|
Quotes of the Day:
"Wise men make more opportunities than they find."
- Francis Bacon
“Justice is benefiting friends and harming enemies.”
- Polemarchus, Plato’s Republic
"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you should feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction.
The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants."
- Bertrand Russell, An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish (1943)
1. How False Beliefs Propel Cultural Conflict
2. Partisans claim responsibility for setting fire to Russian base in occupied Crimea
3. Washington's Conventional War Strategy May Not Succeed If It Does Not Consider New Irregular Warfare Tactics.
4. Officials: Lockerbie bomb suspect is in US custody
5. Free for a month, Kherson still toils to clear Russian traps
6. In competition for talent, DOD needs to learn, adapt or be left behind
7. Taiwan pledges deeper Japan security cooperation as senior lawmaker visits
8. Rise of Open-Source Intelligence Tests U.S. Spies
9. Fierce claims to Crimea highlight slim chance of Russia-Ukraine peace deal
10. Taiwan mulls banning TikTok, accuses it of eroding public's confidence in government
11. US Army intel office plots AI development with Project Linchpin
12. China’s alliance with Saudi Arabia signals a shift in the global order
13. Rejection of plan for super-embassy a 'setback' for China's overseas operations
14. Opinion | Don’t Tell Your Non-Work Friends About the Decapitations
15. The Secret Washington Museum That Tourists Can’t Visit
16. America’s Allies Should Fear Abandonment
17. Washington's Conventional War Strategy May Not Succeed If It Does Not Consider New Irregular Warfare Tactics.
18. Jack McCain: Congress should keep our promises to our allies by passing the Afghan Adjustment Act
1. How False Beliefs Propel Cultural Conflict
My simple question is do you hate someone just because he or she is a member of the political party you oppose? And more specifically, do you believe the political party you oppose actively works against the interests, values, and Constitution of the U.S.?
Perhaps that is because of the information in this story.
This article is worth reflecting on this weekend.
How False Beliefs Propel Cultural Conflict
A new study shows the misguided futility of the history wars
By David French
https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/the-third-rail/639385a7b9e06100378c0e1e/democrat-republican-political-beliefs-culture/
DECEMBER 09, 2022
SHARE
A Pennsbury School District security guard observes a Pennsbury School Board meeting in Levittown, Pennsylvania on December 16, 2021 (Kylie Cooper / AFP / Getty Images)
The Third Rail examines the disputes that divide America. Sign up to get it in your inbox.
Sign Up For Free
Looking for a gift for the inquisitive people in your life? Give an Atlantic subscription this holiday season.
Are you a Democrat? Let me ask you a question: What percentage of Republicans believe “it’s important that every American student learn about slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation”? Let me follow up. What percentage of Republicans believe that “schools should teach both our shared national history and the history of specific groups such as Black, Hispanic and Native Americans”?
Are you a Republican? Let me ask you a question: What percentage of Democrats believe “all students should learn about how the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution advanced freedom and equality”? Let me follow up. What percentage of Democrats believe that when students learn about American history, they “should not be made to feel personally responsible for the actions of earlier generations”?
It might surprise you to know that Democrats and Republicans are wildly wrong in their assessments of their political opponents’ beliefs. Democrats estimate that only 32 percent of Republicans believe that students should learn about slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation. The real number is 83 percent. Democrats believe that only 30 percent of Republicans think schools should teach the history of specific groups. The real number is 72 percent.
Republicans believe that only 45 percent of Democrats think schools should teach how the Declaration and Constitution advanced freedom and equality. The real number is 92 percent. Republicans believe that only 43 percent of Democrats think students should not be made to feel personally responsible for the actions of past generations. The real number is 83 percent.
These giant “perception gaps” are the “most notable finding” in More in Common’s yearlong survey of American attitudes toward teaching history. The results are clear: “Both Democrats and Republicans alike grossly overestimate whether members of the opposing party hold extreme views.” On issue after issue, there is far more agreement than disagreement on even the most hot-button issues surrounding race, identity, and history.
This finding isn’t surprising. In previous surveys, More in Common found that Republicans and Democrats consistently believe their opponents are more extreme than they truly are on many of the most polarizing disputes in the culture wars, including matters related to race, police brutality, immigration, and gun violence.
These data match my experience. I’ve lived in both deep-blue and deep-red parts of America, I attend both progressive and conservative gatherings, and it’s clear to me that opposing Americans simply don’t understand one another. Differences between the groups are real, but they’re simply not as extreme as we believe.
Crucially, in these same surveys, Americans report holding highly negative views of their political opponents. For example, 75 percent of Republicans perceive Democrats as “brainwashed,” 73 percent believe Democrats are “hateful,” and 81 percent call Democrats “arrogant.” Similarly, 75 percent of Democrats think Republicans are brainwashed, 78 percent say Republicans are hateful, and 79 percent view Republicans as arrogant.
If you have deeply negative personal views of your opponents, I’d argue that you’re far more likely to believe the worst about them, including that they possess extremist ideologies.
Why are both sides so hostile and so wrong? Has a mass psychosis gripped the American people? I’d suggest that a key part of the answer can be found in the same survey I cited above. Although most Americans are in broad agreement, there are two groups that emphatically don’t agree with each other, and that also happen to be among the most politically engaged and politically active communities in America.
According to More in Common data, the most polarized “wings” of American politics consist of 14 percent of the population: the 8 percent of Americans who are “Progressive Activists” and the 6 percent who are “Devoted Conservatives.” Both groups are more than twice as likely as other Americans to view politics as a hobby, and they really disagree about key issues in teaching American history:
A full 97 percent of Progressive Activists agree the country needs to do more to acknowledge earlier wrongs, whereas just 9 percent of Devoted Conservatives agree. The wings are similarly divided as to whether “Lingering on the past prevents us from moving forward.” A full 94 percent of Devoted Conservatives but only 11 percent of Progressive Activists agree with this statement.
Combine this activist minority’s disproportionate commitment to politics with their disproportionate consumption of political media, and you can see how the narrative of deep difference takes hold. Political media is quite adept at feeding its activist audience the kind of content it craves—a tsunami of stories highlighting every extremist and every act of extremism they can find.
In right-leaning America, where I live, this means that social-media accounts such as “Libs of TikTok” have generated huge traffic in large part by combing through social media for the wildest examples of left-wing extremism (no matter how obscure) and pushing that content into right-wing Twitter feeds. Conservatives are thus exposed to a nonstop parade of progressive horribles and emerge believing that “the left” has lost its mind.
Indeed, More in Common’s data indicate that the more news Americans consume, “the larger their perception gap.”
But understanding the problem is not the same thing as solving the problem. So long as the “exhausted majority” of Americans continues to cede the public square to the most motivated, most extreme segments of the public, their toxicity will continue to leak into our attitudes. After all, although a minority of Americans pay close attention to the news, partisan animosity is still widespread. We believe we know what to think about our opponents because we’ve been told what to think by our most politically active peers.
Think of it like this: Every institution is ultimately defined by the members who care the most. In churches, there’s an old cliché that 20 percent of the congregation does roughly 80 percent of the work. Based on long experience, I think that’s wrong; it’s more like 10 percent of the congregation does 90 percent of the work. And who do you think the pastor listens to? Who do you think then defines the culture of the church? It’s the people who care. It’s always the people who care.
And so it is with the culture wars. Yes, Americans may rouse themselves to vote against extremists. For example, Trump’s cohort of election-denying loyalists faced defeat after defeat in swing states in 2022. Yet if the grassroots and the media class remain utterly captured by those same extremes, then it will be virtually impossible to improve American political culture. As soon as the sting of the immediate defeat fades, the activists rise again and dominate the political conversation until the next election—until the next chance for average Americans to make their voices heard.
Although understanding the problem doesn’t solve it, it should encourage Americans to know that many of our political and cultural differences are, in fact, overblown. There is a broad degree of consensus over some (but certainly not all) of the most contentious topics in politics. And perhaps when you know that your fellow citizens are not as extreme as you fear, you’ll feel just a bit more warmth for those who vote red or blue.
But that’s just a start. If there exists a majority consensus, there must also exist a majority will. Americans who long for social peace can’t be passive. They must demonstrate the courage to rouse themselves, absorb the slings and arrows of the angry wings, and seek the agreements that are within their reach.
2. Partisans claim responsibility for setting fire to Russian base in occupied Crimea
As you read this watch/listen to Kyiv Calling here on the Free Ukraine - Resistance Channel:
"Beton - Kyiv Calling (official cover version of London Calling by The Clash)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWQUkRKqp2E
Partisans claim responsibility for setting fire to Russian base in occupied Crimea
ukrinform.net
"The base of the mobilized Russian army in the village of Radianskyi in Ukrainian Crimea is on fire. Our agents worked accurately. We worked on this project for a long time and, of course, we made it. We will continue to destroy the Russian army from the inside," the movement posted on its Telegram channel.
They also reported casualties among Russian personnel and promised to reveal more information soon.
The fire broke out at night on December 10-11.
MP of Ukraine Refat Chubarov wrote on his Telegram channel that Russian mobilized personnel mainly from the Altai Territory and Buryatia lived there.
They were drunk and then smoked in the right place, causing the fire.
ol
ukrinform.net
3. Washington's Conventional War Strategy May Not Succeed If It Does Not Consider New Irregular Warfare Tactics.
Well here is a thesis that will not go over well among some in the defense and national security communities. Discuss among yourselves.
Excerpts
However, the Western leadership and its defense experts continue to defect today by failing to understand that “competition and strategic superiority are won through irregular warfare,” which is still a dangerous misjudgment if potential players of a war in Taiwan perceive the confrontation as a conventional war and apparently seek to recreate the Battle of Midway in the Taiwan Strait, but with Ford and F-35 class aircraft carriers. The current problem is that if there is a conflict there, it would probably go nuclear in a few hours or days, Putin is disowned by many in the international community for his bombing of civilians but Xi Jinping can be much more complicated than the Russian leader in a critical situation, hence planning a prolonged conventional war in a potential conflict between China and Taiwan is not knowing the contenders and an absolute fantasy.
...
The creation of the Center for Security Studies for Irregular War by the US Congress is a success in terms of National Defense, even more so considering that it has been a topic that was not entirely clear in the Biden administration that, even in 2 years of management still does not show a complete and defined plan of its Defense Strategy. The center is a good tool and will be very useful in providing answers and unifying criteria between the US political leadership and US partner countries, and to the extent that it does its job well it will be able to improve not only the understanding of irregular wars but also the most importantly, the response capabilities to confront them. After all, irregular warfare requires more brains than firepower and demands much more intellectual effort than a charge of infantry or mechanized cavalry, and if not, let Russian troops say so from their experience in the Ukraine.
Washington's Conventional War Strategy May Not Succeed If It Does Not Consider New Irregular Warfare Tactics. - Globe Live Media
Posted by
by
Melissa Galbraith
December 10, 2022
Last Updated:
December 10, 2022
globelivemedia.com · December 10, 2022
The Department of Defense is preparing for a war with China that looks like World War II but with better technology, the problem is that such an investment will not be relevant in an unlikely scenario since Xi Jinping will not invade Taiwan, at least not. will putin style in ukraine
Pentagon military chiefs have convened senior retired officers and think tanks who work closely with defense and security advisers in Washington. Its mission is the elaboration of a plan that contains a broad military strategy capable of confronting and defeating a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
Putin’s not-so-surprise invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 did not take the United States or NATO by surprise, the information that this could happen was known to Washington and its partners, and all the elements were in place for it to happen. that military operation was carried out by Russia. However, the Biden administration believes that the reaction against the Kremlin could have been better and more complete in different aspects.
From that experience, the Pentagon-led Global Defense project directed its think tanks to focus on the task of developing evidence-based strategies and concrete tests for the behaviors of potential opponents such as China and North Korea. It is in this direction that the Department of Defense must study and present a comprehensive program with alternatives on how to prevail against China, Russia and other potential opponents in a “strategic contest” in case the crisis between Beijing and Taipei escalates and becomes in a real war.
However, it may be that the administration of President Joe Biden is misfocusing its good intentions, for example, to protect Taiwan and this is where the problem arises since a large-scale Chinese military operation is unlikely to happen, Xi Jinping will not invade, at least it won’t do it Putin-style in Ukraine, so if President Biden is basing his request to the Department of Defense on the Ukrainian experience, he could be drawing the wrong lesson, even more so if he does so with a similar military scenario in mind, since that won’t happen.
Since the Russian attack on Ukrainian territory, all actions and reactions, both political and military, have at all times considered the lessons learned from the Cold War, all parties know that the confrontation between the great nuclear powers puts the planet at risk in the face of what inexorably it would be a Third World War, for this reason the United States and the other NATO powers avoided placing their troops directly on the terrain of the conflict.
It is clear that the very nature of war is its escalation and no one wanted another 1914 Sarajevo in the 21st century, even less with nuclear arsenals and tactical weapons available to potential contenders in the conflict. After the fall of the former USSR, both sides maintained large conventional forces and their nuclear arsenals as deterrents, but the real fighting was carried out through irregular warfare, such as asymmetric warfare and various conflicts for political power. For these reasons, Special Forces of the US Army and Navy were created and we learned about the advances in the arms industry, how the Stinger missiles that in the years of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan showed the vulnerability of the ex-USSR forces, in the same way as the Javelin anti-tank missiles that today are the devastating response to the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation.
However, the Western leadership and its defense experts continue to defect today by failing to understand that “competition and strategic superiority are won through irregular warfare,” which is still a dangerous misjudgment if potential players of a war in Taiwan perceive the confrontation as a conventional war and apparently seek to recreate the Battle of Midway in the Taiwan Strait, but with Ford and F-35 class aircraft carriers. The current problem is that if there is a conflict there, it would probably go nuclear in a few hours or days, Putin is disowned by many in the international community for his bombing of civilians but Xi Jinping can be much more complicated than the Russian leader in a critical situation, hence planning a prolonged conventional war in a potential conflict between China and Taiwan is not knowing the contenders and an absolute fantasy.
Defense policy experts advise decision makers to expand the defense budget, Washington contemplates for the year 2023 a defense availability of between 750 to 800 billion dollars, Pentagon sources unofficially indicated that an overwhelming number is being carried out conventional warfare weapons (such as fighter jets and navy ships) while ignoring irregular warfare capabilities. The budget for the United States Special Operations Command, which oversees all American special operators in all parts of the world, is 80% of the cost of one aircraft carrier and the Biden administration has ordered the construction of three at a rate of 13 billion dollars per ship and plans to build two more. Budgets are economic documents but also moral and unalterable and they do not lie. The Department of Defense is preparing for a war with China that looks like World War II but with better technology, the problem is that such an investment will not be relevant in an unlikely scenario.
However, there is a growing discrepancy of US politicians belonging to the Republican party and identified with former President Donald Trump who have prestige and ancestry within the armed forces. The United States is not a third world country, it is not a Latin American or African nation. In Washington, the democratic system is observed and strictly respected by politicians and the military, there is no possibility of interpreting a boycott of your own country as it often happens in other underdeveloped nations. US politics and the armed forces work subservient to its constitution and every amendment to it is strictly respected. However, critics seeking to reinvigorate its irregular warfare capabilities are often rejected by liberal politicians. They demonstrate against the special operations groups, they don’t like kicking in doors and hunting down terrorists, although the very governments that have criticized them have used these tactics and operations more than once. Yet that is a small but inevitable part of what defines irregular warfare, and it is also what has been demanded of not a few irregular combatants over the past 20 years. Hence, as several senior Pentagon officials – who should be listened to by the Biden administration – understand, Washington needs a different combat forecasting strategy that goes beyond war games in the living room to face the challenges of conflicts. modern.
The creation of the Center for Security Studies for Irregular War by the US Congress is a success in terms of National Defense, even more so considering that it has been a topic that was not entirely clear in the Biden administration that, even in 2 years of management still does not show a complete and defined plan of its Defense Strategy. The center is a good tool and will be very useful in providing answers and unifying criteria between the US political leadership and US partner countries, and to the extent that it does its job well it will be able to improve not only the understanding of irregular wars but also the most importantly, the response capabilities to confront them. After all, irregular warfare requires more brains than firepower and demands much more intellectual effort than a charge of infantry or mechanized cavalry, and if not, let Russian troops say so from their experience in the Ukraine.
globelivemedia.com · December 10, 2022
4. Officials: Lockerbie bomb suspect is in US custody
Officials: Lockerbie bomb suspect is in US custody
AP · December 11, 2022
LONDON (AP) — U.S. and Scottish authorities said Sunday that the Libyan man suspected of making the bomb that destroyed a passenger plane over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 is in U.S. custody.
Scotland’s Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said in a statement that “the families of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing have been told that the suspect Abu Agela Mas’ud Kheir Al-Marimi is in U.S. custody.”
The U.S. Justice Department confirmed the information, adding that “he is expected to make his initial appearance in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.” It gave no information on how Mas’ud came to be in U.S. custody.
Pan Am flight 103, traveling from London to New York, exploded over Lockerbie on Dec. 21, 1988, killing all 259 people aboard the plane and another 11 on the ground. It remains the deadliest terror attack on British soil.
The U.S. Justice Department announced new charges against Mas’ud in December 2020, on the 32nd anniversary of the bombing.
ADVERTISEMENT
“At long last, this man responsible for killing Americans and many others will be subject to justice for his crimes,” William Barr, the attorney general at the time, said at a news conference.
In 2001, former Libyan intelligence officer Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted of bombing the flight. He is to date the only person convicted over the attack. He lost one appeal and abandoned another before being freed in 2009 on compassionate grounds because he was terminally ill with cancer.
Free for a month, Kherson still toils to clear Russian traps
Rescuers find no more survivors at scene of Jersey fire
'I'll kill you all': Man kills 3 in Rome condo board meeting
Russia grinds on in eastern Ukraine; Bakhmut 'destroyed'
He died in Libya in 2012, still protesting his innocence.
A breakthrough in the investigation came when U.S. officials in 2017 received a copy of an interview that Mas’ud, a longtime explosives expert for Libya’s intelligence service, had given to Libyan law enforcement in 2012 after being taken into custody following the collapse of the regime of the country’s leader, Col. Moammar Gadhafi.
In that interview, U.S. officials said, Mas’ud admitted building the bomb in the Pan Am attack and working with two other conspirators to carry it out. He also said the operation was ordered by Libyan intelligence and that Gadhafi thanked him and other members of the team after the attack, according to an FBI affidavit filed in the case.
ADVERTISEMENT
While Mas’ud is now the third Libyan intelligence official charged in the U.S. in connection with the Lockerbie bombing, he would be the first to stand trial in an American courtroom.
The Crown Office in its statement added that “Scottish prosecutors and police, working with U.K. government and U.S. colleagues, will continue to pursue this investigation, with the sole aim of bringing those who acted along with al-Megrahi to justice.”
AP · December 11, 2022
5. Free for a month, Kherson still toils to clear Russian traps
Free for a month, Kherson still toils to clear Russian traps
AP · by INNA VARENYTSIA and JAMEY KEATEN · December 11, 2022
KHERSON, Ukraine (AP) — A hand grenade jerry-rigged into the detergent tray of a Kherson home’s washing machine. A street sign maliciously directing passers-by toward a deadly minefield. A police station that allegedly housed a torture chamber but remains so booby-trapped that demining crews can’t even start to hunt for evidence.
Sunday marks exactly one month since Russia’s troops withdrew from Kherson and its vicinity after an eight-month occupation, sparking jubilation across Ukraine. But life in the southern city is still very far from normal.
The departing Russians left behind all sorts of ugly surprises, and their artillery continues to batter the city from new, dug-in positions across the Dnieper River. The regional administration said Saturday that shelling over the past month has killed 41 people, including a child, in Kherson, and 96 were hospitalized.
Residents’ access to electricity still comes and goes, although water is largely connected, and indoor heating has only very recently been restored — and only to about 70-80% of the city — after the Russians last month blew up a giant central heating station that served much of the city.
ADVERTISEMENT
For authorities and citizens, sifting through the countless headaches and hazards left behind by the Russians, and bracing for new ones, is a daily chore.
Putin says Russia could adopt US preemptive strike concept
Iran’s currency falls further against the dollar amid unrest
Nobel Peace Prize winners blast Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Russia grinds on in eastern Ukraine; Bakhmut 'destroyed'
On Friday alone, according to the local affiliate of public broadcaster Suspilne, Russian forces shelled the region 68 times with mortars, artillery, tank and rocket fire. Meanwhile, in the last month, a total of 5,500 people have taken evacuation trains out, and work crews have cleared 190 kilometers (115 miles) of road, Suspilne reported.
When aid trucks arrived a month ago, war-weary and desperate residents flocked to the central Svoboda (Freedom) Square for food and supplies. But after a Russian strike on the square as a line of people queued to enter a bank in late November, such large gatherings have become less common and aid is doled out from smaller, more discreet distribution points.
Regional officials say some 80% of Kherson’s pre-war population of about 320,000 fled after the Russians moved in, days after their invasion began on Feb. 24. With some 60,000-70,000 residents remaining, the city now has a feel of a ghost town. Those who remain mostly keep indoors because they’re cautious about making forays into the streets.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Life is getting back to normal, but there is a lot of shelling,” said Valentyna Kytaiska, 56, who lives in the nearby village of Chornobaivka. She lamented the nightly “Bam! Bam!” and the unsettling uncertainty of where the Russian ordnance may land.
Normal is a relative term for a country at war. There’s no telling whether what Russia insists on calling a “special military operation” will end in days, weeks, months or even years.
In the meantime, painstaking efforts go on to establish a better sense of normalcy, like clearing the mess and mines left behind by the Russians, in tough wintertime weather.
“The difficulties are very simple, it’s the weather conditions,” said one military demining squad member, who goes by the nom de guerre of Tekhnik. He said some of their equipment simply doesn’t work in frost conditions “because the soil is frozen like concrete.”
ADVERTISEMENT
The deployment of additional teams could help ease the heavy workload, he said. “To give you an idea, during the month of our work, we found and removed several tons of mines,” said Tekhnik, adding that they focused only on about 10 square kilometers (about 4 square miles).
In Kherson’s Beryslavskyi district, a main road was blocked off with a sign reading “Mines Ahead” and rerouting passersby to a smaller road. In fact, it was that side road which was mined, and cost the lives of some military deminers. A few weeks later, four police officers were also killed there, including the police chief from the northern city of Chernihiv, who had come down to help Kherson regain its footing.
The general state of disrepair of weather-beaten roads helped the outgoing Russians disguise their deadly traps: Potholes, some covered with soil, provided a convenient place to lay mines. Sometimes, the Russians cut into the asphalt to make holes themselves.
ADVERTISEMENT
Demining squads go slowly house-to-house to ensure it’s safe for owners or previous residents to return. Experts say a single home can take up to three days to be cleared.
One crew turned up a hand grenade in one house, stuffed into a a washing machine — the pin placed in such a way that opening the detergent tray would set off an explosion.
The city’s main police station, where detainees were reportedly tortured, is packed with explosives. When demining squads tried to work their way in, part of the building exploded — so they’ve shelved the project for now.
Longer term questions remain: Kherson sits in an agricultural region that produces crops as diverse as wheat, tomatoes, and watermelon — a regional symbol. The fields are so heavily mined that about 30% of arable land in the region is unlikely to be planted in the spring, Technik the deminer said. A cursory look reveals the tops of anti-tank mines poking up in the fields.
ADVERTISEMENT
Even so, after a night of shelling from Friday evening into Saturday, Kherson resident Oleksandr Chebotariov said life had been even worse under the Russians for himself, his wife and 3-year-old daughter.
“It’s easier to breathe now,” the 35-year-old radiologist said — only to add: “If the banging doesn’t stop before the New Year, I’m going on vacation.”
___
Keaten reported from Kyiv, Ukraine. Evgeniy Maloletka in Kherson, Ukraine, contributed to this report.
___
Follow AP’s coverage of the war in Ukraine: https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine
AP · by INNA VARENYTSIA and JAMEY KEATEN · December 11, 2022
6. In competition for talent, DOD needs to learn, adapt or be left behind
In competition for talent, DOD needs to learn, adapt or be left behind
militarytimes.com · by Col. Chris Karns · December 10, 2022
Competition for talent remains fierce. Businesses — be they locally owned, nonprofits or industry juggernauts — are competing for talent. The military’s recruiting apparatus is working overtime in its efforts to recruit talent. The problem is the private sector has the position of advantage. They own the high ground, if you will — especially in the fervent push to recruit a viable, civilian workforce in the defense industry.
Bottom line up front: If we fail to accelerate change, the Department of Defense will certainly lose out on talent. The continuity and expertise required for mission advancement and sustainment will at best atrophy and at worst evaporate. Foundational services and support will suffer. Readiness will erode. Morale will decline.
Today’s private-sector business models outpace archaic DoD hiring practices, creating barriers to deliver talent swiftly and efficiently. The agility to win or maintain a competitive advantage in the hiring arena requires change, starting with efforts to recruit and retain government civilians.
The entry portal to the federal employee hiring market is a glaring barrier.
The stated mission of USAJobs.gov is to connect job seekers with federal employment opportunities across the United States and around the world. But to be blunt, the site makes myEval look efficient. It’s branded poorly and people without a DoD background have no idea what USAJobs is. Once on the site, the application process is abysmal, driving people in some cases to submit 10-plus page resumes and additional documents. In effect, it is a system handing employees to the outside world on a silver platter. Those who manage to break through, face a test in patience and additional shortcomings of bureaucracy to include delayed job notifications. From the application process to onboarding employees, in most cases, it takes upwards of six months to deliver a teammate to government service.
This hiring system is unacceptable, especially in the face of immediate need.
It would be great if the service chiefs of staff, Congress and other senior officials could go into USAJobs, apply for a job under a different name, test the system, and see how they fare.
In addition to the cumbersome hiring process, there is a policy severely hampering the prospect of retaining top talent: the waiting period. Many military personnel who depart military service are required to wait for six months before they are allowed to serve as a federal civilian employee.
The question many ask, and rightfully so, is “Why?”
When the federal government is faced with challenges to successfully recruit talented people, the need for a 180-day “cooling off” period should be questioned. If this time gap cannot be closed more rapidly, the DoD will continue to lose critical talent to those agencies and businesses able to hire the next day — and without unnecessary restrictions or hurdles. At some remote and northern tier locations, retired military personnel are a primary talent pool for filling federal civilian employee responsibilities.
Despite a need for change and increased flexibility, the status quo remains firmly intact. Talented, experienced people take their skill sets to the private sector. Why? We cannot expect different results from the same processes proven to be cumbersome and ineffectual. We get what we tolerate.
In addition to a USAJobs hiring process revamp, additional changes are required to attract civilian talent to the DoD work force:
Advertising
We need to gear marketing efforts toward recruiting people for civilian positions, not just filling the military ranks. Many people erroneously believe you must wear the uniform to serve. National defense industry recruiting campaigns specifically target uniform-wearing service members, not the civilian work force. This needs to change, especially at certain harder-to-fill locations.
For example, in remote areas, such as Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana, talent pools are considerably smaller than bases near major cities. With a population of 60,000 people, Great Falls is hours away from the next city. In a state whose population is barely over 1 million, the self-imposed delay to consider recently retired military members immediately significantly impacts Malmstrom Air Force Base and other similar locations where the experienced workforce pool is limited.
Recognizing the urgency surrounding the need to inspire, recruit and retain civilian talent, we have partnered with local education institutions and the Great Falls Area Chamber of Commerce to take a long-term view on what the base of the future will face as the installation prepares for the arrival of the LGM-35A Sentinel weapon system.
We are strengthening partnerships and pioneering new hiring programs, such as joining forces to forge Malmstrom Works on base, and supporting the chamber’s dedicated workforce development initiative called Central Montana Works!. We have taken both a long-term-and short-term approach to attracting talent, supporting the latter’s Worlds of Work career-exploration event targeting students in hopes they will see a future of service as a uniformed service member or DoD civilian by interacting with our airmen and gaining exposure to mission sets; however, more is required. Nurturing young talent who seek to remain near their hometowns and serve our nation in something other than direct military service is a must.
Skillbridge revamp
Skillbridge is an incredible program. It responsibly transitions military members into the civilian world; however, it is rather shortsighted in being primarily corporate focused. DoD should be able to benefit from Skillbridge as well. Why not adjust Skillbridge to enable military members to “intern” at federal employment sites where additional manpower is required, or at locations where members might see themselves settling down in retirement?
The program provides sustained experience and potentially retains talent in areas of need. Flexibility here can be particularly helpful in hard-to-recruit areas.
More competitive pay
Prior to last year’s mandatory bump in pay to a minimum of $15, the federal government team that conducted the wage survey, gave Non-Appropriated Fund employees a 41- to 61-cent raise. These are people charged with many of our support services, to include childcare. We must do better.
The DoD invests considerably in certain occupations (pilot retention and bonuses), yet despite highlighting the significance of areas such as cyber, pay bands languish behind civilian competitors in competitive wages.
Without increased locality pay, added local incentives and accelerated promotion at northern tier and remote locations, we leave ourselves susceptible long term to inadequately supporting a nuclear-capable mission set relying on effective command and control, and one benefitting from enhanced cyber defense. The cyber realm is just one area of significant shortfall. Trade professions such as electricians, plumbers, roofers and concrete workers continue to be in high demand. These skilled tradesmen will be difficult to find locally once the Sentinel buildup is upon us, as the allure of increased pay and the esteem of working on a national security-related program promise to poach existing talent from area businesses.
Make adjustment to key areas
Increase the number of Appropriated Fund positions for our childcare providers, because it can help recruit and retain people while sustaining quality of life, services and support. The Air Force has developed a few needed initiatives to recruit talent; however, more needs to be done. The business model best able to figure out childcare will win over talent. With this endeavor in mind, we partnered with the Great Falls Public Schools’ superintendent to establish a pilot transitional-kindergarten program and plan a launch of an internship program at the Child Development Center to help alleviate childcare issues and bolster education.
We talk all the time about modernization of weapon systems and aircraft, but we remain stuck in accepting stale ways of recruiting and retaining people — especially our civilians.
If we do not accelerate change in our hiring and recruiting practices, it will prove to be a case of too little, too late. Missions and people will suffer, especially in smaller markets supporting critical mission sets. There is only so much that can be done at the local level for areas in need of congressional and DoD-level support. The time has come to start implementing change. The time to help is now.
Col. Chris Karns is the 341st Mission Support Group commander at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. government, Department of Defense or U.S. Armed Forces.
7. Taiwan pledges deeper Japan security cooperation as senior lawmaker visits
Taiwan pledges deeper Japan security cooperation as senior lawmaker visits
Reuters · by Reuters
TAIPEI, Dec 10 (Reuters) - Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen pledged on Saturday to deepen security cooperation with Japan to ensure freedom in the Indo-Pacific, during a meeting with a senior member of Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).
Although Japan and Chinese-claimed and democratically governed Taiwan do not have formal diplomatic ties, they have close unofficial relations and both share concerns about China, especially its increased military activities near them.
Meeting in the presidential office in Taipei, Tsai thanked Koichi Hagiuda, the LDP's policy chief, for Japan's support over issues like maintaining security in the sensitive Taiwan Strait.
"We have seen in recent years Taiwan-Japan relations have become ever closer," she said.
"In the future, Taiwan will continue to deepen cooperation with Japan in various fields such as security and work together to ensure the freedom, openness and stability of the Indo-Pacific region."
Hagiuda said Taiwan was a good friend with shared values.
"Taiwan is an extremely important partner and a valued friend of Japan, with whom Japan shares fundamental values such as liberal democracy, basic human rights, and the rule of law, as well as close economic relations and personal exchanges," he said.
"In this context, our help and cooperation with one another has built up over time."
Hagiuda is in Taipei to attend a Sunday forum about Taiwan-Japan relations, and he told Tsai he will also pay his respects at the grave of former President Lee Teng-hui.
The Japan-educated Lee, who died two years ago, was dubbed "Mr. Democracy" for burying autocratic rule in favour of freewheeling pluralism in Taiwan.
Japan has watched with growing concern China's belligerence towards Taiwan as Beijing seeks to assert its sovereignty claims over the island.
China staged military drills near Taiwan in August to express anger at a visit to Taipei by then-U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, including launching five missiles into the sea close to Okinawa, within Japan's exclusive economic zone.
Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Additional reporting by Rocky Swift in Tokyo; Editing by Himani Sarkar
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Reuters · by Reuters
8. Rise of Open-Source Intelligence Tests U.S. Spies
Hmmm... is this really likely? Sure private companies can compete in this space and with the growth of advanced technology they can do it better and better. And what if more "intelligence insight" are generated from open source information and private companies? If we can benefit from that and exploit that information what is the drawback? Is this a "not invented here" problem? Private intelligence companies can be another source of information to consider in analysis by the IC. Then there is the caveat you get what you pay for. WIll private intelligence companies really be able to provide what decision makers need?
Excerpt:
And the $90 billion U.S. intelligence community could see its role diminished, as private companies generate more intelligence insights that a U.S. president and his top advisers would want to know.
Rise of Open-Source Intelligence Tests U.S. Spies
China outpaces efforts by U.S. intelligence agencies to harness power of publicly available data
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rise-of-open-source-intelligence-tests-u-s-spies-11670710806?mod=hp_lead_pos5
By Warren P. StrobelFollow
Dec. 11, 2022 9:00 am ET
WASHINGTON—As Russian troops surged toward Ukraine’s border last fall, a small Western intelligence unit swung into action, tracking signs Moscow was preparing to invade. It drew up escape routes for its people and wrote twice-daily intelligence reports.
The unit drafted and sent to its leaders an assessment on Feb. 16, 2022, that would be eerily prescient: Russia, it said, would likely invade Ukraine on Feb. 23, U.S. East Coast time.
The intelligence shop had just eight analysts and used only publicly available information, not spy satellites and secret agents. It belonged to multinational chemicals company Dow Inc., not to any government.
NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
What’s News
Catch up on the headlines, understand the news and make better decisions, free in your inbox every day.
Preview
Subscribe
“I’m leading an intelligence center that accurately predicted the invasion of Ukraine without any access to sensitive sources,” said John Robert, Dow’s director of global intelligence and protection, whose unit helps the company manage business risk and employee safety.
Supercharged by the Ukraine war, the rise of open-source intelligence, or OSINT, which comprises everything from commercial satellite imagery to social-media posts and purchasable databases, poses revolutionary challenges for the Central Intelligence Agency and its sister spy agencies, according to former senior officials who spent decades working in those agencies’ classified spaces.
Dow is just one of a fast-growing number of companies, nonprofit groups and countries transforming publicly available data into intelligence for strategic and economic advantage. China has the largest, most focused effort, while U.S. spy agencies, with deeply ingrained habits of operating in the shadows, have been slow to adapt to a world in which much of what is important isn’t secret, according to dozens of officials and many studies.
The CIA is simultaneously dealing with a closely related challenge: It is pivoting from two decades focused on terrorism toward spying on a new primary intelligence target, China. But some officials say the technological tsunami facing U.S. intelligence agencies poses a more fundamental challenge than merely swapping priorities.
The CIA needs to give priority to sifting through troves of open-source data, especially as China has some 100,000 analysts dedicated to the task.
PHOTO: EVELYN HOCKSTEIN/REUTERS
“The agency is used to running this way and that, depending on what the demand of the day is,” said Paul Kolbe, a former CIA officer who directs the Intelligence Project at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center. But the growing dominance of open-source data represents a uniquely difficult test, particularly for the CIA, he said.
There will always be some tasks only secretive agencies with classified data and covert human sources can do, current and former officials say. The CIA obtained elements of Russian President Vladimir Putin‘s war plan for invading Ukraine, and warned U.S. allies in Kyiv. At the end of July, it tracked and killed al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, ending a 21-year hunt.
But by some estimates, more than 80% of what a U.S. president or military commander needs to know comes from OSINT, and not from foreign agents, spy satellites or expensive eavesdropping platforms.
That means, officials said, that the CIA and other agencies need to give priority to vetting and sifting through troves of OSINT that ranges from YouTube videos to publicly posted genetic databases—or else risk missing the next threat or looming global crisis. And they need to do so faster than U.S. rivals, principally China.
Threats to U.S. security are considerable and growing, according to interviews with many officials and numerous studies.
U.S. intelligence agencies could miss signs of the next global pandemic that are hiding in plain sight. China could leap ahead on technologies such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence while using public data to identify U.S. intelligence officers.
And the $90 billion U.S. intelligence community could see its role diminished, as private companies generate more intelligence insights that a U.S. president and his top advisers would want to know.
CIA Director William Burns last year set up new agency units focused on China.
PHOTO: DREW ANGERER/GETTY IMAGES
The nonprofit C4ADS used shipping databases, satellite imagery, property records and other public data to trace the source of Russian GPS “spoofing” that disguised Russian ships’ locations to a defense facility near one of Mr. Putin’s dachas, according to a November presentation at the Harvard Intelligence Project. A U.K. firm, 3AI, used artificial intelligence and public information to estimate the cost to Russian companies of the Ukraine war and subsequent economic sanctions at $372 billion—50% larger than indicated by stock markets and equity researchers. Bellingcat, the investigative website, used phone and travel data to identify three operatives from Moscow’s FSB intelligence service it said attempted to kill Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny.
“I don’t worry about the [intelligence community] going away. I worry about it mattering,” said Robert Cardillo, who served in several senior U.S. intelligence roles. Government policy makers, he said, could rely less on traditional intelligence briefings and more on open-source products, which are generally cheaper and easier to access. “I worry about customers voting with their mouse click.”
A congressionally mandated report on OSINT, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, found that the U.S. government is already behind China and other competitors.
Adversaries’ use of publicly available data “outpaces ours to fully harness the power of OSINT for National Security needs,” said the report, completed in February by MITRE, a federally funded, nonprofit research organization. It hasn’t been made public.
China puts a premium on OSINT and has an estimated 100,000 analysts tasked with scouring scientific and technical developments globally, mostly in the U.S., according to research by William Hannas of Georgetown University. The system for gathering such intelligence is centrally directed but “functions at all levels in separate but interlocking organizations,” Mr. Hannas and Huey-Meei Chang wrote in a 2021 paper.
“We don’t have a comparable effort,” said Jason Matheny, former head of the U.S. Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity and the president of Rand Corp., also a federally funded research organization. “It really is an immense enterprise in China.”
Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines has commissioned studies on how U.S. intelligence should handle open-source data.
PHOTO: ROD LAMKEY/ZUMA PRESS
Beijing’s authoritarian rulers don’t face legal and ethical quandaries that U.S. and European spy agencies confront when sifting through public information that might contain individuals’ private data, according to the officials and studies.
Senior U.S. intelligence officials say they recognize the challenges and are making significant changes. CIA Director William Burns gave higher priority to accelerated outreach to the private sector and academia, after an internal review he had ordered found the agency wasn’t capitalizing on such partnerships. Last year, Mr. Burns established new agency units focused on China and on technology and transnational threats. He frequently notes that nearly a third of the CIA’s employees work in technology, science and related fields.
Analysts generally praise Mr. Burns and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines for attempting to reorient the huge U.S. intelligence apparatus. But OSINT initiatives remain disjointed, underfunded and underprioritized, according to the officials and studies.
“It’s not as if we’re not using it,” said retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley, former director of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency. “We can’t do this at scale because it’s not funded.”
At the CIA, efforts to give OSINT a more central role have repeatedly been stymied by a culture that has necessarily revolved around highly classified information and secret operations, according to former agency officials and others.
Culture change “is happening, but it’s happening slowly” in the U.S. intelligence community, said Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Meanwhile, “the world is moving at lightning speed.”
U.S. intelligence officials “have a significant bias against the use of open-source intelligence,” said the MITRE report, while pointedly noting that the limited changes so far aren’t enough.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
What should be the priorities of the CIA? Join the conversation below.
In a recent LinkedIn post, Jennifer Ewbank, the CIA’s deputy director for digital innovation, said that the agency’s Open Source Enterprise, which she oversees, “has undergone a dramatic transformation in recent years” and that publicly available information will be the agency’s initial go-to intelligence source in the near future.
In interviews, senior intelligence officials said the CIA is integrating OSINT more into its analysis and operations on China and other topics. Used correctly, they said, it will enable the agency to focus spies, satellites and other intelligence-gathering tools on what is truly secret, such as the hidden intentions of foreign adversaries.
One official cautioned that U.S. intelligence can’t simply take OSINT products from outsiders and feed them into analysis destined for the White House or other government agencies. It must first vet the sourcing and methodology.
Yet basic questions, including which agency should take the lead on OSINT—or whether a new agency should be created—are unsettled.
Ms. Haines has commissioned a series of studies on how U.S. intelligence should handle open-source data, including where the effort should be centered, officials said. No final decisions have been announced.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence “is working to position the intelligence community to most effectively leverage open-source intelligence, a valuable and increasingly critical component of our national-security mission,” said spokeswoman Nicole de Haay.
Byron Tau contributed to this article.
Write to Warren P. Strobel at Warren.Strobel@wsj.com
9. Fierce claims to Crimea highlight slim chance of Russia-Ukraine peace deal
Then what happens when Ukraine begins the offensive to retake Crimea?
Fierce claims to Crimea highlight slim chance of Russia-Ukraine peace deal
The Washington Post · by Francesca Ebel · December 11, 2022
After nine months of death and destruction, the key to Russia’s war against Ukraine lies in the craggy, sea-swept peninsula of Crimea — with its limestone plateaus and rows of poplar trees — which Russia illegally annexed in 2014.
It was in Crimea in February 2014, not February 2022, that Russia’s invasion and occupation of Ukraine began. And Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky insists that only by retaking Crimea will the war end, with Ukraine defeating its Russian invaders.
“Its return will mean the restoration of true peace,” Zelensky declared in October. “The Russian potential for aggression will be completely destroyed when the Ukrainian flag will be back in its rightful place — in the cities and villages of Crimea.”
But for Russian President Vladimir Putin, the annexation of Crimea has become a pillar of his legacy, which would crumble if he loses the peninsula. Putin has indicated that any effort by Ukraine to retake Crimea would cross a red line that he would not tolerate.
Ukraine’s hope of recapturing Crimea long seemed a far-fetched fantasy, but Kyiv’s recent battlefield victories and Moscow’s missteps have suddenly made it seem plausible — maybe dangerously so.
The West, while backing Ukraine, fears that any Ukrainian military incursion into Crimea could incite Putin to take drastic action, potentially even the use of a nuclear bomb. Some Western officials hope that a deal relinquishing Crimea to Russia could be the basis for a diplomatic end to the war. Ukrainians dismiss that idea as dangerously naive, while Russians say they will not settle for what is already theirs.
The unwavering claims to Crimea illustrate the intractability of the conflict, and it is hard to imagine the fight over the peninsula will be resolved without further bloodshed.
It was a shocking attack in early October on the Crimean Bridge — a $4 billion symbol of Putin’s imperial ambitions in Ukraine — that the Kremlin says triggered Moscow’s unrelenting bombing campaign of Ukraine’s critical infrastructure that now threatens to tip the country into a humanitarian crisis.
And following Kyiv’s liberation of Kherson — which Moscow vowed would be “Russia forever” — Russian officials have stepped up their rhetoric. Former president Dmitry Medvedev promised a “judgment day” in the event of any attack on Crimea, while a member of Russia’s parliament warned of a “final crushing blow.”
Ukraine, meanwhile, is developing detailed plans for the reintegration of Crimea, including the expulsion of thousands of Russian citizens who moved there after 2014.
“Absolutely all the Russian citizens who came to Crimea, with some rare exceptions, arrived on the territory of Crimea illegally,” said Zelensky’s permanent representative to Crimea, Tamila Tasheva. “Therefore, we have one approach: that all these Russian citizens must leave.”
Russia has its own maximalist view, demanding the surrender of four other Ukrainian regions — Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson — that Putin has also declared, illegally, to be annexed.
The refusal by either side to back down threatens to turn the war into a decades-long conflict, much like the territorial standoffs over the West Bank and Gaza, Nagorno-Karabakh, or Kurdistan.
Disputed land
Crimea has been fiercely disputed for centuries. The Greeks, Mongols and Ottoman Turks all laid claim to this jewel of the Black Sea. Russia and the Ottoman Empire fought wars over it before Catherine the Great annexed Crimea in 1783, absorbing it into the Russian Empire.
During the Soviet Union, as in czarist times, Crimea became a favorite holiday resort for the Russian elite. Stalin brutally repressed the Crimean Tatars, the peninsula’s predominantly Muslim indigenous group, deporting some 200,000 to Central Asia and Siberia after accusing them of collaborating with Nazi Germany. That persecution would shape the peninsula’s politics for decades.
In 1954 — ostensibly to mark the 300th anniversary of a treaty joining Ukraine to Russia, but also for key economic reasons — Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from Russia to Ukraine.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Crimea became an autonomous region of Ukraine, obligated to Kyiv, but with its own constitution and Ukrainian, Russian and Crimean Tatar as its official languages.
The 1990s were marked by squabbles between Kyiv and Moscow, spurred in part by the Kremlin’s demand to maintain its Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol, which it did under long-term lease. But a sense of resentment toward Kyiv festered among Crimeans. The peninsula struggled economically. Many residents, overwhelmingly ethnic Russians, felt neglected and nostalgic for Soviet times.
In 2014, days after Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych fled in response to the Maidan Revolution, Russian forces invaded Crimea. Russian-backed authorities quickly organized an illegal referendum on annexation, which was accomplished in a swift process that Putin hoped to repeat this year by conquering Kyiv.
The annexation was hugely popular in Russia, and Putin’s approval ratings shot up. “Much of the imperial projection of Russia, its entire founding myth, centers on Crimea,” said Gwendolyn Sasse, an analyst at Carnegie Europe.
“In people’s hearts and minds, Crimea has always been an inseparable part of Russia,” Putin said in a speech at the time. The annexation, however, was a violation of international law, and Western nations quickly imposed punishing sanctions.
Reintegration plans
For eight years, the fate of Crimea was overshadowed by the war in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region that was stoked by pro-Russian separatists. But Zelensky started formulating a de-occupation and reintegration plan for Crimea long before Russia’s full-scale invasion in February.
In 2021, his government established an annual summit called the Crimea Platform, intended to keep Crimea in the international spotlight. Tasheva, a Crimean Tatar, became Zelensky’s representative to Crimea in April, and now leads a team of 40 people working on a blueprint for reversing the annexation.
“It is imperative that Ukraine has a step-by-step plan … ready to go,” Tasheva said in an interview, noting a long list of complex issues related to transitional justice and citizenship.
An estimated 100,000 residents fled Crimea after Russia’s annexation, but the vast majority stayed and were joined by hundreds of thousands of Russians encouraged to settle there. Since 2014, Russian authorities have issued passports to many of the peninsula’s 2.4 million citizens.
Tasheva said the Crimeans who stayed “had the right to do so” and that after de-occupation, efforts would be made to distinguish between those who actively collaborated with the Russian authorities, and those who perhaps voted for annexation but became what Tasheva calls “victims of propaganda.”
“These people didn’t commit crimes,” she said. “They just had their opinions.”
However, she said all Russian citizens who arrived illegally after 2014 must go. “This is a matter of our security,” Tasheva said. “If all these Russian citizens remain on the territory of Crimea, they will always threaten the territorial integrity of our country.”
Rory Finnin, associate professor of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Cambridge, said a compromise was unlikely.
“The idea that somehow Ukraine should just go back to the status quo post-2014 is foolish because all that will happen is another escalation,” Finnin said. “It is hard to imagine Ukrainians being comfortable with giving up this territory, knowing this means the abandonment of millions of people. The moral and geopolitical stakes of such an abandonment are grave.”
Moscow’s grip
Russia, too, is intent on maintaining its grip on Crimea, raising concerns among Western officials about the extreme measures Putin might take to hold it.
Nikolay Petrov, a senior research fellow at Chatham House, the London-based policy institute, said that Putin relinquishing Crimea was “absolutely out of the question” and that Zelensky’s loudly articulated reintegration policies were among the “triggers” for Putin’s invasion.
“The creation of the Crimea Platform and the permission given by the West to play this card, started a very dangerous game,” Petrov said. “Finally it led to this war.”
In a recent interview, Lord David Richards, a former chief of staff of the British army, said Ukraine would risk nuclear war to defend Crimea. “If you rub Putin’s nose in it, he can do something very silly,” Richards told Times Radio. “He can use tactical nuclear weapons.”
Still, some Western officials hold out hope that a deal on Crimea could be the key to ending the war, and said they believed that Zelensky and his advisers were more open to potential concessions than their rhetoric has suggested.
During initial peace talks in March, Kyiv signaled it would be open to separate negotiations on the status of Crimea, raising the possibility that Zelensky might be open to treating Crimea differently than other Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine that he insists must be returned.
“There could be some arrangement over Crimea, a properly monitored and executed referendum, perhaps a sort of Hong Kong deal whereby it’s allowed to remain in Russian hands for a number of years,” Lord Richards said.
Eight years on, Crimea is isolated by international sanctions. Its airport, once a hub for summer travelers from across Europe and beyond, now offers flights only to mainland Russia.
The Kremlin initially poured money into local infrastructure projects, including the Crimean Bridge, as well as pension schemes. It also imposed Russian state propaganda as the principal source of information. Though Russian tourists returned, the peninsula has struggled economically and is now led by a repressive, Moscow-installed government. Crimean Tatars, in particular, have faced persecution.
Given limited access to Crimea, and the domination of Russian state media, it is difficult to gauge the public opinion there, and whether it has shifted in response the war.
Still, many believe that the war that began in Crimea must end with Crimea.
“The question of Crimea, which I thought before the war would take decades to resolve, today is unambiguous,” said Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former Russian oil tycoon and longtime Putin critic. “It is difficult to imagine a real end to the war without the return of Crimea to Ukraine.”
The Washington Post · by Francesca Ebel · December 11, 2022
10. Taiwan mulls banning TikTok, accuses it of eroding public's confidence in government
I wonder what kind of blow back there will be from Taiwan citizens? And if we ban it in the US what kind of blowback will there be among the youth? Will the popular resistance against perceived government overreach among the people (especially young people) be worth the attempted elimination of the risk of TikTok? Won't such resistance be an effect the Chinese desire? Is there another way to mitigate the risk of TikTok without banning it?
Taiwan mulls banning TikTok, accuses it of eroding public's confidence in government
wionews.com
Taiwan has been thinking about banning TikTok, as the government authorities believe that the social media site is being used by China to wipe out the confidence of the country's citizens in the government.
The Chinese-invested social media platform has been already banned from devices of the public sector by Taiwan over security concerns and the fear of a “cognitive warfare” campaign, the South China Morning Post reported.
However, the authorities have been hesitant to ban TikTok on personal devices and in the private sector, considering the implication it may have on freedom of speech and information.
The National Security Bureau of Taiwan alleged that TikTok is being increasingly used by Beijing to influence the public on the island and break their confidence and faith in the government.
In May, Bureau director Chen Ming-tong stated that Taiwanese are being trained and paid by Beijing to influence the young audience present on social media platforms like TikTok, Xiaohongshu (Instagram's Chinese version) and YouTube, as part of China's “cognitive warfare” against Taiwan.
The Investigation Bureau of the Ministry of Justice said that they are investigating the reports which claim that videos alleging corruption within Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen's government and ridiculing the defences of the country have been circulated on TikTok.
Taking into account the warnings, the lawmakers were prompted to call for countermeasures to tackle the influence campaigns.
In a legislature meeting, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party's legislator Ho Chih-wei said, “The app has been used by China in cognitive warfare to spread disinformation and create social division in Taiwan.”
China, which considers Taiwan its territory, has stated that it will use force to bring the island under its control. Ho stated that the government must devise “plans to regulate” TikTok's use in Taiwan.
(With inputs from agencies)
wionews.com
11. US Army intel office plots AI development with Project Linchpin
US Army intel office plots AI development with Project Linchpin
Defense News · by Colin Demarest · December 9, 2022
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The U.S. Army’s one-stop shop for all things intelligence and electronic warfare is in the preliminary stages of constructing a digital pipeline to more efficiently develop artificial intelligence and machine learning tools.
The undertaking, dubbed Project Linchpin, is a collaboration between the Program Executive Office for Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors, or PEO IEW&S, the Army Research Lab and Army Futures Command’s AI integration hub.
Through the project, officials intend to create the “infrastructure and environment” needed to deliver AI capabilities for use across the intertwined intelligence, cyber and electronic warfare spaces. The plan, documents show, is to soothe troubles often associated with AI optimization and distribution, such as incorporation of new data and extensive training regimens.
“I see it as a huge enabler across my entire portfolio in how we can deliver the future algorithms and how we can alleviate the cognitive burden that’s been discussed,” PEO IEW&S boss Mark Kitz said Dec. 8 at the Army’s Technical Exchange Meeting 9, a networks-and-communications industry event in Nashville, Tennessee.
The executive office conducted market research for the project at the conference this week. Additional engagements are planned throughout fiscal 2023. Of particular interest is input from industry regarding data holding, labeling, model training, verification and deployment, according to a request for information posted in late November.
RELATED
Pentagon’s Project Maven transition stymied by Congress, official says
Project Maven is being divvied up amid a concerted Pentagon push to study, test and more effectively apply artificial intelligence.
The U.S. Department of Defense has for years recognized the value of AI — both on and off the battlefield — and has subsequently invested billions in its advancement.
The cutting-edge technology can help vehicles navigate, predict when maintenance is required, assist identification and classification of targets, and aid analysts sifting through tides of incoming information. Integrating AI into weapons and networks not initially designed for it has been and will continue to be challenging, according to the Government Accountability Office, a federal watchdog, and building trust among troops will take time.
“This is really important,” Kitz said. “How do we deliver the algorithms or the software that’s going to ask questions of that data, that doesn’t overly burden the network, and delivers the answers to the questions that our analysts and soldiers are asking in a very meaningful way?”
More than 685 AI projects are underway at the Defense Department, with at least 230 traced back to the Army, the GAO said in February.
The software-centric technology is also a cornerstone of the service’s Project Convergence, a series of annual experiments designed to mature Joint All-Domain Command and Control, a Pentagon vision for a seamlessly linked military.
About Colin Demarest
Colin Demarest is a reporter at C4ISRNET, where he covers military networks, cyber and IT. Colin previously covered the Department of Energy and its National Nuclear Security Administration — namely Cold War cleanup and nuclear weapons development — for a daily newspaper in South Carolina. Colin is also an award-winning photographer.
12. China’s alliance with Saudi Arabia signals a shift in the global order
Excerpts:
One significant result of the summit — which focused on trade agreements concerning oil, technology, infrastructure, and security — was an agreement that the two nations would not interfere with each other’s domestic affairs. Alleged human rights violations have been a serious pressure point in the once-strong US-Saudi alliance, while criticism of China’s treatment of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong and Muslim minorities in the Xinjiang region have rankled the economic superpower.
The China-Saudi relationship isn’t new, but Friday’s summit outlined the terms of the two countries’ cooperation and heralds a shift in the global geopolitical order — away from the US.
...
A single alliance doesn’t necessarily indicate that US primacy and hegemony is over for good — but it certainly solidifies a major repositioning of the global order. How that will unfold, and the US’s role in that order, remains unclear.
China’s alliance with Saudi Arabia signals a shift in the global order
The US’s decades-long relationship with Saudi Arabia continues to crumble.
By Ellen Ioanes Dec 10, 2022, 3:33pm EST
Share this story
Vox · by Ellen Ioanes · December 10, 2022
Yue Yuewei/Xinhua via Getty Images
Ellen Ioanes covers breaking and general assignment news as the weekend reporter at Vox. She previously worked at Business Insider covering the military and global conflicts.
Chinese President Xi Jinping and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia, participated in a major meeting Friday, signaling increasingly close ties between the nations as US relations with both nations grow increasingly chilly.
One significant result of the summit — which focused on trade agreements concerning oil, technology, infrastructure, and security — was an agreement that the two nations would not interfere with each other’s domestic affairs. Alleged human rights violations have been a serious pressure point in the once-strong US-Saudi alliance, while criticism of China’s treatment of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong and Muslim minorities in the Xinjiang region have rankled the economic superpower.
The China-Saudi relationship isn’t new, but Friday’s summit outlined the terms of the two countries’ cooperation and heralds a shift in the global geopolitical order — away from the US.
The US-Saudi alliance, which has endured through seven Saudi monarchs and 15 presidents, has taken a blow under US President Joe Biden, who vowed during his campaign in 2019 to make the oil-rich Gulf nation a “pariah” for directing the murder of Saudi dissident journalist Jamaal Khashoggi in 2018 and the kingdom’s role in the punishing Yemeni civil war. The tension has continued, most notably over Saudi oil production as sanctions on Russian energy help drive up fuel prices around the world.
What do Saudi and China get from a stronger alliance?
The Crown Prince, who is commonly known by the acronym MBS, has met with Xi before, most recently at the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing. Though it might seem an odd pairing, the two nations actually have quite a bit in common, including autocratic leadership, serious repression of dissent, a clear need to diversify in order to maintain economic growth, and ambitious infrastructure projects.
China is Saudi Arabia’s largest trading partner, with Chinese exports to the kingdom reaching $30.3 billion in 2021 and Saudi exports totaling $57 billion in the same year, according to Reuters. Saudi oil makes up 18 percent of Beijing’s total crude oil imports — worth about $55.5 billion between January and October of this year.
Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has great ambitions to diversify its economy, which has for decades relied on crude oil output. But in order to do that, it needs money — oil money. That’s at least part of why Saudi Arabia limited production in the midst of a global oil crisis and prices for crude oil remain high.
Both nations also tout ambitious infrastructure projects. The Belt and Road initiative, China’s effort to create a 21st-century Silk Road international trade route by providing the finances to develop series of ports, pipelines, railroads, bridges, and other trade infrastructure to nations across Asia and Africa, is a milestone effort for Xi. It’s also received major criticism for potentially exploiting poor nations by essentially loaning them money they can’t pay back, in some cases granting China control over these critical hubs.
Xi’s presence in Saudi Arabia, both with MBS and as part of a larger summit with Arab and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations, present multiple opportunities to strengthen ties with a host of nations in the region — and to make sure that in the global great power competition, those nations are, at least, not aligned with the US, as Shannon Tiezzi wrote in The Diplomat Wednesday.
Critically, Saudi Arabia knows it cannot depend on generous US weapons sales under Biden so China is an increasingly viable alternative. In fact, Reuters reported, Riyadh is thought to have signed $30 billion in defense contracts at this summit with China.
In forging their alliance, both nations get a strong trading partner who won’t question their policies; Saudi gets a more predictable relationship in Xi than it has seen in the switch from former President Donald Trump to Biden.
How does this affect the US and its global position as a superpower?
The US-Saudi relationship is longstanding; it officially started toward the end of World War II; the basic oil-for-security trade that has lasted for decades and has been increasingly important to the kingdom, between Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in the 1990s and the increasing influence of regional rival Iran. Despite Saudi repression and alleged human rights abuses, Riyadh could count on US weapons, and the US could almost always count on cheap Saudi oil.
Of course, there have been tensions in the relationship before; the 1973 oil embargo in retaliation for the US decision to resupply the Israeli military during the Arab-Israeli War, as well as Saudi involvement in the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, tested the alliance, but US leadership maintained that the kingdom was a key regional partner nonetheless.
Under Trump, the relationship between the two nations was somewhere between transactional and downright chummy — Trump even reportedly bragged that he defended MBS against criticism from Congress over Khashoggi’s death.
But the relationship has become the most strained it has been in recent memory due to MBS’s abuses and Biden’s criticism. In March, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sparked a fuel shortage, MBS refused to take Biden’s calls to negotiate increased oil production and help ease prices. When they finally met in July, Biden was extremely uncomfortable — and he left almost empty-handed.
The growing Saudi-China relationship may indicate a threat to the US’s historic position as an international leader, evidenced in Saudi Arabia’s failure to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in favor of its own economic needs. This fall, after Biden asked for increased oil production to help drive down inflation in the US, Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC+ countries, including Russia, chose to continue a limited production scale — a move Washington interpreted as tacit support for Russia.
MBS has done much, at least superficially, to bring Saudi Arabia into the 21st century; women are now allowed to drive, and entertainment like cinemas, concerts, and sporting events are available after decades of conservative Wahabbist culture. But he’s also committed egregious, violent acts like fueling a war that’s killed an estimated 15,000 Yemeni civilians and further devastated the impoverished country, as well as ordering Khashoggi — a US resident who wrote for the Washington Post — to be killed.
The deepening China-Saudi relationship has implications beyond just the geopolitical, though. If, as China has repeatedly requested, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations begin allowing China to pay for oil in its currency, the yuan, as opposed to the dollar, it could have even further economic consequences for the US. Such a move, the Wall Street Journal explained in March, would devalue the dollar and erode its standing in the international financial system
“The oil market, and by extension the entire global commodities market, is the insurance policy of the status of the dollar as reserve currency,” economist Gal Luft, co-director of the Washington-based Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, told the Journal at the time. “If that block is taken out of the wall, the wall will begin to collapse.”
A single alliance doesn’t necessarily indicate that US primacy and hegemony is over for good — but it certainly solidifies a major repositioning of the global order. How that will unfold, and the US’s role in that order, remains unclear.
Vox · by Ellen Ioanes · December 10, 2022
13. Rejection of plan for super-embassy a 'setback' for China's overseas operations
Good for the UK.
Excerpts:
Former Hong Kong lawmaker Nathan Law welcomed the decision via his Twitter account.
“No new mega embassy for [China] in the UK. Great work fellows,” he wrote, retweeting a Royal Mint residents’ association campaign announcing the decision.
The English-language Global Times, a nationalistic tabloid with ties to Communist Party mouthpiece the People’s Daily, said the U.K.’s tougher line on China was a mistake.
“Sunak’s remarks are not that surprising since the China discourse in Britain, and more broadly the West, has been poisoned,” the paper said in a commentary published on Dec. 2. “Politicians are competing to be the toughest, rather than the wisest, on China.”
“Overstretching the concept of national security and using interdependence as an excuse to target China would be unwise,” it warned.
Rejection of plan for super-embassy a 'setback' for China's overseas operations
americanmilitarynews.com · by Radio Free Asia · December 10, 2022
This article was originally published by Radio Free Asia and is reprinted with permission.
A decision by local officials not to allow China to build a “super-embassy” on the site of a historic building in east London is a major setback for the Chinese Communist Party’s overseas influence operations, analysts told RFA.
Development officials at London’s Tower Hamlets borough council voted unanimously on Dec. 1 to reject an application for planning permission for the new Chinese embassy on the former Royal Mint site, citing security fears, as well as the potential impact on tourism, policing and heritage.
The Strategic Development Committee said the plan, which included dormitories accommodating hundreds of employees and a landmark “cultural exchange” building, had attracted dozens of objections from residents of the surrounding area, which is home to a large Muslim community.
The plan was also opposed to by groups representing Hong Kongers in the U.K., who have been attacked both by pro-China thugs and by consular officials on British soils, and Uyghurs, who face security risks from Beijing’s overseas policing and infiltration, which include unofficial renditions of government critics, often by using loved ones back home as leverage.
The decision came as Canada became the latest country to investigate unofficial Chinese police “service stations” on its soil.
Senior Canadian foreign ministry official Weldon Epp told a parliamentary committee last week that Global Affairs had summoned the Chinese ambassador “multiple times” over the service centers, which have been reported by the Spanish-based rights group Safeguard Defenders in dozens of countries.
British Uyghur rights activist Rahima Mahmut, who heads the group Stop Uyghur Genocide, said Muslims in Tower Hamlets were angry at the plan to relocate the Chinese embassy to their backyard, while other residents were fearful of the impact of frequent demonstrations against China’s rights abuses.
“Just because you have a lot of money, doesn’t mean you can do anything,” Mahmut told RFA. “Particularly in the U.K., which is a country where human rights are respected, and where the voice of the people, their wishes and requirements are taken extremely seriously.”
The decision came after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said in his first foreign policy speech that the “golden age” of U.K.-China relations was now over, and as Chinese Ambassador Zheng Zeguang was summoned following the detention and beating of a BBC journalist who was covering recent anti-lockdown protests in Shanghai.
China’s Consul General in the northern British city of Manchester admitted in October to assaulting a Hong Kong pro-democracy protester inside the grounds of the diplomatic mission following a peaceful protest on the street outside.
Zheng Xiyuan told Sky News that he was the grey-haired man in a hat seen on social media footage pulling the hair of protester Bob Chan, adding: “I think it’s my duty.”
The British government is also planning a slew of measures aimed at curbing infiltration and influence operations by foreign governments, including probing the attacks at the Chinese consulate in Manchester and the possible closure of the Beijing-funded Confucius Institutes in universities.
Hongkongers in Britain founder Simon Cheng, who has himself been the target of doxxing threats by pro-China agitators online for highlighting the risks of pro-China violence targeting Hong Kongers in the U.K., said the Tower Hamlets decision was a victory for freedom and for security.
He said the move would likely prevent another incident like the Manchester attack.
“This planning application gave rise to serious security concerns,” Cheng told RFA. “It [would have] intruded into the daily lives of residents around the Royal Mint building, and also affected anyone passing by this super-embassy.”
“The plan to move the Chinese embassy to the Royal Mint was part of an elaborate plan to dominate and monitor Hong Kongers, Uyghurs, Tibetans and Chinese nationals in the British capital, and was a danger to British sovereignty,” said Cheng, who was detained and tortured by China’s state security police while working for the British consulate in Hong Kong during the 2019 protest movement.
Chinese buyers acquired the 200-year-old Royal Mint site in 2018. The planning application involved some restoration and some demolition of Grade II listed buildings, and an investment of £200,000 (U.S. $245,000) in site-wide surveillance systems.
The super-embassy would have been 10 times the size of the current site in Portland Place, making it China’s biggest diplomatic facility anywhere, and the largest embassy in the U.K.
Former Hong Kong lawmaker Nathan Law welcomed the decision via his Twitter account.
“No new mega embassy for [China] in the UK. Great work fellows,” he wrote, retweeting a Royal Mint residents’ association campaign announcing the decision.
The English-language Global Times, a nationalistic tabloid with ties to Communist Party mouthpiece the People’s Daily, said the U.K.’s tougher line on China was a mistake.
“Sunak’s remarks are not that surprising since the China discourse in Britain, and more broadly the West, has been poisoned,” the paper said in a commentary published on Dec. 2. “Politicians are competing to be the toughest, rather than the wisest, on China.”
“Overstretching the concept of national security and using interdependence as an excuse to target China would be unwise,” it warned.
In a separate article in Chinese, the paper said the Western media was using the embassy plans to “hype” China as a security threat, adding that residents’ concerns were “unnecessary.”
“The current Chinese embassy in the UK is located at 49 Portland Street, London, with a history of 145 years,” the paper said. “However, multiple offices including visa, education, technology, etc. are located in other places in London, which is often inconvenient for their operations.”
Share
Flip
americanmilitarynews.com · by Radio Free Asia · December 10, 2022
14. Opinion | Don’t Tell Your Non-Work Friends About the Decapitations
An overlooked community when it comes to mental well being.
Conclusion:
That secret agent job you might have imagined? There are days it is adrenaline-filled and even glamorous. It is also isolating and relentless. It inflicts mental and emotional costs. The consequences of ignoring those can be tragic, either individually or to the nation. Protecting the intelligence workforce can help protect us all.
Opinion | Don’t Tell Your Non-Work Friends About the Decapitations
Politico
Magazine
Opinion | Don’t Tell Your Non-Work Friends About the Decapitations
Working in the intelligence community often means living with trauma. We can’t pretend it doesn’t exist.
For too long, the intelligence community has ignored that reality, to the detriment of both its people and the country they serve. Fortunately, there’s still plenty that can be done. | Kevin Wolf/AP Photo
Opinion by Heather Williams
11/30/2022 04:30 AM EST
Heather Williams is a senior policy researcher at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation. She formerly served as a deputy national intelligence officer for the National Intelligence Council and spent 13 years working in the intelligence community.
Many people grow up wanting to be secret agents. I fell into the field somewhat by chance — though it turned out I was good at it and advanced quickly. Less than a year into the job, I volunteered to deploy to Iraq, where the U.S. was hunting down terrorists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and dismantling al Qaeda organizations. I learned how to fire a rifle, ram a car, search my vehicle for bombs and withstand torture.
But one night in the U.S., while sitting down at a restaurant with my non-work friends, I too casually mentioned that suicide bombers tend to decapitate themselves in their attacks. (A suicide vest tends to destroy the neck and send a head sailing.) My friends turned to me with horror and shock. I was reminded that I shouldn’t talk about this part of my life with my “normal” friends.
A portion of U.S. intelligence professionals are in the military, but many are civilians. That doesn’t stop them from serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and a host of other dangerous places. Many, like I did, wear a Kevlar helmet and body armor, carry a loaded weapon and are classified legal combatants. Others watch hours of beheading videos to identify ISIS trademarks, conduct heart-breaking searches for POWs or identify human remains at the sites of terrorist attacks.
In our line of work, being exposed to violent and traumatizing events all day is routine. And then we leave the office to go home to our family. It’s a life that we signed up for, but it doesn’t mean there aren’t real consequences. For too long, the intelligence community has ignored that reality, to the detriment of both its people and the country they serve. Fortunately, there’s still plenty that can be done.
Trauma is defined as actual or threatened death, injury or violence. But there is also secondary trauma — the repeated or extreme indirect exposure to adverse details of a traumatic event during the course of professional duties. The latter has been recognized as a problem in other professions, and in the narrow case of intelligence officers who operate drone aircraft, but is rarely talked about broadly in the intelligence community. When I came back from my deployments, I had one — admittedly pro forma and superficial — required meeting with a psychologist. But no one ever has checked in on me about my feelings on more than a decade of work immersed in violent topics.
The intelligence community doesn’t have a good understanding of how prominent these problems are — particularly the impact of indirect trauma — or how to shift to a more proactive approach to addressing trauma exposure. At RAND, where I now work, we’ve been looking at the risks of lasting trauma on those who do intelligence work. We interviewed middle- and senior-managers from multiple agencies and found that there are some mental health supports available for intelligence professionals, but they appear underutilized and may not be equipped to meet the true scale of the need.
More broadly, the intelligence community lacks a culture of mental wellness. We found there’s a poor understanding of the risks, particularly of secondary trauma, among all levels of staff. That means individuals may fail to recognize the effects of this stress, or they may lack the vocabulary needed to describe their feelings so as to effectively seek care.
Intelligence professionals adhere to a strict code of ethics, which includes remaining neutral when informing policymakers about issues. This makes them party to life-and-death decisions, but without the agency to determine their outcomes. They must defer to policymakers about whether, for example, the U.S. will act to prevent atrocities they anticipate. Missing something, too, can bring on a sense of guilt and blame.
Intelligence professionals can also experience moral injury, a less-understood form of trauma. Moral injury stems from failure to prevent, or bearing witness to, acts that violate their deeply held moral beliefs and expectations. This can happen when intelligence programs overstep their authorities and violate civil freedoms, or even when those in a position of political power fail to protect secrets obtained through great risk and sacrifice.
The intensity of the job can compound damage from trauma exposure. Both deployed and at home, I worked long hours and on rotating shifts — factors that can be more detrimental to mental health than direct combat exposure. Poor management and toxic work environments, which are sadly too common in the intelligence community, can exacerbate the risk.
Stigma is a well-recognized hindrance to seeking mental health care, but intelligence officers may further worry that seeking help — even through official channels — could compromise their security clearance. They are often legally prohibited from talking about their professional experiences with their family and friends, which would typically be an important support network for someone experiencing trauma.
The effects ripple through these agencies, which are vital to U.S. national security. Employees suffer from depression and substance abuse, or reduced productivity and professional burnout. That can prompt unnecessarily high staff turnover, which has higher stakes in a sector where people require costly security clearances and depart with a head full of secrets.
One positive note is that the intelligence community isn’t the first to deal with these problems, it is simply late to doing so. There is a wealth of applicable literature on trauma risks for the military, first responders, journalists and other professionals. But intelligence leaders must be willing to dedicate attention and resources to the problem.
The intelligence community needs to communicate to its workforce about the varied forms of trauma, how it affects individuals and what resources exist to help. And employees won’t seek that help if they fear it will cost them their jobs, so intelligence officials need to ensure policies are clear, available and protect staff appropriately seeking care. Lastly, the community should research how to design and implement programming that will cultivate an environment of mental wellness.
I am luckier than most. My parents are social workers, and I grew up in an environment where feelings, even the dark ones, were seen as healthy. My husband has experienced war; I don’t feel I have to hide my emotional scars from him. As time has passed, I tell myself it has gotten easier. But, in truth, I am just less frequently confronted with reminders of my deployment. I continue to research some of the world’s ugliest problems, and resilience and hardiness are a requirement of the job. But even now I sometimes feel myself approach the fraying edges of my own emotional capacity.
That secret agent job you might have imagined? There are days it is adrenaline-filled and even glamorous. It is also isolating and relentless. It inflicts mental and emotional costs. The consequences of ignoring those can be tragic, either individually or to the nation. Protecting the intelligence workforce can help protect us all.
The views expressed in this publication are the author’s and do not imply endorsement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence or any other U.S. Government department/agency.
POLITICO
Politico
15. The Secret Washington Museum That Tourists Can’t Visit
Photos at the link: https://www.voanews.com/a/the-secret-washington-museum-that-tourists-can-t-visit-/6866426.html?utm_source=pocket_reader
Hopefully the new National Museum of Intelligence and Special Operations will be able to be a public venue to help tell that story that is in this museum. (note this is not a competitor to the commercial International Spy Museum - this is a "National" museum recognized by Congress to honor the intelligence and special operations communities - but also more as outlined in the legislation below).
SEC. 6823. NATIONAL MUSEUM OF INTELLIGENCE AND SPECIAL OPERATIONS.
(a) RECOGNITION.—The privately-funded museum to honor the intelligence community and special operations forces that is planned to be constructed in Ashburn, Virginia, may be recognized, upon completion, as the ‘‘National Museum of Intelligence and Special Operations’’.
(b) PURPOSES.—The purpose of recognizing the National Museum of Intelligence and Special Operations under subsection (a) are to—
(1) commemorate the members of the intelligence community and special operations forces who have been critical to securing the Nation against enemies of the United States for nearly a century;
(2) preserve and support the historic role that the intelligence community and special operations forces have played, and continue to play, both in secrecy as well as openly, to keep the United States and its values and way of life secure; and
(3) foster a greater understanding of the intelligence community and special operations forces to ensure a common understanding, dispel myths, recognize those who are not otherwise able to be publicly recognized, and increase science, technology, engineering, and math education through museum programs designed to promote more interest and greater diversity in recruiting with respect to the intelligence and special operations career field.
https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR7776EAS-RCP117-70.pdf
The Secret Washington Museum That Tourists Can’t Visit
December 10, 2022 3:16 AM
voanews.com
Tucked away inside a nondescript building that serves as the U.S. Secret Service’s Washington headquarters is a museum that most tourists will never get to visit.
“The majority of the audience would be employees, former employees, family and guests, and dignitaries and law enforcement,” says Mike Sampson, an archivist and historian at the U.S. Secret Service, adding that limited resources and security concerns account for the restricted access to the agency’s museum.
The one-room space features artifacts and replicas that showcase the Secret Service’s storied history. The agency is probably best known for protecting American presidents, but its original mission was to fight financial fraud.
Counterfeit equipment and fake $10 gold coins made out of copper pennies on display at the U.S. Secret Service Museum.
Ironically, President Abraham Lincoln authorized the creation of the Secret Service just hours before he was killed.
“On April 14, 1865, the treasury secretary at the time, named Hugh McCulloch, goes to President Lincoln and suggested he create an agency just to fight counterfeiting. At the time, one-third of all the currency in the U.S. during and post-Civil War was counterfeit,” says Jason Kendrick, also an archivist and historian at the U.S. Secret Service. “So, on the same day, he gives verbal authorization — he doesn't sign anything that actually creates this Secret Service — he's assassinated at Ford’s Theatre.”
A U.S. Secret Service vest recovered after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the World Trade Center in New York.
It wasn’t until 1901, after the assassination of President William McKinley, that the Secret Service was officially tasked with protecting the president. But the service’s responsibilities had expanded before then — in part because the FBI and CIA (which serve law enforcement and intelligence functions) had not yet been created.
“Land fraud, stamp fraud, rumrunners, bootleggers,” Kendrick says. “There's a period where we investigate the Ku Klux Klan, some counterespionage during the Spanish American War, in World War I, and a little bit even during World War II, even after the CIA is created. So, it's basically, in 1868, upgraded to any crime against the federal government.”
Window from the armored limousine that was struck by a bullet during the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan and the revolver used by would-be assassin John Hinckley .
Some exhibits focus on counterfeiting. Others illustrate the dangers of presidential life, such as the window from the armored limousine that was struck by a bullet during the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. Also on display is the pistol used during the 1975 assassination attempt on President Gerald Ford in San Francisco.
Today, the service continues to protect heads of state, foreign dignitaries and special events related to national security. Its agents are still tasked with safeguarding the U.S. financial system, which includes investigating certain cybercrimes. The agency’s Threat Assessment Center teams with local partners nationwide to help combat school violence and other targeted attacks.
The U.S. Secret Service Museum is located inside the agency's Washington, D.C., headquarters.
Executing those duties sometimes comes at a terrible price. The museum’s wall of honor pays tribute to the 40 men and women who have died in the line of duty.
We've also been affected by terrorists, and we have artifacts here that recall the bombing in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, which we lost six members of our agency in the field office of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City,” Sampson says. “And we were also affected by September 11. We lost one member of our agency, Special Officer Craig Miller. On September 11, our building was in the second World Trade Center [building] up in New York. So again, it's a nice area to respectfully honor those folks that have passed.”
A piece of the World Trade Center on display at the U.S. Secret Service Museum in Washington, D.C.
And that might ultimately be the point of having a museum that’s only seen by a select few.
“The hall gives us an opportunity to reflect on the history of our agency, and also to show what we're doing these days,” Sampson says. “We can get a sense, or even a feel, for how we were and how we've evolved as an agency, and some of the things that we're doing today. But it also gives a reflection on how things were at one time.”
voanews.com
16. America’s Allies Should Fear Abandonment
America’s Allies Should Fear Abandonment
aier.org · by Doug Bandow
Doug Bandow
– December 9, 2022 Reading Time: 7 minutes
For the past 77 years, the US has defended the so-called free world. Not all by itself, but almost so for much of the time.
Even today, Washington does more than Europe to defend Europe. None of the continent’s traditionally great powers, Britain, France, and Germany, fields even 300 tanks. The US deploys more ships to the Pacific than Japan possesses to defend itself. Despite having 50 times the economic strength and twice the population of the North, South Korea’s army is smaller and possesses fewer tanks. Worse, Washington threatens to use nuclear weapons in any conflict involving these nations and risk incineration of the American homeland.
Why?
The problem only seems to get worse. Washington now is spending far more than its European partners collectively to subsidize Ukraine’s defense, even though Kyiv’s future matters far more to them. Moreover, early European promises to do much more militarily were forgotten once the US stepped in so heavily.
In shock after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, most European nations promised to up defense outlays. That, however, was then. Similar promises have been routinely broken in the past. Already, Germany has carefully redefined its earlier pledge to bolster its military. The latest government in London, despite its “special relationship” with America, announced that it plans to cut military outlays. Nathalie Tocci of the Istituto Affari Internazionali recently observed: “in light of the dramatic deterioration of the Continent’s security environment, these recent defense efforts remain underwhelming.”
So much for Europe’s growing up and taking over adult security responsibilities.
Yet the more the US does, the more its defense dependents whine. Europeans recoil at every mention of Republicans’ taking control of the House of Representatives and Donald Trump’s again running for president. What if Washington stops paying most of the bill for Ukraine’s defense? What if America’s troops go home? Whatever would the helpless and desperate allies do?
The latest complaint is that the US is profiting from the continent’s misfortune. An anonymous European official told Politico: “The fact is, if you look at it soberly, the country that is most profiting from this war is the US because they are selling more gas and at higher prices, and because they are selling more weapons.” Shocking! Of course, America has paid the bulk of Europe’s defense bill for nearly eight decades! And currently, contemplates the risk of nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine.
Japan and South Korea are equally bad. They are wealthy nations that believe the US should nevertheless forever defend them. Their officials constantly whine about their “fear of abandonment.” There has been a crescendo in complaints about America’s refusal to rush into war with Russia to defend Ukraine. Tokyo and Seoul, which hide behind America’s nuclear shield, suddenly realized that Washington policymakers prefer not to trigger radioactive self-immolation when America’s vital interests are not at stake.
The two governments, whose military outlays fail to match the threats they claim to face, want the US to do more to “reassure” them. Add more troops and weapons. Install tactical nukes. Engage in “nuclear sharing,” giving non-nuclear powers a share in planning for their use. And make more promises of eternal affection, dedication, and love.
However, with the People’s Republic of China’s embarking upon a major nuclear buildup and North Korea’s continuing to expand its nuclear arsenal, the risks of defending South Korea and Japan are growing substantially. It was one thing to threaten to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear North Korea or small-nuclear PRC. Beijing now appears to be planning a nuclear arsenal near America’s in size. And the North could accumulate a couple hundred warheads over the next few years, which would place it at the same general level as India, Pakistan, and other modest nuclear powers. Neither Beijing nor Pyongyang could successfully launch a first strike at the US, but both could threaten Gotterdammerung if the US confronted them.
All this is occurring as the US government speeds toward de facto bankruptcy. Washington’s accumulated debt has broken $31 trillion. Debt held by the public (rather than other government agencies) runs 100 percent of GDP, will soon break the record set after World War II, and will approach 200 percent by mid-century, absent an unlikely turn toward fiscal reform. America’s allies complain about hard times. The US is going broke paying its allies’ bills. Yet if they have their way, Americans will be digging ever-deeper to sustain what has turned into a permanent military dole.
Unfortunately, US officials appear to have forgotten that their primary responsibility is to the American people. Washington’s ends should focus on protecting this nation. In short, the US doesn’t have the right to do whatever it wants—such as committing aggression against Iraq based on an ostentatious lie, and supporting murderous Saudi/Emirati attacks on Yemen for essentially no reason at all. In both cases the US government has contributed to the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians for no defensible reason.
Alliances are not an end in themselves, but a means to protect American security. Military commitments should be made to defend the US, not provide welfare to other states, irrespective of how friendly they may be. Moreover, military policy should adjust to new circumstances.
Many countries have a strong economic connection to America. Potential income loss or other inconvenience, however, is no legitimate casus belli. US economic relations with Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan are profitable, not vital. The oft-cited willingness to trade blood for oil was always obscene, absent a truly existential threat that could wreck the economy.
Of course, any conflict is a humanitarian horror, but seeking to “do good” does not justify plunging the US into war. American lives should not be risked unless their political community has something vital at stake. And one advantage of being a superpower is that few nations are important, let alone vital, to US survival, especially today.
The Republic of Korea mattered to America in 1950, for example, only because of the Cold War. Before that, Washington paid no attention to Japanese control of the peninsula. And despite America’s strong connections with the South, it again isn’t critical for US security, and can protect itself. Ukraine wasn’t even independent until three decades ago. Kyiv was not seen as vital then, which is why it was not invited to join NATO. And why the Biden administration has not treated Ukraine as a member today.
Alliances are serious business, as they are commitments to go to war. In the case of Asia and Europe, that means being willing to combat nuclear powers. There was a sharp intake of breath after the recent, errant Ukrainian missile strike in Poland. The Zelensky government immediately began campaigning to drag NATO into the fight, creating suspicion that Kyiv staged the attack to ensnare Washington. American and European officials collectively exhaled uneasily when the truth came out. The Russo-Ukrainian war continues, however, and this is not likely to be the last potential crisis.
Yet some US policymakers advocate handing out security guarantees rather like luxury hotels put chocolates on pillows, apparently assuming that Washington will never have to fulfill its promises. As former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said a couple years ago, “I think frankly if China understands that we’re serious about [it violating US red lines], China’s not going to do that. They may be a lot of things, they’re not dumb.” (Many in America’s foreign policy establishment also similarly dismiss Moscow’s threats to use nuclear weapons if it ends up in extremis while fighting Ukraine.)
Unfortunately, potential adversaries think the same way about the US. Consider China, which has its own vital interests. It believes that the US won’t dare cross Beijing’s red lines. Indeed, when discussing their view as to who is likely to blink first, Chinese officials have asked: would Americans be prepared to trade Los Angeles for Taipei? The rest of the world no longer is intimidated by US threats.
Indeed, very few of America’s security commitments will ever be worth nuclear war. How many people in the US are prepared to wager their families and homes that North Korea will not attack the South or that the PRC will not attack Taiwan? Who in America wants the president to play a deadly game of nuclear chicken over Ukraine, South Korea, or Japan?
Rather than seek to strengthen “extended deterrence” and reassure allies that Washington is prepared to engage in self-immolation to protect less-than-vital partners, the US should set clear limits on its obligations. It is time for an honest conversation between members of the infamous foreign policy Blob, who have never met a security guarantee that they didn’t want to make, and the American people, who naively believe that the national government should focus on protecting them.
Washington should make clear it won’t be defending countries whose people don’t believe their own nation is worth defending. Among all US treaty allies, only Greece beats (barely) America in the percentage of its GDP devoted to the military, and that is to fight Turkey, not Russia. As noted earlier, with war raging at the continent’s periphery, countries such as Germany and Great Britain are backtracking on their promises to do more. Japan’s outlays remain at a ridiculous one percent, despite empty talk about significantly increasing expenditures. Taiwan is an even worse laggard given the obvious threat posed by China; scholar Edward Luttwak criticized Taipei’s “persistent fecklessness.” South Korea only looks good compared to America’s other defense dependents.
American officials should stop rushing to reassure allies that the US will always, forever, under every circumstance and no matter how little they do, comfort and coddle them. Rather, Washington should begin planning phased withdrawals of US troops from Asia and Europe, giving allies and friends plenty of time to react. If they choose to go naked militarily, that would be their decision. Or they could plan an orderly transition with the US, increasing military outlays, expanding their armed forces, upgrading their arsenals, and improving continental cooperation, all with America’s assistance. The ultimate objective would be collaboration among equals, rather than today’s situation of shameful dependence on Washington.
Nearly eight decades ago, the US stepped up militarily when much of Asia and Europe lay devastated and vulnerable to Soviet aggression and Chinese subversion. That world, however, has long passed. American policymakers should adapt US foreign and military policy to today’s world.
America’s major allies, in the main, are worthy friends: liberal, democratic societies and valuable economic partners with deep cultural and historical connections to the US. That doesn’t entitle them to a cheap ride on the American people. It is time for countries that purport to be part of “the free world” to stop freeloading and do their part to defend the famed liberal international order.
READ MORE
Doug Bandow
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil liberties.
He worked as special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and editor of the political magazine Inquiry.
He writes regularly for leading publications such as Fortune magazine, National Interest, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times.
Get notified of new articles from Doug Bandow and AIER.
SUBSCRIBE
aier.org · by Doug Bandow
17. Washington's Conventional War Strategy May Not Succeed If It Does Not Consider New Irregular Warfare Tactics.
Well here is a thesis that will not go over well among some in the defense and national security communities. Discuss among yourselves.
Excerpts
However, the Western leadership and its defense experts continue to defect today by failing to understand that “competition and strategic superiority are won through irregular warfare,” which is still a dangerous misjudgment if potential players of a war in Taiwan perceive the confrontation as a conventional war and apparently seek to recreate the Battle of Midway in the Taiwan Strait, but with Ford and F-35 class aircraft carriers. The current problem is that if there is a conflict there, it would probably go nuclear in a few hours or days, Putin is disowned by many in the international community for his bombing of civilians but Xi Jinping can be much more complicated than the Russian leader in a critical situation, hence planning a prolonged conventional war in a potential conflict between China and Taiwan is not knowing the contenders and an absolute fantasy.
...
The creation of the Center for Security Studies for Irregular War by the US Congress is a success in terms of National Defense, even more so considering that it has been a topic that was not entirely clear in the Biden administration that, even in 2 years of management still does not show a complete and defined plan of its Defense Strategy. The center is a good tool and will be very useful in providing answers and unifying criteria between the US political leadership and US partner countries, and to the extent that it does its job well it will be able to improve not only the understanding of irregular wars but also the most importantly, the response capabilities to confront them. After all, irregular warfare requires more brains than firepower and demands much more intellectual effort than a charge of infantry or mechanized cavalry, and if not, let Russian troops say so from their experience in the Ukraine.
Washington's Conventional War Strategy May Not Succeed If It Does Not Consider New Irregular Warfare Tactics. - Globe Live Media
Posted by
by
Melissa Galbraith
December 10, 2022
Last Updated:
December 10, 2022
globelivemedia.com · December 10, 2022
The Department of Defense is preparing for a war with China that looks like World War II but with better technology, the problem is that such an investment will not be relevant in an unlikely scenario since Xi Jinping will not invade Taiwan, at least not. will putin style in ukraine
Pentagon military chiefs have convened senior retired officers and think tanks who work closely with defense and security advisers in Washington. Its mission is the elaboration of a plan that contains a broad military strategy capable of confronting and defeating a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
Putin’s not-so-surprise invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 did not take the United States or NATO by surprise, the information that this could happen was known to Washington and its partners, and all the elements were in place for it to happen. that military operation was carried out by Russia. However, the Biden administration believes that the reaction against the Kremlin could have been better and more complete in different aspects.
From that experience, the Pentagon-led Global Defense project directed its think tanks to focus on the task of developing evidence-based strategies and concrete tests for the behaviors of potential opponents such as China and North Korea. It is in this direction that the Department of Defense must study and present a comprehensive program with alternatives on how to prevail against China, Russia and other potential opponents in a “strategic contest” in case the crisis between Beijing and Taipei escalates and becomes in a real war.
However, it may be that the administration of President Joe Biden is misfocusing its good intentions, for example, to protect Taiwan and this is where the problem arises since a large-scale Chinese military operation is unlikely to happen, Xi Jinping will not invade, at least it won’t do it Putin-style in Ukraine, so if President Biden is basing his request to the Department of Defense on the Ukrainian experience, he could be drawing the wrong lesson, even more so if he does so with a similar military scenario in mind, since that won’t happen.
Since the Russian attack on Ukrainian territory, all actions and reactions, both political and military, have at all times considered the lessons learned from the Cold War, all parties know that the confrontation between the great nuclear powers puts the planet at risk in the face of what inexorably it would be a Third World War, for this reason the United States and the other NATO powers avoided placing their troops directly on the terrain of the conflict.
It is clear that the very nature of war is its escalation and no one wanted another 1914 Sarajevo in the 21st century, even less with nuclear arsenals and tactical weapons available to potential contenders in the conflict. After the fall of the former USSR, both sides maintained large conventional forces and their nuclear arsenals as deterrents, but the real fighting was carried out through irregular warfare, such as asymmetric warfare and various conflicts for political power. For these reasons, Special Forces of the US Army and Navy were created and we learned about the advances in the arms industry, how the Stinger missiles that in the years of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan showed the vulnerability of the ex-USSR forces, in the same way as the Javelin anti-tank missiles that today are the devastating response to the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation.
However, the Western leadership and its defense experts continue to defect today by failing to understand that “competition and strategic superiority are won through irregular warfare,” which is still a dangerous misjudgment if potential players of a war in Taiwan perceive the confrontation as a conventional war and apparently seek to recreate the Battle of Midway in the Taiwan Strait, but with Ford and F-35 class aircraft carriers. The current problem is that if there is a conflict there, it would probably go nuclear in a few hours or days, Putin is disowned by many in the international community for his bombing of civilians but Xi Jinping can be much more complicated than the Russian leader in a critical situation, hence planning a prolonged conventional war in a potential conflict between China and Taiwan is not knowing the contenders and an absolute fantasy.
Defense policy experts advise decision makers to expand the defense budget, Washington contemplates for the year 2023 a defense availability of between 750 to 800 billion dollars, Pentagon sources unofficially indicated that an overwhelming number is being carried out conventional warfare weapons (such as fighter jets and navy ships) while ignoring irregular warfare capabilities. The budget for the United States Special Operations Command, which oversees all American special operators in all parts of the world, is 80% of the cost of one aircraft carrier and the Biden administration has ordered the construction of three at a rate of 13 billion dollars per ship and plans to build two more. Budgets are economic documents but also moral and unalterable and they do not lie. The Department of Defense is preparing for a war with China that looks like World War II but with better technology, the problem is that such an investment will not be relevant in an unlikely scenario.
However, there is a growing discrepancy of US politicians belonging to the Republican party and identified with former President Donald Trump who have prestige and ancestry within the armed forces. The United States is not a third world country, it is not a Latin American or African nation. In Washington, the democratic system is observed and strictly respected by politicians and the military, there is no possibility of interpreting a boycott of your own country as it often happens in other underdeveloped nations. US politics and the armed forces work subservient to its constitution and every amendment to it is strictly respected. However, critics seeking to reinvigorate its irregular warfare capabilities are often rejected by liberal politicians. They demonstrate against the special operations groups, they don’t like kicking in doors and hunting down terrorists, although the very governments that have criticized them have used these tactics and operations more than once. Yet that is a small but inevitable part of what defines irregular warfare, and it is also what has been demanded of not a few irregular combatants over the past 20 years. Hence, as several senior Pentagon officials – who should be listened to by the Biden administration – understand, Washington needs a different combat forecasting strategy that goes beyond war games in the living room to face the challenges of conflicts. modern.
The creation of the Center for Security Studies for Irregular War by the US Congress is a success in terms of National Defense, even more so considering that it has been a topic that was not entirely clear in the Biden administration that, even in 2 years of management still does not show a complete and defined plan of its Defense Strategy. The center is a good tool and will be very useful in providing answers and unifying criteria between the US political leadership and US partner countries, and to the extent that it does its job well it will be able to improve not only the understanding of irregular wars but also the most importantly, the response capabilities to confront them. After all, irregular warfare requires more brains than firepower and demands much more intellectual effort than a charge of infantry or mechanized cavalry, and if not, let Russian troops say so from their experience in the Ukraine.
globelivemedia.com · December 10, 2022
18. Jack McCain: Congress should keep our promises to our allies by passing the Afghan Adjustment Act
Jack McCain: Congress should keep our promises to our allies by passing the Afghan Adjustment Act
Chicago Tribune · by Jack McCainChicago TribuneDec 06, 2022 at 3:11 pm
As a Navy pilot and Afghanistan veteran, I know what it means to come down to the wire.
On many occasions throughout my career, I’ve had only a few seconds to make the right call for myself and those aboard my aircraft. And as the son of former Sen. John McCain, I understand the pressure that senators face in the last few weeks of the year as they scramble to address many critical pieces of must-pass legislation. But there is one priority, deeply personal to me and morally deserving of consideration: doing right by the Afghans who helped us during our 20-year war in their country.
Advertisement
In August 2021, during the shambolic final days before the Afghan government collapsed, I, like many other veterans of the war, worked the phones, leaned on my networks, and logged 20-hour days for weeks to ensure the safe evacuation of Afghans who had been my friends, colleagues and co-pilots.
I volunteered for a combat deployment in 2017, serving as an “Afghan hand” with the aim of forming lasting relationships in Afghanistan. For a year, I trained and flew alongside Afghan helicopter pilots throughout Kandahar, Uruzgan, and Helmand provinces, getting as close as I could to my counterparts. These Afghan Blackhawk pilots were people I counted on to protect me, to fly with me through fire, and who proved themselves brave beyond measure in every mission they were assigned.
Advertisement
One senior ranking officer who I was close with saw the writing on the wall as the United States set the date to withdraw our forces. He flew his aircraft home to the Panjshir Valley, scrounged up enough fuel for one last flight, gathered his troops and their families, and flew them back to Kabul to ensure they got out. Once he knew his people were safe, he turned to leave, intending to fight what he must have known was a losing battle for his country. Fortunately, other U.S. soldiers he had worked with told him that his war was over and convinced him to evacuate as well.
The evacuation of Afghans who were promised our support was a disastrous scramble. The security vetting of those who came to the United States during the weeks following the fall of Kabul was deeply imperfect. Too many valuable human assets were left behind. Some are still hiding in Pakistan in purgatory, unable to go back, lacking a way forward.
Those who made it to safety are languishing in uncertainty. Afghan Air Force combat pilots, who the United States paid millions of dollars to train, make ends meet by driving for Uber and doing other precarious jobs they’re massively overqualified and overeducated for — all because they don’t have a pathway to permanent status in the United States that would allow them to return to the skies.
It is too late to fix the dysfunction our withdrawal unleashed in Afghanistan. But there is still time to make it right. The Afghan Adjustment Act protects those who worked directly for the U.S. military as interpreters or liaisons. Additionally, all Afghans seeking status will be subject to the gold standard of security vetting — the same vetting that people seeking to resettle as refugees in the United States are required to pass. The bill will also help ensure that no one is left behind by establishing an office outside of Afghanistan where those who remain there or are stuck in third countries can go to have their cases processed, a critical step in ensuring that Afghan heroes can restart their lives with dignity.
In its current iteration, this bill also expands Special Immigrant Visa eligibility to Afghan military veterans like my fellow pilots, and beyond to those who worked directly for the U.S. military as interpreters or liaisons.
The Afghan Adjustment Act is what men and women in our Armed Forces are asking for. And we’re not alone: A majority of Americans feel that the United States should take in Afghans who risked their lives to support our military.
I will never forget the names and faces of pilots who were killed when I was in Afghanistan. To those who survived, we made a promise to bring them and their families to safety. I cannot, and will not, believe those who say we can’t fulfill this essential promise. The moral injury of continuing to fail them wears on our fighting forces every day.
It is now up to Republican Sens. John Cornyn, Jerry Moran, Thom Tillis, Pat Toomey, Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan, Marco Rubio and Mike Rounds to ensure we keep our word. These men served in Congress with my father, a prisoner of war who understood that it was important to extend safety to people who fought alongside us. These final few weeks of the 117th Congress are our best chance to keep our promise. We’re down to the wire, and it’s time to pass the Afghan Adjustment Act.
Advertisement
Jack McCain is a reserve naval aviator and son of the late Sen. John McCain.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
Chicago Tribune · by Jack McCainChicago TribuneDec 06, 2022 at 3:11 pm
De Oppresso Liber,
David Maxwell
Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation
Senior Advisor, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy
Editor, Small Wars Journal
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
Phone: 202-573-8647
email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com
| 
