll said.
Or, as the MARADMIN put it, “The demand for qualified Marines to lateral move into the 0521 MOS will remain high for the foreseeable future.”
Carroll cited operational security concerns when asked how many 0521s there are currently in the force.
The Corps made the same call for psyops lateral moves in a MARADMIN in July 2020 before canceling the message.
That 2020 message categorized the move as due to a “critical career force skill shortage” in the Corps.
The Marines started offering bonuses as high as $40,000 as early as 2019 to begin building the force to at least 200, Military.com reported. That was shortly after the Corps announced the creation of the 0521 MOS in 2018.
The 2021 message laid out a more full-throated explanation of what Marines moving into this career field might be doing.
Major areas include conducting “military information support operations,” or MISO, providing “civil authorities information support,” or CAIS, or supporting “military deception,” or MILDEC.

Sgt. Juan Martinez, a psychological operations noncommissioned officer with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, uses a loud speaker at Camp Hansen, Okinawa, Japan, Dec. 21, 2020. (Cpl. Cody Rowe/Marine Corps)
The MISO missions communicate information and indicators to foreign organizations, groups and individuals, “to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately their behavior in a manner favorable to the Commander’s objectives.”
CAIS missions aid civilian populations during humanitarian and disaster relief, by “disseminating critical information intended to support the rescue effort.”
MILDEC missions intend to “deter hostile actions, increase the success of friendly defensive actions, or to improve the success of any potential friendly offensive actions.”
The Corps plans to use psyops at various levels and with different types of units. Those units include the combatant commands, Marine Expeditionary Force Information Group, or MIG, and at Marine Corps Special Operations Command, according to the message.
The Army has been revamping its psychological operations force, especially during the shift to Great Power Competition, which includes the “competition” phase along the continuum between something like peace and full-scale armed conflict.
In the early 2010s, the Army changed its psyops field name to military information support operations, or MISO. But, in 2017, the service switched back to psychological operations.
The MISO switch was to show the broader work of soldiers in the field that went beyond propaganda and into influence operations, disinformation and countering adversaries’ narratives.
About Todd South
Todd South has written about crime, courts, government and the military for multiple publications since 2004 and was named a 2014 Pulitzer finalist for a co-written project on witness intimidation. Todd is a Marine veteran of the Iraq War.

6. Chinese forces exercise near Taiwan in response to US visit

Excerpts:
A Chinese Defense Ministry statement from an unidentified spokesperson strongly condemned the visit, saying “no one should underestimate the firm determination of the People’s Liberation Army to safeguard the Chinese people’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
...
In Washington, Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said congressional visits to Taiwan “are relatively common and in keeping with U.S. obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act,” which obligates the U.S. government to ensure Taiwan has the ability to defend itself and regard threats to the island as matters of “grave concern.”
The delegation arrived in Taipei on Tuesday evening aboard a C-40 Clipper jet, which departed soon afterward, according to Taiwan’s official Central News Agency. Kirby said traveling on a U.S. military jet was customary for such delegations.
Chinese forces exercise near Taiwan in response to US visit
AP · November 10, 2021
BEIJING (AP) — Chinese military forces are holding exercises near Taiwan in response to a visit by a U.S. congressional delegation to the island.
The drills in the area of the Taiwan Strait are a “necessary measure to safeguard national sovereignty,” China’s Defense Ministry said in the announcement Tuesday that gave no details on the timing, participants and location of the exercises.
It said the “joint war preparedness patrol” by the Eastern Theater Command was prompted by the “seriously incorrect words and actions of relevant countries over the issue of Taiwan” and the actions of those advocating the self-governing island’s independence.
The U.S. has strong but informal relations with Taiwan, and tensions have been rising between the U.S. and China over several issues including Hong Kong, the South China Sea, the coronavirus pandemic and trade. Details on the U.S. delegation that reportedly arrived in Taiwan on Tuesday were not immediately available.
ADVERTISEMENT
A Chinese Defense Ministry statement from an unidentified spokesperson strongly condemned the visit, saying “no one should underestimate the firm determination of the People’s Liberation Army to safeguard the Chinese people’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
China regards Taiwan as its own territory to be annexed by military force if necessary. The sides split amid civil war in 1949 and, following a brief period of rapprochement, relations have grown increasingly tense under Taiwan’s independence-leaning President Tsai Ing-wen.
During China’s National Day weekend in early October, China dispatched 149 military aircraft southwest of Taiwan in strike group formations, causing Taiwan to scramble aircraft and activate its air defense missile systems. Taiwan’s Defense Ministry said this week such tactics were aimed at wearing down the island’s defenses and degrading morale.
In Washington, Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said congressional visits to Taiwan “are relatively common and in keeping with U.S. obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act,” which obligates the U.S. government to ensure Taiwan has the ability to defend itself and regard threats to the island as matters of “grave concern.”
The delegation arrived in Taipei on Tuesday evening aboard a C-40 Clipper jet, which departed soon afterward, according to Taiwan’s official Central News Agency. Kirby said traveling on a U.S. military jet was customary for such delegations.
Details of the members of the delegation and how long they planned to stay on the island were not immediately available.
Taiwanese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Joanne Ou said ministry had worked with the American Institute in Taiwan, which is the de facto U.S. Embassy, on arrangements for the visit but gave no details. She said further information would be released at the “appropriate time.”
Although the U.S. switched diplomatic ties from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, it retains strong informal political and military relations with Taiwan. As a vibrant democracy, Taiwan also enjoys strong bipartisan support in Congress and the U.S. government has been boosting relations through high-level visits and military sales.
That has been a key source of friction with Beijing amid a string of disputes over trade, technology, human rights and other issues.
AP · November 10, 2021

7. China has a big inflation problem and it's pushing up prices worldwide

So, like COVID, something else that China is responsible for causing. I am sure China will try to quash this narrative.
China has a big inflation problem and it's pushing up prices worldwide
CNN · by Laura He, CNN Business
Hong Kong (CNN Business)China's inflation headache is getting worse.
The cost of goods leaving China's factories surged by another record rate last month, and there are increasing signs that consumers are starting to feel the pain.
The Producer Price Index jumped 13.5% in October from a year ago, accelerating from September's 10.7%, China's National Bureau of Statistics said Wednesday. Last month's increase was already the fastest since the government began releasing such data in the mid-1990s, according to Eikon Refinitiv.
And it now appears that the higher costs are trickling down. China's Consumer Price Index rose 1.5% in October from a year ago, double the rate of the previous month and the fastest pace of increase since September 2020.

"We are concerned about the passthrough from producer prices to consumer prices," said Zhiwei Zhang, chief economist for Hong Kong-based Pinpoint Asset Management. "Firms managed to use their inventories of inputs as a buffer to avoid passing the higher costs to their customers before, but their inventories have been depleted."
Read More
October marks the first time consumer inflation has picked up in five months. The rate had been gradually diminishing since May. But rising energy bills and food supply chain disruptions have begun to stoke higher prices.
Last week, China's Ministry of Commerce issued a notice directing local governments to encourage families to stock up on food and other daily essentials as bad weather, energy shortages and Covid-19 restrictions threatened to disrupt supplies. The sudden warning sparked panic buying among the public and frenzied online speculation.

Authorities attributed the rise in consumer inflation to surging costs for vegetables and gas.
Vegetable prices jumped 16% in October, mainly due to heavy rainfall and rising transportation costs, according to a statement from Dong Lijuan, a senior statistician for the NBS. Extreme weather has hurt crops, and authorities have acknowledged that the cost of transiting across regions could rise because of strict measures intended to contain outbreaks of Covid-19.
Gasoline and diesel prices rose more than 30%, Dong said.
An ongoing energy crunch was also the major contributor to the rise in producer price inflation, as the cost of coal mining and processing has risen.
The world's second largest economy is already growing at the slowest pace in a year as the energy woes, shipping disruptions and a deepening property crisis take their toll.
Rising inflation in the country is also triggering global concerns. The soaring producer inflation is "fueling upward pressure on global inflation," considering China's role as the world's factory and its importance to the global supply chain, according to Ken Cheung, chief Asian foreign exchange strategist for Mizuho Bank.
Producer inflation also may stay high "for a while, likely through the winter," said Jing Liu, senior economist for Greater China at HSBC. She added that energy prices may also continue to rise, and expected that consumer inflation could continue to pick up.
CNN · by Laura He, CNN Business

8. Xi says China is ready to work with U.S. on condition of 'mutual respect'

I heard a brilliant Chinese expert opine on this yesterday.  I cannot do justice to his eloquent analysis but two things struck me during his presentation. China wants all countries to know their place in the world relative to China. China is a big country that deserves and demands respect but that respect is not going to ever be mutual. And though China says it supports a rules based order there are two things to remember: the rules are based on Chinese rules and China is a rule by law country and not a rule of law country. China wants to make sure its rules are applied but it does not have to play by the same rules because it is a "big country." I am sure the brilliant China expert can correct me and provide a more scholarly explanation than I have.



Xi says China is ready to work with U.S. on condition of 'mutual respect'
CNBC · by Evelyn Cheng · November 10, 2021
China's President Xi Jinping speaks during a bilateral meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, April 7, 2017.
Carlos Barria | Reuters
BEIJING — Ahead of an expected virtual meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden, Chinese President Xi Jinping said the country is willing to work with the U.S. — on condition of mutual respect.
Beijing typically uses the term "mutual respect" in calling for more favorable communication with the U.S.
"Right now, China-U.S. relations are at a critical historical juncture," Xi said, according to a letter addressed to the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, a New York-based non-profit.
"Both countries will gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation," Xi said in the letter. "Cooperation is the only right choice."
"Following the principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation, China stands ready to work with the United States to enhance exchanges and cooperation across the board," according to the letter.
It was read in English by China's ambassador to the U.S., Qin Gang, during the annual gala of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations. The event was livestreamed Wednesday morning Beijing time.
VIDEO3:2403:24
China should be focusing on quality of growth not quantity, says George Magnus
Xi also said China would like to work with the U.S. to "address regional and international issues as well as global challenges."
He added the two countries need to "properly manage differences" in the meantime, "so as to bring China-U.S. relations back to the right track of sound and steady development."
Overall, Xi's comments maintained the firm, calm tone of most language from Beijing on relations with the U.S., rather than some of the harsher remarks Chinese officials have made in the last few months.
The letter comes as Xi is expected to consolidate his power further at a high-level political meeting in Beijing this week. The Chinese leader has abolished presidential term limits, allowing him to stay on beyond two terms.
Tensions between the U.S. and China have escalated in the last several years.
Biden's predecessor, former President Donald Trump, began to take a tough stance on China, beginning with trade. Trump levied tariffs on billions of dollars' worth of imports from China, and put several Chinese tech companies on a blacklist that effectively prevents them from buying critical supplies from U.S. businesses.
The Biden administration has maintained Trump's tough position, and worked more with traditional U.S. allies to collectively put pressure on Beijing.
Xi had joined Trump in sending congratulatory messages to the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations' gala dinner in 2017, according to the Chinese embassy in the U.S. Back then, Xi used similar language as he did this week in noting the two leaders agreed to "properly handle differences on the basis of mutual respect."
CNBC · by Evelyn Cheng · November 10, 2021

9. China’s Treatment of Uighurs Shapes Policy on Afghanistan
Excerpt:

China, undaunted by international criticism of its treatment of the Uighurs and resistant to allowing any United Nations human rights inspection, has been expanding its military presence near its border with Afghanistan. The military assets position China to interdict extremists that might cross into China from Afghanistan, and, potentially, to act militarily against the Taliban if they allow safe haven for or actively support anti-China groups. It will be interesting to note whether Afghan groups opposing the Taliban use its close relationship with China, despite China’s repression of Muslims in Xinjiang, to challenge the Taliban’s Islamic credentials. In October, Tajikistan, which shares concerns about the Taliban’s intent, approved China’s funding of a military base and the transfer to China of full control of another base, both near the intersection of the Afghan, Chinese, and Tajik borders. Yet, most experts assess that China’s exaggeration of the threat from the Uighur community to impossibly justify its actions, and the expansion of its military presence in Central Asia, will do little to quell international criticism or gain support for China’s government and its domestic policies.
IntelBrief: China’s Treatment of Uighurs Shapes Policy on Afghanistan - The Soufan Center
thesoufancenter.org · November 10, 2021
November 10, 2021
SHARE |
IntelBrief: China’s Treatment of Uighurs Shapes Policy on Afghanistan
AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein
Bottom Line up Front
  • China’s fears of Islamist extremists among its Uighur population are shaping its policy toward the Taliban and Afghanistan.
  • China has long exaggerated its assertions of extremism among the Uighurs to justify its genocidal measures against them, particularly in Xinjiang.
  • China is likely to maintain its investments in Afghanistan as an incentive for the Taliban to cooperate on counterterrorism and other issues.
  • China is expanding its military presence in Central Asia to ensure it is positioned to prevent jihadist groups from crossing into its territory.
China, similar to other global powers, has hurried to find an appropriate reaction to the sudden takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban. Among the top considerations for China is the potential for violent Islamist extremist groups to enjoy a new safe haven just across the border in Afghanistan. Moreover, China has interests in securing the mining and other investments made during the previous Afghan government. To address the wide range of its concerns, China appears to have settled on a multi-track strategy based on diplomatic engagement as well as expanding regional political and military alliances; such arrangements position Beijing to defend its interests in the event that the Taliban regime or its policies threaten China’s national security.
On the diplomatic front, China’s policy took shape in earnest in late October with Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s meetings with members of the interim Afghan Taliban government in Doha, Qatar. Signaling that it wants cooperation with the Taliban, China has pledged to continue investing in Afghanistan—a significant incentive to elicit Taliban cooperation given the virtual collapse of the Afghan economy since the Taliban takeover. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said in mid-October:
“[China is] interested in investment in some sectors in Afghanistan and want to negotiate the details. One of the projects is Mes Aynak (the site of one of Afghanistan’s largest copper mines which also holds ancient Buddhist ruins), which is one of the important areas where they want to invest billions of dollars and Afghanistan also needs this. We have promised them security for their investment and assets.”
China’s projects in Afghanistan had long stalled because of combat in nearby areas, and it is possible that the end of civil war in Afghanistan, if it can ever be realized, might permit these projects to move to production. China, as well as other investors, are also interested in developing the deposits of rare earth minerals and other metals useful in new and emerging technologies.
While mindful of the economic potential of Afghanistan, China’s paramount objective in engaging with the Taliban includes eliciting its help against what China assesses are threats to its national security. Foremost among China’s stated concerns is the potential for violent Islamist extremists among its Uighur population to enjoy safe haven in Afghanistan, from which they could potentially stage attacks on Chinese targets in the region or in its western Xinjiang Province, where much of the Uighur population resides. China has expressed significant concerns about a group called the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), now renamed the Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP), which seeks an independent state called East Turkestan covering an area that includes parts of Turkey, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR). ETIM was listed by the State Department in 2002 as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), then “de-listed” in 2004, and then “re-listed” as an FTO by the Obama administration in 2016. In parallel, ETIM was designated by the United Nations as a terrorist group in 2002, at the request of the United States, China, Afghanistan, and Kyrgyzstan, and remains on the UN “1267” sanction list at this time.
Yet, a broad range of experts assess that China uses the alleged threat of violent extremism to justify its crackdown on Uighurs in Xinjiang. China has reportedly detained more than one million Uighurs over the past several years in a large network of what the state calls “re-education camps,” and sentenced hundreds of thousands to prison terms. In November 2019, the New York Times published over four hundred internal documents offering an unprecedented insight into China’s organized mass detention of its Muslim population; the stories were corroborated by UN Security Council members and appeared to be substantiated. An annual report to Congress released by the U.S. State Department in July 2021 reiterated the U.S. position that “the People’s Republic of China is committing genocide and crimes against humanity against Uighurs, who are predominantly Muslim, and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang.” Reported abuses extend to torture, forced sterilization, sexual and gender-based violence, and forced separation of children. Further countering China’s official explanations for their so-called “re-education camps” in Xinjiang, identified Uighur extremists are assessed by global experts as lacking the coordination and numbers to launch significant attacks in China. Nonetheless, no proper application of counterterrorism strategy and policy could justify such a scale of crimes against humanity. A few days after the U.S. presidential election in November 2020, the Trump administration, citing China’s repression of the Uighurs—one among the many disputes between the Trump administration and China—removed ETIM from the FTO list. Then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asserted that “there has been no credible evidence that ETIM continues to exist."
China, undaunted by international criticism of its treatment of the Uighurs and resistant to allowing any United Nations human rights inspection, has been expanding its military presence near its border with Afghanistan. The military assets position China to interdict extremists that might cross into China from Afghanistan, and, potentially, to act militarily against the Taliban if they allow safe haven for or actively support anti-China groups. It will be interesting to note whether Afghan groups opposing the Taliban use its close relationship with China, despite China’s repression of Muslims in Xinjiang, to challenge the Taliban’s Islamic credentials. In October, Tajikistan, which shares concerns about the Taliban’s intent, approved China’s funding of a military base and the transfer to China of full control of another base, both near the intersection of the Afghan, Chinese, and Tajik borders. Yet, most experts assess that China’s exaggeration of the threat from the Uighur community to impossibly justify its actions, and the expansion of its military presence in Central Asia, will do little to quell international criticism or gain support for China’s government and its domestic policies.
thesoufancenter.org · November 10, 2021

10. Retired Taiwanese general says China has right to patrol 'its territory' in Taiwan's ADIZ

Useful idiot or active agent of the PRC?

When I visited Taiwan for a conference, military leaders complained that the poor pension compensation makes retired senior military officers vulnerable to PRC influence and recruitment. They noted that Taiwan is thoroughly infiltrated by PRC intelligence agents in all aspects of society. 

My recommendation to counter this was to implement a new counterintelligence program that would offer retired military leaders compensation for reporting PRC attempts to recruit them. All retired and retingin military leaders would be briefed that if approached they should report the contact. The Taiwanese government will match the CHinese offer and will then provide the officer with information it wants to pass to the PRC.The officer would be able to keep the Chinese "compensation" as well as the matching Taiwanese compensation. Of course this program would be immediately exposed to the Chinese. However, such a compromise could have a deterrent effect on the Chinese trying to recruit former Taiwanese military officers because they could not longer trust the information they provided.  Unfortunately a major drawback of this is when the Chinese "recruit" by coercion and try to blackmail former officers into spying for the PRC. There may not be a programmatic counter to that unless there could be some kind of amnesty or pardon for whatever activities the officer conducted that expose him to coercion.

Retired Taiwanese general says China has right to patrol 'its territory' in Taiwan's ADIZ | Taiwan News | 2021-11-09 10:53:00
taiwannews.com.tw · by Taiwan News · November 9, 2021
TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators on Monday (Nov. 8) called on the government to weigh discontinuing pension payments to a former Taiwanese general after he told Chinese state-run media that China has every right to dispatch warplanes into Taiwan's air defense identification zone (ADIZ) because it is part of 'it's territory."
In an interview with China's state-operated mouthpiece the Global Times on Friday (Nov. 5), former Air Force general Hsia Ying-chou (夏瀛洲) said that he believes tensions in the Taiwan Strait have reached their highest level since the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1996. Hsia asserted that Taiwan's combat effectiveness has been declining over the past few decades and claimed that the country's DPP leadership is "'killing without teaching" by pushing Taiwanese troops to fight on the front lines with only four months of training."
In response to a Pentagon report released on Nov. 3 that warned China is planning to force Taiwan to negotiate on its terms by 2027, Hsia said "the Mainland will definitely be able to solve problems in 2027, but there will be no winners in the war." He alleged that the Pentagon is controlled by a large consortium, which in turn is run by arms dealers, and questioned whether it truly wants to see the peaceful unification of the two sides across the Taiwan Strait.
Regarding President Tsai Ing-wen's (蔡英文) acknowledgment that there are U.S. troops in Taiwan, Hsia said the outside world generally interpreted this to mean there were "U.S. troops stationed in Taiwan." However, he noted that Defense Minister Chiu Kuo-cheng (邱國正) had immediately tried to clarify that the soldiers are "assisting," not "stationed," in Taiwan.
Hsia argued that Tsai had deliberately used "vague words to give the outside world a different interpretation." He speculated that this was a U.S.-led release of information aimed at testing China's response and that if it reacts strongly, "(Tsai) will find another excuse to change it," he said.
As for the increasing incursions by Chinese warplanes in Taiwan's ADIZ, Hsia said People's Liberation Army (PLA) aircraft that appear in the "Taiwan Island's southwest airspace are in their own territory, where they have every right to patrol."
In a Facebook post uploaded on Sunday (Nov. 7), DPP lawmaker Wang Ting-yu (王定宇) wrote that the "loss of military virtue by a soldier is downright shameful." Wang asked, "What is the use of supporting you?" He pointed out that "the pay and bonuses of officials and civil servants all come from the taxpayer's pocket, so they need to work hard to make themselves worthy."
During a press conference on Monday (Nov. 8), DPP Legislator Tsai Shih-ying (蔡適應) said that as a former general, he does not think Hsia's statements "fall under the scope of freedom of speech and should be taken seriously," reported the Liberty Times. Tsai called on prosecutors to investigate whether his actions constitute a violation of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法).
DPP legislative caucus director Liu Shyh-fang (劉世芳) called on the Ministry of National Defense and the Veterans Affairs Council to seriously consider revoking Hsia's retirement. He also called for an investigation into whether he has been compromised by China's political warfare campaign or United Front operations.
taiwannews.com.tw · by Taiwan News · November 9, 2021


11. China launches combat drills, dubs U.S. lawmakers’ Taiwan trip ‘sneaky’

Oh, those sneaky Congressmen. Stop your sneakiness!!

China launches combat drills, dubs U.S. lawmakers’ Taiwan trip ‘sneaky’
The Washington Post · by Christian ShepherdToday at 12:25 a.m. EST · November 10, 2021
TAIPEI, Taiwan — The use of a United States Navy aircraft to fly U.S. lawmakers to Taiwan for a routine trip this week drew a barrage of accusations and a fresh display of military might from China over what it dubbed a “sneaky” visit.
Beijing claims Taiwan, the self-governing island of 24 million, as part of its sovereign territory and threatens to take it by force if the democratically elected government in Taipei declares legal independence from China.
As part of efforts to force Taiwan to submit to Chinese Communist Party rule, Beijing is sensitive to indications of Taipei developing stronger military ties with Washington, despite the United States being committed to supporting the island to maintain its military defenses under the Taiwan Relations Act.
An unannounced visit by U.S. lawmakers has become the latest focus of Beijing’s ire, after Taiwanese aircraft enthusiasts on Tuesday evening spotted a Boeing C-40A plane registered to the United States military that took off from Clark Air Base in the Philippines and landed at Taipei’s Songshan Airport.
In response to questions from local media, Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the flight’s itinerary was coordinated with American Institute in Taiwan, the United States’ de facto embassy, adding that it would release more details later.
Pentagon press secretary John F. Kirby on Tuesday told reporters that it was a congressional, not Pentagon, delegation and added that such visits to Taiwan are “fairly routine” and often make use of military aircraft.
But China, always on trigger-alert for indications of greater American support for Taiwan, responded with characteristic anger on Wednesday.
Ministry of Defense spokesman Tan Kefei called the visit “sneaky.” “The Chinese People’s Liberation Army will stay on high alert at all times and take all necessary measures to resolutely smash any interference by external forces and ‘Taiwan independence’ separatist plots,” he said in a statement.
The Eastern Theater Command on Tuesday night launched combat readiness drills near the Taiwan Strait, which it declared “targeted the seriously wrong behavior of the relevant country,” a rare reversal of the PLA’s standard practice of denying that its maneuvers target a particular country. Taiwan’s Ministry of Defense reported six Chinese warplanes had flown into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone that day.
Confirmation last month from Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen that U.S. troops had been taking part in training programs on the island — an unusual public acknowledgment of long-standing exchanges — drew stern warnings from Beijing.
China, spurred by severe distrust of Tsai and her efforts to bolster Taiwan’s international image, has escalated military saber-rattling by sending increasingly large numbers of bombers and fighter jets to near the periphery of the island’s airspace, as part of “gray zone” tactics to wear down Taiwan’s defenses with a gradual ratcheting up of aggression that stops just short of conflict.
Despite warnings from Taiwan and the United States that these activities risk miscalculations and could spill into conflict, China has continued to advertise its maneuvers to boost patriotism at home, arguing that it is defending the national interest and deterring “independence forces” in Taiwan.
On Wednesday, the PLA’s combat drills were the top trending item on Chinese microblog Weibo, where political content is carefully curated by censors.
“The current situation is that everyone wants global peace, but we cannot reply on people in Taiwan coming to their senses to bring about unification,” one popular post read. “By showing that we aren’t afraid to fight, and have the courage and determination to fight to victory, we can shock those Taiwan secessionists and avoid the situation becoming hopeless.”
Lyric Li in Seoul and Alicia Chen in Taipei contributed to this report.

The Washington Post · by Christian ShepherdToday at 12:25 a.m. EST · November 10, 2021

12. FDD | Taliban appoints Kabul Attack Network commander as provincial governor

This guy seems to have 9 lives:
The U.S. military and the International Security Assistance Force, what used to be known as NATO’s command in Afghanistan, reported that Baryal and “several” Taliban fighters were killed in an airstrike in Kunar province on Jan. 7, 2011.
At the time, ISAF described Baryal as an “al-Qaida-associated Taliban leader” and “an active attack planner who led at least 25 fighters” who “maintained close contact with al-Qaida leaders and facilitators.” However, the Taliban never confirmed his death, and only noted that several low-level fighters were killed in the airstrike.
Baryal clearly survived the Jan. 2011 strike, continued to serve as a top Taliban leader in central and northern Afghanistan, and is now governing influential Kabul province.

FDD | Taliban appoints Kabul Attack Network commander as provincial governor
fdd.org · by Bill Roggio Senior Fellow and Editor of FDD's Long War Journal · November 9, 2021
A notorious Taliban commander who organized attacks in and around the capital of Kabul, including deadly attacks on U.S. soldiers and civilians, was appointed by the Taliban to serve as the governor of Kabul province.
The U.S. military previously described the commander, known as Qari Baryal, as an “al Qaeda-associated Taliban leader.” Baryal regularly received cash from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps – Qods Force to execute his attacks.
Baryal was named the governor of Kabul province on Nov. 7, 2021, according to Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid. Baryal was one of 44 Taliban leaders who were appointed provincial-level positions. All of those appointed are hardcore Taliban members.
Baryal led what was known as the Qari Baryal Group, which by the early 2010s was estimated to have 150 to 200 fighters in its ranks. Baryal, who is from the Tagab Valley in Kapisa and began his career as a commander in Hizb-I-Islami, rose through the ranks of the Taliban to lead forces in central and northeastern Afghanistan, including the provinces of Kabul, Kapisa, Parwan, Panjshir, and Kunar.
In July 2013, the U.S. Army’s National Ground Intelligence Center [NGIC] described Baryal as the Taliban’s “Northern Zone Commander,” and noted that as the “Parwan, Kapisa, and Panjshir North Zone Commander” he facilitated attacks in these provinces as well as “attacks in Kabul City.” The recently declassified National Ground Intelligence Center report, titled “Kabul Province Facilitation,” was obtained by FDD’s Long War Journal.
A leader in the Kabul Attack Network
Baryal was undoubtedly a key commander in what the U.S. military and NATO used to call the Kabul Attack Network. This network pooled fighters and resources from the Taliban, Al Qaeda, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Islamic Jihad Union, the Turkistan Islamic Party, and Hizb-I-Islami Gulbuddin in order to conduct attacks in and around Kabul. The network extended into Logar, Wardak, Nangarhar, Kapisa, Ghazni, Parwan, and Zabul Provinces.
Baryal and his network was known to facilitate the movement of weapons, explosives, and suicide bombers from the Pakistan border to Kabul. The NGIC report noted that Baryal was “involved in the supervision of IED production, suicide personnel allocation, and overall attack planning and execution.” The Qari Baryal Group helped plan and coordinate numerous attacks against military bases in Kabul and Parwan provinces, including the sprawling Coalition airbase at Bagram.
Baryal is the second key commander from the Kabul Attack Network to be appointed a key position in the Taiban’s new government. In early September 2021, Mullah Taj Mir Jawal, one of the Kabul Attack Network’s top two leaders, was appointed as the Taliban’s first deputy of intelligence.
A link to Iran’s Qods Force

Baryal received direct support from Iran’s Qods Force, according to the recently declassified NGIC report. NGIC even produced a graphic (produced above) to highlight the relationship. Portions of the graphic were redacted upon declassification.
According to the NGIC report, as of October 2012, a “Taliban fighter Amanullah . . . is currently living in Tehran, Iran (IRN)” and “is working as a financial liaison officer between IRN and the Taliban.”
“Iranian Government funnels money through Amanullah to support the TB’s [Taliban’s] fight against U.S. forces in AFG [Afghanistan,” the report noted. Baryal received funds directly from Amanullah to fuel attacks in and around Kabul.
Iran’s Qods Force supported the Taliban through its Ansar Corps, which was assigned to direct military and political operations inside Afghanistan.
Reported killed in 2011, alive 10 years later
The U.S. military and the International Security Assistance Force, what used to be known as NATO’s command in Afghanistan, reported that Baryal and “several” Taliban fighters were killed in an airstrike in Kunar province on Jan. 7, 2011.
At the time, ISAF described Baryal as an “al-Qaida-associated Taliban leader” and “an active attack planner who led at least 25 fighters” who “maintained close contact with al-Qaida leaders and facilitators.” However, the Taliban never confirmed his death, and only noted that several low-level fighters were killed in the airstrike.
Baryal clearly survived the Jan. 2011 strike, continued to serve as a top Taliban leader in central and northern Afghanistan, and is now governing influential Kabul province.
Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of FDD’s Long War Journal. Follow him on Twitter @billroggio. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, non-partisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.
fdd.org · by Bill Roggio Senior Fellow and Editor of FDD's Long War Journal · November 9, 2021

13. FDD | Turkish Airlines in EU Crosshairs for Facilitating Lukashenko’s “Hybrid Warfare” With Belarus Flights

Excerpts:
On Monday, von der Leyen described the Lukashenko regime’s “cynical instrumentalisation of migrants” as a “hybrid attack,” a form of irregular warfare that blends military and non-military methods. The same day, Polish government spokesperson Piotr Mueller told reporters that 3,000 to 4,000 migrants were near the Belarusian border, and warned of an “escalation … of an armed nature.” EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson tweeted, “Our urgent priority is to turn off the supply coming into Minsk airport.”
Any punitive action the European Union could take against Turkish Airlines to prevent its carrying of African and Middle Eastern migrants to Belarus would strengthen the measures against Minsk that the European Commission proposed on September 29 and the Council of the European Union issued today. These measures include a partial suspension of the EU-Belarus Visa Facilitation Agreement to target officials of the Lukashenko regime. Given that Erdogan started — and continues to perpetrate — the weaponization of migrants against the European Union long before Lukashenko did, the European Union should also consider sanctions against not only the airlines complicit in human trafficking but also the Turkish officials responsible for weaponizing migrants.
FDD | Turkish Airlines in EU Crosshairs for Facilitating Lukashenko’s “Hybrid Warfare” With Belarus Flights
fdd.org · by Aykan Erdemir Turkey Program Senior Director · November 9, 2021
The European Union reportedly has Turkish Airlines, Turkey’s national flag carrier, in its crosshairs due to the airline’s alleged role in trafficking migrants to Belarus. If Brussels goes forward with sanctions against the airline, they would constitute the European Union’s first concrete pushback against Ankara’s ongoing protection of Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko from accountability for human rights violations.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced on Monday that the European Union is exploring “how to sanction, including through blacklisting, third country airlines that are active in human trafficking” by flying migrants to Belarus. Since June, the Lukashenko regime, apparently with Moscow’s blessing, has weaponized migrants against the European Union by luring them from Africa and the Middle East, then forcing them at gunpoint to cross into EU member states Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.
Lukashenko manufactured this migrant crisis in retaliation for a range of EU economic and financial sanctions imposed over what Brussels referred to as Lukashenko’s “serious human rights violations.” Brussels imposed the harshest sanctions after a Belarusian jet last May forced down a commercial plane carrying 126 passengers from Greece to Lithuania, in order to arrest Roman Protasevich, a dissident journalist on board.
Over the spring and summer, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan rushed to the aid of fellow strongman Lukashenko. The Washington Post reported that Turkey used its veto power within NATO to water down an official condemnation of Lukashenko in May. According to Reuters, Ankara blocked unspecified punitive steps that Baltic allies and Poland had advocated, while also rejecting calls by other NATO members for additional Western sanctions on Belarus and the release of political prisoners there. Turkey’s obstruction was in line with the spoiler role Erdogan has systematically played within the transatlantic alliance.
Although the European Union in June prohibited EU airlines from flying over Belarus and banned Belarusian airlines from flying over EU territory or landing in EU airports, Turkish Airlines has continued to operate regular flights to Minsk, alongside Syria’s Cham Wings and the Emirati budget airline FlyDubai. Politico Europe reported that Turkey and the United Arab Emirates are “among the countries believed to be the main points of origin for flights landing in Minsk.” In response to that allegation, Turkish Airlines today issued a statement denying any wrongdoing.
On Monday, von der Leyen described the Lukashenko regime’s “cynical instrumentalisation of migrants” as a “hybrid attack,” a form of irregular warfare that blends military and non-military methods. The same day, Polish government spokesperson Piotr Mueller told reporters that 3,000 to 4,000 migrants were near the Belarusian border, and warned of an “escalation … of an armed nature.” EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson tweeted, “Our urgent priority is to turn off the supply coming into Minsk airport.”
Any punitive action the European Union could take against Turkish Airlines to prevent its carrying of African and Middle Eastern migrants to Belarus would strengthen the measures against Minsk that the European Commission proposed on September 29 and the Council of the European Union issued today. These measures include a partial suspension of the EU-Belarus Visa Facilitation Agreement to target officials of the Lukashenko regime. Given that Erdogan started — and continues to perpetrate — the weaponization of migrants against the European Union long before Lukashenko did, the European Union should also consider sanctions against not only the airlines complicit in human trafficking but also the Turkish officials responsible for weaponizing migrants.
Aykan Erdemir is a former member of the Turkish parliament and senior director of the Turkey Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), where he also contributes to FDD’s Center on Economic and Financial Power (CEFP). For more analysis from Aykan, the Turkey Program, and CEFP, please subscribe HERE. Follow Aykan on Twitter @aykan_erdemir. Follow FDD on Twitter @FDD and @FDD_CEFP. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.
fdd.org · by Aykan Erdemir Turkey Program Senior Director · November 9, 2021


14. Chill out about global warming

I am sure there will be a strong response to this by those who have a very different interpretation of the evidence.

Excerpts:
Those arguing that it is not include Steven E. Koonin, who served as the senior scientist in the Department of Energy under President Barack Obama. Mr. Koonin does not “deny” that the climate is changing or human activity influences that change.
But in articles and a book published this year, “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters,” he makes a persuasive case that the computer models that predict climate apocalypse are deficient and unreliable.
He provides data showing that heatwaves in the U.S. “are now no more common than they were in 1900,” that “the warmest temperatures in the U.S. have not risen in the past fifty years,” and that “Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago.”


Chill out about global warming
The evidence doesn't establish that it's 'the existential threat'
washingtontimes.com · by Clifford D. May

OPINION:
At the United Nations Climate Summit (aka COP26) in Glasgow last week, President Joe Biden declared that climate change is “the existential threat to human existence as we know it.”
Based on that judgment, he plans to implement policies that will weaken America’s national security and economy and slow development in poor countries. Perhaps this question occurs to you: Is Mr. Biden’s judgment correct?
Those arguing that it is not include Steven E. Koonin, who served as the senior scientist in the Department of Energy under President Barack Obama. Mr. Koonin does not “deny” that the climate is changing or human activity influences that change.
But in articles and a book published this year, “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters,” he makes a persuasive case that the computer models that predict climate apocalypse are deficient and unreliable.
He provides data showing that heatwaves in the U.S. “are now no more common than they were in 1900,” that “the warmest temperatures in the U.S. have not risen in the past fifty years,” and that “Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago.”
If you’ve been led to believe otherwise, that’s probably because activists have been “exaggerating and distorting” the evidence to make the case that “we are facing the ‘last, best chance’ to save the planet from a hellish future.”
He notes that the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “deems its highest-emissions scenarios of the future unlikely, even though those are the ones you’re mostly likely to hear about in media reports.”
Since the late 1800s, he points out the world has warmed by about 1 degree Celsius without significant adverse consequences. He postulates that “even 1.5 degrees of additional warming by 2100 will have minimal net economic impact.” He scolds commentators who fail to grasp the difference between weather and climate.
Bjorn Lomborg, who heads the Copenhagen Consensus Center, contends that policies aimed at cooling the planet quickly are bound to fail. Even if the U.S. went “entirely net zero” on carbon emissions tomorrow, he has calculated, that “would only cut temperatures by the end of the century by 0.3 degree Fahrenheit” – barely measurable.
That’s because “most of the emissions in the 21st century will come from China, India, Africa, the rest of Southeast Asia, Latin America – countries that are now trying to lift their populations out of poverty and obviously have much greater priorities than cutting carbon emissions.” Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni recently wrote: “Africa can’t sacrifice its future prosperity for Western climate goals.”
Mr. Lomborg urges a different approach: increased investment in “green energy research” to develop power sources cheaper than fossil fuels. And, of course, we could cut carbon emissions immediately by switching from coal to natural gas and bringing online nuclear power facilities such as those France utilizes. Why most activists reject those options, we’ll leave for another discussion.
Mr. Lomborg emphasizes the human ability to adapt to climate change. Farmers will switch crops. Levees and dikes can protect low-lying areas near oceans, as is already the case in below-sea-level Holland and New Orleans. Since trees ingest carbon dioxide, boosting re-afforestation can be helpful. Keeping free markets free spurs innovation.
By contrast, “climate summits” – 26 of them since 1992 – where politicians arrive on private jets, virtue signal, spew hot air, and make promises they can’t or won’t keep bring no progress. Perhaps you noticed that, just before COP26, Mr. Biden was pressuring OPEC to produce more oil.
Another shortcoming of the current approach is that “renewable” energy sources are less renewable than advertised. The Manhattan Institute’s Mark P. Mills has noted: “Wind and solar machines and batteries are built from nonrenewable materials. And they wear out. Old equipment must be decommissioned, generating millions of tons of waste.”
“Building enough wind turbines to supply half the world’s electricity would require nearly two billion tons of coal to produce the concrete and steel, along with two billion barrels of oil to make the composite blades,” he added. “More than 90% of the world’s solar panels are built in Asia on coal-heavy electric grids.”
As for electric cars: “A single electric-car battery weighs about 1,000 pounds,” Mr. Mills wrote. “Fabricating one requires digging up, moving and processing more than 500,000 pounds of raw materials somewhere on the planet.”
Other drawbacks include the need for rare-earth metals and other materials that will be mined “in nations with oppressive labor practices. The Democratic Republic of the Congo produces 70 percent of the world’s raw cobalt, and China controls 90 percent of the cobalt refining.” Perhaps you’re aware, too, that Chinese President Xi Jinping, who didn’t attend COP26, is building new coal-powered plants.
Last month, Mr. Xi tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile that could be used to launch a first strike against the U.S. Also, Nicolas Chaillan, a senior cybersecurity official at the Defense Department, resigned, explaining that because the Pentagon is not prioritizing cybersecurity and artificial intelligence, successfully competing with China in those strategic areas will be impossible anytime soon. Ignoring such warnings, the Defense Department last week announced plans to name a “senior person” to – perhaps you guessed – “prioritize” climate change.
Almost three years ago, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, declared that “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” Based on that judgment, she’s determined to implement her “Green New Deal,” ignoring the perspectives of experts such as those quoted above. Perhaps it occurs to you that Mr. Biden and others following her lead are not following the science.
• Clifford D. May is founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for the Washington Times.

washingtontimes.com · by Clifford D. May

15. Detained Afghan pilots to fly out of Tajikistan on U.S.-brokered flight

The nucleus of the future air force of the Afghan resistance.

Detained Afghan pilots to fly out of Tajikistan on U.S.-brokered flight
Reuters · by Phil Stewart
1/2
U.S. Air Force loadmasters and pilots assigned to the 816th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron, load passengers aboard a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III in support of the Afghanistan evacuation at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan, August 24, 2021. U.S. Air Force/Master Sgt. Donald R. Allen
WASHINGTON, Nov 9 (Reuters) - More than 150 U.S.-trained Afghan pilots and other personnel, held in neighboring Tajikistan for nearly three months since escaping with their planes as the Taliban seized their country, were preparing to depart on Tuesday on a flight arranged by the U.S. government, two of the pilots and others close to them said.
The Afghans had spent a full day waiting at the airport in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe, for a flight that appeared to have been delayed. They were hoping it would not be canceled and they would depart before the end of the day.
"We hope to go out soon," one of the Afghans told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The U.S. embassy in Dushanbe could not be immediately reached for comment.
The plight of the Afghan pilots -- including one who is at a very advanced stage of her pregnancy -- became a focus of U.S. lawmakers and military veterans, who grew frustrated by what they believed was a sluggish U.S. relocation effort.
They arrived in Tajikistan with advanced military aircraft at the end of the war, were detained by Tajik authorities and have been awaiting a U.S. relocation ever since -- hoping to move to a third country for eventual U.S. resettlement.
Reuters exclusively detailed first hand accounts from the pregnant pilot and other members of the group about their frustrations with their detention, and was first to report U.S. plans to relocate them.
Afghan Air Force personnel flew dozens of advanced military aircraft to Tajikistan and to Uzbekistan in August as the Taliban swept to power.
The Afghan personnel in Tajikistan represent the last major group of U.S.-trained pilots who fled abroad and are still known to be in limbo.
In September, a U.S.-brokered deal allowed a larger group of Afghan pilots and other military personnel to be flown out of Uzbekistan to the United Arab Emirates.
Even before the Taliban's takeover, the U.S.-trained, English-speaking pilots had become prime targets of the Taliban because of the damage they inflicted during the war. The Taliban tracked down the pilots and assassinated them off-base.
Afghanistan's new rulers have said they will invite former military personnel to join the revamped security forces and that they will come to no harm. But pilots who spoke with Reuters say they believe they will be killed if they return to Afghanistan.
SMUGGLED CELL PHONES
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told a congressional hearing in September he was concerned about the pilots in Tajikistan and would work with the State Department to "see if we can move this forward".
But the process of relocating the Afghans from Tajikistan proved to be more time consuming and complex than the similar effort in Uzbekistan.
A U.S. official told Reuters that the United States faced difficulty securing Tajik authorization to access the pilots.
Most of the Afghan pilots and other personnel were held at a sanatorium in Tajikistan. Those in that group who communicated with Reuters did so on cell phones kept hidden from guards and said the Tajik authorities took away their identity documents.
In an interview with Reuters, the pregnant pilot, who is 29, had voiced her concerns to Reuters about risks to her and her child at the remote sanatorium. She was subsequently moved to a maternity hospital before being transferred back to the sanatorium ahead of her departure.
"We are like prisoners here. Not even like refugees, not even like immigrants. We have no legal documents or way to buy something for ourselves," she said last month.
Reporting by Phil Stewart Editing by Peter Graff
Reuters · by Phil Stewart


16.  New charges filed against jailed US journalist in Myanmar

The international community cannot let this stand. Attacks on journalists are attacks on freedom everywhere.

Excerpts:
So far, the prosecution appears to be trying to link Fenster to a not-yet-specified offense allegedly carried out by his former employer. Recent prosecution witnesses said the Information Ministry had records that Fenster was still working for the online news service Myanmar Now when he was arrested. But according to Myanmar Now and his current employer, Frontier Myanmar, he quit the former job in July last year and joined the latter company a month after that.
Fenster’s lawyer, Than Zaw Aung, said Tuesday he has submitted documents and other evidence to the court to prove Fenster is a staff member of Frontier Myanmar. He said Fenster, an employee of Frontier Myanmar and two other defense witnesses testified Tuesday.
Fenster’s initial three cases are being heard at a different Yangon court from where the new charges have been filed.
Major opposition groups, such as the National Unity Government, which considers itself the country’s legitimate administrative body, in May were declared “terrorist” organizations by the government. They had earlier been declared illegal organizations, which suggests that the charges against Fenster under the Unlawful Associations Act and the Counter-Terrorism Act cover the same alleged offense.
New charges filed against jailed US journalist in Myanmar
AP · by GRANT PECK · November 9, 2021
BANGKOK (AP) — An American journalist jailed in Myanmar for more than five months has been served with two new criminal charges, including one that carries a maximum penalty of life in prison, his lawyer said. Denny Fenster is already being tried on three other charges that could give him as many as 11 years in prison if convicted.
One of the new charges comes under the Counter-Terrorism Act, which was amended in August by Myanmar’s military-installed government.
His lawyer, Than Zaw Aung, said the section of the act under which he was charged — which holds the accused person directly responsible for acts of terrorism — is punishable by from 10 years to life in prison. The lawyer spoke after Tuesday’s session of the court that is trying Fenster on the original three charges.
The military-installed government has said it would apply the law harshly in cases involving opposition organizations it has deemed to be terrorist. Another section of the law, which could be applied to journalists for writing about groups officially deemed “terrorist” organizations, is punishable by a prison term of three to seven years.
ADVERTISEMENT
The other new charge, under Section 124(A) of the Penal Code, is usually referred to as treason, and carries a penalty of seven to 20 years’ imprisonment.
Myanmar’s military seized power on Feb. 1, ousting the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi. It has repeatedly used lethal force against protesters but has been unable to quell popular resistance to its takeover. More than 1,200 civilians are estimated to have been killed and there have been widespread arrests.
Fenster was detained at Yangon International Airport on May 24 as he was about to board a flight to go to the Detroit area in the United States to see his family. He is the managing editor of Frontier Myanmar, an online news magazine based in Yangon, Myanmar’s biggest city.
Fenster has already been charged with incitement for allegedly spreading false or inflammatory information, an offense punishable by up to three years in prison.
He was also charged with violating the Unlawful Associations Act for contacting opposition groups that were declared illegal by the military-installed government. The offense carries a penalty of two to three years’ imprisonment.
A charge of violating visa conditions added earlier this month is punishable by six months to five years’ imprisonment.
Fenster’s trial is closed to the press and the public, and details have been relayed only by his lawyer. It remains unclear what exactly he is accused of doing, despite testimony by several prosecution witnesses.
The judge in the case ruled Monday that the prosecution had provided enough evidence for the trial to continue.
ADVERTISEMENT
So far, the prosecution appears to be trying to link Fenster to a not-yet-specified offense allegedly carried out by his former employer. Recent prosecution witnesses said the Information Ministry had records that Fenster was still working for the online news service Myanmar Now when he was arrested. But according to Myanmar Now and his current employer, Frontier Myanmar, he quit the former job in July last year and joined the latter company a month after that.
Fenster’s lawyer, Than Zaw Aung, said Tuesday he has submitted documents and other evidence to the court to prove Fenster is a staff member of Frontier Myanmar. He said Fenster, an employee of Frontier Myanmar and two other defense witnesses testified Tuesday.
Fenster’s initial three cases are being heard at a different Yangon court from where the new charges have been filed.
Major opposition groups, such as the National Unity Government, which considers itself the country’s legitimate administrative body, in May were declared “terrorist” organizations by the government. They had earlier been declared illegal organizations, which suggests that the charges against Fenster under the Unlawful Associations Act and the Counter-Terrorism Act cover the same alleged offense.
___
This story has been corrected to say that the lawyer said Fenster was charged under a section of the Counter-Terrorism Act that is punishable by 10 years to life in prison, not another section with a penalty of 3 to 7 years.
AP · by GRANT PECK · November 9, 2021


17.  Saudi Arabia Turns Toward China
Excerpts:

While the Biden administration pays lip service to partnership with Saudi Arabia, actions haven’t followed. The U.S. has largely cut sales of offensive weapons to Riyadh, pulled out the defensive Patriot missiles that protect the kingdom from attack, and thus far failed to enunciate any strategy for how to confront a nuclear Iran. Saudis believe an Iranian bomb is imminent. There also is grumbling here that the U.S. purports to want peace in Yemen but won’t act to interdict the flow of weapons from Iran to the Houthis.
...
Saudi Arabia’s rulers once preferred to pursue cautious, consensual policies. Those days are over for good. Mohammed bin Salman’s Saudi Arabia is speaking with a newfound authority.

Saudi Arabia Turns Toward China
Crown Prince Mohammed is guiding the kingdom toward an assertive foreign-policy stance.
WSJ · by Karen Elliott House
Five years ago, Mr. bin Salman, then-deputy crown prince and now Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, unveiled Vision 2030, his ambitious—many said grandiose—plan to diversify the Saudi economy. Only three years ago, Western investors horrified by the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi stayed away from the annual Future Investment Initiative conference. But this year Wall Street’s biggest names were back.
On a recent three-week visit to Saudi Arabia, I met with a dozen senior ministers and royal court advisers as well as ordinary Saudis of long acquaintance. What I found was a kingdom grown confident about its domestic economic reforms and increasingly assertive in its foreign policy—perhaps out of necessity.
Doubts about the Biden administration’s reliability are ubiquitous and readily expressed. Saudi Arabia is edging East with no apologies. “The crown prince managed President Trump effectively, but he meshed with China’s President Xi,” one of his ministers says. Most Saudi ministers prefer to speak without attribution as the crown prince likes to speak for Saudi Arabia.
Xi Jinping visited Riyadh in 2016, and Crown Prince Mohammed traveled to Beijing three years later. Indeed, the crown prince is emulating Mr. Xi’s tactics: suppressing political dissent, tightening his grip on the Saudi economy, and assertively pursuing a self-interested foreign policy.
“We are pro-growth,” says Mohammed al Tuwaijri, a royal court economic adviser. “Wherever we find an opportunity that works for us we take it.”
“You name it, we are doing it with China,” says another adviser. “China is a strategic partner.” Saudi secondary schools have begun teaching Chinese.
Crown Prince Mohammed is juggling several difficult transitions at once. To wean Saudis off their dependence on government largess, he has cut subsidies for energy, raised gasoline prices, and imposed heavy taxes for the first time, thus sharply increasing the cost of living. He has anesthetized the pain by giving Saudis sweeping social freedoms—concerts, car races, and mixing of the sexes. Women can now drive and hold jobs outside the home. These changes are popular, but huge investments in digital infrastructure—which during the pandemic lockdowns provided 99% of Saudis access to telemedicine, education and routine government services—have solidified support for the crown prince’s agenda.
Still, progress on domestic reforms could be washed away by external events. Saudi Arabia is surrounded by growing dangers. Iran is on the cusp of becoming a nuclear power. Ethiopia is embroiled in a civil war, and Sudan’s government has fallen to a coup. The Saudi-backed government in Yemen is still fighting a war against Houthi rebels. Riyadh would like to end the fighting but doesn’t expect that will happen soon.
All this poses the nightmare possibility of a stream of refugees into wealthy and stable Saudi Arabia. Such mass migration could play havoc with an expensive plan to transform the Red Sea into an international tourist destination. “This isn’t just a migration crisis but could destroy our tourism industry, and jobs,” says one minister.
Another international issue with domestic implications is the growing tension between the U.S. and China. Saudi officials worry about getting stuck between the two big powers. China is now Saudi Arabia’s largest trading partner because of Beijing’s thirst for Saudi oil. The kingdom buys weapons from China. The growing animosity over Taiwan and global trade unnerve Riyadh. The U.S habit of imposing sanctions on opponents and expecting allies to join is something Saudi Arabia seems determined to resist. “Don’t make us choose,” says a prominent Saudi minister in a sentiment echoed by many. “Our oil sales have to fund our people.”
While the Biden administration pays lip service to partnership with Saudi Arabia, actions haven’t followed. The U.S. has largely cut sales of offensive weapons to Riyadh, pulled out the defensive Patriot missiles that protect the kingdom from attack, and thus far failed to enunciate any strategy for how to confront a nuclear Iran. Saudis believe an Iranian bomb is imminent. There also is grumbling here that the U.S. purports to want peace in Yemen but won’t act to interdict the flow of weapons from Iran to the Houthis.
“Muddled” and “confused” are the words Saudi ministers use to describe U.S. Mideast policy. “Public pronouncements are fine but on the working level nothing happens,” says a Saudi foreign policy official.
Beyond the complex domestic and external transitions confronting Saudi Arabia is the growing global battle over climate change. Saudi Arabia has committed to net-zero carbon emissions by 2060. As the world’s largest producer of fossil fuels, however, it is a favorite target of green activists who want an immediate end to investments in fossil fuel. President Biden, who has hamstrung U.S. production to please climate activists, now insists that the Saudis pump more oil to keep stateside gas prices low. “Hypocrisy,” say senior Saudis. Oil now is more than $80 a barrel. Once the pandemic ends and economic growth rebounds, Saudi officials believe it could reach $150. Asked how the kingdom will balance all these complex and competing demands, one senior foreign policy official said, “With difficulty.”
Here again the Saudis are showing their determination to pursue self-interest, even at the risk of alienating allies. Prince Abdul Aziz bin Salman, the kingdom’s oil minister, told an international conference here recently that the developing world can’t be kept in poverty by developed nations eager for a cleaner climate. As poor nations develop, he said, their energy needs will grow. “Renewable energy will take time,” he said. “Meanwhile, there must be energy to fuel the global economy.”
Saudi Arabia is investing in renewables but also is raising its capacity to produce oil. The kingdom will invest $300 billion to expand its production capacity to 13 million barrels a day by 2027 from 12 million now. Currently, Saudi Arabia is pumping only about nine million barrels a day, but officials believe global demand will rise rapidly as economic growth resumes after the pandemic. “We are doing this as a hedge for the world economy,” says Finance Minister Mohammed al Jadaan.
Saudi Arabia’s rulers once preferred to pursue cautious, consensual policies. Those days are over for good. Mohammed bin Salman’s Saudi Arabia is speaking with a newfound authority.
Ms. House, a former publisher of The Wall Street Journal, is author of “On Saudi Arabia: Its People, Past, Religion, Fault Lines—and Future.”
WSJ · by Karen Elliott House

18. No ‘surrender’ — What really happened between US and British Marines at a training exercise

I am convinced the “exercise”was not the physical exercise that took place. This was actually an exercise in information and influence operations. A single “report” was released to a UK tabloid to see the reaction. Neither the UK or US military were quick enough to counter the disinformation disseminated because, after all as we have long known, a lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth puts its pants on. This is what happens in today’s information environment and we cannot effectively counter such disinformation. Look how long it has taken for the responses to it. The only thing we can do is inform and educate ourselves and the public that this is happening and will continue to happen in the fantasy hope we cannot inoculate target audiences against it. But we have to learn how to operate in this info environment in these conditions and continue to “fight through” the disinformation. Was this really a deliberate info op exercise? Probably not. But it is fun to think about some smart IO Officer finally having his way with disinformation to demonstrate his capabilities!!!

No ‘surrender’ — What really happened between US and British Marines at a training exercise
Don't believe the hype.
taskandpurpose.com · by Andrew Milburn · November 9, 2021
“Royal Marines force US troops to surrender just days into training exercise.” The headline appeared last week in the UK’s Daily Telegraph. The article beneath had an almost breathless tone to it, unusual for a paper that is considered a serious broadsheet. A Royal Marines Commando (battalion) had “eliminated almost the entire (US) unit,” “dominating them” and forcing them to “ask for a re-set half-way into the exercise.” So thorough was this drubbing, apparently, that the Commando’s “killboard” was chock full of destroyed U.S. equipment.
The truth might be considered less newsworthy for those who prefer to see the U.S. and U.K. militaries as peer competitors rather than allies – but is quite impressive all the same. The exercise which the Telegraph mistakenly calls “Green Dagger” was the Marine Corps’ biannual Marine Air Ground Task Force Warfighting Exercise, or MWX for short. During these events, battalions, regiments and sometimes entire divisions face off against one another in a free-playing force on force exercise that replicates the conditions of warfare against a peer nation. In this particular exercise, the 7th Marine Regiment, playing on home turf, was the adversary force, pitted against the Hawaii-based 3rd Marine Regiment who were the attacking force. The British 40 Commando was a subordinate unit under the 7th Marines, alongside a Marine Special Operations Company and a Marine infantry battalion (2/5). Opposing them under the 3rd Marines were two battalions of Marine infantry along with various supporting units. There was no part of the exercise in which 40 Commando was pitted alone against a U.S. Marine unit and would have thus had the opportunity to “dominate” them. At no time did a unit surrender during the exercise, nor was any unit almost completely eliminated by 40 Commando. The exercise does not involve an objective means of scoring, although casualties are recorded and dispatched to a “Zombie FOB” until resurrected, and the use of killboards is a subjective, usually inaccurate, means by which units attempt to track the destruction of enemy assets. The exercise was halted for a period of several hours while all participating units searched for a truck platoon that had gone missing – but there was no “re-set” to allow any units to recover. In short, among several statements made in the opening four paragraphs of the Telegraph article, none was accurate. I know this because – as they say – I was there.
Nevertheless, the article caused quite a ripple, as no doubt its author Dominic Nicholls, defense security correspondent for the Telegraph, had intended, sparking a succession of similar stories in the U.K. and international press. The Telegraph itself doubled down on the story, with a follow on article about how the exercise had demonstrated the value of the Royal Marines to U.K. national defense policy (there’s a clue here), and another that focused on bizarre comments by U.S. Senator Josh Hawley, who far from challenging Nicholls’ contention, was keen to turn it into political capital by attributing the inferior performance of U.S. Marines to Department of Defense leadership’s preoccupation with such matters as “white rage” and “critical race theory.” There was also the mandatory statement on the topic by a former Royal Marine — a tough customer indeed if his glowering picture is anything to go by — who yarns about his time in the Corps in which U.S. troops repeatedly showed themselves to be not up to his standards.
Victorious! @RoyalMarines triumph in part of multinational team on Exercise Green Dagger 21. The 5-day Multi-domain war-fighting exercise concluded with an epic close quarters finale in Mojave Desert.
— 40 Commando Royal Marines (@40commando) October 30, 2021
Attempts by the US Marine Corps to put the story in perspective served only to propagate the claim of British superiority. Official statements by a Marine public affairs officer were buried below headlines in which “US Marines” appeared as the object of verbs such as “trounced,” “dominated” and “embarrassingly defeated”. It was a classic case of how half-hearted denial can lend momentum to fake news. Because fake news is exactly what this story comprised – a sad occasion for a paper as storied as the Telegraph.
Nicholls’s article touched a nerve. It reinforced a sentiment that is not far beneath the surface of U.K. military culture: one of British superiority over their U.S. military counterparts. Inherent to this sentiment is the belief that the U.S. military is focused on resources and equipment, while our British counterparts are imbued with the kind of small-batch quality that distinguishes good whisky and elite units. “The one attribute of which the British military is most proud – is simply that they are not American,” Simon Akam, a former British Army officer and journalist who has spent much time covering the UK military, told me recently.
The response to Nicholls’s article reveals the truth to Akam’s contention. “As a British soldier, there’s no feeling quite like getting one over on the Americans. All that money, all that tech, all that firepower. But battle scenarios … require far more than just force. They need tactical intelligence, psychological strength and supreme fitness levels too,” crowed Garth Timmins in a subsequent article, also in the Telegraph. Timmins – a former Royal Marine with six years of service – goes on to describe how that time taught him how much better he and his fellow Royal Marines were than their U.S. counterparts. “Training exercises …. ended the same way: with the British coming out on top in just about every area.” Timmins recounts several other incidents in which he and his comrades just proved to be too physically tough for their pusillanimous American imitators – from climbing mountains to running obstacle courses. “This week was just a training session. We don’t know exactly what happened out there in the desert,” he concludes with a faux attempt at fairness. “But take away the kit, the tech, the money and there’s no comparison between the US and UK marines. The US learned that again this week – and the British commandos will be reveling in it.” It’s hard to imagine the Royal Marines I met during the exercise “reveling” in a story that they know to be inaccurate, but thanks to the Telegraph article, the truth may have been the first casualty of Exercise Green Dagger (which is the name given by the Royal Marines).
U.S. Marines with 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion, 1st Marine Division, familiarize British Royal Marines with Armoured Support Group Royal Marines 3 Troop, on the capabilities of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle during Exercise Green Dagger at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California, Sept. 29, 2021. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Shane T. Beaubien)
This is a tired trope that British service personnel have nurtured for as long as I can remember, growing up in the U.K. and serving in the British Territorial Army. “Don’t be like the Yanks” was a common refrain that covered a wide swath of military sins from having a rusty weapon to using drugs.
It was a sentiment clearly in evidence during the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom where it took the form of a supercilious attitude about counter-insurgency. “Watch us – we’ve done this before, and successfully,” was the implicit message. That theme, often repeated, became increasingly shop-soiled as U.S. troops adapted to a tough counter-insurgency fight in unforgiving places like Anbar province in Iraq, while the British lost control of Basra – despite it being a much more benign part of the country. Nevertheless, the theme persisted in Afghanistan even when U.S. Marines essentially had to rescue British troops in Helmand Province after a series of poor tactical decisions led them to be overstretched.
In “Changing of the Guard”, author Simon Akam offers a critically acclaimed book about the modern British Army. In it, he provides a detailed discussion of the British military’s shortcomings in Iraq and Afghanistan and suggests that the British military unconsciously cloaks itself in this myth of superiority to disguise the fact that it is no longer very good at fighting wars. It is a theme that has been picked up by several serious books and articles.
Akam’s book is on the reading list of the Royal United Services Institute, the prestigious U.K. think tank – but it will find few fans among readers of Britain’s tabloid press. After the last MWX in which Royal Marines participated, the Sun newspaper front page read “Brit of a Coup: Strike Squad of Just 100 Brit Marines smashed 1500 US troops in War Games Drill.” That story was, of course, equally preposterous, but not unexpected fare for a newspaper that until recently displayed topless women on its page 3. Yet it was unusual for the premise of Akam’s book to be found in such fact-free analysis in the pages of the Daily Telegraph.
There is a reason, however, why this story appeared in a prominent paper and rocketed to prominence. Over the last few years, the British military has been shrinking under a series of remorseless budget cuts. This year has seen an ongoing series of defense reviews that has all branches of the U.K. military on edge as to their future. It was the Telegraph that only a few months previously had quoted Minister of Defense Ben Wallace, who warned against any temptation “to use the shield of sentimentality to protect previously battle-winning but now outdated capabilities,” adding that to do so would be to “risk the lives of our people”.
These conditions led to a perfect storm in which the story of a Royal Marines triumph in an exercise intended to test future operating concepts was bound to gather momentum.
British Royal Marines with Charlie Company, 40 Commando, Royal Marines, carry a simulated casualty during Exercise Green Dagger at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California, Oct. 9, 2021. Green Dagger was designed to increase global interoperability between the allied partners while preparing to challenge the larger exercise force in the upcoming Marine Air Ground Task Force Warfighting Exercise 1-22. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Shane T. Beaubien)
The Royal Marines, which numbers less than 8,000 personnel, are facing competition for relevance. Given their size, and the nature of their primary mission (amphibious assault) it is understandable that they are concerned about perceived obsolescence as a force. Advances in defensive systems mean it is now easier to find, identify and engage military forces with much greater lethality and at much greater range. These so-called Anti-Access/Area Denial capabilities (known as A2AD in military jargon) will make it much harder for theater entry assaults to get near their objective. To put this problem in perspective, states such as China have made technological and operational advances in areas such as long-range precision missiles that render the concept of amphibious assault, as currently practiced, obsolete. Even non-state actors with reasonably low-grade coastal defense munitions can deny access by maritime task groups. It is this problem that has had both the U.S. and Royal Marines searching for another role – and which has led to the MWX series of exercises replicating the experience of going to war against a “near peer competitor” (China).
In June of last year, the Royal Marines unveiled their Future Commando Force – intended to meet these challenges and thus secure – as the title implied – a future for Royal Marine Commandos. Two Littoral Response Groups (LRG), each of a few hundred commandos and supporting elements, will deploy on roughly six-month cycles to respond to crises ranging from humanitarian disasters to conventional warfare. It is envisaged that one LRG will be permanently east of Suez, with the Royal Navy facility in Bahrain acting as a staging post. The second group will focus on Nato’s northern flank, working closely with Norwegian amphibious forces, and the Mediterranean.
Despite the chest-thumping stories about the prodigious physical attributes of Royal Marine Commandos – it is a very different dynamic that dominates this kind of warfare against an enemy with long-range sensors and precision fires – it’s called the kill chain. The term “kill chain” is used to describe the process of an attack. It consists of initial target identification, a “fixing” phase which involves determining a target’s location and other relevant details while preparing to strike, the final decision and order to attack, and – finally – the destruction of the target. The term is used for any method of attack whether launched by drones, manned aircraft, artillery, or a ground force. It is also used to describe operations in the information or cyber environment. The more efficient the kill chain becomes, the less advantageous it renders traditional forms of maneuver involving ground-mobile units. In MWX, the movement of infantry uncovered by kill chains has proven time and again to be suicidal. When this happens – it is because the unit involved has invariably failed to set the conditions by neutralizing the enemy’s kill chain before moving — not, as Sen. Hawley claims — because they have been distracted by race and gender equality training.
British Royal Marines with Alpha Company, 40 Commando, Royal Marines, conduct break contact drills during Exercise Green Dagger at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California, Oct. 10, 2021. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Shane T. Beaubien)
The requirement to employ responsive sensors as part of a functioning kill chain is even more acute now for Marine ground combat units preparing to take on Chinese forces in the Pacific. Even the humble Puma drone, equipped only with electro-optical cameras, has – in the hands of a skilled operator – become worth its weight in gold. MWX is the opportunity for units to test future war concepts such as the kill chain in a highly dynamic environment. The exercise design itself is an impressive achievement. It is no easy task to put together a realistic force on force exercise involving aviation, drones, and full use of effects in what is called the electromagnetic spectrum – which covers everything from satellite imagery to cyber to electronic jamming and geo-location. MWX is invariably a humbling experience for participating units that must employ unfamiliar tools in order to compete effectively. It involves a different perspective on warfighting – one in which ground maneuver, the traditional action of closing with and destroying the enemy – takes a back seat to the primacy of the kill chain.
All of this is to say that MWX creates a steep learning curve for all units involved – regardless of background or nationality. The Royal Marine 40 Commando participating in this year’s exercise was an exceptionally capable unit, and the U.S. units involved certainly were able to learn lessons from them about the use of sensors, logistic resupply and just plain old-fashioned ground reconnaissance. And, as I am sure that they would be among the first to acknowledge, 40 Commando – in common with all participating units – made plenty of mistakes. That is what exercises are for.
It is this story, about the changing role of warfare and how the U.S. military and its allies become best postured to adapt, that is worthy of serious discussion by a reputable news outlet such as The Daily Telegraph instead of a poorly researched piece of jingoistic journalism. But rest assured that this episode will do nothing to derail a strong relationship. The U.S. and Royal Marines will continue to work together in preparing for the real fight ahead.
+++
Andrew Milburn retired from the Marine Corps as a colonel in 2019 after a 31-year career as an infantry and special operations officer. His last position in uniform was Deputy Commander of Special Operations Central (SOCCENT), and prior to that commanding officer of the Marine Raider Regiment and Combined Special Operations Task Force – Iraq. Since retiring, he has written a critically acclaimed memoir, When the Tempest Gathers, and has had articles published in a number of national publications.
More great stories on Task & Purpose
Want to write for Task & Purpose? Learn more here and be sure to check out more great stories on our homepage.
taskandpurpose.com · by Andrew Milburn · November 9, 2021

19. China Is Evading U.S. Spies — and the White House Is Worried

A relatively long article with fairly comprehensive (and troubling) analysis. As John Bolton notes, we will never have perfect intelligence. This is why Clausewitz argues for coup d'oeil (the inward looking eye and the ability to make sound judgments despite the lack of information in the fog and friction of war - and this can be applied to statesmanship in foeign affairs). While we focus on lack of intelligence we have to compensate with superior strategic decision making that is based on learning, adapting, and anticipating.

Excerpts:

In an interview with National Public Radio in July, Burns said the agency was looking into how to deal with “ubiquitous technical surveillance” and other “very advanced capabilities on the part of the Chinese intelligence service.” 
Burns also has hinted at one potential fix for the agency’s problems.
The CIA chief told NPR that the agency was considering whether to deploy China specialists in locations outside China, following the approach used to counter Soviet influence in the Cold War. One of the former officials said the effort was being undertaken partly in the hope that overseas destinations prove a more fertile recruitment environment than the closely surveilled streets of Beijing.
But that strategy is more of a long-term fix. In the short term, officials are having to brace for more of the rapid moves that have distinguished Xi’s leadership in recent years, without knowing what they may be. 
Bolton, who served under former President Donald Trump, said that means officials will have to play the hand they are holding now, making the best use of what they have, even if that information has gaps that are widening over time. 
“There comes a point when you have to make a decision,” he said. “You’re not going to have complete intel. Live with it.”

China Is Evading U.S. Spies — and the White House Is Worried
Under Xi Jinping, China has become an even harder target for America’s spying operation.
November 10, 2021, 12:01 AM EST


A lack of top-tier intelligence on Chinese President Xi Jinping’s inner circle is frustrating senior Biden administration officials struggling to get ahead of Beijing’s next steps, according to current and former officials who have reviewed the most sensitive U.S. intelligence reports. 
Those officials, who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive issues, say China is becoming a harder target, more opaque, just as the demand for insights into Xi’s decision-making is soaring and tensions with the U.S. are heating up over issues from Taiwan to high technology.
That reality comes after officials in both the Trump and Biden administrations said they were surprised by Beijing’s rapid moves to consolidate control of Hong Kong, project military power across the South China Sea, limit probes into the origins of Covid-19, undercut Chinese companies going public in the U.S. and ramp up hacking against adversaries.
The current and former officials emphasize that America’s spy agencies have long struggled to provide the insights policy makers demand on China. The hurdles facing the U.S. intelligence community are both deep-seated — Beijing did significant damage to American spy networks in China prior to Xi’s presidency — and basic, including a continuing shortage of Mandarin speakers. 

Xi Jinping with Premier Li Keqiang and members of the Politburo Standing Committee on the eve of China's National Day on Sept. 30.Photographer: Greg Baker/AFP/Getty Images
“Our human intelligence has been lagging for decades,” former National Security Advisor John Bolton said in an interview, when asked about China. “I never feel I have enough intelligence. I’m always willing to hear more. I’m never satisfied. No decision maker should be.” 
As the Biden administration seeks to shift more of its foreign policy strategy toward countering China, Central Intelligence Agency Director Bill Burns last month announced the creation of a China Mission Center to hone the agency’s focus on “an increasingly adversarial Chinese government.” 

CIA Director Bill BurnsPhotographer: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Group/Bloomberg
Some of the people interviewed by Bloomberg said that such announcements are more symbolic than substantive and need to be backed up by increases in spending and staffing to have credibility. 
CIA officials declined to comment.
Several of the current and former officials say U.S. intelligence shortfalls are worsening, a problem that comes as the 68-year-old Xi seeks to cement his legacy alongside former leaders Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping at a key Communist Party meeting in Beijing this week. That gathering, one of the last hurdles before Xi likely secures a third term as head of the party next year, takes place with the U.S. having little insight on some basic issues, such as who his eventual successor is likely to be. And it comes after some high-profile intelligence flubs on other topics, including the failure to foresee the Taliban’s rapid takeover in Afghanistan. 

Criticism of the intelligence community’s insights on China weigh most heavily on the CIA, which has primary responsibility for recruiting spies and saw its network severely damaged more than a decade ago by Beijing’s counterintelligence efforts. 
Those efforts were detailed extensively in 2017 by the New York Times, which said as many as a dozen U.S. sources were executed by China, with others jailed, in what represented one of the worst breaches ever of American spying networks. 
The creation of the CIA mission center was denounced as a “typical symptom of the Cold War mentality” by China Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian. The U.S. “should view China’s development and China-U.S. relations in an objective and rational light and stop doing things detrimental to mutual trust and cooperation,” he added. 

China Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao LijianPhotographer: Greg Baker/AFP/Getty Images

But for the leading consumers of intelligence in the Biden administration — a group that includes the senior-most officials with access to the highly classified President’s Daily Brief — a stronger pivot to China can’t come soon enough. Last week the Pentagon said it now sees China’s nuclear arsenal growing faster than forecast, the latest in a series of stepped-up assessments of Beijing’s global ambitions. 
CIA Looks Beyond Hardware
Xi’s sweeping efforts to change China’s domestic politics and consolidate his control also have taken a toll on American intelligence. The shift from a system of “collective” leadership under former Presidents Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao toward one dominated by Xi means that the CIA has had to go from focusing on the inner circles of seven or even nine top leaders to, effectively, just one. 
Even before Xi, China’s political system was highly secretive and organized using a “stove-piped” system where information flows up to top leaders but rarely is disseminated widely inside the system. Chinese academia, the media and civil society organizations are all closely controlled by the government, further compounding the challenge of reporting on the country. 
Consumers of intelligence often fail to recognize the severity of these challenges, former U.S. officials explained, and may have unrealistic expectations for what conclusions can be drawn from any raw intelligence collected in the field. 
Xi’s broad anti-corruption campaign, which has punished more than 1.5 million officials, has also led to greater scrutiny of Chinese officials’ income, making payments to potential sources far more problematic, two former officials said. 
Why China’s a ‘Hard Target’
Despite China’s history as a “hard target” for the CIA to penetrate, the agency exists precisely to overcome such challenges, whether it’s deciphering the leadership of al-Qaeda or Kim Jong Un’s regime in North Korea. 
What’s more, the agency was capable of providing significant insights into the upper reaches of the Chinese political system as recently as a decade ago, one former intelligence official said. Its ability to penetrate the Chinese leadership has ebbed and flowed over time, but the agency’s current ability to do so is more limited, the person said. 
Follow the money
Find out how once-illegal drugs like marijuana and psychedelics are becoming big business with The Dose, a weekly newsletter.

Sign up to this newsletter
Another former official said that if he were sitting in the White House Situation Room today, his priority requests of the intelligence community would center on projections for China’s buildup of its Navy, cyber and artificial intelligence capabilities; Xi’s plans for Taiwan; and better intelligence on Beijing’s strategy for the South China Sea. This person said the Trump White House also lacked good intelligence on China’s strategy toward Vietnam, India and North Korea. 
The frustrations of administration officials echo public assessments from Congress. 
A partially redacted House Intelligence Committee report from September 2020 concluded that U.S. spy agencies were failing to meet the multifaceted challenges posed by China and were overly focused on traditional targets such as terrorism or conventional military threats. 
“Absent a significant realignment of resources, the U.S. government and intelligence community will fail to achieve the outcomes required to enable continued U.S. competition with China on the global stage for decades to come, and to protect the U.S. health and security,” according to the report. 
The report also cited America’s foreign policy focus on the Middle East and the “war on terror” as reasons the intelligence community came to treat “traditional intelligence missions as secondary to counterterrorism.” 
The China-Taiwan Conflict

Taiwan's armed forces take part in a military exercise in Jan. 2021.Photographer: I-Hwa Cheng/Bloomberg
A leading concern now is the question of whether Xi would invade Taiwan, or possibly seek to take smaller islands controlled by Taiwan, a move that would be seen as a significant test of Western resolve. 
General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, last week reiterated his view that China is unlikely to take Taiwan by force within the next 24 months. And China’s state media have sought to quiet online speculation that a conflict with Taiwan may be imminent. 
“Xi has sent contradictory signals on Taiwan,” said Bonnie Glaser, director of the Asia program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “It is difficult to disaggregate which signals Xi intends for the Party elite, the general domestic audience, Taiwan audiences or the United States.”
For now, the intelligence community’s analysis relies more on inductive reasoning about whether an invasion would align with Xi’s stated objectives than on raw intelligence on the Chinese leader’s views, according to the people. 
Former officials explained that recovering from China’s dismantling of the CIA’s network in China involves a multiyear process that includes the recruitment and onboarding of new assets, followed by systematically increasing the asset’s access to sensitive information. That’s probably still underway, the people said. 
In addition, CIA officers in China face daunting challenges posed by China’s burgeoning surveillance state, which has blanketed Chinese cities with surveillance cameras and employs sophisticated facial recognition software to track threats. 

Surveillance cameras on the outer perimeter of Tiananmen Square in Beijing.Photographer: Qilai Shen/Bloomberg
In an interview with National Public Radio in July, Burns said the agency was looking into how to deal with “ubiquitous technical surveillance” and other “very advanced capabilities on the part of the Chinese intelligence service.” 
Problem-Solving Outside China
Burns also has hinted at one potential fix for the agency’s problems.
The CIA chief told NPR that the agency was considering whether to deploy China specialists in locations outside China, following the approach used to counter Soviet influence in the Cold War. One of the former officials said the effort was being undertaken partly in the hope that overseas destinations prove a more fertile recruitment environment than the closely surveilled streets of Beijing.
But that strategy is more of a long-term fix. In the short term, officials are having to brace for more of the rapid moves that have distinguished Xi’s leadership in recent years, without knowing what they may be. 
Bolton, who served under former President Donald Trump, said that means officials will have to play the hand they are holding now, making the best use of what they have, even if that information has gaps that are widening over time. 
“There comes a point when you have to make a decision,” he said. “You’re not going to have complete intel. Live with it.”

20. The “Strategic Counterinsurgency” Model: Escaping a One-Dimensional Strategic Worldview

"Canvassing?"

Excerpts:

The CCP’s less dangerous efforts within the global community, which are nonetheless contrary to U.S. or coalition interests, require a fifth mode of U.S. strategy: canvassing. Like contestation in the dyadic model, canvassing offers a method for pursuing U.S. interests within the international community without unnecessarily contributing to a sense of antagonism toward China. In addition, whereas strategic counterinsurgency implies a reactive posture, canvassing allows for retaking the initiative in strengthening the U.S.-supported global order, and for pursuing goals which are self-justifying, freeing the U.S. from defining its policies merely in relation to its perceived adversaries.
More importantly, despite addressing the risk of alienating partners, strategic counterinsurgency does not eliminate the risk of high-end conflict. Thus it would be inappropriate to swear off competition altogether, especially within the military instrument of power. The military can help to win strategic counterinsurgency by crafting operations that nest within the political goals of the whole-of-government mission, but it risks catastrophe if deterrence fails. However, even deterrence should be valued not only for its effect on preventing interstate violence, but also for the bond of solidarity it forms with cooperating nations.
The foregoing discussion merely sets a foundation for U.S. strategy. As others have written, competition is not truly a strategy but a frame of mind from which to begin crafting strategy.[24] The same could be said of the other four Cs. However, since frames of mind can color one’s decision-making processes, it is important not to entirely ignore them. U.S. strategists must employ a balanced mixture of, at least, five different frames of mind when crafting foreign policy: competition, contestation, cooperation, counterinsurgency, and canvassing. Because the U.S.’s competitive activities have been and will continue to be enabled by its alliances and partnerships, its strategists should give at least as much attention to the final two as they have to the first.
The “Strategic Counterinsurgency” Model: Escaping a One-Dimensional Strategic Worldview
thestrategybridge.org · November 10, 2021
When the term “great power competition” (GPC) appeared in the 2017 National Security Strategy, it served as a wakeup call to many in the U.S. defense establishment.[1] It signaled a sudden rhetorical shift which produced two positive developments. First, it prompted the military to embrace innovation with a newfound sense of urgency. Second, it helped to alert the American public to the strategic challenges presented by China’s newly aggressive foreign policy. But although its handy acronym is still alive and well in some sectors of government, “GPC” has fallen into disfavor, and for good reason. Among other things, the term “great power” seemed to rhetorically exclude many of America’s global partners. The term also suggested a military-centric approach to foreign policy when post-Cold War experience has shown a whole-of-government strategy is necessary for success.[2] As a result, some of the nation’s leadership have jettisoned GPC for the latest new-and-improved term: strategic competition.[3] Whatever its benefits, the shift to strategic competition does not definitively deliver U.S. strategic thinking from the liabilities of its predecessor.
Chinese President Xi Jinping shakes hands with then- Vice President Joe Biden inside the Great Hall of the People in Beijing December 4, 2013. (Lintao Zhang/Reuters)
Competition with China has united Americans from across the political spectrum as few other things today.
Adopting strategic competition, without repudiating GPC, risks creating a mere euphemism for the predecessor, undermining the significance of the change. Words matter. The semantic shift affirms that the U.S. sees its partners as integral to strategic success. However, the GPC concept stumbled on more than semantics. For example, France’s recent reaction to the announcement of the AUKUS security agreement indicates that a strategy based predominantly on competition may incur risk to U.S. interests.[4] By failing to include a cogent critique of GPC along with their minor rhetorical shift, doctrine writers are missing an opportunity to dispose of GPC’s deeper vices while retaining its virtues.[5]
Competition with China has united Americans from across the political spectrum as few other things today. While broad consensus confers political strength, it can also produce blind-spots. International relations are impossibly complex, and reducing the U.S.-China relationship to this single phrase oversimplifies strategy to the extent that it could be dangerous to long-term U.S. foreign policy.[6]
The reality of the situation is more complicated, and no one term will suffice to explain it. That was the conclusion of a 2018 RAND study, which found that although there are strong elements of competition in the U.S. relationship with China, the word fails to completely capture the relationship’s essence.[7] The RAND team found that two other C-words are necessary to understand the potential modes of U.S. relations with China: cooperation, in which the U.S. and China may meet mutual interests, such as pandemic prevention; and contestation, involving issue-specific disagreements, which need not contribute to an overall antagonistic posture.[8]
RAND’s first three C’s—competition, cooperation, and contestation—frame the U.S.-China relationship in inherently dyadic terms, counterinsurgency accounts for realities that dyad analysis ignores
The study also found that the task at hand for the U.S. “is not a generalized […] competition as much as it is a struggle to constrain two potential major power revisionists.”[9] Taking this analysis a step further, it becomes evident that a fourth facet of America’s strategic approach to China requires a fourth C-word: counterinsurgency.[10]
The U.S. must resist the urge to focus predominantly on China itself, and, in the manner of FM 3-24, give attention to the third parties that are caught up in the two states’ political struggle.
To be fair, the label of counterinsurgency, with all its connotative baggage, is potentially just as harmful as the now-disfavored GPC, in that it implies a higher level of violence than is desirable, evokes faintly colonial imagery, and may lead to inappropriate comparisons between China and terrorist groups. However, viewing the U.S.-China relationship through the lens of strategic counterinsurgency nevertheless offers a new, useful perspective. While RAND’s first three C’s—competition, cooperation, and contestation—frame the U.S.-China relationship in inherently dyadic terms, counterinsurgency accounts for realities that dyad analysis ignores, specifically where both countries reside within the larger international system. In today’s increasingly multipolar world, there is reason to question whether dyad analysis remains effective.[11] The U.S. must resist the urge to focus predominantly on China itself, and, in the manner of FM 3-24, give attention to the third parties that are caught up in the two states’ political struggle.[12]
The 2021 Interim National Security Strategic Guidance promotes this more expansive view when it asserts that advancing U.S. national security “requires…[the U.S.] to lead and sustain a stable and open international system.”[13] The language reflects that the U.S. is no ordinary state pursuing its own narrow goals. It is also a leading participant in global governance. Viewed from this perspective, the so-called rivalry between the U.S. and China can be modeled not only as a set of foreign policy disputes between two states but also as an intramural rivalry between factions in a nascent global polity. The U.S. and its partners resemble a governing coalition attempting to generate order within the international community, while revisionist states such as China seek to replace that regime with one more favorable to their interests.[14]
With the intramural rivalry model in mind, U.S. grand strategy can benefit from the lessons of past insurgencies. For example, in the Chinese Civil War, the Kuomintang under Chiang Kai-shek focused primarily on defeating the Chinese Communists under Mao Tse-Tung. Mao readily recognized Chiang’s military advantages from the outset, but believed he could progress toward strategic victory by winning political support from the populace.[15] Mao’s focus on popular support was one of the contributing factors in the Communists’ ultimate success in mainland China.[16] Today, amid China’s efforts to force a U.S. withdrawal to its own geopolitical island, U.S. strategists should consider whether the key to strategic success lies away from the apparent centers of power.[17]
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is ultimately not the most important menace to U.S. strategic interests.
Insurgencies are often a symptom of deep societal problems.[18] In such cases, the focus of a counterinsurgency campaign is not to snuff out the insurgents but rather to bolster a “government’s legitimacy in the eyes of the contested population.”[19] By focusing on competition—that is, on how to counteract China’s every move—the U.S. will overlook the most essential task of the moment, which is to convince the other nations of the world that the U.S.-supported system remains the superior model for meeting their needs. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is ultimately not the most important menace to U.S. strategic interests.[20] The true menace is the possibility that present and potential U.S. partners will become alienated to its cause. Engaging in the bellicose language of competition may promote this alienation, and will undermine any strategy that seeks to strengthen the current world order.
There are no universal solutions for investing countries into partnership with the U.S. that would suit every individual state.
Auspiciously, the 2021 Interim National Security Strategic Guidance embraces a U.S. strategy beyond dyadic competition. Rather than advocating direct confrontation, it stresses the need to rebuild the credibility of the U.S.-supported system and to strengthen international partners in the face of China’s pressures.[21] These bear some resemblance to the familiar missions of nation-building and foreign internal defense, but now at an international scale, and within a polity in which the U.S. is itself a member.

As in counterinsurgency, a key to progress will be addressing the needs of the contested populations. There are no universal solutions for investing countries into partnership with the U.S. that would suit every individual state. However, the U.S. could begin simply by conveying to prospective partners a positive effort to meet their needs rather than approaching them as mere instruments in a self-interested strategy of competition.[22]
Strategists should not be tempted to merely replace the old slogan with a new one. Strategic counterinsurgency also has its limitations when used alone. Most notably, the term suggests an antagonistic posture that is not necessary in all cases. The CCP’s political efforts span a spectrum, ranging from clearly illicit activity, such as its South China Sea actions, to entirely legitimate activity, such as pursuing overseas infrastructure projects to reduce unemployment.[23] Strategic counterinsurgency will work best against China’s asymmetric, coercive threats to other states, but it is not an appropriate response to the balance of China’s activities.
The CCP’s less dangerous efforts within the global community, which are nonetheless contrary to U.S. or coalition interests, require a fifth mode of U.S. strategy: canvassing. Like contestation in the dyadic model, canvassing offers a method for pursuing U.S. interests within the international community without unnecessarily contributing to a sense of antagonism toward China. In addition, whereas strategic counterinsurgency implies a reactive posture, canvassing allows for retaking the initiative in strengthening the U.S.-supported global order, and for pursuing goals which are self-justifying, freeing the U.S. from defining its policies merely in relation to its perceived adversaries.
The military can help to win strategic counterinsurgency by crafting operations that nest within the political goals of the whole-of-government mission, but it risks catastrophe if deterrence fails.
More importantly, despite addressing the risk of alienating partners, strategic counterinsurgency does not eliminate the risk of high-end conflict. Thus it would be inappropriate to swear off competition altogether, especially within the military instrument of power. The military can help to win strategic counterinsurgency by crafting operations that nest within the political goals of the whole-of-government mission, but it risks catastrophe if deterrence fails. However, even deterrence should be valued not only for its effect on preventing interstate violence, but also for the bond of solidarity it forms with cooperating nations.
The foregoing discussion merely sets a foundation for U.S. strategy. As others have written, competition is not truly a strategy but a frame of mind from which to begin crafting strategy.[24] The same could be said of the other four Cs. However, since frames of mind can color one’s decision-making processes, it is important not to entirely ignore them. U.S. strategists must employ a balanced mixture of, at least, five different frames of mind when crafting foreign policy: competition, contestation, cooperation, counterinsurgency, and canvassing. Because the U.S.’s competitive activities have been and will continue to be enabled by its alliances and partnerships, its strategists should give at least as much attention to the final two as they have to the first.
Andrew Mueller is an officer in the United States Navy. He recently earned a Master of Military Studies from United States Marine Corps Command and Staff College, where he was a Lt Gen Victor H. Krulak Scholar in the Krulak Center for Innovation and Creativity. The views expressed are the author’s alone and do not reflect those of the U.S. Navy, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

The Strategy Bridge is read, respected, and referenced across the worldwide national security community—in conversation, education, and professional and academic discourse.

Thank you for being a part of the The Strategy Bridge community. Together, we can #BuildTheBridge.
Header Image: Low Angle Photo, 2019 (David Watkins).
Notes:
[1] Elbridge A. Colby and A. Wess Mitchell, “The Age of Great-Power Competition,” Foreign Affairs 99, no. 1 (January/February 2020), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-12-10/age-great-power-competition.
[2] Michael J. Mazarr, “This Is Not a Great-Power Competition,” Foreign Affairs, May 29, 2019, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-05-29/not-great-power-competition.
[3] For example, Strategic Competition Act of 2021, S.1169, 117th Congress (2021), https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1169/text.
[4] Reuters, “France sees "crisis" over submarine cancellation - Le Drian,” Reuters, September 18, 2021, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/france-sees-crisis-over-submarine-cancellation-le-drian-2021-09-18/.
[5] Other criticisms are found in Daniel H. Nexon, “Against Great Power Competition,” Foreign Affairs, February 15, 2021, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-02-15/against-great-power-competition.
[6] Matej Kandrík, “The Case Against the Concept of Great Power Competition,” The Strategy Bridge, June 30, 2021, https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2021/6/30/the-case-against-the-concept-of-great-power-competition.
[7] Michael J. Mazarr, et al., Understanding the Emerging Era of International Competition: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2019), 36. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2700/RR2726/RAND_RR2726.pdf.
[8] Ibid., 4.
[9] Ibid., 17.
[10] Inspired by Dan Straub, “Littoral Combat Ships for Maritime COIN,” Proceedings, January 2021, https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2021/january/littoral-combat-ships-maritime-coin; and Max Boot, “America Still Needs Counterinsurgency,” Foreign Affairs, June 2, 2021, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/afghanistan/2021-06-02/america-still-needs-counterinsurgency.
[11] Mazarr, “This Is Not a Great-Power Competition.”; Mazarr, et al., Understanding the Emerging Era, 27.
[12] Headquarters, Department of the Army, Insurgencies and Countering Insurgencies. FM 3-24/ MCWP 3-33.5 (Washington, DC: June 2, 2014), 1-2. https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/fm3_24.pdf.
[13] The White House, Interim National Security Strategic Guidance (Washington, DC, 2021), 9. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NSC-1v2.pdf.
[14] In a limited fashion. Some writers have argued that China supports many aspects of the current world order. Alastair Iaian Johnston, “China in a World of Orders: Rethinking Compliance and Challenge in Beijing,” International Security 44, no. 2 (October 2019): 57.
[15] Ian Frederick William Beckett, Modern Insurgencies and Counter-insurgencies:
Guerrillas and Their Opponents Since 1750 (New York: Routledge, 2001), 74.
[16] Mao Tse-Tung, Mind the Living Conditions of the Masses and Attend to the Methods of Work (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1953), 1. http://lib-lespaul.library.mun.ca/PDFs/radical/MaoTseTung.pdf.
[17]Referring to China’s apparent bid for a regional “sphere of influence,” Andrew Scobell, Something Old, Something New: Continuity and Change in China’s Foreign Policy (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2020), https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/Scobell_Testimony.pdf; and Mackinder’s inclusion of North America in the “insular crescent.” Halford J. Mackinder, “The Geographical Pivot of History,” Reprinted in The Geographical Journal 170, no. 4 (December 2004): 312.
[18] United States Joint Chiefs of Staff. Joint Publication 3-24: Counterinsurgency. April 25, 2018. II-5. https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_24pa.pdf.
[19] Ibid., I-2.
[20] Mazarr, “This Is Not a Great-Power Competition.”
[21] The White House, Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, 20.
[22] See Daniel Nexon’s comment in Council on Foreign Relations, “Should U.S. Foreign Policy Focus on Great-Power Competition?,” Foreign Affairs, October 13, 2020, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ask-the-experts/2020-10-13/should-us-foreign-policy-focus-great-power-competition.
[23] For U.S. and Chinese perspectives on these subjects, Andrew Scobell, “Perception and Misperception in US-China Relations” Political Science Quarterly 135, no. 4 (Winter 2020), 651; Ibid., 655.
[24] Daniel H. Nexon, “Against Great Power Competition.”
thestrategybridge.org · November 10, 2021





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

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

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

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