|
Quotes of the Day:
“No totalitarians, no wars, no fears, famine, or perils of any kind can really break a man's spirit until he breaks it himself by surrendering. Tyranny has many dread powers, but not the power to rule the spirit.”
- Edgar Sheffield, Brightman
“If the world were a band right now, I'd say that everyone thinks they have a solo and no one practiced.”
- The 13th chair.
“All that is gold, does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes, a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade, that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.” - J.R.R. Tolkien
1. On a Tiny Island in the Middle of Nowhere, 250 People Are Fending Off China
2. CSA: December Recommended Articles
3. The National Security Bureaucracy Is Unwell
4. The ‘no limits’ Russo-Chinese alliance is taking flight
5. Psychological science can help counter spread of misinformation, says APA report
6. AI, War and Transdisciplinary Philosophy
7. Time to End Wilsonian Foreign Policy
8. Opinion: Christopher Hitchens was right about Henry Kissinger
9. Why Biden Needs a 'Kissinger'
10. Navigating The Disinformation Landscape: Cultivating Cognitive Resilience
11. Slick videos or more 'authentic' content? The Israel-Gaza battles raging on TikTok and X
12. Restoring trust in U.S.-China relations
13. Narrative warfare: How disinformation shapes the Israeli-Hamas conflict—and millions of minds
14. Bringing Ukraine Into NATO Without World War III
15. Kissinger’s Contradictions
16. Surrounded by Russians and ready to die, this Ukrainian soldier called in an artillery strike – on his own position
17. Marines, soldiers fire first shots at state-of-the-art gun range complex on Guam
18. Why Hamas could emerge stronger militarily from the temporary cease-fire with Israel
19. Statement by Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III on the Passing of Lieutenant General Julius W. Becton Jr.
20. Lessons the US Marine Corps Should Learn From Gaza and Ukraine
21. Inside the Woke Air Force
22. Terminally ill Army vet to get final wish, relive his tank gunner days
23. Students invent IV bag that doesn't rely on gravity. It could be game-changing at disaster sites.
24. Meta exposes foreign plot to divide AmericansMeta exposes foreign plot to divide Americans
1. On a Tiny Island in the Middle of Nowhere, 250 People Are Fending Off China
Please go to the link for proper formatting and to view all the photos. https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/welcome-to-thitu-the-tiny-island-fending-off-china-0e565ec4?mod=hp_lead_pos7
"Long live the resistance." Resistance and resilience take many forms.
On a Tiny Island in the Middle of Nowhere, 250 People Are Fending Off China
The weather can be wild and very little grows on Thitu, but Chinese ships are ever-present on the horizon
By Fruhlein Chrys EconarFollow
| Photographs and additional reporting by Rosem Morton for The Wall Street Journal
Updated Dec. 2, 2023 12:24 am ET
From the remote speck of land they call home, the residents of Thitu Island have watched China’s presence creep closer, and grow more assertive, over the past decade.
Boats belonging to China’s fishing militia regularly swarm the waters near Thitu, which lies in the South China Sea and is controlled by the Philippines. On pitch-dark nights, the Filipino islanders can see lights flicker on the horizon, emanating from a Chinese military base that didn’t exist 10 years ago.
Thitu’s tiny civilian population of 255 people is on the front line of Manila’s efforts to fend off Beijing’s growing control over the South China Sea. China claims much of the strategic waterway, including Thitu, and accuses the Philippines of illegally occupying the island.
Philippines soldiers are garrisoned on Thitu, but the country is relying in large part on a nonmilitary strategy to bolster its position: keeping civilians there, against all odds.
Boats in China’s fishing militia are a regular sight from Thitu Island’s coast. As many as 45 vessels were spotted around the island in November.
There were no paved roads, cell towers or schools when the earliest settlers arrived two decades ago.
It’s important “that we can really project that the island is able to accommodate normal community life,” said Cmdr. Ariel Joseph Coloma, spokesman for the Philippine military’s Western Command, which is tasked with protecting the country’s interests in the waters where Thitu lies. That sends a clear message it is part of Philippines territory, he said.
Wi-Fi arrived in the past few years, and Thitu now has paved roads. Renovations are nearly complete on a decades-old airstrip, which will make it easier to get on and off the island, located about 300 miles from the Philippines mainland. Authorities are building a sheltered port that will accommodate bigger boats.
The government doles out rice, which must be shipped in. It is the island’s main employer, offering construction jobs and hiring locals for the upkeep of facilities such as Thitu’s water-filtration system and vegetable garden.
Many residents are subsistence fishermen who catch just enough to feed their families and occasionally sell to military personnel stationed on the island.
Fishermen have learned to avoid nearby fishing grounds where Chinese vessels now linger.
Daisy Cojamco tended the vegetable garden, which was started to augment the island's food supply. The yield is rationed among residents.
Family and friends celebrated the birthday of Mary Joy Gonzales, 15. Only two people have ever been born on Thitu, which has limited health services.
For the first time this year, a group of tourists visited Thitu and other spots the Philippines controls in the area—part of an effort by the local administration to spur development. Lawmakers, including the speaker of the House of Representatives, traveled to the island in October and pledged to increase funding for local projects such as a storm shelter for fishermen during typhoons and a solar power plant.
Still, life on Thitu—known in the Philippines as Pag-asa—is far from easy.
Very little grows on the scorching, nearly 81-acre island. A powerful cyclone in 2021 left a trail of destruction, tearing the roofs off homes and wrecking the local coast-guard station. The nearest major city is a two-to-three-day boat ride away. No commercial flights operate there, and getting on and off the island usually means hitching a ride with the Philippines military.
Thitu has a health clinic, with midwives and a nurse but no doctor. Women are advised to travel to the mainland for childbirth, and only two children have ever been born on the island.
Then there are the security risks. Chinese militia boats have in recent years gathered around Thitu in large numbers—some 40 or 45 in November—lingering for days or weeks at a time, often backed up by Chinese coast-guard ships. Thitu fishermen no longer wander too far from their home shores, they said, because they know they are being watched and will likely be blocked.
A trip to Thitu used to take days but now takes a few hours, because of the recently renovated airstrip where planes can land reliably.
Thitu residents often gather in spots where the free Wi-Fi connection is strongest.
Thitu's population is made up of civilians, local government workers and stationed military personnel.
Authorities are building a sheltered port for bigger boats. Construction on the island has previously drawn attention from China.
Tensions between the Philippines and China have soared this year at hot spots across the South China Sea. Chinese ships collided with Philippines vessels in October near a reef called Second Thomas Shoal. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has pushed back against Chinese maneuvers and doubled down on his country’s security alliance with the U.S.
The U.S. and Philippines militaries conducted joint air and maritime patrols in the South China Sea last week.
Residents of Thitu remember a time when Chinese boats weren’t a constant presence around the island. Vessels began showing up, persistently, after Beijing transformed the nearby Subi Reef starting around 2014, first into an artificial island and then a base, bristling with military hardware.
The island’s first settlers in the early 2000s brought livestock including pigs and goats.
Fiery Cross Reef, one of several in the South China Sea that are occupied by China, as seen from an Armed Forces of the Philippines aircraft on maritime patrol.
Chinese coast guard and militia ships rest and refuel at Subi Reef, allowing them to spend longer periods in the area without having to return to ports in China. They linger close to some of the sandbars near Thitu, and Filipinos fishing in the area for tuna and mackerel have learned to avoid those spots, residents said.
“We’re a bit scared to go there now because their boats are there blocking the way,” said Reny Magbanua, one of Thitu’s first settlers.
The effort to foster a community on Thitu—which Manila has controlled since the 1970s—began two decades ago. At the time, just a small group of Filipino soldiers were posted on the island. In 2002, to strengthen the Philippines’s claims, the local administration sent 80 families to live there.
The families brought livestock with them, including goats and pigs, on a boat local officials dubbed “Noah’s Ark.” But back then, there were no facilities on Thitu: no cell towers or schools, and no reliable sources of food except for fish from the surrounding waters.
In 2003, the government launched a food-subsidy program, offering free rice and other provisions. Still, life was hard and most of the families eventually left.
To make it more viable for families to live on Thitu, authorities built a school in 2012. People gradually trickled back in, often arriving for short-term construction work and staying.
Thitu's sole school serves children through junior high. Students have to finish senior high school, grades 11 and 12, on the Philippines mainland.
Thitu is building homestay accommodations for tourists as part of a local effort to boost the economy.
Maria Dacumos, far left, recalls there were very few women living in Thitu when she arrived in 2011.
Residents are still recovering from a cyclone that left a trail of destruction in 2021.
People had to be incentivized to stay, said Dina Balofiños, an official tasked with planning and development. “Nobody will choose to live there on their own because there’s no hospital, no shops, no regular transport,” she said.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
What does Thitu’s experience suggest about Beijing’s aims? Join the conversation below.
Thitu’s population has slowly inched upward despite the risks.
While out fishing in 2021, Larry Hugo said he was tailed by a Chinese coast-guard ship. Spooked, he stayed on land for two weeks and encouraged others to avoid the area. Now, few fishermen venture past the two sandbars closest to Thitu and their catch has suffered for it.
Still, Hugo said, he wouldn’t leave.
“This island is ours,” he said. “This is why we live here. This is why Filipinos are here.”
A Thitu resident sitting up in his bed that overlooks the beach.
Rosem Morton’s reporting was supported by the International Women’s Media Foundation’s Howard G. Buffett Fund for Women Journalists.
Write to Fruhlein Chrys Econar at fruhleinchrys.econar@wsj.com
2. CSA: December Recommended Articles
CSA: December Recommended Articles
Organizational culture, task organizing tanks, and asking better questions
https://www.hardingproject.com/p/csa-december-recommended-articles?utm
ZACHARY GRIFFITHS
DEC 1, 2023
2
Share
For December, General Randy George, the Chief of Staff of the Army, recognized three articles related to transforming our Army for future challenges.
Check them all out here and find the archives here.
3. The National Security Bureaucracy Is Unwell
From the CATO Institute. I do think this is a real problem. We have all worn sleeplessness like a badge of honor. Who can get by on the least amount of sleep? I recall being a company commander in Korea during an ARTEP. After 4 or 5 days with nothing but cat naps I was pretty exhausted. A very wise driver, a Specialist and a card carrying member of the "specialist mafia," said to me about 0300 that since we had all the platoons in position that I should get some sleep.I said good idea and I asked him to wake me in two hours. I laid down under a poncho liner and the next thing I know it was about 1100 and the sun was in my eyes. I jumped up and asked my driver what happened as I looked on my map and noticed the platoons had repositioned. The 4.2. mortar platoon and one of the anti-tank platoons were in new positions and the scouts had pushed out another 2 KM. He said the platoon leaders called for guidance and recommended repositioning. I said how did you know to move them to those locations and he said he did what he thought I would do. I asked how he knew to do that and he said he had been my dirver for 6 months and just knew from that experience what to do from watching how we operated. (And the XO was on the net and he concurred). I laughed and told him to never reveal that to anyone otherwise company commanders would be replaced by specialists! The fact is he knew I was dead tired and I might have not been thinking clearly enough to make sound decisions if I tried to stay awake. The point is we need sleep, someone recognized I needed sleep and there is always someone in the chain of command (or not) who can step in and keep the trains running on time.
I think also the point of this article should be to ask if centrally controlling operations around the world so tightly from the pentagon situation room is really necessary or value added? We have huge or deep chains of command. If all those layers are passed over for Pentagon or Washington central decision making, why do we need them? Or asked another aay, are decisions made in Washington really value added? Do they enhance operations or help them to be more successful or at all successful? I think back to World War II where we did not have the luxury of near real time communications and video teleconferences and communicated via message/teletype. Do all our advanced communications systems make us more tired and prevent us from getting sleep since we can monitor actions down the individual soldier around the world? (yes that is a bit of hyperbole but I hope it makes the point -are we micromanaging too much and is that damaging the health of our senior leaders?)
NOVEMBER 21, 2023 4:13PM
The National Security Bureaucracy Is Unwell
https://www.cato.org/blog/national-security-bureaucracy-unwell
By Justin Logan
SHARE
The national security bureaucracy is working itself to death. The syndrome is particularly acute among the leadership of the uniformed military. The Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Eric Smith recently suffered a heart attack at 58, from which he is thankfully recovering, having reported the month before feeling exhausted by a schedule that has him beginning work at 5 a.m. and ending work at 11:30 p.m.
Smith isn’t alone in burning the candle at both ends. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s chief of staff reported that Lt. Gen. Douglas Sims, the director for operations at the Joint Staff, “probably works about 18 hours a day, 7 days a week.”
Much of the blame for this state of affairs is presently falling at the feet of Alabama GOP Senator Tommy Tuberville’s hold on bulk military nominations, provoked by President Biden’s use of Defense Department funds to, in violation of the Hyde Amendment, pay for out‐of‐state abortions. But it’s far from clear that he is the real culprit. As the Marine Corps Times noted, in the case of Gen. Smith, “it’s unclear how the hours that Smith is working actually compare to the hours worked by other military leaders, past and present.”
Moreover, the problem exists outside the uniformed military and it predates the Tuberville hold. Take National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, for example. A New York Times article revealed that the president’s chief adviser on national security matters averaged two hours of sleep per night across three weeks during the Afghanistan withdrawal. More recently, an intruder broke into Sullivan’s house earlier this year at 3:00 a.m., only to find Sullivan still awake working.
When he was at the State Department during the Obama adminstration, Sullivan reported that while on travel, he could at best get 3, 4, or 5 hours of sleep per night, and was in “pretty terrible” physical condition. What kept him going was “adrenaline” and a “persistent sense that if I made mistakes, the consequences would be awful.”
So rather than Tuberville, most of the blame lies in threat inflation among the national security establishment. As Sullivan noted above, the belief that he was the barrier between a dangerous world and his countrymen kept him going. Or as Austin’s chief of staff described the reason Sims was working so much, he “is literally holding the world together as the J3.”
Perhaps nothing illustrates this outlook as well as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ description of the pressures on the upper levels of the national security bureaucracy today:
There’s this gigantic funnel that sits over the table in the Situation Room. And all the problems in the world end up coming through that funnel to the same eight or 10 people. There’s a limit to the bandwidth those eight or 10 people can have.
All the problems in the world! Even before Hamas attacked Israel and Israel responded in Gaza, Gates was warning darkly that the United States was facing the most dangerous threat environment “perhaps ever.”
It is this view of the dangers the United States faces—and of the role of the national security bureaucracy in vanquishing those threats—that causes these people to abandon their families and their sleep, and plunge into a years‐long frenzy of memos, meetings, and misery. It’s like Bill Lumbergh meets the Justice League.
The crowning tragedy here is that while there are a host of conflicts raging from Ukraine to Gaza, they do not pose great dangers to Americans at home unless the national security bureaucracy gets Americans into the middle of them. Geography, nuclear weapons, and the world’s most powerful military purchase the United States a large measure of safety that can still be leveraged against most problems in most places. Other countries’ national security bureaucracies don’t think of themselves—and don’t abuse their employees—in this way.
Even viewed in light of the complex literature on sleep loss, it is clear that we should not want national security decisionmakers to be operating under this kind of sleep deprivation, all while being separated for great stretches from the things that renew and refresh most people: family, love, and recreational pursuits.
G. K. Chesterton famously remarked that the true soldier does not fight because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him. In far too many cases in today’s national security bureaucracy, the principals might not even recognize what’s behind them. Acting on the illusion of barbarians at the gate, they are working themselves to the bone, unnecessarily.
4. The ‘no limits’ Russo-Chinese alliance is taking flight
The ‘no limits’ Russo-Chinese alliance is taking flight
BY STEPHEN BLANK, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 12/01/23 12:00 PM ET
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4335732-the-no-limits-russo-chinese-alliance-is-taking-flight/
Although much expert commentary on Russo-Chinese relations denies an alliance exists, their deepening military collaboration belies that conclusion. The countries’ joint behavior increasingly suggests that a China-dominated multi-dimensional partnership is here and encompasses even more areas of their economic, political and military policy.
They are considering building an underwater tunnel from Russia to Crimea to help Russia retain control of the region but make it more beholden to China. This alone suggests China’s real attitude to the war against Ukraine.
The military dimension of this deepening alliance is multi-domain, trans-regional, global in scope, growing and, according to Putin, becoming more important. This military cooperation represents the strongest domain of collaboration. It includes efforts in the Arctic, outer space and possibly in Europe. For example, a Sino-Russian collaboration occurred regarding the Baltconector gas pipeline, making this collaboration a threat to European infrastructure if not security.
It also is generating de facto alignment with China across Asia, the Arctic and with rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. It could also become a tripartite alliance with North Korea, which is Kim Jong Un’s apparent objective. Moreover, Russia committed itself to following China’s lead in Africa.
The global risks to regional and international security are obvious. The Economist reported that Xi has the leverage to “seek high-end Russian military technology, such as surface-to-air missiles, and nuclear reactors designed to power submarines” and the influence to sway Putin to “withhold or delay supplies of similar items to Russian customers that have territorial disputes with China, such as India and Vietnam.” Additionally, it notes that Russia can “help upgrade China’s nuclear arsenal, or work on a joint missile-warning system.”
Similarly, before Putin invaded Ukraine, a senior-level U.S. official told Politico that the relationship’s evolution over the past decade “is something much deeper and, frankly more concerning,” and it “operates as almost a quasi-alliance.”
“Advanced fighter airplanes, hypersonic technologies, very effective radars … battle integration systems that link different services more effectively, nuclear propulsion with respect to submarines, night vision — I mean, I could go on and on,” the official continued.
Other analysts cited cooperation in artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, and robotics. Heliborne assault, anti-submarine warfare, early warning and cyber warfare cooperation are also factors. There are coordinated information warfare campaigns in developing countries and enhanced threats to Japan, Taiwan and South Korea.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu recently said bilateral relations are exemplary and noted that it is becoming more attractive to others, causing its circle of “friends and like-minded people” to expand while bilateral military cooperation continues growing. Putin echoed this, stating that cooperation here is becoming more important.
Meanwhile, Putin advocated closer cooperation in space, ”including high-orbit assets, and new prospective types of weapons” for the “strategic stability” (probably nuclear weapons) “of both Russia and the People’s Republic of China.”
Clearly, this alliance threatens global security and deterrence and requires policies suited to the assaults Russia and China regularly conduct. However, it remains unclear if governments, let alone experts, fully grasp the dimensions of this challenge.
Recent experience shows that we are too often surprised even though we’ve been given an early warning. When the next shock comes it will probably be too late to say that we were warned for we will then have been judged and found wanting.
Stephen Blank, Ph.D. is a Foreign Policy Research Institute senior fellow. He is a former professor of Russian national security studies and national security affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College and a former MacArthur fellow at the U.S. Army War College. Blank is an independent consultant focused on the geopolitics and geostrategy of the former Soviet Union, Russia and Eurasia.
5. Psychological science can help counter spread of misinformation, says APA report
Download the PDF of the 44 report at this link: https://salve.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c2ec02b0ba766fda7fed6793d&id=17ef81d45f&e=16c4e2eb0f
Are we going after the superspreaders with sufficient effort?
Excerpts:
As a result, “most online misinformation originates from a small minority of ‘superspreaders,’ but social media amplifies their reach and influence.”
There are two levels on which misinformation can be stopped, according to the report: systemic approaches, such as legislation and technology standards, and individual approaches focused on changing individual behaviors. The latter include:
- fact-checking, or debunking;
- prebunking, or pre-emptive debunking to prevent people from falling for misinformation in the first place;
- nudges, such as asking people to consider the accuracy of information before sharing it, or rewarding people to be as accurate as possible; and
- formal education or community outreach to raise people’s awareness about healthy online behavior and media use.
...
The report recommends eight steps for policymakers, scientists, media and the public to help curb the spread of misinformation and the risks it poses to health, well-being and civic life:
- Avoid repeating misinformation without including a correction.
- Collaborate with social media companies to understand and reduce the spread of harmful misinformation.
- Use misinformation correction strategies with tools already proven to promote healthy behaviors.
- Leverage trusted sources to counter misinformation and provide accurate health information.
- Debunk misinformation often and repeatedly using evidence-based methods.
- Prebunk misinformation to inoculate susceptible audiences by building skills and resilience from an early age.
- Demand data access and transparency from social media companies for scientific research on misinformation.
- Fund basic and translational research into the psychology of health misinformation, including ways to counter it.
Psychological science can help counter spread of misinformation, says APA report
apa.org
Date created: November 29, 2023
Details systemic and individual strategies
Cite this
American Psychological Association. (2023, November 29). Psychological science can help counter spread of misinformation, says APA report [Press release]. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2023/11/psychological-science-misinformation-disinformation
Comment:
Washington — Debunking, “prebunking,” nudging and teaching digital literacy are several of the more effective ways to counter misinformation, according to a new report from the American Psychological Association.
Written by a panel of U.S. and international experts on the psychology of misinformation, the report outlines the processes that make people susceptible to misinformation and offers solutions to combat it.
People are more likely to believe misinformation if it comes from groups they belong to or if they judge the source as credible, according to the report “Using Psychological Science to Understand and Fight Health Misinformation: An APA Consensus Statement (PDF, 1.75MB).” It defines misinformation as “any information that is demonstrably false or otherwise misleading, regardless of its source or intention.”
The report outlines the key features of misinformation that fool people into believing and spreading it. For instance, it found that people are more likely to believe false statements that appeal to emotions such as fear and outrage. They are also more likely to believe misinformation that paints groups that they view as “others” in a negative light. And people are more likely to believe information the more it is repeated, even when it contradicts their prior knowledge. These findings suggest that it is important to stop misinformation early, the report says.
The report also describes features of social media that help misinformation spread very quickly. “Rapid publication and peer-to-peer sharing allow ordinary users to distribute information quickly to large audiences, so misinformation can be policed only after the fact (if at all),” the report says. “’Echo chambers’ bind and isolate online communities with similar views, which aids the spread of falsehoods and impedes the spread of factual corrections.”
As a result, “most online misinformation originates from a small minority of ‘superspreaders,’ but social media amplifies their reach and influence.”
There are two levels on which misinformation can be stopped, according to the report: systemic approaches, such as legislation and technology standards, and individual approaches focused on changing individual behaviors. The latter include:
- fact-checking, or debunking;
- prebunking, or pre-emptive debunking to prevent people from falling for misinformation in the first place;
- nudges, such as asking people to consider the accuracy of information before sharing it, or rewarding people to be as accurate as possible; and
- formal education or community outreach to raise people’s awareness about healthy online behavior and media use.
The report acknowledges that there is much more to learn and recommends more research funding and industry cooperation to understand behaviors related to misinformation and create tools to correct it. The panel members who wrote the report spent more than a year reviewing the scientific literature to develop their recommendations. The report was commissioned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and funded as part of a $2 million grant to develop effective solutions to covid-19 vaccine hesitancy.
While the panel’s recommendations focus on health misinformation, they can also be used for broader topics such as politics and climate change. For instance, these findings offer direct input to one of the main issues highlighted in APA’s Health Advisory on Social Media by addressing tactics that can be used to combat misinformation.
The report recommends eight steps for policymakers, scientists, media and the public to help curb the spread of misinformation and the risks it poses to health, well-being and civic life:
- Avoid repeating misinformation without including a correction.
- Collaborate with social media companies to understand and reduce the spread of harmful misinformation.
- Use misinformation correction strategies with tools already proven to promote healthy behaviors.
- Leverage trusted sources to counter misinformation and provide accurate health information.
- Debunk misinformation often and repeatedly using evidence-based methods.
- Prebunk misinformation to inoculate susceptible audiences by building skills and resilience from an early age.
- Demand data access and transparency from social media companies for scientific research on misinformation.
- Fund basic and translational research into the psychology of health misinformation, including ways to counter it.
“These psychological science findings help to explain how misinformation enters our thought processes,” the report states. “It is effortful and difficult for our brains to apply existing knowledge when encountering new information; when new claims are false but sufficiently reasonable, we can learn them as facts. Thus, everyone is susceptible to misinformation to some degree: we acquire it even when we know better.”
Advancing psychology to benefit society and improve lives
© 2023 American Psychological Association
750 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242
Telephone: (800) 374-2721; (202) 336-5500 | TDD/TTY: (202) 336-6123
apa.org
6. AI, War and Transdisciplinary Philosophy
Some key points:
In short, our appetite for primordial power is part of who we are.
...
History teaches us that states will weaponise everything they can in order to dominate others.
...
Recent studies also show that AI-driven software could force military commanders to reduce their decision-making window from hours or days to minutes.
...
This begs the question: will these new techniques redefine what it means to be human?
Excerpts:
On the battlefield, interventions to make soldiers feel less empathy and fear will effectively rewire the human condition and disrupt millennia of evolution. They will also have serious implications for how wars are fought. Given the potential effects of these technologies on emotions as well as physical capabilities, the level of brutality in warfare is likely to increase, severely impeding post-conflict reconciliation and reconstruction efforts. Enhanced weapons, super-soldiers and new biological weapons will fall outside the existing ethical, customary, and legal norms of warfare that are defined by international law and the Geneva Conventions. This will raise important questions for lawyers and policy-makers, not least about questions of responsibility. For example, who will be held accountable if the “enhanced” soldier runs out of control: the soldier, the engineer or the medical teams that enhanced him?
More broadly, questions of law, international competition ethics and potentially uncontrollable cascading risks will become more prominent as states and societies respond to the challenges posed by new disruptive technologies. This is especially true with regard to the possibility of self-evolving run-away AI weapon systems, which are becoming increasingly tangible. These systems could potentially rewrite their own source code and become completely beyond human control and oversight. Unequal levels of access to new technologies will be reflected in international competition and shifts in balance of power, with countries with better integration capabilities possessing an advantage. Military history teaches us the importance of integrating technology. Going into World War II, France had the better tank – but the Germans gained the upper hand by successfully integrating their model with the radio and air cover. Looking to the future, the asymmetry of capabilities is likely to once again exacerbate the sense of extreme brutality and illegitimacy in war.
AI, War and Transdisciplinary Philosophy | Nayef Al-Rodhan
Hacking the Human Soldier
iai.tv · by Nayef Al-Rodhan · November 30, 2023
Human ego and emotionality play a bigger role in war than we often admit. Human pride, grief, contempt, hate and shame have all changed the course of history time and time again. As AI and human enhancement continue to evolve, they will be used to hack human ego and emotionality, leading to a step-change in the brutality and illegitimacy of war, writes Nayef Al-Rodhan.
The Prussian military strategist Carl von Clausewitz saw uncertainty and fear as essential ingredients of war. But how does human fallibility, which is at the core of classic theories of war dating back to Sun Tzu, play out in a world where AI-powered military technologies remove human qualities from battle? Will emerging AI tools such as deepfakes, and other deceptive technologies, deepen the fog of war? Are these transformative technological developments changing the very nature of war? Will the extreme brutality enabled by highly destructive military technologies create multi-generational hate, vengeance, deep ethnic and cultural schisms and hinder reconciliation, reconstruction and coexistence? These questions have been made ever-more pressing by the current Russia-Ukraine and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. Will these developments change the very nature of war? These questions are fundamental to the sustainability of human civilisation, here on earth as well as increasingly in Outer Space. To answer them, we need to examine the benefits, dangers and limitations of the new methods of war - and examine how our human nature shapes, and is shaped by, the way we fight.
SUGGESTED READING Why we have the future of AI wrong By Susan Hespos
Contemporary research in neuroscience has provided valuable insights into human behaviour, with direct consequences for state behaviour, cooperation and conflict. Contrary to previous assumptions about the rationality of human behaviour, neuroscience has shown that emotions and emotionality play a central role in cognitive functions and in rational decision-making. Studies show that human beings are neither inherently moral, nor immoral. They are, rather, amoral, and influenced by personal and political circumstances, where their moral compass is governed primarily by “perceived emotional self-interest”.
___
In short, our appetite for primordial power is part of who we are.
___
Neuroscience shows that human beings are critically predisposed for survival. This means that we are fundamentally egoistic. It is this evolutionary desire to survive and thrive, with constant competition, mistrust and fear of the other, that inspires the aspiration to dominate others. In short, our appetite for primordial power is part of who we are. Neurochemically speaking, feelings of power are linked to the release of dopamine, amongst other chemicals, in the mesolimbic reward centre of the brain. Dopamine is the same neurochemical that is responsible for feelings of pleasure and rewards, as well as the “highs” of all forms of addiction, including drug addiction, social media and gambling. That is why power has an addictive effect on the brain, comparable to that of a drug. It leads human beings to do anything to seek it, enhance it – and prevent losing it.
Neuroscience has debunked the realist presumption that states are driven exclusively by rationality. Neuroscientific studies demonstrate the neuroanatomical and neurochemical links between emotions and decision-making, which have a profound influence on international relations and a peaceful global order. Emotionality infuses unpredictability into human affairs, and can be at the root of state and sub-state conflicts. Bertrand Russell noted this in his book ‘Has Man A Future?’ published on the eve of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Claiming that humanity was on the verge of annihilation, Russell described how “pride, arrogance and fear of loss of face have obscured the power of judgment” of Kennedy and Khrushchev, the leaders of the United States and Soviet Union. Much like humans, states are egoistic and survival-oriented and are heavily influenced by interests and perceptions.
The emotionality of states has played a determining factor in both inter- and intra-state conflict throughout history. Take, for example, Stalin’s fatal foray into Korea, which historian Tony Judt has described as a result of his growing paranoia and suspicions about Western plans. Or Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, which was arguably driven more by pride and hubris than by cold strategic calculation. More recently, the strategically unsound - and illegitimate - invasion and destruction of Iraq and dismantling of Libya had similar emotional undertones. Or the reheating of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with its deeply emotional undertones and the unprecedented humanitarian crisis.
___
History teaches us that states will weaponise everything they can in order to dominate others.
___
These examples demonstrate that the human ego, sensibilities and our emotional repertoire consisting of emotions of policy makers such as pain, pride, grief, contempt, hate and shame play a more pervasive role in seemingly accountable state conduct and international relations than is often acknowledged. With an eye on the future, these attributes are a timely reminder how emotional attachment to exploitative hegemony, deceptive manipulations, arrogance of power and greed can lead to the illegal acquisition of land and resources. As a result, they can spark conflicts and infuse unpredictability and longstanding mistrust into international affairs, in all political systems. This is especially the case where there are few or no systems in place to keep policy-making in check.
As geopolitical tensions heat up, there is a growing danger of emotionally-tinged self-identity being weaponised through the means of strategic culture, the attempt to integrate cultural considerations, historical memory, applied history and their influences in the analysis of states’ security policies and international relations. History teaches us that states will weaponise everything they can in order to dominate others. That is why, going forward, we cannot ignore neuroscientific findings about the emotionality, amorality, and egoism of human nature and state behaviour when examining new technologies, norms and innovations. Together, they will play a crucial role in our efforts to end conflict by weeding out double standards in inter-state relations and increasing levels of respect for the sovereign choices and national interests of states. This will improve the chances of achieving equitable and sustainable peace, security and prosperity for all that is rooted in trust.
AI will play an increasingly important role in warfare in the coming years. There are those who argue that AI could make war less lethal and possibly strengthen deterrence, i.e. the lives of soldiers could be spared by expanding the role of AI-directed drones in the air force, navy and army. Russia is currently testing autonomous tank-like vehicles and the U.S. Defence Department is training AI bots to fly a modified F-16 fighter jet. However the need for human intervention is likely to decrease, raising ethical and accountable governance questions. A fundamental question in this regard relates to the attribution of responsibility for transgressions by automatic or semi-automatic systems. Attribution is more complex in the case of autonomous weapons compared to that of human beings, since the programmer, manufacturer, and commander might all be held responsible. Although human beings themselves cannot be trained to respond to all possible scenarios, previous experiences help us react to unpredictable situations. The law of armed conflict is based on two fundamental principles, the principle of distinction, which requires combatants to distinguish between military and civilian objects, and the principle of proportionality in the use of force. Unlike a human being, any decision of this kind made by even a highly sophisticated autonomous weapon would be based solely on algorithms governed by probabilistic calculations and predetermined attribution of value. This combination of issues gives rise to a so-called “responsibility gap” for autonomous weapons which, at present, is far from being resolved.
Recent studies also show that AI-driven software could force military commanders to reduce their decision-making window from hours or days to minutes. There is a real danger that decision-makers become over-reliant on AI tools – which operate at much faster speeds than humans – as part of their command-and-control armoury. There is also a real danger that AI technology could equip rogue actors with the brainpower and tools to build dirty bombs or pinpoint nuclear arms sites as a lot of the data is held by private companies which could be susceptible to hacking and espionage. The current war between Russia and Ukraine and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict also remind us how AI tools, such as deep fakes and other sophisticated technological tricks, are increasingly being used to amplify and bolster propaganda efforts. This is being made easier by the rapidly evolving sophistication of AI generators that can produce persuasive fake images and videos. As a result, we are also seeing a so-called liar’s dividend, i.e. a growing proportion of the public is dismissing genuine content from the frontlines as fake.
___
Recent studies also show that AI-driven software could force military commanders to reduce their decision-making window from hours or days to minutes.
___
Their ultimate goal is to create “super soldiers” that are stronger, agile and cost-effective. The search for performance optimisation of soldiers through human enhancement is not entirely new and stimulant drugs have been used in the army for decades. During World War II, Japanese, American and British forces consumed large amounts of amphetamines to boost alertness and physical endurance. In the Vietnam War, which was later dubbed the first “pharmacological war” because of the high consumption of psychoactive substances by military personnel, the U.S. military supplied soldiers with speed and steroids. The reckless use of pharmaceuticals and stimulants in the Vietnam War resulted in a large number - estimates range from 400,000 to 1.5 million - of PTSD cases among veterans.
However, these days human enhancement technologies go even further. They can increase soldiers’ muscle strength and alertness while managing pain and stress levels. The quest to create ‘super soldiers’ creates a host of ethical and philosophical concerns linked to the development of authenticity, accountability, free will and fairness, amongst others. This begs the question: will these new techniques redefine what it means to be human? Will ‘super soldiers’ retain the aspects of their personality that make them human? How will the ability of enhanced soldiers to tolerate pain impact issues such as torture and the Geneva Convention? What is clear is that these innovations in the military space are bringing humanity to the brink of transhumanism. They are radically different from previous eras, as they are much more potent, invasive and potentially irreversible. We are now witnessing the rise of technologies that alter human biology by incorporating technology within the human body. Projects spearheaded by DARPA and others include computerised brain implants and biomedical tools that equip soldiers with increased stress resistance, “accelerated learning” capabilities as well as improved immunity from injury and the effects of sleep deprivation. These technologies mark a new phase in the mission to create ‘super soldiers’. These technologies mark a new phase in the mission to create super soldiers. Recent advances in neural integration bring about the real possibility that advanced technology could be plugged directly into the peripheral nervous system, for example via a remote-controlled micro-processing chip implanted beneath the skull. Neuro-stimulation of the brain through Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (TDCS), using a constant, low current delivered via electrodes on the head, has been found to accelerate learning and improve recall among Air Force pilots.
___
This begs the question: will these new techniques redefine what it means to be human?
___
By optimising these technologies, the world’s leading militaries may soon be able to go a step further and pre-programme the reactions, responsiveness, and emotionality of their soldiers. Some of the most radical and profound changes for the human condition will take place through such interventions. These developments could give rise to a form of transhumanism that will challenge the very notion of the human condition as fixed, rooted and constant. Deeper integration of technology within the body, as well as the use of neuro-technological and neuropharmacological means of enhancing our bodies could affect how we feel and think – and therefore also how we act on the battlefield. While enhancement may boost cognitive and physical capabilities, they also diminish some deeply human features like compassion and empathy, that have been pivotal to us as a species, both for survival and cooperation. This could have dire consequences on ethical and humanitarian calculations during combat, including the use of torture. It could also have far-reaching implications on diplomacy and statecraft. Indeed, in the not-too-distant future, the existence of robots or sophisticated humanoids with advanced moral competencies could transform security dynamics, civil-military relations and how we regard ourselves as humans. To navigate this uncertain future, leading thinkers focused on the ethical implications of new types of warfare will need to add transdisciplinary tools to their intellectual armoury. They will need to engage directly with issues that lie on the cusp of AI, synthetic biology, neuroscience, and philosophy (an area I have termed Neuro-Techno-Philosophy). Transdisciplinary endeavours such as Neuro-Techno-Philosophy can teach us a lot about human frailty and malleability, both at the individual and group level. By understanding our neurochemical motivations, neurobehavioural needs, fears and predilections, and the neuropsychological foundations underpinning the behaviour of states, we are better placed to navigate the challenges posed by contemporary geopolitics and global security. These insights could also bolster conflict resolution efforts, which often incorporate behavioural models but, to date, rarely include neuroscientific insights.
SUGGESTED READING We need to democratize AI By Hélène Landemore
On the battlefield, interventions to make soldiers feel less empathy and fear will effectively rewire the human condition and disrupt millennia of evolution. They will also have serious implications for how wars are fought. Given the potential effects of these technologies on emotions as well as physical capabilities, the level of brutality in warfare is likely to increase, severely impeding post-conflict reconciliation and reconstruction efforts. Enhanced weapons, super-soldiers and new biological weapons will fall outside the existing ethical, customary, and legal norms of warfare that are defined by international law and the Geneva Conventions. This will raise important questions for lawyers and policy-makers, not least about questions of responsibility. For example, who will be held accountable if the “enhanced” soldier runs out of control: the soldier, the engineer or the medical teams that enhanced him?
More broadly, questions of law, international competition ethics and potentially uncontrollable cascading risks will become more prominent as states and societies respond to the challenges posed by new disruptive technologies. This is especially true with regard to the possibility of self-evolving run-away AI weapon systems, which are becoming increasingly tangible. These systems could potentially rewrite their own source code and become completely beyond human control and oversight. Unequal levels of access to new technologies will be reflected in international competition and shifts in balance of power, with countries with better integration capabilities possessing an advantage. Military history teaches us the importance of integrating technology. Going into World War II, France had the better tank – but the Germans gained the upper hand by successfully integrating their model with the radio and air cover. Looking to the future, the asymmetry of capabilities is likely to once again exacerbate the sense of extreme brutality and illegitimacy in war.
iai.tv · by Nayef Al-Rodhan · November 30, 2023
7. Time to End Wilsonian Foreign Policy
Conclusion:
The failures of Wilsonianism populate the history books and America’s military cemeteries. At the end of the Cold War, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, one of that war’s intellectual heroes, urged the United States to savor its Cold War victory and become once again a “normal country in a normal time.” She wrote that “there is no mystical American mission or purposes to be found independently of the U.S. Constitution and government.” She denounced the “globalist attitude” of so many of our foreign policy elites. She opined that “it is not within the United States’ power to democratize the world.” Kirkpatrick called, in other words, for an end to foreign policy crusades; an end to needless interventions abroad in the name of abstract ideals; an end to democracy promotion; an end to efforts to remake the world in America’s image; and an end to Wilsonianism.
Time to End Wilsonian Foreign Policy
By Francis P. Sempa
December 02, 2023
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2023/12/02/time_to_end_wilsonian_foreign_policy_996370.html
SPECIAL SERIES:
In his magnificent post-Cold War book Diplomacy (1994), the late Henry Kissinger identified and explained the competing strains of American foreign policy since the dawn of the 20th century: realism as typified by Theodore Roosevelt, and Wilsonianism as typified by Woodrow Wilson. Kissinger noted that realism was U.S. foreign policy throughout the late 18th century and all of the 19th century. “In the early years of the Republic,” he wrote, “American foreign policy was in fact a sophisticated reflection of the American national interest.” Wilsonianism, Kissinger wrote, marked a “revolutionary departure” from the Old World diplomacy practiced by previous American statesmen because it “held that peace depends on the spread of democracy,” that nations “should be judged by the same ethical criteria as individuals,” and “that the national interest consists of adhering to a universal system of law.” Realism served the nation well for more than a century. Wilsonianism threatens to mire the American republic in endless crusades on behalf of “humanity.”
Theodore Roosevelt did not base his approach to foreign policy on high-sounding principles or Utopian ideals. Roosevelt once said that he would choose a policy of “blood and iron” over one of “milk and water.” Kissinger described Roosevelt as the “warrior-statesman” who dealt with the world as it is. He described Wilson as the “prophet-priest” who desired to bring about a more perfect world. Roosevelt imbibed the geopolitics of Bismarck and Alfred Thayer Mahan. Wilson preached the Sermon on the Mount. Roosevelt as president ended the U.S.-Filipino conflict that followed the Spanish-American War, mediated the Russo-Japanese War, and strengthened American naval power as the world inched toward global war. Wilson intervened in Mexico, brought the U.S. into the global war to “make the world safe for democracy” (which Roosevelt supported for balance of power reasons), and sought a Utopian peace based on a League of Nations; a peace that set the stage for an even more destructive global war waged by one of Wilson’s intellectual disciples, Franklin Roosevelt.
The failures of Wilsonianism in practice, however, did not diminish its impact on the minds of future leaders, policymakers, and shapers of elite opinion.
American foreign policy had gained a “moral” component that led to ill-advised crusades for democracy and human rights, bouts of destructive self-flagellation over America’s “sins,” unrealizable goals that wasted lives and resources, and expansive views of what constitutes the “national interest.” And as Robert Nisbet pointed out in The Present Age, Wilsonianism also led to the growth of what President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex” and the national security state: agencies, organizations, and businesses that profit from wars.
Patrick Buchanan in A Republic Not an Empire (1999) and Day of Reckoning (2007) criticized the “arrogance and hubris” of America’s foreign policy establishment which led the nation to “imperial overstretch,” piling on commitments in every corner of the globe, including expanding NATO to the very borders of Russia after defeating Russia in the Cold War. It was that consummate realist George Kennan who had prophetically warned that expanding NATO would be the “most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold war era.” But instead of admitting their error, the foreign policy establishment doubled-down and the predictable result was a more assertive Russia and war in Eastern Europe.
Wilson’s greatest disciple was George W. Bush, a Texas Governor with little foreign policy experience or knowledge who, after becoming president, reacted to the attacks of September 11, 2001 by launching a crusade to spread democracy to the entire Middle East and beyond. Bush tried to remake Afghanistan and Iraq in America’s image, a futile and disastrous policy that wasted the lives of American military personnel in two colossal defeats and distracted America’s attention from the growing power of Communist China. Bush also expanded NATO and publicly urged NATO to admit Ukraine and Georgia in 2008. President Obama compounded Bush’s mistakes and added a few of his own when he embraced the so-called “Arab Spring,” an idea that only a Wilsonian could believe. Even President Trump continued the expansion of NATO, though at least he rejected the Wilsonian worldview and sought to steer the country towards an “America First” foreign policy. And, he met huge resistance from the foreign policy establishment.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Gaza War have re-energized the Wilsonians in and out of government. The military-industrial complex has shifted into high gear. Step by step, our leaders and their media chorus, get us closer and closer to war. “War,” Randolph Bourne said during World War I, “is the health of the state.” It is also the health of the defense industry, and makes for popular headlines and top stories in print, electronic, and television media. Some of the very same opinion-shapers who promoted the Afghan and Iraq wars are front and center in urging our deeper involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war. For the first time in U.S. history, the freedom and independence of Ukrainians are deemed by the foreign policy establishment as important, if not vital, to American national interests.
The Wilsonian strain of American foreign policy would astound George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Quincy Adams: three of our nation’s greatest foreign policy practitioners. As Angelo Codevilla explained so brilliantly in his last book America’s Rise and Fall Among Nations (2022), Washington, Hamilton, and Quincy Adams all pursued “America First” foreign policies. They eschewed sentimental attachments to other nations and sought to avoid foreign entanglements that could lead the country to war. America’s early “ruling class” promoted America’s true national interests instead of global crusades for democracy and human rights. With Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, America’s new ruling class, “the Progressives,” premised foreign policy on the idea that America’s “primary concern must be with mankind as a whole, and with America only incidentally and derivatively.” Looking only after America’s interests would be too parochial for progressives who appear to view themselves as “citizens of the world” rather than American citizens.
The failures of Wilsonianism populate the history books and America’s military cemeteries. At the end of the Cold War, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, one of that war’s intellectual heroes, urged the United States to savor its Cold War victory and become once again a “normal country in a normal time.” She wrote that “there is no mystical American mission or purposes to be found independently of the U.S. Constitution and government.” She denounced the “globalist attitude” of so many of our foreign policy elites. She opined that “it is not within the United States’ power to democratize the world.” Kirkpatrick called, in other words, for an end to foreign policy crusades; an end to needless interventions abroad in the name of abstract ideals; an end to democracy promotion; an end to efforts to remake the world in America’s image; and an end to Wilsonianism.
Francis P. Sempa writes on foreign policy and geopolitics. His Best Defense columns appear at the beginning of each month.
8. Opinion: Christopher Hitchens was right about Henry Kissinger
Excerpts:
In some quarters, Kissinger is celebrated as a great diplomat, but his real legacy was creating a world that often sees, with good reason, that the United States will sometimes act in an amoral and duplicitous manner, and it is far from the “shining city on a hill” that it aspires to be and often imagines itself as.
Of course, being clear-eyed about national interests is the responsibility of any leader, but for Kissinger, the ends almost always justified the means. Other American policy makers, from FDR to George Marshall to Carter, showed that the national interest and a higher moral purpose are not incompatible.
Opinion: Christopher Hitchens was right about Henry Kissinger | CNN
CNN · by Peter Bergen · December 1, 2023
'Dark' and 'manipulative': Kissinger biographer reflects on diplomat's life and legacy
15:30 - Source: CNN
Editor’s Note: Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America, a professor of practice at Arizona State University and the host of the Audible podcast “In the Room” also on Apple and Spotify. He is the author of “The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden.” The views expressed in this commentary are his own. Read more opinion at CNN.
CNN —
America is the “shining city on a hill,” a moral force for good whose ideals should be spread worldwide, according to the idealistic interpretation of US foreign policy.
Backers of that view cite President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s push for the creation of the United Nations, President Harry Truman’s signing of the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe in the wake of World War II and President Jimmy Carter’s emphasis on a human rights-first foreign policy.
Then there is the ‘realist’ school of US foreign policy, which puts America’s interests first, whose most recent exemplar is former President Donald Trump’s ‘America’s First’ foreign policy. No matter how poorly it was executed by Trump himself, this school argues that the US isn’t the world’s conscience or policeman and should take care of its own interests above all others.
exp GPS 1121 Kissinger Web Extra_17003525.png
Opinion: The principle that animated Henry Kissinger’s foreign policies
Henry Kissinger, who died at age 100 on Wednesday, was the apotheosis of the realist school of American foreign policy that puts perceived American interests first. And just as there are two schools of American foreign policy, there are also two schools of thought about Kissinger himself.
One might be termed the Christopher Hitchens school. Hitchens was a prolific writer and author who argued that Kissinger was a “war criminal” who should be tried for war crimes. In 2001, Hitchens published a book arguing this case, “The Trial of Henry Kissinger.”
The other school is how “The Blob” sees Kissinger. The Blob is the term coined by Ben Rhodes, former President Barack Obama’s deputy national security advisor, to describe the American foreign policy establishment whose badge of honor is membership of the Council on Foreign Relations. The Blob generally regards Kissinger as a foreign policy guru who got the big ideas right, such as his establishing relations between the US and communist China after decades of mutual hostility.
So, which view is truer to history?
To answer that question, we need to look at his actual record in office during the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, which has been partly obscured by Kissinger’s long post-government life as a foreign policy oracle whose advice was sought out by many American presidents.
Any sober assessment of Kissinger’s actual record must surely conclude that Hitchens was more right than not.
(Original Caption) Appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 9/7 on his nomination to be Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger pledged to cooperate closely with Congress in conducting foreign policy for a "durable peace."
Bettmann Archive/Getty Images
Opinion: What Henry Kissinger never understood
In 1971, Kissinger acquiesced as the Pakistani military killed hundreds of thousands, though the estimate is disputed, in what is now the country of Bangladesh, despite warnings from his own State Department officials that something akin to a genocide was unfolding.
Two years later, Kissinger pushed Nixon to overthrow the democratically-elected socialist government of Salvador Allende in Chile. According to documents declassified by the National Security Archive Kissinger later told General Augusto Pinochet, who mounted the military coup that overthrew Allende, “You did a great service to the West in overthrowing Allende.”
In Argentina in 1976, Kissinger secretly gave the green light to the military junta then in power to carry out what’s known as the “Dirty War” to kill between 10,000 to 30,000 of its political opponents, according to an account later posted on the CIA’s website.
Kissinger was the key US player in ending American involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973. As a result of his peace deal with the North Vietnamese, Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Prize, but his legacy in Vietnam is decidedly mixed.
Kissinger stepped up the secret American bombings of Vietnam’s neighbors Cambodia and Laos, causing untold misery in those countries that also helped to enable the rise of the brutal Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. Cambodia is still ruled by the party of Hun Sen, an autocrat who was once part of the Khmer Rouge. (Sen stepped down in August, handing power over to his son.)
Kissinger excluded the South Vietnamese from his peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese. Within two years of the Paris Peace Accords being concluded in 1973, the communist North Vietnamese had seized all of South Vietnam, and Vietnam today remains, at least nominally, a communist country, though now on friendly terms with the US.
US President Gerald Ford confers with secretary of State Henry Kissinger 1974. (Photo by: Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
Universal History Archive/Getty Images
Opinion: The one lesson to take away from Henry Kissinger’s journey
This has some echoes in how Trump excluded the Afghan government from the US 2020 deal with the Taliban that eventually removed thousands of US troops from Afghanistan, who were helping to keep the elected Afghan government in power.
President Joe Biden then completed the Trump withdrawal plan in 2021, enabling the Taliban to seize the country where they have established their misogynistic theocracy.
In the Economist, Kissinger wrote that this withdrawal from Afghanistan was a “self-inflicted setback” though he had done something similar during his peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese, which was to exclude a major party to the war, the government of South Vietnam, which was soon defeated once the US withdrew its forces from Vietnam.
Kissinger deserves credit for his “shuttle diplomacy” to ease the hostilities between Egypt, Syria and Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, but it was the one-time peanut farmer from Georgia, President Jimmy Carter, not Kissinger with his Harvard PhD in diplomatic history, who through his sheer force of will created the lasting peace between Egypt and Israel five years later at Camp David.
Kissinger and President Richard Nixon did open the door to China — in order to undercut relations between the communist Chinese and the leaders of the Soviet Union — re-establishing American relations with the Chinese in 1972. In many ways, this was Kissinger’s greatest achievement as it helped China to rise and become the US’ largest trading partner. The US and China are now the world’s two largest economies.
Get Our Free Weekly Newsletter
Yet China hasn’t liberalized as it has prospered. It has become increasingly authoritarian in recent years, putting into internment camps some more than a million Uyghurs, according to a UN report last year, extinguishing democracy in Hong Kong and creating a repressive mass surveillance state. The Biden administration concluded in its 2022 National Security Strategy that China is now “America’s most consequential geopolitical challenge.”
Kissinger traveled to China in June to perform a valedictory victory lap, where he was greeted as a returning hero by the Chinese regime, which he has often visited as the chairman of his consulting firm, Kissinger Associates.
In some quarters, Kissinger is celebrated as a great diplomat, but his real legacy was creating a world that often sees, with good reason, that the United States will sometimes act in an amoral and duplicitous manner, and it is far from the “shining city on a hill” that it aspires to be and often imagines itself as.
Of course, being clear-eyed about national interests is the responsibility of any leader, but for Kissinger, the ends almost always justified the means. Other American policy makers, from FDR to George Marshall to Carter, showed that the national interest and a higher moral purpose are not incompatible.
CNN · by Peter Bergen · December 1, 2023
9. Why Biden Needs a 'Kissinger'
Excerpts:
Biden’s national security team has a long and positive history among its members and they work well together. But the downside is that such consensus and congeniality makes the team vulnerable to groupthink if no one member is willing to challenge prevailing opinions on the basis of facts. There’s no evidence of a “Kissinger” whispering in the president’s ear who can convince Biden to reconsider his closely held convictions.
Henry Kissinger was certainly far from right on any number of significant issues, as some historians argue, but the issue isn’t that the president should rely on any one person as the ultimate source of knowledge to guide decision-making. Instead, the concern is for a leader who neglects input that challenges his or her own thinking and maintains an atmosphere in which advisers self-censor and credible intelligence is dismissed in deference to his or her own instincts.
It’s a dynamic that invites miscalculation and risks perilous consequences. In fact, it’s arguably similar to how Putin came to believe his forces would secure a quick, decisive victory in Ukraine.
Why Biden Needs a 'Kissinger'
Published 12/02/23 07:00 AM ET
Douglas London
themessenger.com · December 2, 2023
As we mark the passing of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who died Wednesday at 100, there are already ample reflections of those hailing his contributions and others vilifying his moral compass. But regardless in which camp one dwells, or if indeed it’s as simple as a bifurcated choice concerning his merits, Kissinger reposed the trust of leaders, American and otherwise, that enabled him to challenge and often redirect their predisposed opinions. And perhaps the more veteran and set in his or her ways the leader, the more they need a “Kissinger,” if for no other reason than to make them consider options and possibilities beyond their own counsel.
Former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Robert Gates observed not long ago that “dysfunction has made American power erratic and unreliable, practically inviting risk-prone autocrats to place dangerous bets — with potentially catastrophic effects,” at a time when the United States is “facing aggressive adversaries with a propensity to miscalculate yet incapable of mustering the unity and strength necessary to dissuade them.” Ostensibly a criticism of the country’s political dysfunction, rather than a subtle jab at the incumbent commander in chief, the evidence nevertheless suggests that President Biden’s predisposed views have dominated his administration’s decision-making concerning national security matters, for better or worse.
In Ukraine, the Biden administration’s cycle of resisting but ultimately approving provision of advanced weapons such as the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), Abrams tanks, F-16s and the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMs) has been attributed to the president’s concern about provoking Russian leader Vladimir Putin into erratic, irrational and impulsive decisions that might escalate matters into a direct Russia-U.S. conflict.
But Putin’s calculus and intentions are not all that difficult to understand, and I expect that Biden is receiving analytic judgments from the U.S. Intelligence Community and his personal circle of Kremlinologists that reflect much of what we see from those experts outside of the government and who served previously in these roles. Rather than evidence suggesting erratic risk-taking and unpredictability, Putin’s decision-making remains steeped in his experience as a Cold War-era KGB officer.
A recent Rand Corporation study judged that Putin’s failures in Ukraine stemmed from “strategic misjudgment, poor invasion planning, misperceptions about Ukrainian capabilities and will to fight and similar misperceptions about European politics and Western unity.” Owing to his KGB-indoctrinated mistrust of the Russian army and innate paranoia for the West, Putin is micromanaging the military campaign and proceeding with care to avoid provoking direct conflict with the United States. And Putin’s fears were realized by NATO’s ensuing unity, expansion and resolve, and Yevgeny Prigozhin’s June mutiny, ironically for him, all self-inflicted wounds.
Poor intelligence might be an explanation, only the United States has aggressively weaponized what arguably has been good intelligence borne out by events to deny Putin the opportunity to seize the narrative. That undermined his lies, exposed his brutal tactics, and rallied allied support. And it’s doubtful that the Rand study’s judgments from open-source information comes as a surprise to our U.S. intelligence agencies, which also have the benefit of highly sensitive collection.
The White House’s April 2023 report defending its decision to withdraw from Afghanistan blames bad intelligence, the Trump White House, and the Afghans themselves for the chaotic episode. Yet other reports reflect more pessimistic classified U.S. intelligence community assessments that “painted an increasingly grim picture of the prospect of a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan” and which questioned “whether any Afghan security forces would muster serious resistance and whether the government could hold on in Kabul” in the face of Taliban aggression.
Moreover, Biden reportedly ordered the withdrawal against the advice of senior military advisers including then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley and U.S. Central Command Chief Gen. Frank McKenzie. And the president rejected similar advice to maintain U.S. forces in Afghanistan from Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, according to the Bob Woodward and Robert Costa book,
In the hours following Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack, Biden adopted a decidedly pro-Israel posture of political, military, intelligence and material support that has endured despite the toll of civilian casualties in Gaza. The administration has publicly flagged its concern for civilian casualties and the mounting humanitarian crisis and urged greater surgical precision and restraint in Israeli military operations as it now spins the crisis as a possible means to restore serious negotiations toward a two-state solution and lasting peace. But American support for Israel has remained unequivocal despite growing reports of internal dissent within Biden’s administration. And the White House’s depiction of the conflict is hardly the stuff that will win over the trust of Israel’s adversaries of the U.S. as an honest broker in negotiating a deal.
Perhaps the question, then, is on whose counsel does the president rely concerning national security? Biden has no one like Henry Kissinger, nor even a Zbigniew Brzezinski or Condoleezza Rice — experts he might respect as his own equal and whose input could change his mind, or at least persuade him to consider alternative views.
National security adviser Jake Sullivan has been a trusted member of Biden’s team, albeit 34 years his junior. Publicly, at least, Sullivan seems to be the point man in communicating the White House’s narrative and the president’s direction in both foreign capitals and the American talk show circuit — that is, with the exception of Blinken’s rounds among Middle East states and CIA Director William Burns’s more discreet and indirect role negotiating between Israel and Hamas. But Sullivan’s observation that “the Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades” came just a week before the Hamas attack, which does not speak well to his Kissingeresque stature and reliability.
Blinken has an extensive national security resume but curiously has not been the go-to emissary for delicate missions, such as that being played by Burns with this crisis and with Ukraine, Russia and China. Like Austin, Blinken was unable to sway Biden’s resolve to leave Afghanistan. And the president overruled Austin’s choice for Chief of Naval Operations. There’s similarly little evidence to suggest that, apart from statutorily being the president’s primary intelligence adviser, Obama-era fixture Avril Haines, now Director of National Intelligence, enjoys significant sway over Biden’s policy choices.
The president’s team is certainly deep on Russia. Apart from Burns, who served as America’s envoy to Moscow, recently Acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland brings years of Russian experience. Reputed in some circles for being hawkish on Putin, she is a Russian speaker who served in Russia as well as China, and was posted twice to NATO Headquarters in Brussels. But Nuland, like Burns, is a career professional who served both Republican and Democratic White Houses without a long, personal history with the president. The same goes for Biden’s National Security Director for Russia, Nicholas Berliner, also a career Foreign Service officer with little history or personal equity with the president.
That brings us back to CIA Director Burns, who on the surface, appears to be the most respected national security voice in the president’s circle. But as his past remarks suggest, Burns likely sees his role limited to providing a balanced and clinical intelligence picture to inform rather than influence Biden’s decision-making when it comes to policymaking and the special missions he serves as the president’s discreet emissary.
Biden’s national security team has a long and positive history among its members and they work well together. But the downside is that such consensus and congeniality makes the team vulnerable to groupthink if no one member is willing to challenge prevailing opinions on the basis of facts. There’s no evidence of a “Kissinger” whispering in the president’s ear who can convince Biden to reconsider his closely held convictions.
Henry Kissinger was certainly far from right on any number of significant issues, as some historians argue, but the issue isn’t that the president should rely on any one person as the ultimate source of knowledge to guide decision-making. Instead, the concern is for a leader who neglects input that challenges his or her own thinking and maintains an atmosphere in which advisers self-censor and credible intelligence is dismissed in deference to his or her own instincts.
It’s a dynamic that invites miscalculation and risks perilous consequences. In fact, it’s arguably similar to how Putin came to believe his forces would secure a quick, decisive victory in Ukraine.
Douglas London, a former senior CIA operations officer, is author of “The Recruiter: Spying and the Lost Art of American Intelligence.” He teaches intelligence studies at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and is a nonresident scholar at the Middle East Institute.
themessenger.com · December 2, 2023
10. Navigating The Disinformation Landscape: Cultivating Cognitive Resilience
Short but perhaps very useful information for consideration:
"Cognitive resilience"
Character Plus Capability Equals Credibility
Five Ways To Build A Credibility Surplus
Navigating The Disinformation Landscape: Cultivating Cognitive Resilience
By Ajay Khari Forbes5 min
November 28, 2023
View Original
Meltwater’s VP of Market Innovation & Transformation, helping global organizations build resilience to risks in the information environment.
getty
Brace yourself for information overload. In 2024, 3.2 billion people will head to the polls, stalked by a cacophony of information to win our hearts and minds. During a talk at Google in 2014, neuroscientist Dr. Daniel Levitin explained that "Americans take in five times more information today than they did in 1986…the equivalent of 174 newspapers worth of information." That was long before the ubiquitous launch of generative AI, promising to supercharge the volume of content to which we are exposed.
However, our cognitive processing power has certainly not scaled at the same rate, meaning that the human brain is struggling to keep up. It has become more challenging to know what is true or how to ascertain what is true. This creates a fertile ground for bad actors who are motivated to spread disinformation. Organizations across the public and private spheres need to address the challenge or risk losing their credibility, ultimately impeding their ability to survive.
Disinformation In 2023: Why It Matters
At its core, disinformation—the deliberate spreading of mistruths to deceive—is about psychological manipulation, whereas misinformation is the inadvertent spread of false information. By distorting the truth, disinformation is a weapon that can shake financial markets, damage organizational and individual reputations, undermine democratic elections, fuel conflicts and cost lives.
At the height of the Cold War, media theorist Marshall McLuhan forewarned that World War III would take the form of an information guerrilla war with military and non-military targets. This signals trouble for all types of organizations, including those operating in the corporate world, as recognized by a recent KPMG survey of CEOs citing "political risk and uncertainty" as their utmost concern hindering economic prosperity.
The Rise Of Disinformation Overload
A common ploy for malign actors is to "flood the zone" with falsities and create an information overload, typically across a variety of social media channels, forums and platforms. Daniel Kahneman, behavioral economist, recognized that we process information in one of two ways. System 1 is an intuitive response that is relatively quick and reliant on mental shortcuts, and System 2 is slower, more deliberate and analytical but more mentally taxing.
When we become inundated with information, System 1 kicks in as a mental defense mechanism to protect our attentional capacity. As such, we lean into simplistic explanations to make sense of the world and inadvertently leave the door open for disinformation and misinformation campaigns to take root in our minds.
In other words, a disinformation overload creates an advantage for the aggressor, whose focus will be on triggering emotional impulses ahead of critical thinking.
Character Plus Capability Equals Credibility
In the battle for hearts and minds, credibility is king. Drawing from David Waller and Rupert Younger's work on reputation, credibility hinges on showcasing either capability or character. Whilst disinformation actors seek to fabricate both, their most insidious work is typically done with the latter. They masquerade as ordinary, relatable individuals while operating within troll farms with political motives or—increasingly so—utilizing bots to disseminate automated content on a massive scale.
Before too long, an innocent bystander believes it and disseminates the content to their network. Similar to money laundering, information laundering obfuscates the original source of the content, and disproportionate credibility is afforded to the last person who sent us the message, often triggering a System 1 response.
Several approaches have been suggested to address disinformation and misinformation. Critically, organizations must have a credibility surplus to help them weather the storm when a falsehood hits.
Five Ways To Build A Credibility Surplus
Start with these five tips for optimizing your credibility.
• Integrate “trust metrics” into organizational KPIs. How trusted is your organization? How often do you keep track of this, and across what channels? Very often, trust is claimed without the substance to support it. Those organizations that integrate trust metrics into organizational KPIs and compensation plans will start to meaningfully build a credibility surplus with their constituents and consumers and galvanize innovation in this area.
• Embrace partnerships to build resilience. Disinformation impacts ecosystems and industries. It is important that organizations speak to their partners and build knowledge about potential information attacks around their entire supply chain. In a 2019 report, PwC advised extra vigilance for those organizations that are part of industries that intersect with transportation, energy, food supply, healthcare, waste management and construction, amongst others.
• Invest in building character. Character is built through radical transparency, constant and truthful communication, accountability—and, increasingly more so—an ability to nurture relationships by resonating with people on a human level. Show humility, empathy and high standards vis-a-vis the way you undertake business. Business leaders need to be seen to be doing the right thing and authentically showcase company values.
• To be global, you need to think locally. Communication professionals need to segment beyond regional or country level. Disinformation campaigns often speak to the anxieties of local populations. We need to understand the underlying concern and communicate in a tone of voice and with the type of substance that resonates with those specific communities.
• Play your part in supporting media literacy. Education is arguably the most powerful tool to spot unreliable information and manipulative techniques. We falsely assume that education is a matter for government only, but it has never been more important for good corporate and organizational actors to impart wisdom on information hygiene and journalistic integrity.
Clearly, the increasing deluge of information requires a reflexive human response so as to not feel overwhelmed, especially during election season. But organizations and businesses alike need to step in, build their credibility surplus and create the kind of trust that makes it easier for societies, communities and consumers to more easily dismiss falsehoods outright through their System 1 response. This will ultimately require fewer resources to be redirected to mitigate the actual damage from disinformation and misinformation—and limit a bad actor's capacity to fabricate credibility.
Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Check out my website.
11. Slick videos or more 'authentic' content? The Israel-Gaza battles raging on TikTok and X
TikTokand X are maneuvering on the battlefield of human terrain.
Slick videos or more 'authentic' content? The Israel-Gaza battles raging on TikTok and X
BBC
By Marianna SpringBBC disinformation and social media correspondent
BBC
Young or old. TikTok or X. Pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. Your social media feeds are unique to you. Could they be shaping how you view the Israel-Gaza war?
When I open up my TikTok feed, two videos play one after the other. The first shows four Israeli soldiers dancing with guns, set against a blue sky. The other is a young woman speaking from her bedroom, with a prominent pro-Palestinian caption.
TikTok's algorithm will determine what kind of videos I want to see and recommend similar content, based on which of the two videos I watch until the end.
The algorithms work in a similar way for other social media platforms too and it means some users are being driven towards increasingly divisive content about Israel and Gaza that only entrench their existing views and biases.
It matters because conversations on social media can shape public opinion - and normalise rhetoric that spills offline, at protests and beyond.
That includes the UK, where social media seems to have encouraged many people who are not normally politically active, to take action.
Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran, whose mother is Palestinian, tells me she and other politicians are receiving a "huge influx" of messages including from young people urging a ceasefire. They seem to have been inspired to act because of "TikTok videos and Instagram reels shared around over WhatsApp".
"Anything that is too slick, their initial instinct seems to be - don't trust it. They expect it to be disinformation," the MP for Oxford West and Abingdon says.
Conservative MP Andrew Percy, the vice chair of the Conservative Friends of Israel group, says the war has "garnered less engagement and communication from residents" in his constituency than other issues.
However, he says: "Much of the content being shared is problematically antisemitic. That's been a real problem long before this conflict - and this time, social media has made that happen at speed."
TikTok contrasts
So what is getting the most traction on TikTok, and with whom?
My TikTok feed is constantly punctuated with videos that are categorically pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian - with opposing sides often critiquing each other's content. And it's pro-Palestinian content that seems to be proving more popular with Gen Z users - people born between 1997 and 2012.
Videos on TikTok using the hashtag "istandwithisrael" have racked up more than 240 million views, compared with more than 870 million views for videos using the term "istandwithpalestine". That's similar to other video-based sites popular with younger users.
Many of these videos have been posted since Hamas - proscribed as a terrorist group by the UK and other governments - attacked Israel on 7 October, but some pre-date that time.
There is a noticeable contrast between what the most popular content supporting either side looks like.
TikTok video from a blogger on the ground in a Gaza
For example, videos from bloggers on the ground in Gaza - and pro-Palestinian users commenting on the Israel-Gaza war from their bedrooms - provoke the most positive reaction among younger users.
Meanwhile, content from soldiers with the Israeli Defense Forces appears more polished and curated - trying to play into viral TikTok trends.
Content from the Israeli Defense Forces sometimes references viral TikTok trends - such as this play on "girl math"
Questions remain about just how much either side - whether the Israeli government or Hamas, which runs Gaza - is involved in encouraging or directing unofficial content.
Hate and polarisation
I tracked down several TikTokkers to find out more, including an Israeli soldier called Daniel. His most viral video, with 2.1 million views, shows him and three other soldiers - who are currently serving with the armed forces - dancing with guns several days after the 7 October attacks.
Since then, his videos have had fewer views, over 10,000 each but nothing like the initial 2 million.
It can be tricky to predict when a video will go viral on TikTok.
A consistent reduction in views could indicate users are not as receptive to these videos as they were before - especially as violence unfolds in Gaza - and as a consequence such videos are not being recommended as widely.
It's also worth pointing out that a high number of views doesn't necessarily correlate with a positive reception, either. Videos can be shared and widely criticised. Users on TikTok often "stitch" posts - where they re-post a video, alongside one of themselves reacting to it.
The Global Story
A brand new podcast to help you cut through the headlines, with Katya Adler.
Listen to the first episode, featuring Marianna Spring, on BBC Sounds
I spotted this happening with some of Daniel's content. Both in re-posted "stitches", and in comments below Daniel's own posts, people were suggesting his dancing videos were disrespectful to civilians being killed in Gaza. One user commented "shameless" while another said: "The more you show your cruelty in the eyes of the world."
Daniel told me the reaction to his content has been split between "supportive users" and then those who share hate and, at times, antisemitic abuse. Abusive remarks on his videos, and other posts about Israel, have included comments from pro-Hamas accounts falsely claiming that the hostages taken on 7 October were actually paid actors or killed by Israeli forces.
"I am not taking personally the hate reactions because, first of all, I did nothing wrong, [and] second, people around the world are so dedicated to hate Israel so it doesn't matter what [is] in my content," Daniel explained.
In a recent meeting with TikTok executives, comic actor Sacha Baron Cohen accused the site of "creating the biggest antisemitic movement since the Nazis". He is not the only Jewish celebrity to have expressed concerns in the wake of the 7 October attacks.
In a recent blog post, TikTok said: "Our recommendation algorithm doesn't 'take sides' and has rigorous measures in place to prevent manipulation."
The social media company also told us that from 7 October to 17 November it had removed more than 1.1m videos in the conflict region for breaking its rules - including content promoting Hamas, hate speech, terrorism and misinformation.
Its community guidelines prohibit "content that promotes Islamophobia or antisemitism", which TikTok says it takes action against.
When I take a look at pro-Palestinian content, some creators' videos have a different style.
Ariana, who shares videos on the war from her home in the US, often talks straight into the camera in her bedroom. She gives her opinion on war-related posts from celebrities or on images coming out of Gaza.
TikTok content from Daniel (left) and Ariana
"When I first started posting about Palestine [after 7 October], my views decreased. I lost a lot of followers," Ariana explained to me, describing criticism from users supportive of Israel.
But she began to get more engagement on TikTok in the following weeks, when she started posting more about what she believes is Israeli-propaganda.
"People started discovering me and so the numbers started shooting up," she says.
She says, for the most part, she has been "receiving a lot of support" online, especially from people who "felt like they couldn't trust traditional media".
But she has also experienced Islamophohic hate, not just on TikTok - but on Instagram and other social media platforms.
Both Daniel and Ariana say their content has not been sponsored by political actors or other groups.
Osama Bin Laden's letter
When users are pushed more and more content that confirms a particular narrative, it becomes easier to understand how more extreme ideas can start to gain traction.
This happened recently on TikTok, when several Gen Z users began to promote Osama Bin Laden's 2002 "Letter to America" - which he wrote as his justification for the 11 September terrorist attacks, that killed 3,000 people in the US.
Those postings were essentially suggesting that Bin Laden's perspective was not without merit, and offered an alternative view on the US's involvement in Middle East conflicts.
But they didn't reference the original letter's antisemitic remarks and homophobic rhetoric.
TikTok said that the number of videos about the letter was small but that interest was amplified after they were posted to X, formerly Twitter. TikTok has since removed videos and blocked "Letter to America" from its search function.
Things are different on X
On longer-established platforms like X, it's a different picture.
The platform has been accused of allowing the spread of violent, hateful and misleading content. Its relatively new owner, Elon Musk, has also been criticised over his response to posts promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories.
Mr Musk has since insisted he's not antisemitic and the social media company has defended its approach to harmful content.
But - in contrast to TikTok - X has traditionally been a platform popular with politicians and journalists. It would appear pro-Israeli content is still having significant reach in this circle.
The curated content - including emotional videos about hostages taken by Hamas - shared by the State of Israel's account seems to have accumulated huge numbers of views, according to X's own data. For example, between 16 and 21 November the official account had racked up over 40 million views on X.
In comparison, the official account on X for the Palestinian mission to the UN has had just over 200,000 views on its own posts over the same period, and has far fewer followers.
And I have found evidence that official accounts on X have also been spreading disinformation.
In October, State of Israel posted false claims that the body of a four year-old Palestinian boy killed by Israeli strikes was just a doll. A spokesperson for the Israeli embassy in the UK did not comment directly on these social media posts or on the circumstances of the child's death.
False claims have also been spread by accounts that support Hamas. However, in the absence of official accounts with large followers, these mistruths seem to have unfolded in a more dispersed way online.
Take, for example, comments suggesting that a different four-year-old boy, an Israeli, who was killed when Hamas attacked his home, had been a "paid actor".
Controversial moderation
Then there's Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook. It has come under pressure amid claims of over-zealous moderation of content about the war.
For example, an Instagram account with more than six million followers called @eye.on.Palestine - which posts images and videos showing violence against civilians in Gaza during Israeli airstrikes - was suspended by the platform for several days.
Meta later said this was for "security reasons after signs of compromise".
Several people sharing pro-Palestine content on Instagram have also posted examples of where they say their accounts have been restricted from adding comments to posts, for example, without a clear indication as to why.
More on Israel-Gaza war
BBC
12. Restoring trust in U.S.-China relations
Excerpts:
It should be obvious why timely leader-to-leader and military-to-military communication is so important — to prevent or mitigate an accident or misunderstanding from escalating into conflict. This is important not only in the South and East China seas but also in the Taiwan Strait, with China’s aggressive naval and air incursions into Taiwan’s air and sea defense zones.
And with Taiwan’s presidential election coming in January, it’s important that the U.S. continue to make clear, as President Biden did in his discussions with Mr. Xi, that China should not interfere in the upcoming presidential election in Taiwan.
Hopefully, given the Biden-Xi discussions in November, we will see progress not only in improving leadership communications but also in heightened diplomacy to deal with some of these issues and, most importantly, to build trust between our two countries. Deng Xiaoping correctly looked to the U.S. to help with China’s modernization, and the U.S. was there for China.
It would be tragic if this important legacy were forgotten and we failed to work harder to restore trust between the U.S. and China.
Restoring trust in U.S.-China relations
Beijing must remember America was there for it in its time of need
washingtontimes.com · by The Washington Times https://www.washingtontimes.com
American and China relations illustration by Linas Garsys / The Washington Times American and China relations illustration by … more >
By Joseph R. DeTrani - - Wednesday, November 29, 2023
OPINION:
The Biden-Xi summit earlier this month was a step in the right direction. But it was only a step. Restoring military-to-military communication and China’s commitment to stem the export of precursor chemicals related to the production of the opioid fentanyl were major — and expected — deliverables from the summit. But the trust deficit in bilateral relations looms large.
In 1978, when Deng Xiaoping took over as China’s supreme leader, he inherited a poor and struggling country, ravaged by the disastrous Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. Deng’s initial and primary focus was economic reform, establishing a market economy that focused on technology, innovation and meritocracy, and a system that sought foreign direct investment — and interaction primarily with U.S. companies and universities.
And the U.S. was there for China, with U.S. companies investing heavily in China and tens of thousands of Chinese students enrolling in U.S. colleges and universities.
Fast-forward to September 2000 when the U.S. Senate voted in favor of permanent most favored nation status for China, which paved the way for China’s accession to the World Trade Organization in December 2001.
From a poor and struggling China to a China with the world’s second-largest gross domestic product of over $17.7 trillion, total U.S. goods and services trade with China in 2022 was estimated at $758.4 billion, an increase from 2021.
Indeed, the U.S. was there and continues to be there for China when it comes to trade and economic relations, in addition to unfettered access to U.S. universities and colleges. But the issue of intellectual property theft by China continues to be an issue, as do certain sectors of China’s economy that remain closed to foreign investment. So, regardless of some of these market access and intellectual property theft issues, our economies are interdependent — a strong argument against economic decoupling.
A trust deficit must be addressed regarding China’s attempted intimidation of Taiwan with naval and air incursions into Taiwan’s protected air and sea defense zones, as well as the 1997 reversion of Hong Kong to China from the United Kingdom and the enactment of the Basic Law that promulgated “one country, two systems” status for Hong Kong until 2047.
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s enactment of the Hong Kong national security law in 2020 basically nullified the Basic Law commitments and the one country, two systems policy. In addition, the human rights situation in Tibet and Xinjiang and the treatment of the Uyghurs remains troubling.
These volatile issues require immediate attention, and a dialogue is needed on our respective nuclear programs and China’s alignment with a revanchist Russia and Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, while making clear that U.S. policy is not to contain, encircle or suppress China.
Not addressing issues in the South and East China seas and the need to keep the Indo-Pacific region free and open to international trade and passage could result in accidental conflict and war.
We saw some of this in 2001, when a Chinese fighter jet collided with a U.S. EP-3 reconnaissance airplane in international airspace, with an emergency landing of the airplane on China‘s Hainan Island and the crew being held for 10 days. The Chinese pilot was missing and presumed dead.
Initially, President George W. Bush was unable to reach his counterpart in China, President Jiang Zemin, who wasn’t answering the phone, to defuse this incident in a timely manner.
A similar incident occurred on May 7, 1999, when the U.S. accidentally bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, with three Chinese officials killed. President Bill Clinton was unable to reach Jiang — who was refusing to take his call — until May 14, when Mr. Clinton finally spoke with Jiang and apologized for the bombing. A similar lack of timely communication by our leaders could prove catastrophic today, given the lack of trust between our countries.
It should be obvious why timely leader-to-leader and military-to-military communication is so important — to prevent or mitigate an accident or misunderstanding from escalating into conflict. This is important not only in the South and East China seas but also in the Taiwan Strait, with China’s aggressive naval and air incursions into Taiwan’s air and sea defense zones.
And with Taiwan’s presidential election coming in January, it’s important that the U.S. continue to make clear, as President Biden did in his discussions with Mr. Xi, that China should not interfere in the upcoming presidential election in Taiwan.
Hopefully, given the Biden-Xi discussions in November, we will see progress not only in improving leadership communications but also in heightened diplomacy to deal with some of these issues and, most importantly, to build trust between our two countries. Deng Xiaoping correctly looked to the U.S. to help with China’s modernization, and the U.S. was there for China.
It would be tragic if this important legacy were forgotten and we failed to work harder to restore trust between the U.S. and China.
• Joseph R. DeTrani served as special envoy for the Six-Party Talks with North Korea from 2003 to 2006 and as director of the National Counterproliferation Center. The views expressed here are the author’s and not those of any government agency or department.
Copyright © 2023 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Click to Read More and View Comments
Click to Hide
washingtontimes.com · by The Washington Times https://www.washingtontimes.com
13. Narrative warfare: How disinformation shapes the Israeli-Hamas conflict—and millions of minds
Fighting on the battlefield of human terrain.
Excerpts:
The ongoing crisis in the Middle East exposes the limitations and potential harms of the tech world’s overstated promises once again. The rapid spread of disinformation on social media platforms erodes knowledge and undermines trust in information sources, including governments. The dangers of disinformation extend beyond misinformation; it can lead to cynical perspectives, demoralizing individuals and fostering apathy toward problem-solving.
I need not clarify the critical need for global efforts to address the pervasive disinformation issue. In the context of emergency responses, the impact is tangible, diverting resources and impeding timely assistance. Other effects are more general and diffuse. The current state of technological developments, coupled with a lack of regulation and an international consensus, exacerbates the spread of unreliable information, conspiracy theories, and real-life harm. As humans grapple with the multifaceted challenges of today’s world, from climate change to great power competition, steps have been taken to address rampant disinformation, but those efforts are still in their early stages.
It may be impossible to completely counter rampant disinformation in real time, given how the internet and social media platforms are structured. Even if that is the case, the global community needs a consensus on how to approach this stark threat before collectively deciding on next steps to at least limiting its most malign impacts.
Narrative warfare: How disinformation shapes the Israeli-Hamas conflict—and millions of minds
By Yusuf Can | November 27, 2023
thebulletin.org · · November 27, 2023
Aftermath of the October 17, 2023 Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. Credit: Tasnim News Agency, CC BY 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Earlier this month, German television channel Welt claimed that a Palestinian Instagrammer had feigned a deathbed scenario in a hospital bed and subsequently posted a miraculous video depicting their well-being amidst the aftermath of a bombing in Gaza. While the actual circumstances diverged significantly from this narrative, Welt propagated the Pallywood—a portmanteau of “Palestine” and “Hollywood—conspiracy theory, baselessly alleging that “amateur actors” were fabricating scenes in Gaza.
It turns out the individuals featured in the two videos were not the same, and the footage from the hospital had been uploaded to social media several months prior to Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel. But the claim, asserting the identity of the two individuals, had already made the rounds and was also disseminated by Israel’s official X (formerly known as Twitter) account, only to be removed later.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a perennial, deeply entrenched issue transcending mere geopolitics. It is a contest of narratives, a battle where stories and perceptions wield as much power as physical forces. In this intricate struggle, disinformation emerges as a potent weapon skillfully wielded by those with ill intentions. A single Tweet or a brief TikTok video is insufficient to distill decades, if not centuries, of historical background, yet they possess the capacity to shape the minds of individuals, influence their reactions, and even sway policymaking. As such, an examination of how to address rampant misleading information that is shaping the dynamics of human society is necessary.
Nobody is safe. Regardless of one’s stance in this enduring conflict, dominant narratives are often handed down from generation to generation. The remarkable ability of these narratives to mold public opinion attests to their formidable potency. Disinformation becomes a valuable instrument in developing these entrenched perspectives, revealing the vulnerability of individuals when confronted with a barrage of misleading or outright fake information. Notably, even prominent figures with access to vast resources—journalists, politicians, and ironically, CEOs of social media companies—can fall prey to the insidious influence of disinformation.
In October, Elon Musk, the CEO of X, shared an image featuring a map of Iran enclosed by more than two dozen American flags, symbolizing purportedly United States military bases. The accompanying caption on Musk’s post mused, “Iran wants war. Look how close they put their country to our military bases.” Additionally, he appended the graphic with the words, “Oh, the Irany.” While interpreting the true motivations behind the post remains elusive to anyone except Musk himself, this incident serves as a noticeable example of misinformation, if not the more deliberate form known as disinformation. The map in the graphic purportedly denotes 26 American military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan. But the fact is that these bases did not exist. Musk, after being duly corrected, eventually acknowledged posting an inaccurate graphic. The fact that the CEO of X, notorious for its struggle with disinformation, could not elude becoming trapped in this problematic phenomenon is indeed noteworthy.
Irrespective of his underlying motives, a tech mogul like Musk taking part in the spread of disinformation has a consequential impact on which narratives emerge victorious. It is one thing when a social media user with a handful of followers shares false information. When it is done by one of the most influential individuals on the planet, it shapes millions of minds around the globe. The same issue regarding the magnitude of impact applies to other actors as well, including the mainstream media.
RELATED:
Spotting AI-generated content is too hard. Look for credible sources instead.
The episode during which Welt spread the Pallywood conspiracy theory is a stark reminder that media organizations and governments remain susceptible to disinformation despite their substantial resources. These powerful entities play a crucial role in shaping narratives, whether through the unintentional spread of false information or the intentional manipulation of stories. This dual vulnerability, arising from both susceptibility to misinformation and purposeful narrative shaping, highlights the intricate landscape in which these actors operate. When these entities are perceived to employ disinformation to advance their preferred narrative, it not only undermines the credibility of these institutions but also diminishes the public’s trust in the information they provide. This erosion of trust creates a void that malicious actors can exploit, often to the detriment of innocent individuals.
Beyond social media. Following Hamas’s attack last month, it has become nearly impossible to avoid images of destruction and pain. Online, it was already tricky to sift through the bombardment of disinformation, recycled footage from past conflicts, images from video games, and contradictory narratives to determine what is actually happening on the ground. Now, generative artificial intelligence tools are adding a new layer of complexity to an already growing problem with synthetic media. AI-generated images, videos, and audio related to the ongoing conflict are running rampant. Fake images of dead children to trigger emotions, hate-fueled memes targeting Jewish people, and intentionally manufactured efforts to mislead the public can be found in many corners of social media platforms.
For decades, tech moguls promised a future in which the internet and artificial intelligence would enhance and improve the quality of human life. If there was ever a moment where the overstated promises of such technologies could be put to the test, the Israel-Hamas conflict is one of them. Without a doubt, the ever-evolving technology has myriad benefits to human life. However, the creation and dissemination of disinformation clearly indicate the limitations, failures, and potential harm of tech utopianism.
Disinformation and the risk of apathy. Disinformation regarding Gaza can include incorrect details about the nature of the crisis, the affected areas, and the actions that need to be taken, leading people to make uninformed decisions. For example, emergency responders rely on accurate information to plan and execute efficient and effective responses, such as delivering food. Disinformation can divert resources to areas that do not need immediate assistance or delay the deployment of resources to areas that urgently require help. Such delays can have serious consequences, especially when time is of the essence.
But the dangers of disinformation are manifold and can have even more profound and long-term consequences.
Disinformation doesn’t simply get people to believe a false thing is true; it also convinces them to think a true thing is false. That’s the contagion that disinformation spreads into the atmosphere. Not only does disinformation erode a person’s knowledge base, but it also erodes trust in other people to tell the truth when it comes in the form of a conspiracy theory. Consider the bombing of a hospital during a conflict. In that case, determining who is to blame for the explosion has real, global, legal, and humanitarian consequences, and it takes time to examine the evidence and determine the facts. But in a society where millions of people can access a myriad of unvetted information in only a few seconds, ill-intended actors take advantage of this confusing and convoluted influx of information to move public opinion to trust or lose trust in a particular actor.
RELATED:
The people of Gaza need a water ceasefire
In other words, one of the riskiest aspects of disinformation is that it can make individuals cynical because it plays right into the ill-intentioned actor’s hands. Such actors can convince people to believe their narrative, and even if they can’t convince, they can make one question the narrative they believed so far and eventually demoralize them. Finally, they will make people feel that even trying to solve a problem is a useless attempt, making individuals apathetic.
Moving forward. The use of digital technology in politics has a relatively short history, although deception in warfare—and influencing a country’s politics is a form of warfare—goes back a long time. Yet the scale of deception and use of digital technology seen in today’s world is dramatically more effective and drastically harder to control. The instances involving influential figures like Elon Musk and media organizations like Welt underscore the vulnerability of even those with substantial resources to the insidious influence of false information. Much of the rest of internet consumers are merely easy prey.
As technology, including artificial intelligence, intertwines with the Gaza conflict, the promise of a tech utopia is tested against the stark reality of disinformation’s harmful consequences.
The ongoing crisis in the Middle East exposes the limitations and potential harms of the tech world’s overstated promises once again. The rapid spread of disinformation on social media platforms erodes knowledge and undermines trust in information sources, including governments. The dangers of disinformation extend beyond misinformation; it can lead to cynical perspectives, demoralizing individuals and fostering apathy toward problem-solving.
I need not clarify the critical need for global efforts to address the pervasive disinformation issue. In the context of emergency responses, the impact is tangible, diverting resources and impeding timely assistance. Other effects are more general and diffuse. The current state of technological developments, coupled with a lack of regulation and an international consensus, exacerbates the spread of unreliable information, conspiracy theories, and real-life harm. As humans grapple with the multifaceted challenges of today’s world, from climate change to great power competition, steps have been taken to address rampant disinformation, but those efforts are still in their early stages.
It may be impossible to completely counter rampant disinformation in real time, given how the internet and social media platforms are structured. Even if that is the case, the global community needs a consensus on how to approach this stark threat before collectively deciding on next steps to at least limiting its most malign impacts.
thebulletin.org · by Sara Goudarzi · November 27, 2023
14. Bringing Ukraine Into NATO Without World War III
Excerpts:
But even more important, if NATO took these steps today — without any formal declaration about Ukrainian NATO membership — it would not evoke any Russian response beyond what Russia is already doing. Indeed, it would expose Russia’s bluff that such steps, or indeed NATO membership itself, are some kind of red line.
Once these measures were implemented, however, the alliance would have then solved the potentially contentious issue of what Article 5 would mean in practice. Since there would be no mystery about what Article 5 would mean (we would already be doing it), and also no mystery about Russia’s response would be (we would have already seen it), we should be able to move ahead with alacrity to invite Ukraine into NATO.
The path would be clear for a membership invitation at NATO’s Washington Summit in July 2024. Ratification should also be on a fast track — in the case of the United States, before the January 2025 Presidential Inauguration.
Indeed, America’s 2024 Presidential election adds a yet greater sense of urgency to the discussion. With the outcome completely unknown, it may be too difficult to advance Ukraine’s NATO membership after the election. Yet America’s and Europe’s security depends on a secure Ukraine that defeats Russia. This provides all the more reason to act swiftly to bring Ukraine into our great alliance.
Bringing Ukraine Into NATO Without World War III
NATO should immediately begin consultations in the NATO-Ukraine Council about Ukraine joining the alliance as soon as possible, including a detailed Article 5 plan.
cepa.org · by Kurt Volker · November 29, 2023
NATO’s policy on Ukraine is inadvertently encouraging Putin to continue the war. It is time for a change.
The alliance’s position thus far has affirmed that Ukraine will become a member in the long run, but not while Russia continues its war on Ukraine. NATO is concerned that Ukraine’s admission would trigger a direct and immediate NATO war with Kremlin forces, and that this might escalate to nuclear weapons use.
This view is a fallacy, and it sends a signal to Vladimir Putin that he should continue fighting. As long as he keeps going, NATO will not admit Ukraine as a member, and thus Putin believes that he still has a chance of winning.
NATO must send the opposite message: that no matter what he does, Putin will never succeed in defeating Ukraine. Continuing the war would therefore be pointless and devastating for Russia. Moving forward with Ukrainian membership in NATO will send this message.
This message is also crucial for Ukraine’s economic recovery. There is a symbiosis between military and economic support for Ukraine. For example, there is no greater economic benefit to Ukraine than opening its ports to normal shipping. Yet that can only be achieved through military security operations, such as demining, and freedom of navigation in the Black Sea. Moreover, investors will not place big bets on Ukraine unless they are sure it will be a secure country in the future.
If security measures can help Ukraine achieve GDP growth of $25bn, this would be enough to produce a $5bn windfall for the state budget, thus alleviating the need for Western budgetary support.
What are the fallacies in the current NATO approach? Firstly, NATO’s Article 5 does not establish any specific requirement that Western ground troops must fight on the front lines against Russian forces.
Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty reads as follows:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently, they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in the exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
In other words, there will be a collective response to any aggression against a NATO member, but the treaty does not specify what that collective response will be. It does not state that NATO members must send troops to the front line, although that is certainly a possibility.
One should recall that NATO members have been involved in many conflicts over the past 70 years, from Algeria to Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Libya, and yet Article 5 was not invoked, and NATO as an alliance did not join the fight.
The only time Article 5 has been invoked in NATO’s entire history was in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. And yet, in this case, NATO’s Article 5 response was not to send troops to fight terrorists.
Instead, NATO countries sent aircraft to assist the United States by conducting air policing missions in US airspace. When the United States ousted the Taliban from Afghanistan, it did so together with UK, Australian and Polish forces as a coalition of the willing. There was no NATO role. Indeed, it was several months after a UN-authorized peacekeeping mission had been established in Afghanistan (ISAF) that NATO took on any role there – and that role was not an Article 5 commitment.
In other words, Article 5 is not an automatic tripwire for the use of ground forces. It might be — for example, if the Baltic states, with their small territories and population, were attacked by Russia. In that case, NATO countries would indeed have to intervene directly under Article 5, including with ground troops, to counter Russia (something already apparent from the NATO battlegroups present in all three.) There are no other options. But that is a matter for the North Atlantic Council to decide at the time, based on the circumstances.
Get the Latest
Sign up to receive regular emails and stay informed about CEPA's work.
In Ukraine, a vast country with a large population, there are multiple options beyond the immediate use of NATO ground forces.
The second fallacy is to assume that Vladimir Putin could escalate the war in Ukraine if he wanted, but he is refraining from doing so because NATO has not offered membership to Ukraine. This is far from the truth.
If Putin had an option to escalate conventionally in Ukraine, he would already have done so. The reality is that he has lost half of Russia’s conventional forces fighting Ukraine, and cannot now reconstitute them. He relies on Iran and North Korea for drones and outdated artillery shells and sends untrained troops to the front as cannon fodder, simply to keep the war going.
As for horizontal escalation — i.e., attacking a current NATO member — this is the last thing Putin would do, as he knows it would draw an immediate alliance response directly against Russian forces.
As for nuclear escalation, Putin knows – and even more importantly, the Russian military knows – that any nuclear use would not achieve any military objective in Ukraine, while it would certainly draw a direct response against Russian forces. It would also spark universal condemnation of Russia, including from China and other non-Western states.
The idea that NATO membership is the trigger for Putin’s aggression is a third fallacy: Ukraine had little chance of NATO membership when Putin attacked in 2014 and 2022. Moreover, Russia has existing borders with alliance territory in Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and the United States, and has not attacked. When Finland became a NATO member this year (soon to be joined by Sweden), Russia barely took notice. The issue for Putin is not NATO membership, but the existence of Ukraine as a nation-state.
So what would Article 5 mean in practice for Ukraine?
There are a number of ways in which the alliance can act collectively to defend Ukraine, many of which the allies are already doing. They are providing massive amounts of equipment to Ukraine, as well as providing training, finance, logistics, intelligence, operational planning, and more. This is already significant.
Some NATO nations, including the United States, have decided to help Ukraine acquire and use F-16 aircraft. This is a significant, long-term commitment to the future of Ukraine. Given the substantial logistics, maintenance, training and infrastructure requirements of a successful F-16 program, this is just the kind of signal Putin needs to see in order to come to grips with the fact that he will not defeat Ukraine.
The European Union’s decision to open accession talks with Ukraine also sends a significant signal to Putin that there is no scenario ahead in which he wins. Ukraine is a part of the European family and will survive and prosper as a sovereign, independent European democracy.
Yet NATO could still do more under Article 5 than it is currently doing. Four things come immediately to mind:
- Maritime Demining: Western NATO nations could deploy or transfer mine-hunting vessels (especially unmanned vessels) to NATO members with a Black Sea coastline, as well as to Ukraine. The aim would be to create a demining regime in the Black Sea in the territorial waters of Ukraine (subordinate, of course, to Ukrainian defensive needs) as well as the territorial waters of NATO allies, and the vast international waters of the Black Sea where such floating mines are a danger to international shipping.
- Freedom of Navigation: NATO allies — both Black Sea littoral states and other members with significant naval capabilities — should establish a mission to support freedom of navigation in the Black Sea. Any physical threat to the safety of third-party vessels operating in international waters in the Black Sea is unacceptable — just as it is unacceptable in the South China Sea or the Mediterranean. There is no implied threat to Russia or any other country that also operates in the Black Sea — only a promise to defend the right of any international vessels to use international waters in the Black Sea freely.
- No Limits on Particular Systems: Despite the massive US and allied support for Ukraine over the past 18 months, there has been a sliding set of restrictions on Western military aid. Initially, it was Stinger missiles. Then it was armor, artillery, aircraft, tanks, longer-range artillery, and so forth. And there remain significant restrictions on the types of systems the United States and NATO allies will provide. Of particular importance would be the longest range (300km) of US artillery systems, naval vessels, long-range missiles, and other types of aircraft, such as the A-10 ground attack plane. None of these systems should be off-limits.
- Participation in Air Defense for Humanitarian Purposes: NATO allies are already doing a significant amount to assist Ukrainian air defense, including providing a vast arsenal of layered air defense systems that are serving to protect civilians and infrastructure. Russian forces, however, continue to attack civilians and infrastructure with drones and missiles, launched from Russian territory, and occupied Ukrainian territory. Many of these attacks are close enough to threaten existing NATO Allies such as Romania.
It is significant that Russian forces are unable to make ground advances. Russia’s only reliable military tactic is to target Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure. NATO nations could agree to participate directly in Ukraine’s air defense to protect Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure. This might involve a combination of air defense systems stationed on NATO territory and the deployment of alliance air defense capabilities in western Ukraine and in NATO territory near Ukraine to protect Ukrainian civilians — as well as potential impacts on NATO territory — from Russian bombardment. At a minimum, it should be possible to keep Ukraine west of the Dnipro River (including Kyiv, Odesa, and Lviv) safe from Russian attacks.
These four steps – and perhaps others – could therefore become NATO’s Article 5 commitment to Ukraine – discussed and agreed within the NATO-Ukraine Council. It must not rule out the provision of ground troops at a later date if needed — but there is no need to commit such troops today. Putin must know that escalation is on our side, even if we choose not to escalate.
Note that such a formula does not set territorial limits on the application of Article 5. To do so would relegate Russian-occupied territory to a long-term occupied status. Rather, it defines specifically the type of response NATO will provide under Article 5, without accepting any limits on NATO’s support for Ukraine recovering its 1991 borders.
In this context, we should recall that NATO admitted West Germany as a member when East Germany was still under Soviet occupation and that the EU accepted Cyprus as a member, even though northern Cyprus was under Turkish control..
Now let us suppose NATO were to take these four concrete steps to defend Ukraine as soon as possible – even without Ukrainian membership. It would make a significant difference in Ukraine’s success in the war effort, and in its future as a European democracy.
But even more important, if NATO took these steps today — without any formal declaration about Ukrainian NATO membership — it would not evoke any Russian response beyond what Russia is already doing. Indeed, it would expose Russia’s bluff that such steps, or indeed NATO membership itself, are some kind of red line.
Once these measures were implemented, however, the alliance would have then solved the potentially contentious issue of what Article 5 would mean in practice. Since there would be no mystery about what Article 5 would mean (we would already be doing it), and also no mystery about Russia’s response would be (we would have already seen it), we should be able to move ahead with alacrity to invite Ukraine into NATO.
The path would be clear for a membership invitation at NATO’s Washington Summit in July 2024. Ratification should also be on a fast track — in the case of the United States, before the January 2025 Presidential Inauguration.
Indeed, America’s 2024 Presidential election adds a yet greater sense of urgency to the discussion. With the outcome completely unknown, it may be too difficult to advance Ukraine’s NATO membership after the election. Yet America’s and Europe’s security depends on a secure Ukraine that defeats Russia. This provides all the more reason to act swiftly to bring Ukraine into our great alliance.
Ambassador Kurt Volker is a Distinguished Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis. A leading expert in US foreign and national security policy, he served as US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations from 2017-2019, and as US Ambassador to NATO from 2008-2009.
Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position or views of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis.
Europe's Edge
CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America.
Read More
Footnotes
russ
cepa.org · by Kurt Volker · November 29, 2023
15. Kissinger’s Contradictions
Excerpts:
Long after others might have left matters alone, Kissinger remained obsessed with his legacy. Kissinger’s three-volume memoir would become the first stop for students of the tumultuous period in global affairs that lasted from 1969 to 1977. Kissinger’s version of events massaged way his emotionalism, his preference for the use of force, his indifference to human rights, and the moral compromises he had to make to keep close to a paranoid and bigoted leader such as Nixon.
And yet even if one corrects for the self-serving elisions of Kissinger’s accounts, there is no denying the extraordinary nature of his accomplishments. He achieved immortality in global affairs, building relationships for the United States that endure. And he leaves a legacy briming with cautionary tales for future practitioners of American power. As he implied in 1957, when he warned of the dangers of dogma for policymakers, there were no rules to his realpolitik. It was as idiosyncratic as the men—Nixon and Kissinger—who implemented it. It was also largely foreign to the American tradition of statecraft. Bereft of any sense of politics or human empathy, it was an approach so dissonant with the institutions of a liberal democracy that it had to be carried out in secret. Ironically, Kissinger’s positive legacy derives from those instances where his genius for elite interactions, his ambition, and his exceptional stamina led to negotiated agreements that made the use of violence in defense of realpolitik more difficult.
Kissinger’s Contradictions
How Strategic Insight and Moral Myopia Shaped America’s Greatest Statesman
December 1, 2023
Foreign Affairs · by Timothy Naftali · December 1, 2023
After more than six decades on the world’s stage, during which he both brilliantly persuaded and deceived the powerful and created state-to-state relationships that survive him, Henry Kissinger now belongs to the history he helped make. The only American official ever to have held all of the levers of foreign-policy making—for two years he served simultaneously as national security adviser and secretary of state—he has no peers in the history of U.S. foreign relations in the superpower era. President Harry Truman’s secretary of state, Dean Acheson, comes close. But Acheson’s influence, though global, was largely over the shaping of the Western alliance, not the world order. Kissinger’s true equals were advisers to the monarchs of European great powers (Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, Prince Klemens von Metternich, and Otto von Bismarck), which speaks to the uniqueness of his role in the modern age and to the peculiarity of what became a codependent relationship with the elected leader of a democratic superpower.
Kissinger was a man of contradictions. Gifted with a steely intellect and overweening self-confidence, Kissinger was nevertheless emotional and, at times, gripped by insecurity. A rapacious reader, he could nevertheless be the captive of set ideas. When events contradicted those ideas, Kissinger would descend into pits of anxiety. Although committed to peace and fluent in the language of diplomacy, he was a risk-taker who believed in not only in threatening violence but in applying it, as well. It would take an unusual partner to get the best out of Kissinger. The circumstances that would make his career possible not only required individual genius but chance.
WHEN HENRY MET RICHARD
Although Kissinger, who was born in Fürth, Germany in 1923, was devoted to his adopted country, he nevertheless participated in American government with critical detachment. As a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in the mid-1950s, he had written that the trademark American search for certainty, which he felt derived from “American empiricism,” had “pernicious consequences in the conduct of policy.” As he wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1956 (and repeated in his seminal 1957 book, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy), “Policy is the art of weighing probabilities; mastery of it lies in grasping the nuances of possibilities. To attempt to conduct it as a science must lead to rigidity for only the risks are certain, the opportunities are conjectural.” In the same essay, he wrote:
Empiricism in foreign policy leads to a penchant for ad hoc solutions; the rejection of dogmatism inclines our policy-makers to postpone committing themselves until all facts are in; but by the time the facts are in, a crisis has usually developed or an opportunity has passed. Our policy is therefore geared to dealing with emergencies; it finds difficulty in developing the long-range program that might forestall them.
In part, this was a sensible argument for history and not political science as preparation for future leaders. But it was also a call for a U.S. grand strategy, a goal rarely sought by any White House, but the lodestar of the powerful men he studied as a graduate student in diplomatic history.
Kissinger’s first foray into government service would bring disappointment. When the newly inaugurated President John F. Kennedy drafted a team of Harvard all-stars to work for his administration, Kissinger had his first taste of presidential power, working a consultant to the National Security Council. The experience was humbling. “[I]f I cannot work in dignity, and with a modicum of respect” he wrote to his friend Arthur Schlesinger, the Kennedy White House gadfly who had helped bring Kissinger to Washington, “there is no point in continuing.” Threatening to resign would become a leitmotif in Kissinger’s career. The problem for him in 1961 was that Kennedy was exactly the American empiricist that he had spent years critiquing. “I am worried,” he lamented to Schlesinger, “about the lack of an over-all strategy which makes us prisoners of events … the result have been an overconcern with tactics.”
Kissinger feared that Nixon might see him as disloyal.
During that year’s Berlin Crisis, Kissinger complained to Schlesinger of being “in the position of a man riding next to a driver heading for a precipice who is being asked to make sure that the gas tank is full and the oil pressure adequate.” The real problem, however, was that his ideas were not that welcome in Kennedy’s Oval Office. Kissinger shared the culture of boldness fostered by the young president; but unlike Kennedy, Kissinger did not worry about the danger posed by nuclear weapons. As he had written in the 1950s, he not only believed in the possibility of a limited, survivable, nuclear war but argued that planning for the limited use of nuclear war was necessary to deter the Soviet Union. As Kennedy faced his first major superpower crisis, Kissinger sought to implement that concept. In an October 1961 top secret memo entitled “NATO Planning,” which was not fully declassified until 2016, Kissinger wrote that “no action of any kind can be undertaken unless we have decided in advance what to do if it is unsuccessful.” Kissinger suggested planning for a limited use of nuclear weapons in the event that NATO’s conventional forces were overwhelmed in trying to maintain access to divided Berlin. Kennedy, however, wanted to de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. military strategy for defending the allied position in Berlin. Kissinger found himself out of step with the most powerful man in the world.
Eight years later, Kissinger would join forces with a president who proved to be a better fit intellectually. In 1961, Kissinger had described the Kennedy administration as “our best, perhaps our last, hope” with the implication that Kennedy’s opponent in the 1960 presidential election, Richard Nixon, would not have been a suitable alternative. But when circumstances (and Kissinger’s ambitious angling) brought Kissinger into Nixon’s orbit, Kissinger found a chance to work for someone with grand visions when it came to foreign policy. The eight years that began in 1969 were the most consequential for international politics in the second half of the twentieth century (with the notable exception of the period from 1989 to 1991). They witnessed the final years of the Vietnam War, the collapse of noncommunist power in Southeast Asia, genocide in Cambodia, the broadening of a U.S.-Soviet détente, a strategic U.S. opening to communist China, a civil war in Jordan, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, an Indo-Pakistani War, a military coup in Chile, the Yom Kippur War in Israel, and the ensuing global oil crisis. Right in the middle of this period, Nixon’s presidency began to gradually implode in the wake of revelations of Nixon’s abuses of power and participation in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice—which meant that for large segments of this period, Kissinger was flying solo.
After the disappointment of the Kennedy experience, Kissinger wrote “I have always believed that to be effective, an adviser should either be an intimate of his principal or else he should retain a position of independence.” With Nixon, Kissinger enjoyed neither of those advantages, which made him permanently insecure as Nixon’s partner in building what they called a “structure of peace.” Because he realized he could never become personally close to the president—whether due to Nixon’s antisemitism or inability in middle age to acquire any new intimates—Kissinger feared that Nixon might see him as disloyal, and so Kissinger would often spend as much energy spinning his wheels in ultimately pointless bureaucratic games in Washington as he did trying to extricate the United States from a losing war in Southeast Asia. To prove his own loyalty to Nixon and to detect any betrayals, Kissinger asked the FBI to wiretap members of his own staff when news of the secret bombing in Cambodia leaked to The New York Times. Ironically the staffer who was most disloyal to Kissinger was his deputy, the ambitious Alexander Haig, who would feed Nixon dark interpretations of Kissinger’s motives but who, it appears, was never wiretapped.
AN OBSESSION WITH CREDIBILITY
Kissinger remained as committed to the application of force in the service of international order as he had been in the Kennedy era, and he quickly revealed himself to be the most hawkish member of Nixon’s national security team. Early in the administration, when North Korea shot down an U.S. reconnaissance plane over international waters in April 1969, Kissinger was the lead voice advocating a strike on a North Korean airbase in retaliation. As Nixon’s chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, recorded in a diary entry, “this is really tough for Kissinger because the risk level is enormous and he is the principal proponent. He feels strongly that a major show of strength and overreaction for the first time in many years by the United States President would have an enormous effect abroad and would mobilize great support here.” According to Haldeman, Kissinger also suggested that if the North Koreans retaliated against the South Koreans, Washington should “go to nuclear weapons and blow them out completely.”
Nixon declined Kissinger’s advice regarding North Korea. But Nixon agreed with Kissinger’s belief in the need to send a message with violence, and decided to launch a wave of secret bombings of North Vietnamese military bases in Cambodia. The Soviets and the Chinese were expected to get the message, even if the American people were kept in the dark. By that point, Kissinger had become obsessed with what he saw as the challenge of maintaining American credibility as the country withdrew from Vietnam. Kissinger never accepted that the war was lost, but he faced stubborn opposition from Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, a former congressman who understood that in a democracy the government maintained a distant foreign war at its political peril. Laird maneuvered Nixon into accepting that he would have to withdraw an ever-increasing number of servicemen.
Kissinger feared that, for the American public, these withdrawals were proving addictive—the policy equivalent of “salted peanuts,” as he put it. With each withdrawal, Kissinger’s anxiety increased that Washington would lose the capacity to scare the North Vietnamese into negotiating. His solution to the problem was to escalate the air war and, in 1970, to extend the combat zone for U.S. troops into neutral Cambodia.
Kissinger and Nixon also looked for additional sources of pressure on Hanoi. The elaborate “triangular diplomacy” that became the hallmark of Kissinger’s career-- détente with Moscow, including the first nuclear arms limitation agreement in history, coupled with the opening of relations with Beijing—began as a way to offset the effects of the U.S. withdrawal from Southeast Asia. After initially doubting the wisdom of Nixon’s suggestion that the United States prepare to re-establish contact with China, Kissinger reveled in the secrecy of the backchannel negotiations with Beijing, and understood the benefits that taking this risk could bring. It is likely that no U.S. diplomat before or since has engaged in the kind of high-wire act that Kissinger pulled off during his many secret meetings in 1971, which paved the way for Nixon’s triumphal visits to China and the Soviet Union the next year. Hanoi had much more agency in the Cold War than Nixon and Kissinger believed; and it would take a decision on the part of North Vietnam’s leadership to break the logjam in the excruciating negotiations between Kissinger and the North Vietnamese leader Le Duc Tho in the fall of 1972; but the triangular diplomacy, which involved Hanoi’s two most important sources of military aid, didn’t hurt.
Even more complex was Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy following the Yom Kippur War in 1973. The war had frightened Kissinger. He hadn’t predicted the surprise Arab attack on Israel, but was initially certain Israel would easily defeat the Arabs and worried that an Israeli victory would upset détente with the Soviets. When Israel instead teetered on the edge of military collapse, Kissinger supported a U.S. military airlift. Once the tide had turned, Kissinger sought to impose a structure on Israel and its neighbors that would bind them all to Washington and pry them away from Moscow. Kissinger never could push Moscow out of Syria (where it remains today), but Washington gained Egypt as a lasting ally, an achievement that had once seemed impossible given U.S. support for Israel.
DIRTY HANDS
For all his diplomatic genius, Kissinger had a huge moral blind spot. He could see the world only from 30,000 feet—or through the eyes of the powerful. Just as he had viewed the concept of limited nuclear war clinically (and in a way that the two presidents he was serving didn’t share), he did not give much weight to the human consequences of the tactical choices implicit in the strategic architecture that he and Nixon were building. In many ways, despite his experiences as a child immigrant in the 1930s and a U.S. solider in World War II, he remained a cool, antiseptic, technician of power.
By the time the United States started the secret bombing of Cambodia in 1969, that country had already been dragged into the Vietnam War: for a decade, the North Vietnamese had taken advantage of the porous border between Cambodia and South Vietnam to supply its forces and its southern allies near Saigon. But the joint U.S.-South Vietnamese invasion in 1970 obliterated what was left of Cambodian neutrality. Although Hanoi’s military support for the Khmer Rouge was the greatest cause of Cambodian instability, the U.S. intervention, first in the form of secret bombing then in the form of an invasion, contributed to the conditions that enabled the rise of what became a genocidal Khmer Rouge regime. And yet, in his memoirs, Kissinger would not accept any responsibility for destabilizing Cambodia. Blaming the U.S. bombing for that outcome made “as much sense as blaming Hitler’s Holocaust on the British bombing of Hamburg,” he scoffed.
Kissinger’s blind spot extended far past Southeast Asia. In 1972, Kissinger engineered U.S. covert action to coordinate Iranian and Israeli support of Kurdish forces fighting the pro-Soviet Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, tying down much of Iraq’s army, which Saddam might otherwise have sent to fight Israel. But when the shah of Iran, for his own reasons, decided to settle a border dispute with Iraq and withdraw his support in 1975, Kissinger did nothing as Iraqi forces brutalized the Kurds.
Kissinger was a cool, antiseptic, technician of power.
In Chile, the Nixon administration continued the policy started by Kennedy of deploying covert action to prevent the socialist Salvatore Allende from ever becoming president. In September 1970, Kissinger supervised the CIA’s efforts to arrange a military coup to prevent Allende, who had just received the largest number of votes in a national election, from becoming president that year. “I don’t see why we have to let a country go Marxist,” Kissinger announced to the board that recommended U.S. covert action to Nixon, “just because its people are irresponsible.” Known as “Track II,” this covert action failed to produce the desired outcome. Three years later, there were no American puppet-masters in the military coup, led by the brutal Augusto Pinochet, that brought down Allende. But Kissinger welcomed the result and refused to apply any pressure on the new, pro-U.S. regime to prevent human rights abuses—indeed, Kissinger did the opposite. In June 1976, after the Pinochet’s junta had detained thousands of innocent Chileans, torturing an estimated 30,000 and executing at least 2,200 of them, Kissinger told Pinochet in a private meeting that “My evaluation is that you are a victim of all left-wing groups around the world, and that your greatest sin was that you overthrew a government which was going communist.”
In Iraq and Chile, Kissinger was arguably one step removed from clearly immoral and illegal acts. But nothing separates him from the slaughter of civilians in North Vietnam in 1972 in what became known as “the Christmas bombings.” This military operation remains one of the ugliest U.S. foreign policy decisions of the Cold War. By the fall of 1972 Kissinger had brilliantly negotiated a framework with Hanoi for an American withdrawal from the war, but his efforts had met with sharp disapproval from South Vietnam. To signal to Saigon that Washington remained a reliable ally, Kissinger advocated bombing North Vietnam.
There was no justification for this assault, which involved 729 sorties by B-52s that dropped 15,000 tons of bombs. The assault killed an estimated 1,000 Vietnamese civilians but had no impact on either side’s military strength or negotiating position. Nixon, as president, deserves ultimate responsibility, but as declassified documents and secret recordings that Nixon made would reveal decades later, Kissinger had pressed a reluctant Nixon to unleash violence on Vietnamese civilians in the north for purely symbolic reasons. A throughline in Kissinger’s complex career was the conviction that whenever American credibility was at stake, the blood of foreign citizens had to be shed.
Such disregard for the value of individual human lives was typical of the statesmen who served the imperial monarchies of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, long before the entrenchment of liberal values in Western societies. In the case of Talleyrand’s brutality toward the enslaved population of Haiti, for example, the blind spot was societal, as opposed to personal. Kissinger, serving a liberal democratic republic in the second half of the twentieth century, had no such excuse for his amorality.
AN EXTRAORDINARY MAN
Kissinger’s influence didn’t ebb after he left the State Department in 1977. He almost became secretary of state again as part of a co-presidency briefly considered by former California Governor Ronald Reagan and former U.S. President Gerald Ford during the Republican Convention in 1980. But even without a cabinet post, Kissinger remained available for high-level presidential commissions and routinely provided advice to subsequent presidents. Most importantly, he continued to tend the garden of the extraordinary power elite he had worked with by passing messages, sharing analyses, connecting people, and remaining relevant in an ever-changing world.
Long after others might have left matters alone, Kissinger remained obsessed with his legacy. Kissinger’s three-volume memoir would become the first stop for students of the tumultuous period in global affairs that lasted from 1969 to 1977. Kissinger’s version of events massaged way his emotionalism, his preference for the use of force, his indifference to human rights, and the moral compromises he had to make to keep close to a paranoid and bigoted leader such as Nixon.
And yet even if one corrects for the self-serving elisions of Kissinger’s accounts, there is no denying the extraordinary nature of his accomplishments. He achieved immortality in global affairs, building relationships for the United States that endure. And he leaves a legacy briming with cautionary tales for future practitioners of American power. As he implied in 1957, when he warned of the dangers of dogma for policymakers, there were no rules to his realpolitik. It was as idiosyncratic as the men—Nixon and Kissinger—who implemented it. It was also largely foreign to the American tradition of statecraft. Bereft of any sense of politics or human empathy, it was an approach so dissonant with the institutions of a liberal democracy that it had to be carried out in secret. Ironically, Kissinger’s positive legacy derives from those instances where his genius for elite interactions, his ambition, and his exceptional stamina led to negotiated agreements that made the use of violence in defense of realpolitik more difficult.
- TIMOTHY NAFTALI is a Faculty Scholar at the Institute of Global Politics at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. He was the founding Director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum.
- MORE BY TIMOTHY NAFTALI
Foreign Affairs · by Timothy Naftali · December 1, 2023
16. Surrounded by Russians and ready to die, this Ukrainian soldier called in an artillery strike – on his own position
What makes an "average" and "normal" man such a fierce fighter and hero who is willing to sacrifice all?
The last paragraph/line is common to all soldiers, I think.
Excerpts:
Serhii has now been recovering for more than two weeks. Sitting in the warm hospital ward, he remembers how he licked rainwater from his trench and would dream about every sip.
Telling his story to CNN, Serhii sees nothing heroic in his actions.
“You should see what our guys are doing on the front line. How they fight, evacuate, and rescue their dudes. Our guys are paying a very high price. They pay with their blood. All I want is to do is go fishing with my dudes, drink some beers and sit in silence”.
Surrounded by Russians and ready to die, this Ukrainian soldier called in an artillery strike – on his own position | CNN
CNN · December 2, 2023
Serhii before going on a mission. His unit was tasked with holding the trenches on the eastern front line on the outskirts of Bakhmut.
Courtesy Serhii
CNN —
Ukrainian soldier Serhii sits on his hospital bed in a public clinic in central Ukraine. There are small pieces of shrapnel embedded in his legs that the doctors can’t retrieve. Despite the pain, he says he is feeling good.
“I can’t believe that now I’m in the hospital, not in the trench. I did not think I would survive,” says the 36-year-old.
Serhii is an infantryman in the 80th Air Assault Galician Brigade. He joined the army soon after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, leaving Finland where he had been living and working as a handyman for the previous 10 years to enlist. In a nod to his past, he was given the call sign “Fin.”
A month ago, on October 27, he and his unit were assigned a mission - to hold the trenches on the eastern front line on the outskirts of Bakhmut. That mission was supposed to last three days but stretched into two weeks after the unit became pinned down by enemy fire. For some of the men it would be the last mission they ever saw.
The unit had been under constant shelling for several days when a mortar exploded near to the dugout containing Serhii and two other men, cutting the group off just as they were about to move position.
“We were all wounded. I was wounded in both legs and immediately touched them to check whether they were still there,” Serhii recalled.
Serhii, who had worked as a handyman for 10 years, became an infantryman in the 80th Air Assault Galician Brigade.
Courtesy Serhii
The other two soldiers had broken legs and jaws. One of them was so shocked that he asked to kill himself, so the others took his weapon away. When the evacuation team arrived, Serhii insisted they take the other men first and that he would wait for the next opportunity.
But that opportunity never came. Whenever other units arrived, constant Russian bombardment kept them pinned down and unable to reach Serhii.
Multiple evacuation teams would try to reach Serhii over the next two weeks, but none could get through and some died trying.
“We were under constant enemy fire. The enemy seemed to be looking for our weaknesses or testing our endurance,” he recalled.
With Serhii confined to his trench, his commander used a drone to drop off essentials to him such as water, painkillers, chocolate bars, and even cigarettes.
“The water was a big problem because, first, the drone could not pick up big bottles of water. So the drone dropped small bottles wrapped in paper and tape, but not every bottle could survive (the fall) and they often broke. Water was leaking out. I appreciated every sip of water,” Serhii said.
At the same time, Russian drones were targeting the dugout with more sinister payloads, one of them dropping a grenade right next to Serhii, who by this point had been joined by another Ukrainian soldier who had become cut off.
“It exploded near the other soldier’s back and half a meter from me, near my feet. We were wounded but lucky to survive. It was possible to evacuate only one critically injured soldier. So at that moment I realized I was alone.”
Serhii lived for 10 years in Finland, earning himself the call-sign 'Fin.'
Courtesy Serhii
Surrounded
For the next three days Serhii hid in his dugout surrounded by the enemy. Each hour Russian troops came closer and closer to his position. He could hear their voices and knew their plan.
Believing that he would not survive, Serhii contacted his commander on the radio and whispered to him the coordinates of the enemy - essentially calling in artillery strikes on his very own position.
Thanks to Serhii, Ukrainian artillery conducted several accurate strikes, but more Russian soldiers continued to take up positions around him.
“I was surrounded by enemies,” Serhii explained. “When they couldn’t hear me, I whispered the coordinates again on the radio and our artillery fired at them.”
Ukraine behind train fire in eastern Russia, source claims
At one point, Serhii thought his time was up when a Russian soldier climbed into his dugout. The soldier asked Serhii where he was from and the Ukrainian replied in Russian that he had a concussion and asked for water. The Russian soldier did not give him water but crawled out of the trench, apparently still unaware Serhii was Ukrainian.
“I still can’t understand how he didn’t realize I was from the Ukrainian armed forces. I was wearing a Ukrainian uniform. My pants were in pixels. Yes, they were dirty. But it was obvious that the boots were Ukrainian,” Serhii recalled.
With all efforts to evacuate Serhii exhausted, his commander eventually told him the only way out was to crawl and pray.
“I had to crawl through the dugout where Russians were. Holding the radio in my left hand on my knees, I started crawling. I came across a tripwire with a grenade on it. I could hear the commander on the radio correcting me, but I could not contact him myself. The battery was almost dead. The commander shouted at me that I should move. So, finally I got to the Ukrainian positions, ‘Fin, keep moving,’ they kept telling me.”
Serhii, 36, during an interview with CNN.
CNN
Serhii has now been recovering for more than two weeks. Sitting in the warm hospital ward, he remembers how he licked rainwater from his trench and would dream about every sip.
Telling his story to CNN, Serhii sees nothing heroic in his actions.
“You should see what our guys are doing on the front line. How they fight, evacuate, and rescue their dudes. Our guys are paying a very high price. They pay with their blood. All I want is to do is go fishing with my dudes, drink some beers and sit in silence”.
CNN · December 2, 2023
17. Marines, soldiers fire first shots at state-of-the-art gun range complex on Guam
Marines, soldiers fire first shots at state-of-the-art gun range complex on Guam
Stars and Stripes · by Seth Robson · December 1, 2023
Marines and soldiers test out the new Mason Live Fire Range Complex at Camp Blaz, Guam on Nov. 30. (Seth Robson/Stars and Stripes)
CAMP BLAZ, Guam — Bullets are already blasting down a still-under-construction gun-range complex for troops stationed at the newest base in the Marine Corps.
The Mason Live Fire Range Complex is part of the 4,000-acre Camp Blaz, which officially opened in January. The state-of-the art complex is being validated by the Defense Department and will have its own official grand-opening early next year, range director Robert Ledyard said Thursday.
“We’ll be able to have up to 300 Marines qualify on the range in any given week,” he said while pointing out pop-up targets shaped like soldiers.
The targets can also move across the range on tracks, Ledyard said. They’re equipped with acoustic sensors that record where shots hit and send the information back to tablet computers that give shooters instant feedback.
The complex is named after Leonard Mason, a member of the 3rd Marine Division who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for gallantry on Guam during World War II.
The facility includes rifle and pistol ranges bordering Andersen Air Force Base, where troops can shoot at targets up to 500 yards away. Work is still underway on a nearby machine gun range.
Blaz Marines and soldiers from the 368th Military Police Battalion, an Army Reserve unit, were shooting at the complex on Thursday.
Pfc. Angie Rosales Aguilar, of Santa Ana, Calif., said her adrenalin was pumping as she pulled the trigger on an M-4 rifle.
“I’ve only been here three months and it’s my first duty station and my first time shooting here,” she said during a break in the action.
A pop-up target at the new Mason Live Fire Range Complex, which is part of the 4,000-acre Camp Blaz that officially opened in January 2023. (Seth Robson/Stars and Stripes)
Rubber matting — akin to what you’d find on a modern children’s playground — covers the ground at the firing positions. It’s soft and comfortable, Aguilar said.
The new ranges are aligned along Guam’s north coast and have rock berms to catch stray rounds. To protect water traffic, radars monitor a buffer zone that extends 4,600 yards offshore during rifle practice and 6,300 yards offshore during machine gun training.
The buffer zone is off-limits to boats, but range controllers monitor the radars and shut down training if vessels stray into the area, Ledyard said.
The former active-duty Marine range control officer said the facility is an improvement over the 300-yard range at Naval Base Guam and is better than the ranges on Okinawa. Thousands of Okinawa-based Marine billets are expected to move to Guam over the next several years.
Construction is also ongoing south of Andersen at what will become the Skaggs Urban Training Complex, Ledyard said.
That facility, due to open late next year, is named for Luther Skaggs, another 3rd Marine Division member, who received the Medal of Honor after heroic actions that severely wounded him while fighting on Guam in World War II.
The Skaggs complex will include a live-fire shoot house, grenade range and a tactical vehicle obstacle course, Ledyard said. It will also feature 11 new buildings for urban training, including a mock embassy, and 122 abandoned military homes.
Skaggs will be fitted with cameras to record training for after-action review, Ledyard said.
Marine Pfc. Angie Rosales Aguilar tests out the new Mason Live Fire Range Complex at Camp Blaz, Guam on Nov. 30. (Seth Robson/Stars and Stripes)
Stars and Stripes · by Seth Robson · December 1, 2023
18. Why Hamas could emerge stronger militarily from the temporary cease-fire with Israel
Excerpts:
But Israeli intelligence gains may have been offset by Israel's agreement to stop flying reconnaissance drones above Gaza at specific times during the truce, Oehlerich added.
"They're going to make their own assessment of where the Israelis are going to strike next. They're going to position their forces to try and not be where they don't want to be and to try and put themselves in a position where they can attack or slow down the Israelis. So, I am sure there is some very furious activity going on," he said.
"Israeli use of overhead surveillance, which they're very good at, is going to be diminished during this time," retired Army Lt. Gen. William Troy told ABC News, speaking while the cease-fire was still in effect. "I would guess that it might frustrate some IDF commanders on the ground, but that's what they're going to have to contend with."
"I'm sure a lot of their weapons are in storage areas that maybe have not been accessible, but now that the Israelis can't fly surveillance all the time, they can get to those places and then they can reposition their forces," Troy added.
Regardless of the success of continued diplomatic efforts to continue the daily truces that have enabled the hostage and detainee exchanges, he said both sides have learned from the previous weeks of fighting in northern Gaza.
"Both sides have already taken lessons as to what works and what doesn't work, and both sides will be trying to adjust their tactics and employ different weapons in different ways," said Troy. "And they will quickly disseminate that information to their forces. And then, when this picks up again -- and it seems like it's inevitable that it will -- they'll try to employ those lessons."
Why Hamas could emerge stronger militarily from the temporary cease-fire with Israel
Experts believe Hamas used the pause to rearm and move fighters.
ByLuis Martinez andNate LunaDecember 1, 2023, 4:33 PM ET
• 8 min read
abcnews-go-com.cdn.ampproject.org
While much attention has been paid to the humanitarian relief enabled by the weeklong truce between Hamas and Israel, national security experts note that the pause may have given Hamas the opportunity to strengthen and resupply its forces for when hostilities resumed Friday.
The truce has led to the successful release of dozens of Israeli and other foreign hostages and hundreds of Palestinian detainees held in Israeli prisons. But both Israeli and U.S. officials had previously advocated for "pauses" in the fighting instead of a general cease-fire, suggesting publicly in the weeks before the truce that a general cease-fire would benefit Hamas.
However, as those short-term pauses were extended daily over the past week, they amounted to at least a temporary cease-fire.
The concern was that Hamas would emerge strengthened so its forces could respond to Israel's devastating ground and aerial assault in northern Gaza, and potentially in southern Gaza, where many of the enclave's 2 million civilian residents are now located after heeding Israel's warnings to leave northern Gaza before Israeli forces attacked there.
Those questions of whether Hamas has benefited from the temporary truce may be answered soon as Israel resumed its offensive operations on Friday by launching airstrikes in the Gaza Strip after it said Hamas had violated the terms of the cease-fire.
Hostages who were abducted by Hamas gunmen during the October 7 attack on Israel are handed over by Hamas militants to the International Red Cross in the Gaza Strip, Nov. 29, 2023.Al-qassam Brigades via Reuters
MORE: 'Extremely difficult': What would be Israel's objectives in an offensive into Gaza?
Earlier this week, a U.S. top national security spokesman acknowledged "a real risk" that Hamas may have benefited from the daily truce extensions to enable the continued transfer of Israeli and other foreign hostages and Palestinian detainees held in Israeli prisons.
"We are watching that closely and our Israeli counterparts, you can bet [they] are watching that closely," John Kirby, the National Security Council spokesman told White House reporters on Monday.
"I would just say that without getting into intelligence issues that any pause in the fighting could benefit your enemy in terms of time to refit, to rest your fighters, to rearm them, re-equip them," said Kirby. "A pause in the fighting can be seen as a benefit but again, I want to stress this was always part of the calculus."
That calculus weighed against the benefits Israel and the U.S. would gain from the return of hostages held by Hamas, according to Kirby.
Palestinians walk among the rubble, as they inspect houses destroyed in Israeli strikes during the conflict, amid the temporary truce between Hamas and Israel, at Khan Younis refugee camp in the southern Gaza Strip Nov. 27, 2023. Mohammed Salem/Reuters
Mick Mulroy, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East and ABC News contributor, described the pause in fighting as a "net win" for Hamas "both militarily and politically."
"I believe Israel knew this would be the case, but it was worth it for them to recover their hostages," he added.
Mulroy and other national security analysts who spoke with ABC News concur that Hamas has likely used the temporary truce to refit, re-arm, and reposition its forces in Gaza.
"This has stopped the IDF's momentum, allowing Hamas to maneuver to gain a tactical advantage," according to Mulroy.
There have been 15,000 people killed in Gaza and 36,000 injured, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry. In Israel, at least 1,200 people have been killed and 6,900 have been injured, according to the Israeli prime minister's office.
While the scale of the destruction to buildings in northern Gaza caused by Israel's airstrikes and ground offensive is very visible, what is uncertain is how much of Hamas' military infrastructure has been destroyed.
"One of the disadvantages that we have is we actually don't know how much of the military apparatus of Hamas has been destroyed or dismantled," said retired U.S. Army Gen. Robert Abrams, former commander of U.S. Forces Korea and an ABC News contributor.
"We don't know how many command posts have been destroyed. We don't know how much of their arms, ammunition, or explosives have been captured or destroyed. The longer there's a cease-fire, it's going to give Hamas an opportunity to rearm, rethink, and reestablish," Abrams said.
Israeli soldiers stand on tanks deployed on the southern border with the Gaza Strip, Nov. 29, 2023.Menahem Kahana/AFP via Getty Images
But the pause also likely brings risks for Hamas, according to Eric Oehlerich, a retired U.S. Navy SEAL and ABC News contributor, who believes the hostages returned to Israel could have provided intelligence useful to Israel's military.
"When debriefed by IDF planners, the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] will now have increased information on 'how' they were being held. Potentially, 'where' can be figured out if the IDF planners are deliberate and smart, and the hostages most importantly will be able to talk about Hamas' status, motivation, fears etc." said Oehlerich.
But Israeli intelligence gains may have been offset by Israel's agreement to stop flying reconnaissance drones above Gaza at specific times during the truce, Oehlerich added.
"They're going to make their own assessment of where the Israelis are going to strike next. They're going to position their forces to try and not be where they don't want to be and to try and put themselves in a position where they can attack or slow down the Israelis. So, I am sure there is some very furious activity going on," he said.
"Israeli use of overhead surveillance, which they're very good at, is going to be diminished during this time," retired Army Lt. Gen. William Troy told ABC News, speaking while the cease-fire was still in effect. "I would guess that it might frustrate some IDF commanders on the ground, but that's what they're going to have to contend with."
"I'm sure a lot of their weapons are in storage areas that maybe have not been accessible, but now that the Israelis can't fly surveillance all the time, they can get to those places and then they can reposition their forces," Troy added.
Regardless of the success of continued diplomatic efforts to continue the daily truces that have enabled the hostage and detainee exchanges, he said both sides have learned from the previous weeks of fighting in northern Gaza.
"Both sides have already taken lessons as to what works and what doesn't work, and both sides will be trying to adjust their tactics and employ different weapons in different ways," said Troy. "And they will quickly disseminate that information to their forces. And then, when this picks up again -- and it seems like it's inevitable that it will -- they'll try to employ those lessons."
abcnews-go-com.cdn.ampproject.org
19. Statement by Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III on the Passing of Lieutenant General Julius W. Becton Jr.
Statement by Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III on the Passing of Lieutenant General Julius W. Becton Jr.
defense.gov
An official website of the United States Government
Here's how you know
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Release
Immediate Release
Dec. 2, 2023 |×
Share
I am deeply saddened by the passing of Lieutenant General Julius W. Becton Jr. He was a barrier-breaking leader, a model soldier, and a devoted public servant whose integrity and professionalism inspired countless Americans. He was the first Black commander of a U.S. Army corps, and he later served as the first Black director of the Federal Emergency Management Administration. He was also a mentor and a dear friend.
Lieutenant General Becton was deeply committed to the institutions that he loved and led, especially the U.S. Army. He decided at a young age that the U.S. Army was his ticket out of poverty—even in a time when our armed forces were still segregated—and he rose through the Army's ranks and fought for his country in three wars.
After retiring from the U.S. Army, he spearheaded an overhaul of FEMA. That was just a part of his lifelong mission to make our institutions more purposeful, more reliable, and more responsive to the people whom they served.
As the son of a domestic worker and a janitor with a third-grade education, Lieutenant General Becton believed passionately in the power of learning. That commitment drove his leadership both as superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools and as president of Prairie View A&M University—his alma mater—which he helped lead out of a period of decline.
I count myself among a generation of U.S. Army officers and enlisted men and women who owe our careers to Lieutenant General Becton's guidance and example. "Leadership and ethics are inseparable," he said, and I have carried his lessons with me throughout my career.
On behalf of the Department of Defense, I send my deepest condolences to the family of Lieutenant General Julius W. Becton.
Austin Defense Secretary Army
Subscribe to Defense.gov Products
Choose which Defense.gov products you want delivered to your inbox.
Subscribe
The Department of Defense provides the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation's security.
defense.gov
20. Lessons the US Marine Corps Should Learn From Gaza and Ukraine
Lessons the US Marine Corps Should Learn From Gaza and Ukraine
It's doubtful the Marine Corps would be able to play a significant role in a war such as in Ukraine or Gaza having given up critical capabilities under FD 2030.
thedefensepost.com · by Gary Anderson · November 29, 2023
At the beginning of the Ukraine war, Marine Corps Commandant General David Berger confidently predicted the disastrous rout of Russian armored columns and Ukraine’s successful use of Hellfire missiles, justifying his having done away with the Marine Corps tank force.
The Ukrainians would disagree.
Tanks are the number one item on the Ukrainian military aid wish list. Not much further down is heavy engineer assault breaching capabilities against Russian fortifications — another aspect General Berger eliminated.
The Ukrainians also make skilled use of medium-range general artillery to enable ground maneuver. The only thing the Ukrainians don’t like about artillery is that they don’t have enough ammo at any given time. Again, although not eliminating conventional artillery, Berger drastically reduced the Corps’ inventory.
Tanks and Urban Warfare
As the Israeli ground incursion into Gaza generates analysis, the Marines might relearn some lessons from their 1990s urban warfare experiments in cities such as Fallujah and Ramadi in Iraq.
In Iraq, Marines made skillful use of tanks and Heavy Engineers in the urban canyons of the infamous Sunni Triangle in combined arms operations. The tanks had two uses.
They enabled urban maneuver from street to street by providing shelter for the infantry, and their armor-protected .50 caliber machine guns provided invaluable counter-sniper capability.
Meanwhile, Heavy Engineers provided rubble clearing and large-scale breaching that enabled the riflemen to move from building to building without exposing themselves.
An M1A1 Abrams tank provides area security alongside a street intersection beside Marines during a 2005 operation in Fallujah, Iraq. Photo: Cpl Mike Escobar/US Marine Corps
Troop Numbers
Technology has not changed so much that Napoleon’s maxim “God is on the side of the big battalions” has become irrelevant. This is particularly true in the trenches along the Eastern Front in Ukraine and urban combat in Gaza.
So far, the Israelis have apparently not suffered heavy infantry casualties, but if they make good on their intention to reoccupy the Strip, they will face an urban insurgency requiring large numbers of troops.
The Marine Corps has reduced the number and size of its infantry battalions. Urban combat is casualty intense, although there is a limit to the number of troops that can be put on an urban street at one time. A place like Gaza could easily take three divisions to maintain an occupation.
These critical capabilities were given up to buy anti-ship missiles and other sea control capabilities to implement the Force Design (FD) 2030 concept, meant to deter or defeat Chinese aggression as a “stand-in” naval capability.
The question that has never adequately been answered is what will happen if a major conflict occurs somewhere outside the Western Pacific or South China Sea? Would the Marine Corps be prepared to play a significant role in a war such as in Ukraine or a major urban conflict such as Gaza, having given up the capabilities listed above?
I sincerely hope we don’t have to answer that question in the near term.
US Marines participate in the Super Garuda Shield exercise. Photo: Sgt. Andrew King/US Marine Corps
FD 2030
Many FD 2030 critics have noted that the classified war games used to “validate” the concept were a mile wide and an inch deep. The question of how the FD 2030 Marine Corps would support a major conflict in Europe or the Middle East was apparently never seriously considered.
Worse, the theater commanders of Central Command and the European Command were seemingly asleep at the wheel while the Marine Corps headed down the road to irrelevance.
This is not an academic matter. As this is being written, the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit is operating near the Israel/Gaza region. The Americans in Gaza are begging for some sort of evacuation. If the administration is so foolish as to attempt to work with Hamas to try a Non-combatant Evacuation Operation, this would likely be another debacle.
As with throwing a football, three things could happen; two of them are bad.
First, Hamas can hold a perimeter and allow US citizens to be evacuated. This happy outcome is extremely unlikely considering the chaotic situation on the ground.
Second, thousands of Gazans will likely swarm the Marine perimeter, trying desperately to get on a ship, any ship, to get away. Imagine the CNN footage of Americans having to withdraw or risk being overwhelmed by the crowds, leaving the stranded American expats to watch US forces sail over the horizon.
Third – and worst – Islamic extremists not under Hamas control take the opportunity to mingle with said crowd and use suicide bombers and snipers to do what their counterparts did in Kabul (Oh, by the way, the Corps’ counter-sniper capability was also reduced under FD 2030).
In that case, the Marines would face the lose-lose situation of firing into the crowd and being accused of war crimes against civilians or of being overrun. I have been in that situation and would not wish it on anyone.
In 1995, the Marine Corps formed the core of a task force to evacuate UN personnel from Somalia. That was an undertaking similar in scope and scale to the situation in Gaza. It quickly assembled a brigade-sized force to do the job. That is three times the size of the force in the Mediterranean today. Due to deal-making with the Navy, the Marines could not put an amphibious force similar to that to sea today in anything like a timely manner.
The Marine Corps always prided itself on being ready to quickly put together a task-organized force to deal with any contingency anywhere in the world, at any time.
The FD 2030 Corps may have to deal with General Berger’s legacy sooner rather than later.
Gary Anderson served as the Chief of Plans (G-5) of the Marine Corps Expeditionary Force responsible for the Indo-Pacific area.
He lectures on Alternative Analysis at the George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The Defense Post.
The Defense Post aims to publish a wide range of high-quality opinion and analysis from a diverse array of people – do you want to send us yours? Click here to submit an op-ed.
thedefensepost.com · by Gary Anderson · November 29, 2023
21. Inside the Woke Air Force
Apparently from an active duty Air Force officer using a pseudonym
December 2, 2023
Inside the Woke Air Force
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/12/inside_the_woke_air_force.html
By Josh Culper
Nearly two decades ago, I left my hometown for Lackland Air Force Base. Every enlisted airman since 1968 has completed Basic Military Training at this historic base in the Alamo City. First, trainees work to graduate from being a “rainbow,” referring to the mixed colors of their civilian clothing, which involves getting a free haircut, getting new uniforms, and learning how to move in a formation. Trainees are further unified by reminders from military training instructors that they are no longer “back on the block,” and from here on out, they “all bleed blue!”
Trainees from across America are honed into a team of airmen. The military has always excelled at forming our diverse citizenry into a unified force — it embraced “E pluribus unum.” However, the U.S. Air Force is currently indoctrinating airmen in neo-Marxist ideology and creating activists thorough its Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE) programs.
Some will push back and claim that DIE is simply about being inclusive of diverse viewpoints, and if this were the case, there would be little controversy. Yet when senior leaders discuss diversity, as in DIE, the word has a neo-Marxist meaning. Herbert Marcuse in his 1969 “Essay on Liberation“ stated the following: “the familiar (used and abused) vocabulary of freedom, justice, and equality could thus obtain not only new meaning but also new reality,” with a “methodical subversion of the linguistic of the Establishment.” Today, diversity as part of DIE is in line with Marcuse’s subversive definition, which is used in Critical Theory and its offspring, intersectionality.
Critical Theory and intersectionality spawned out of Marxist scholarship and have grown into legal studies, history, education, social sciences, and military studies. It undergirds identity politics, which has been institutionalized into the Air Force through Barrier Analysis Working Groups, or BAWGs. The Air Force has established seven BAWGs:
- BEST – Black Employment Strategy Team
- DAT – Disability Action Team
- HEAT – Hispanic Empowerment Action Team
- INET – Indigenous Nations Equality Team
- LIT – LGBTQ+ Initiative Team
- PACT – Pacific Islander Asian-American Community Team
- WIT – Women’s Initiatives Team
Through BAWGs, the Air Force has established political advocacy groups to advise the chain of command and make recommendations regarding equity and inclusion. Examples are optional pronouns in an airman’s official signature block or that males who identify as female can now complete the women’s Physical Fitness Assessment (ref. attachment 5). The force is also subjected to regular stand-downs and “bridge-chats.”
The 2021 extremism stand-down day is a good example of these sessions. Not once did they mention Islamic extremism or how support for the Marxist movement Black Lives Matter is incompatible with military service. Nor did the stand-down facilitators mention the airman in Utah who was caught in his military-issued gas mask throwing Molotov cocktails at a police car during a BLM riot.
During bridge-chats, airmen are organized into small groups to “lean in” and discuss “hard topics” such as race, sexuality, unconscious bias, microaggressions, and social-emotional learning. These groups, however well intentioned by some, are not talks meant to foster inclusion, but are “consciousness-raising” sessions.
In the last century, Marxists such as Marcuse sought to understand where Marx’s theory went wrong. The urban proletariat were supposed to naturally overthrow their bourgeois oppressors, but the revolution did not naturally develop — it had to be enticed. This led Marcuse and others to develop the idea of “false consciousness”: put simply, people raised in oppression are not aware they are oppressed. Marginalized groups had to be shown they are oppressed through a process such as Paulo Freire’s conscientization, enabling them to develop a critical awareness and see through the false consciousness.
The result of conscientization is activism, which is seen from the highest levels of Air Force leadership. For example, during the 2022 Air Force DEIA Conference, Secretary Kendall recommended reading Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist and promoted Kendi’s idea that “it’s not enough to just not be racist, but you must be antiracist.” Lt. Gen. Brad Webb, the former commander of Air Education and Training Command, stated that the “death of George Floyd” has “fundamentally changed the Air Force,” and Air Force leaders have been charged by the chief of staff of the Air Force to “engage.”
Activism has also been institutionalized into foundational documents, such as the Air Force’s Core Values. The May 2022 edition of the “little blue book” now includes calls to activism. In the section titled “CORE VALUES — THE WHY,” airmen are admonished to “accept accountability and practice justice,” and furthermore that “it is our obligation to understand and be advocates of the ethical demands these values require.” In the section on “SERVICE BEFORE SELF,” airmen are instructed to “recognize and root out prejudices, biases, and stereotypes ... and honor the Air Force and others by following our words with actions.”
It is a longstanding tradition for the military to “remain politically neutral and divorced from partisan politics,” yet now Air Force leaders are stating that airmen have an obligation to practice justice and be advocates. Over the last three years, we have seen the changes publicly.
In 2020, General Brown, in his former position as commander of Pacific Air Forces, released an official video where he states he is “full of emotion” and publicly shared his opinion about George Floyd’s death and alludes to “the many African-Americans that have shared the same fate.”
In 2023, Lt. Gen. DeAnna Burt disparaged laws legally passed by millions of citizens at the state level as “anti-LBGTQ+” and a “dangerous trend.” She went on to share that she would make manning decisions, in part, if a family could be “denied critical healthcare due to the laws of that state,” referring to the restriction of surgeries and hormones to make minors look like members of the opposite sex in states such as Texas.
Also in 2023, Secretary Kendall undermined the will of American citizens and their state laws meant to protect children from abortion by implementing a policy to “ensure” that airmen and their families “can access reproductive health care regardless of where they are stationed.”
There has also been a regression with DIE. For example, the “first” all-female flight over the 2023 Super Bowl is a step back, as the WASPs already fought for true inclusion to fly alongside their brothers. Or consider the “first” all-black heritage flight compared to the legacy of the Tuskegee Airmen. Why are we celebrating the resegregation of our formations? Wouldn’t true diversity and inclusion be represented in a flight with a mixed-race/sex crew? Isn’t this something we do every day in the Air Force, and have been doing for decades?
Yes, we have! However, DIE isn’t about diversity; it’s about indoctrinating airmen into neo-Marxist ideology and creating activists. The Air Force needs to disband DIE programs and get back to building true unity within the force. It needs to focus on what airmen have in common — our oath, the Constitution, and love of country — not on what makes us different. Let’s get back to “one team, one fight!”
Josh Culper (a pseudonym) is an Air Force officer. Josh is remaining anonymous after seeing how Lt. Col. Matt Lohmeier was treated for engaging in wrongthink.Apparently from an active duty Air Force officer using a pseudonym
22. Terminally ill Army vet to get final wish, relive his tank gunner days
"Gunner,,, Sabot... Tank"
Hooah to this soldier and to the Army for doing this.
Excerpt:
“3 to 6 months left to live. That’s what my oncologist told me in September. I initially thought, ‘My issues are manageable, I’m feeling pretty good right now,’” Tenison posted. “Yeah...No. Not even two weeks later, my stomach cancer kicked it up a notch...I used to weigh 205, now I’m down to 140.”
He was direct.
“I’m not looking for sympathy here, I’m looking for help,” he said.
And it soon came, via a network of current and former figures in the armor community.
The unit that Tenison will join next week, Dean’s 1-16 Cavalry, is part of Col. Ryan T. Kranc’s 316th Cavalry Brigade. The units are responsible for all post-entry functional training for tankers and cavalry scouts, including the Abrams master gunner course.
According to Dean, Tenison’s last ride will begin on Monday afternoon in the simulator, where he’ll “meet with one of our master gunners … to get the rust off.” Then Tuesday afternoon, the veteran will suit up and ride one of the squadron’s tanks to a gunnery battle position, where he’ll shoot a series of offensive and defensive engagements.
The former tanker expressed enthusiasm about the arrangement, describing himself as “over the moon.” But just shooting isn’t enough — Tenison said he’s most excited that the unit will be keeping score for him, as they would for any other gunnery.
Terminally ill Army vet to get final wish, relive his tank gunner days
armytimes.com · by Davis Winkie · December 1, 2023
Jay Tenison’s last ride started on Reddit, of all places.
“I’m dying from stage IV stomach cancer. My wish is to do tank gunnery one last time,” read the title of his October 2022 post. The former tanker, whose active duty enlistment took him from Germany to Ramadi, Iraq, and back to Fort Irwin, California, had straightforward reasoning.
“Before I depart this land of the living, I’d love to feel the thunder of doom inside an Abrams MBT,” he said. More than a year later, Tenison has outlived his initial prognosis and will fire his final gunnery Tuesday at Fort Moore, Georgia, he and service officials told Army Times.
Tenison’s nostalgia for “the thunder of doom” dates to his time in Germany with Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 37th Armor Regiment at the now-shuttered Ray Barracks near the city of Friedburg. He did one gunnery there before deploying to Iraq in 2006, during which time his battalion fought in Tal Afar and Ramadi. Decades later, after two degrees and a successful career as a professional engineer, the experience looms large in Tenison’s memory during his final days.
“It was certainly stressful, but it was a great occasion for just bonding with the rest of your crew,” the vet recounted, fondly remembering his team’s “collective and singular purpose … the four of you act together as one.”
The commander of the squadron that Tenison will shoot with next week understands that significance. Lt. Col. Courtney Dean, who leads 1st Squadron, 16th Cavalry, spoke about the unique bonds that tankers share, forged in the crucible of gunnery.
“Shooting gunnery is a special event for us,” Dean, whose father and brother are also armor officers, explained in a phone interview. “First time you squeeze that trigger, you feel that shot in your solar plexus and you don’t forget it.”
Both tankers lauded the cross-cultural bonds that their community shares, though in admittedly different terms.
“I brought our Dutch liaison officer out here about a year ago … and you can instantly tell when he walked in the tower … there’s so many commonalities,” the officer said. “Bringing mobile protected firepower to close with and destroy your enemy using maneuver, firepower and shock effects — that transcends across platforms and nations.”
Tenison described the experience “among other armor units [of] our allied friends around the world” as a “shared bond, a shared plight — working together closely inside of a steel death trap.”
But that steel death trap was where he learned how to live.
Tenison’s long road home
Tuesday marks the culmination of a journey that began in Arizona in 2004 for Tenison.
“I was driving home from work one night — I wasn’t exactly satisfied with my lot in life at the time — and I saw the recruiting station on the way home,” he recounted, claiming it was an “impulse decision” when he pulled a quick U-turn and went to join the Army.
The now-engineer had previously spoken with the recruiter at his high school about a potential aviation career, but a list of enlistment bonuses made him curious about the 19K occupational specialty: M1 Abrams crew member.
“’What’s a 19K tanker?’” Tenison recalled asking. “And oh my gosh, away we went.”
He joined with a plan: he would serve his four years, and then he would go to college. After graduating from basic and tank training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, the young Tenison immediately shipped overseas to Ray Barracks, Germany, as one of the final soldiers stationed at the venerable garrison where Elvis Presley served his time in the Army.
“I switched around from one platoon to another. Then they figured out that I was smart after one gunnery, and they stuck me behind a computer desk,” he said. Until it was time to go to Iraq.
Tenison didn’t talk much about his deployment during the so-called Anbar Awakening — except to describe his months in Ramadi as “a f---ing war zone.” According to a unit history, his company saw grinding combat against insurgents in the western part of Tal Afar before reassignment to Ramadi in late 2006.
After returning to Germany, Tenison’s battalion was inactivated and the young tanker was reassigned to the National Training Center at Fort Irwin. He worked in a support unit there before leaving the Army in April 2008.
Spc. Jay Tenison poses with three officers from his Army Reserve unit in the spring of 2012. (Courtesy of Jay Tenison)
“I knew I wanted to do something big, something awesome,” he said of his post-service plans. Tenison studied electrical engineering at an Arizona State University campus, completing both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree before entering the workforce. During his college years, he also served an additional five years in the Army Reserve as part of a specialized engineering design unit
Since hitting the workforce he’s focused on fuel cell engineering, as well as renewable energy design for his most recent employer, the HDR design firm. He described the group’s Phoenix office as “my home … my second family,” and an environment where he could manage his ADHD diagnosis (and wield its strengths) through a never-ending stream of fascinating projects. “It’s been a great place,” Tenison said, “before the cancer came in and said, ‘I have other plans for you.’”
Tenison said he first knew something was wrong in late 2021, when his occasional stomach pain “grew progressively worse” and affected his ability to eat. He was a patient at the Phoenix-area Veterans Affairs hospital — the epicenter of the 2014 waitlist scandal that rocked the administration.
It took two months for him to get a referral to a gastrointestinal specialist. Then it took nearly two more for him to get diagnostic scans after what he described as a botched scheduling process. After his doctor saw the results, Tenison recalled, the specialist urgently summoned him for another round of scans. The diagnosis, handed down in the spring of 2022, was clear: cancer.
Looking back, Tenison said he doesn’t blame the VA staff for the delays, though he said his mother might. “It’s not really any one person’s fault … they need more resources. They need better funding,” he said.
After a series of treatments that included surgery to remove a golf ball-sized tumor from his brain, Tenison received an ominous prognosis that fall. He had 12 to 18 months left to live, his oncologist said, according to his October 2022 Reddit post.
Army veteran Jay Tenison recovering after June 2022 surgery to remove a brain tumor. (Courtesy of Jay Tenison)
Tenison quickly set off to check off items on his bucket list. That same month, he attended a space simulation camp at NASA’s Huntsville, Alabama facility.
The final push
But arranging the tank gunnery proved a bit trickier. After a promising lead to shoot with a 1st Armored Division unit at Fort Bliss, Texas, Tenison fell through the cracks after a change of command (and its follow-on personnel changes) derailed the process.
Even as his illness continued to progress, the former tanker didn’t give up. He took to Reddit’s Army community yet again on Oct. 29, 2023, with a final call for help.
“3 to 6 months left to live. That’s what my oncologist told me in September. I initially thought, ‘My issues are manageable, I’m feeling pretty good right now,’” Tenison posted. “Yeah...No. Not even two weeks later, my stomach cancer kicked it up a notch...I used to weigh 205, now I’m down to 140.”
He was direct.
“I’m not looking for sympathy here, I’m looking for help,” he said.
And it soon came, via a network of current and former figures in the armor community.
The unit that Tenison will join next week, Dean’s 1-16 Cavalry, is part of Col. Ryan T. Kranc’s 316th Cavalry Brigade. The units are responsible for all post-entry functional training for tankers and cavalry scouts, including the Abrams master gunner course.
According to Dean, Tenison’s last ride will begin on Monday afternoon in the simulator, where he’ll “meet with one of our master gunners … to get the rust off.” Then Tuesday afternoon, the veteran will suit up and ride one of the squadron’s tanks to a gunnery battle position, where he’ll shoot a series of offensive and defensive engagements.
The former tanker expressed enthusiasm about the arrangement, describing himself as “over the moon.” But just shooting isn’t enough — Tenison said he’s most excited that the unit will be keeping score for him, as they would for any other gunnery.
While he’s at the west Georgia post, Tenison will also speak with the 316th Cavalry’s trainers and entry trainees assigned to the 194th Armor Brigade, which handles initial training for tankers and cavalry scouts. Maneuver Center of Excellence spokesperson Amanda Surmeier added that the veteran will be honored as a member of the Order of St. George, an award presented by the armor branch’s professional association.
Dean said he wants his soldiers to hear Tenison’s story of post-Army success after an honorable four-year term and understand that “what they do here matters.”
For instructors, Dean explained, it can be “hard to see the fruits of that labor on a day-to-day basis.” But Tenison’s journey is a testament to the place the mounted community can have in an old soldier’s heart, he argued. “Knowing that you … made such an impact that they want to come back here in the amount of time they have left on this Earth to shoot a gunnery one last time — that shows you how special it can be.”
Tenison, for his part, hopes he can impart a “little bit of career advice [and] a little bit of perspective on life.” He wants to show those who enter the Army with a single-enlistment plan — like his from 2004 — that they can and should “aim for the moon, and land somewhere in between.”
The former tanker said he’s “pretty accepting” of his illness at this point. But whatever his final days may bring, he’ll be trained up and ready to meet it with 120 mm sabot — the “thunder of doom.”
A soldier from the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, prepares his M1A2 Abrams tank for a gunnery live fire exercise, Fort Hood, Texas, August 30, 2020. (Sgt. Calab Franklin/Army)
About Davis Winkie
Davis Winkie covers the Army for Military Times. He studied history at Vanderbilt and UNC-Chapel Hill, and served five years in the Army Guard. His investigations earned the Society of Professional Journalists' 2023 Sunshine Award and consecutive Military Reporters and Editors honors, among others. Davis was also a 2022 Livingston Awards finalist.
23. Students invent IV bag that doesn't rely on gravity. It could be game-changing at disaster sites.
All kinds of applications to include on the battlefield and in remote areas as well.
Kudos to these South Korean students.
Students invent IV bag that doesn't rely on gravity. It could be game-changing at disaster sites.
A team of students was presented with the James Dyson Award for their pathbreaking innovation in transporting IV fluids.
By Somdatta Maity
November 30, 2023
scoop.upworthy.com
Innovation is the norm for human society. Humans for thousands of years have advanced civilization using this strategy. One such development is now on the horizon from a team of South Korean students, reports Good News Network. This team is looking to improve the way IV fluids are administered to patients. Their inspiration for doing this came from witnessing the devastation that happened because of the Turkish-Syrian earthquakes in February 2023. The calamity brought with it 55,000 casualties, with a further 100,000 injured. During the rescue effort, medics were struggling to carry IV fluids to the victims. Seeing this, the team came up with the idea of consolidating the entire system into a bag to keep it clean and concise.
The team is associated with Hongik University in Seoul. According to Healthline, IV fluids need both power and gravity to work properly. It is important that the IV bag is kept in a certain position for it to properly travel through the wires into the body. In order to regulate the flow of the IV fluids, electricity is required. The team took care of both of these aspects and created an innovation that works irrespective of gravity and electricity.
They have named their innovation 'Golden Capsule'. Prior to making their idea a reality, the team interviewed many medical experts as per their interview with the James Dyson Award. They all confirmed that carrying IV fluid apparatus during a disaster was a huge hassle. The team communicated their idea to them and received a positive response. This encouraged them to work on it diligently so that they could make a difference. The device is non-powered and hands-free as it utilizes elastic forces and air pressure differences. The design would allow individuals to easily transport IV fluids to people in disasters. They wouldn't need to constantly hold it up or need electricity to alter the infusion rate of the fluid.
Representative Image Source: Pexels | cottonbro studio
“The team has identified the limitations of existing IV injection methods, which rely on gravity and electricity, in disaster zones. Their Golden Capsule offers a much more practical, hands-free solution using a pressurized bladder, which can be positioned anywhere, such as strapped to the patient’s side,” said Sir James Dyson, Founder and Chief Engineer at Dyson. “This slowly deflates, pressurizing the drip into the patient, leaving medics free to perform other life-saving work.”
via GIPHY
Certain members of the team wanted to personally be part of the project after suffering due to the inadequacies of the present IV apparatus. One of the members in the video described how her IV set-up was inconvenient during hospitalization. It restricted her movement and as a result, increased her irritability. The team's main objective now is to incorporate improvements into the prototype and collaborate with medical experts. They want to do everything to ensure the equipment's functionality in every situation. If everything goes well, they are going to begin mass production of the apparatus soon.
via GIPHY
The team's effort and commitment led to them being presented with the 2023 James Dyson Award. The James Dyson Award is given to individuals who bring forth new designs to solve problems plaguing humanity. It was evident that this award meant a lot to the team, as they seemed elated when their name was announced by Dyson in the video.
scoop.upworthy.com
24. Meta exposes foreign plot to divide AmericansMeta exposes foreign plot to divide Americans
Recognize our adversaries' strategy. Understand it. EXPOSE it. And attack it with a superior political warfare strategy.
A reminder about dividing us:
"A democracy is only as resilient as its people. An informed and engaged citizenry is the fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. For generations, our society has protected free press, free speech, and free thought. Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data. The American public and private sectors must recognize this and work together to defend our way of life. No external threat can be allowed to shake our shared commitment to our values, undermine our system of government, or divide our Nation."
Access NSS HERE
Meta exposes foreign plot to divide Americans
KTLA · by Associated Press · November 30, 2023
Someone in China created thousands of fake social media accounts designed to appear to be from Americans and used them to spread polarizing political content in an apparent effort to divide the U.S. ahead of next year’s elections, Meta said Thursday.
The network of nearly 4,800 fake accounts was attempting to build an audience when it was identified and eliminated by the tech company, which owns Facebook and Instagram. The accounts sported fake photos, names and locations as a way to appear like everyday American Facebook users weighing in on political issues.
Instead of spreading fake content as other networks have done, the accounts were used to reshare posts from X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, that were created by politicians, news outlets and others. The interconnected accounts pulled content from both liberal and conservative sources, an indication that its goal was not to support one side or the other but to exaggerate partisan divisions and further inflame polarization.
Facebook’s $725M settlement is huge, but how much will you actually get?
The newly identified network shows how America’s foreign adversaries exploit U.S.-based tech platforms to sow discord and distrust, and it hints at the serious threats posed by online disinformation next year, when national elections will occur in the U.S., India, Mexico, Ukraine, Pakistan, Taiwan and other nations.
“These networks still struggle to build audiences, but they’re a warning,” said Ben Nimmo, who leads investigations into inauthentic behavior on Meta’s platforms. “Foreign threat actors are attempting to reach people across the internet ahead of next year’s elections, and we need to remain alert.”
Meta Platforms Inc., based in Menlo Park, California, did not publicly link the Chinese network to the Chinese government, but it did determine the network originated in that country. The content spread by the accounts broadly complements other Chinese government propaganda and disinformation that has sought to inflate partisan and ideological divisions within the U.S.
Facebook’s Meta logo sign is seen at the company headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., on, Oct. 28, 2021. Officials at Meta say they have found and disabled a network of thousands of fake Facebook accounts linked to China that were used to spread partisan content in the U.S. The accounts disclosed on Nov. 30, 2023, were designed to look like they were run by everyday Americans. (AP Photo/Tony Avelar, File)
To appear more like normal Facebook accounts, the network would sometimes post about fashion or pets. Earlier this year, some of the accounts abruptly replaced their American-sounding user names and profile pictures with new ones suggesting they lived in India. The accounts then began spreading pro-Chinese content about Tibet and India, reflecting how fake networks can be redirected to focus on new targets.
Meta often points to its efforts to shut down fake social media networks as evidence of its commitment to protecting election integrity and democracy. But critics say the platform’s focus on fake accounts distracts from its failure to address its responsibility for the misinformation already on its site that has contributed to polarization and distrust.
For instance, Meta will accept paid advertisements on its site to claim the U.S. election in 2020 was rigged or stolen, amplifying the lies of former President Donald Trump and other Republicans whose claims about election irregularities have been repeatedly debunked. Federal and state election officials and Trump’s own attorney general have said there is no credible evidence that the presidential election, which Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden, was tainted.
When asked about its ad policy, the company said it is focusing on future elections, not ones from the past, and will reject ads that cast unfounded doubt on upcoming contests.
Is NameDrop really a privacy threat? The truth revealed
And while Meta has announced a new artificial intelligence policy that will require political ads to bear a disclaimer if they contain AI-generated content, the company has allowed other altered videos that were created using more conventional programs to remain on its platform, including a digitally edited video of Biden that claims he is a pedophile.
“This is a company that cannot be taken seriously and that cannot be trusted,” said Zamaan Qureshi, a policy adviser at the Real Facebook Oversight Board, an organization of civil rights leaders and tech experts who have been critical of Meta’s approach to disinformation and hate speech. “Watch what Meta does, not what they say.”
Meta executives discussed the network’s activities during a conference call with reporters on Wednesday, the day after the tech giant announced its policies for the upcoming election year — most of which were put in place for prior elections.
But 2024 poses new challenges, according to experts who study the link between social media and disinformation. Not only will many large countries hold national elections, but the emergence of sophisticated AI programs means it’s easier than ever to create lifelike audio and video that could mislead voters.
“Platforms still are not taking their role in the public sphere seriously,” said Jennifer Stromer-Galley, a Syracuse University professor who studies digital media.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg speaks about “News Tab” at the Paley Center, Oct. 25, 2019, in New York. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File)
Stromer-Galley called Meta’s election plans “modest” but noted it stands in stark contrast to the “Wild West” of X. Since buying the X platform, then called Twitter, Elon Musk has eliminated teams focused on content moderation, welcomed back many users previously banned for hate speech and used the site to spread conspiracy theories.
Democrats and Republicans have called for laws addressing algorithmic recommendations, misinformation, deepfakes and hate speech, but there’s little chance of any significant regulations passing ahead of the 2024 election. That means it will fall to the platforms to voluntarily police themselves.
Meta’s efforts to protect the election so far are “a horrible preview of what we can expect in 2024,” according to Kyle Morse, deputy executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, a nonprofit that supports new federal regulations for social media. “Congress and the administration need to act now to ensure that Meta, TikTok, Google, X, Rumble and other social media platforms are not actively aiding and abetting foreign and domestic actors who are openly undermining our democracy.”
Some major brands are giving up on Threads as engagement craters
Many of the fake accounts identified by Meta this week also had nearly identical accounts on X, where some of them regularly retweeted Musk’s posts.
Those accounts remain active on X. A message seeking comment from the platform was not returned.
Meta also released a report Wednesday evaluating the risk that foreign adversaries including Iran, China and Russia would use social media to interfere in elections. The report noted that Russia’s recent disinformation efforts have focused not on the U.S. but on its war against Ukraine, using state media propaganda and misinformation in an effort to undermine support for the invaded nation.
Nimmo, Meta’s chief investigator, said turning opinion against Ukraine will likely be the focus of any disinformation Russia seeks to inject into America’s political debate ahead of next year’s election.
“This is important ahead of 2024,” Nimmo said. “As the war continues, we should especially expect to see Russian attempts to target election-related debates and candidates that focus on support for Ukraine.”
Suggest a Correction
KTLA · by Associated Press · November 30, 2023
De Oppresso Liber,
David Maxwell
Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy
Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation
Editor, Small Wars Journal
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
Phone: 202-573-8647
email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com
| 
