13 October 2019

India’s Quest for Jobs: A Policy Agenda



The Indian economy is riding the wave of a youth bulge, with two-thirds of the country’s population below age thirty-five. The 2011 census estimated that India’s 10–15 and 10–35 age groups comprise 158 million and 583 million people, respectively.1 By 2020, India is expected to be the youngest country in the world, with a median age of twenty-nine, compared to thirty-seven for the most populous country, China.2 In the 2019 general elections, the estimated number of first-time voters was 133 million.3 Predictably, political parties scrambled to attract youth voters.4

It is therefore not surprising that, according to several surveys, the parties’ primary concern was job creation.5 The burgeoning youth population has led to an estimated 10–12 million people entering the workforce each year.6 In addition, the rapidly growing economy is transitioning away from the agricultural sector, with many workers moving into secondary and tertiary sectors. Employing this massive supply of labor is, perhaps, the biggest challenge facing India—at the very least, it requires high economic growth for the next three decades. Further, this growth must be sustainable, broad-based, and focused on creating new jobs. 


This monograph examines the potential characteristics of a future conflict between nuclear-armed adversaries based on the only two historical cases of direct conflict between nuclear powers: the 1969 Sino-Soviet War and the 1999 Kargil War between India and Pakistan. These wars suggest five key characteristics of conflicts between two nuclear powers: first, nuclear confrontations are risky and difficult to control; second, information operations and the international community have a significant impact on the outcome; third, military leaders will probably encourage escalation; fourth, military operations will face severe political and strategic constraints; and fifth, horizontal escalation is significantly more destabilizing in conflicts than vertical escalation. Based on these characteristics, current U.S. Army doctrine and concepts are ill-suited for future war against nuclear-armed competitors because the risk of escalation will require significant political and strategic constraints and because future operations should remain extremely limited in size and scope.

India must resist China’s Tibet plan

Amitabh Mathur

Chinese President Xi Jinping is expected to arrive soon for his second informal meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The coming summit is taking place in the backdrop of important developments on which the two countries have taken confronting stands.

While China advised restraint on rising tensions with Pakistan following the Pulwama and Balakot episodes, it has openly criticised India on the recent constitutional and administrative changes in Jammu and Kashmir. It reiterated its claim on all of Ladakh, stating the changes violated China’s territorial integrity which it would not “idly watch”. It supported Pakistan in the United Nations and has additionally objected to the army exercise currently underway in Arunachal Pradesh, which it claims as its own. So, apart from the usual irritants in bilateral relations such as the border dispute and trade imbalance, not much progress is expected on the traditional faultlines in Sino-Indian relations.

Getting the Afghanistan Peace Process Back on Track

What’s new? The U.S. has stopped talking to the Taliban, following President Donald Trump’s tweet revealing that he had scheduled a Camp David summit with the insurgents only to call it off.

Why does it matter? A U.S. deal with the Taliban on a narrow set of issues is necessary to pave the way for more important peace negotiations among Afghans. A draft deal that reportedly included a Taliban commitment to intra-Afghan talks had been ready for signature.

What should be done? The U.S. should pick up the process where it left off and finalise its agreement with the Taliban. The Afghan parties should prepare for a peace process to immediately follow.


China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Power Projects: Insights into Environmental and Debt Sustainability


Pakistan is increasing its use of coal to generate electricity at a time when many other countries are reducing coal use in order to cut greenhouse gas emissions or pollution. China is helping Pakistan expand its coal-fired generation capacity through the financing and construction of coal power plants as part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). CPEC is a component of Chinese president Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which aims to forge greater global connectivity in part through infrastructure development. Nearly 75 percent of the generation capacity of CPEC power plants is coal-fired. Pakistan’s National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) expects that CPEC coal power plants will be largely responsible for the projected increase in the country’s coal-fired generation capacity from 3 percent as of June 30, 2017 (fewer than six months after the first CPEC coal plant began commercial operation), to 20 percent in 2025.

As part of its series on the Belt and Road Initiative, Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy initiated research into the CPEC power sector projects, which account for the majority of the cost of CPEC projects. This paper examines two of the key concerns critics have about the BRI: environmental sustainability and debt sustainability. Concerns about environmental sustainability center on the ways in which an expansion of the amount of electricity generated globally by fossil fuels, especially coal, will increase greenhouse gas emissions, making it more difficult if not impossible to meet the emissions targets in the Paris Agreement. Concerns about debt sustainability focus on whether China’s lending in support of infrastructure projects will lead to problematic increases in debt, with some analysts maintaining that Beijing is intentionally seeking to push countries into debt distress in an attempt to gain control over strategic assets or decision-making in borrowing countries.

Russia and China: The Potential of Their Partnership

Russia and China: The Potential of Their Partnership Russia and China are celebrating their “strategic partnership”, and have been vastly expanding their cooperation since 2014. Their close alliance is based on economic and geopolitical considerations. While it is mutually beneficial, it also has its limitations. However, in the midterm, both China and Russia appear to be willing to overlook potential fields of tension, for instance in Central Asia. No. 250, October 2019, Editors: Fabien Merz and Lisa Watanabe By Jeronim Perović and Benno Zogg Russia is increasingly orienting itself toward Asia. President Vladimir Putin’s vision of a “Greater Europe”, 

which pictured a free-trade zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok, has given way – at least since the Ukrainian crisis of 2014 and the subsequent Western sanctions and Russian counter-sanctions – to the idea of a “Greater Eurasia”. Moscow now tends to highlight its position of power at the center of the Eurasian landmass and the new importance of Asia for Russian foreign policy. China plays a crucial role in this context. There is no other head of state whom Putin has met more often than President Xi Jinping. Pro-government media outlets in Russia depict China in a very positive light, and public perceptions of the neighboring country have also improved.

The Unwinnable Trade War

By Weijian Shan 

In late June, the leaders of China and the United States announced at the G-20 meeting in Osaka, Japan, that they had reached a détente in their trade war. U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that the two sides had set negotiations “back on track.” He put on hold new tariffs on Chinese goods and lifted restrictions preventing U.S. companies from selling to Huawei, the blacklisted Chinese telecommunications giant. Markets rallied, and media reports hailed the move as a “cease-fire.”

That supposed cease-fire was a false dawn, one of many that have marked the on-again, off-again diplomacy between Beijing and Washington. All wasn’t quiet on the trade front; the guns never stopped blazing. In September, after a summer of heated rhetoric, the Trump administration increased tariffs on another $125 billion worth of Chinese imports. China responded by issuing tariffs on an additional $75 billion worth of U.S. goods. The United States might institute further tariffs in December, bringing the total value of Chinese goods subject to punitive tariffs to over half a trillion dollars, covering almost all Chinese imports. China’s retaliation is expected to cover 69 percent of its imports from the United States. If all the threatened hikes are put in place, the average tariff rate on U.S. imports of Chinese goods will be about 24 percent, up from about three percent two years ago, and that on Chinese imports of U.S. goods will be at nearly 26 percent, compared with China’s average tariff rate of 6.7 percent for all other countries.

Sorry, Lindsey Graham: America Can't Kick Turkey Out of NATO Unilaterally

by Daniel R. DePetris

President Donald Trump’s decision to relocate U.S. forces away from the Syria-Turkish border in anticipation of a Turkish military offensive in the area has been greeted by a collective groan from the foreign policy establishment on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. 

Lawmakers from Sens. Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham to Chris Murphy and Elizabeth Warren have condemned Trump’s move as a strategically shortsighted, humanitarian abomination. In a joint statement issued on October 7, Romney and Murphy wrote that the redeployment was a “betrayal” of the very same Syrian Kurdish fighters that served as the main ground component in the U.S. anti-Islamic State campaign. The order, in the senators' words, "will have grave humanitarian and national security consequences.” 

Defense Department officials received no advance warning about the redeployment and were therefore surprised to learn about it last night. One National Security Council official told Newsweek on condition of anonymity that Trump was out-negotiated by Turkish President Recep Erdogan during his latest phone call. There is a rising degree of anger and indignation percolating throughout the national security bureaucracy, much of which was outright opposed to removing the U.S. presence in northeast Syria and indeed viewed U.S. troops as a deterrent to a Turkish offensive against Kurdish armed formations. 

The Myth of the Remote-Controlled Car Bomb

Hugo Kaaman

The car bomb is an incredibly powerful and versatile weapon. Depending on how it’s designed, it can be used to cause unfathomable destruction in all sorts of environments, against targets of varying nature. Car bombs, also known as Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIEDs), are some of the most popular weapons employed by non-state actors. Traditionally speaking, the most commonly used type of car bomb has been the parked VBIED.

With this method, civilian vehicles are usually rigged with explosives, and then parked at their targets before being detonated. The driver ferrying the vehicle to its intended location thus has ample time to slip away, leaving behind what is basically a larger, concealed IED. Alternatively, the VBIED can be driven to the target and detonated by a driver. During the latter half of the past decade, the use of such Suicide Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (SVBIEDs) has skyrocketed, with the Islamic State (IS) as the main culprit. In 2016 and 2017 alone, IS claimed to have used a total of 1,383 SVBIEDs, most of them up-armored, as part of their prolonged military campaigns in Syria and Iraq.

Is an ISIS Resurgence Underway?

Anu Adewole

Earlier this month, self-proclaimed ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi directed followers to break former ISIS members out of prisons and camps.

Northeast Syria, controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), holds the largest number of prisoners and displaced people, including relatives of ISIS fighters. An estimated at the al-Hawl camp for civilians lived under ISIS rule. A staggering 70,000 people in the al-Hawl Camp greatly outnumber the U.S. backed SDF. Currently, the camp is guarded by about 400 SDF troops.

Recently, there have been signs of growing radicalization and extremist behaviors in the camp, led by women. There have been reports of women stabbing multiple numbers of SDF guards, and other occupants of the camp have been murdered.

Many women and children who lived under ISIS occupation have shown unwavering support for the terror group.

Confusion reigns as Trump authorizes troop withdrawal from Turkish-Syrian border towns

Amberin Zaman 

US forces began withdrawing today from two Kurdish-controlled towns in northern Syria to make way for the entry of Turkish troops in what the Kurds are calling “a historic betrayal” by the United States, but rather seems like just more confusion enveloping the Donald Trump administration’s Syria policy.

“US forces are vacating their positions in Tell Abyad and Ras al-Ain,” a senior official for the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. He called the move “utterly unexpected” and said it was not in keeping with US pledges to keep Turkish troops out of the Kurds' self-administered zone. “If Turkey invades, the Kurds will fight back,” the SDF official vowed.

As Al-Monitor went to press, the Turkish Foreign Ministry issued a statement suggesting it would cross into northern Syria. "At this stage, the promises of the US military authorities have not been kept. In the process, the US security establishment increased its engagement with the PYD/YPG instead of ending it, an approach contrary to the current allied relationship with our country.” The statement continued that Turkey would rid the area east of the Euphrates from "terrorists," and that Erdogan had made this clear in his telephone conversation with Trump. 

Saudi Arabia Considers the Consequences of a Strike on Iran

Determined to avoid becoming further embroiled in the Middle East, the United States will push Saudi Arabia to take the lead in any potential military strike on Iran. But if Riyadh chooses to stage such an attack, it will have to contend with the consequences that the more credible its actions, the more significant Iran's retaliation could be.Ultimately, Saudi Arabia has the means to strike back, but it will find it difficult to insulate itself from subsequent Iranian counterstrikes. Accordingly, Riyadh will seek as much U.S. assistance and backing as possible before it proceeds.

Two weeks after a devastating attack on Saudi oil facilities at Abqaiq and Khurais, one major question remains up in the air: What are the United States and Saudi Arabia going to do in response? Both are attempting to make a compelling case that Iran was directly culpable for the attacks. With proof of Iran's guilt, they can further isolate Tehran diplomatically, potentially paving the way for an aggressive response.

Iran's Missiles Would Be a Real Problem During a War

by David Axe 

Iran is continuing to develop increasingly long-range ballistic missiles -- and is firing some shorter-range missiles in combat -- despite demands from the U.S. government that the Islamic republic totally give up any weapons that could, in theory, carry a nuclear warhead.

On Sept. 8 and Oct. 1, 2018, Iran launched Zulfiqar, Quim-1 and Fateh-110 rockets at enemies in Iraqi Kurdistan. The strikes together represent the most intensive Iranian missile attacks in nearly 20 years.

The October strike, involving Zulfiqar and Qiam-1 rockets, targeted Islamic State militants near the eastern Syrian border town of Abu Kamal. The volley of Fateh-110 missiles in September struck Iranian Kurdish dissident groups based in Iraqi Kurdistan, killing at least 17 and wounding scores of people, including women and children.

Tehran fired the missiles amid escalating tensions with the United States. In May 2018, the Trump administration withdrew the United States from the international Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a 2016 deal between Iran, China, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States that eased sanctions on Iran in exchange for Tehran ending development of nuclear weapons.

Trump and Tehran Shake Up the Middle East

By Thomas L. Friedman

I’m sure I’m not the only one who finds it bizarre that the Republican leadership is (rightly) going nuts over President Trump’s betrayal of the Kurds in Syria while it’s ignoring his betrayal of the U.S. Constitution at home. If only Lindsey Graham & Co. were as eager to defend our democracy as they are the Kurds. But I digress.

If you think Trump’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria will make the Middle East more explosive, you’re correct. But there’s far more going on. Those troops were also interrupting Iran’s efforts to build a land bridge from Tehran to Beirut to tighten a noose around Israel — and their removal could help bring the Iran-Israel shadow war out into the open. This is the really big story in the Middle East today.

Here’s the background: In the early hours of Sept. 14, the Iranian Air Force launched roughly 20 drones and cruise missiles at one of Saudi Arabia’s most important oil fields and processing facilities. The drones and cruise missiles flew so low and with such stealth that neither their takeoff nor their impending attack was detected in time by Saudi or U.S. radar. The pro-Iranian Houthi militia in Yemen claimed responsibility for the raid. That was as believable as saying that Santa Claus did it.

The United States in Syria: Why it still matters

by Frederic C. Hof

Ambassador and Distinguished Senior Fellow Frederic C. Hof’s analysis and insightful commentary regarding the current US-Syria Policy as it stands today along with his recommendations to move it forward.

Established by the US Congress in 2018, the Syria Study Group—twelve members appointed by six senior Republican and six senior Democratic members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives—has, since February 2019, examined the military and diplomatic strategy of the United States with respect to Syria and has now issued a final report, one featuring the Group’s policy recommendations.

Still, a report enjoying the baseline consent of twelve people with twelve different points of departure and twelve separate experiences with the crisis in Syria cannot reflect in full the priorities and preferences of each individual member. This writer applauds the final report of the Syria Study Group, appreciates the hard work and intellectual honesty of his fellow Group members, and proudly affixes his name to the document, all the while still holding a set of views on American national security objectives and strategy for Syria not fully replicated by the report itself. Indeed, it was not the job of the Group to replicate in its report the views of any single member.

The Syrian Conflict Is About to Intensify

By Steven A. Cook

President Donald J. Trump’s announcement of a troop withdrawal in northern Syria ahead of a Turkish invasion could revive the Islamic State and the Syrian civil war, and signal the end of U.S. influence there. U.S. troops have begun pulling back from the northeastern Syria-Turkey border. What’s going on?

President Trump has long wanted to withdraw from Syria. He believes it is the responsibility of local actors to work out their geopolitical and security problems. Because Trump has declared the defeat of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, he sees no reason for U.S. forces to remain there. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has sought to convince Trump, most recently in a phone call on October 6, that there is no longer a need for the United States to be in northeastern Syria because the Islamic State is no longer a major threat. As a result, the United States no longer needs a security relationship with the Syrian Kurdish forces known as the People’s Protection Units (YPG). This group has been instrumental in the fight against the Islamic State and currently holds a reported ninety thousand of the group’s fighters and families in makeshift prisons. The YPG is directly linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been waging a war on Turkey since the 1980s.

Turkey: Preparations 'complete' for Syria military action

Preparations for a major military operation in northeast Syria are complete, Turkey announced on Tuesday after the United States pulled back troops and cleared the way for a Turkish attack on Kurdish-led forces long allied to Washington.

But US President Donald Trump warned he would "obliterate" the NATO ally's economy if it took action in Syria that he considered "off limits" following his decision on Sunday to pull 50 American special forces troops from the border region.

The US withdrawal will leave its Kurdish-led partner - the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) - vulnerable to military action by Turkey, which brands them "terrorists" because of their links to Kurdish fighters who have waged a decades-long resistance inside Turkey.

Turkey's armed forces "will never tolerate the establishment of a terror corridor on our borders. All preparations for the operation have been completed", the defence ministry said on Twitter early on Tuesday.

The Next Step in Low Orbit Space Commercialization

The Next Step in Low Orbit Space Commercialization

On June 21, 2019, the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies’ Center for Enterprise, Exploration, and Defense in Space (CEEDS) held a seminar titled: “The Next Space Industry: Low Earth Orbit Commercialization” to examine and discuss issues related to low Earth orbit (LEO) commercialization.

See Full Report here

The Global Disinformation Order: 2019 Global Inventory of Organised Social Media Manipulation

Over the past three years, we have monitored the global organization of social media manipulation by governments and political parties. Our 2019 report analyses the trends of computational propaganda and the evolving tools, capacities, strategies, and resources.

1. Evidence of organized social media manipulation campaigns which have taken place in 70 countries, up from 48 countries in 2018 and 28 countries in 2017. In each country, there is at least one political party or government agency using social media to shape public attitudes domestically.

2. Social media has become co-opted by many authoritarian regimes. In 26 countries, computational propaganda is being used as a tool of information control in three distinct ways: to suppress fundamental human rights, discredit political opponents, and drown out dissenting opinions.

3. A handful of sophisticated state actors use computational propaganda for foreign influence operations. Facebook and Twitter attributed foreign influence operations to seven countries (China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela) who have used these platforms to influence global audiences.

NIDS Joint Research Series No.17


The National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) is the Nation’s strategic plan to strengthen and enhance emergency communications capabilities. The NECP navigates the complex mission of maintaining and improving emergency communications capabilities for emergency responders and serves as the Nation’s roadmap to ensuring emergency communications interoperability at all levels of government. The NECP establishes a shared vision for emergency communications and assists those who plan for, coordinate, invest in, and use operable and interoperable communications for response and recovery operations. This includes traditional emergency responder disciplines and other partners from the whole community that share information during incidents and planned events.

Title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, requires that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) develop the NECP to “provide recommendations regarding how the United States should support and promote the ability of emergency response providers and relevant government officials to continue to communicate in the event of disasters and to ensure, accelerate, and attain interoperable emergency communications nationwide.” The law also directs CISA to develop and periodically update the NECP in coordination with local, state, territorial, tribal, federal, and private sector stakeholders.

ICT Supply Chain Integrity: Principles for Governmental and Corporate Policies


Summary: Reliable information and communication technology / operational technology products and services are an indispensable part of modern life. But much of their performance hinges on efficient and secure supply chains that have minimal inadvertent flaws or vulnerabilities and that guard against harmful interventions.

In an increasingly digitized world, information and communication technologies (ICTs), and especially operational technologies (OTs), have assumed critical importance for governments, industry, and the general public worldwide. Yet trust in the integrity of these products and services is declining because of mounting concerns over inadvertent vulnerabilities in the supply chain and intentional backdoor interventions by state and corporate actors. Compounding the problem, these legitimate security concerns are sometimes exaggerated for political and commercial reasons—a counterproductive dynamic that fuels rivalries, fragments the marketplace, increases anxiety, stifles innovation, and drives up costs.

Cyber Risk Scenarios, the Financial System, and Systemic Risk Assessment


Cyber risk has become a key issue for stakeholders in the financial system. But its properties are still not precisely characterized and well understood. To help develop a better understanding, we discuss the properties of cyber risk and categorize various cyber risk scenarios. Furthermore, we present a conceptual framework for assessing systemic cyber risk to individual countries. This involves analyzing cyber risk exposures, assessing cybersecurity and preparedness capabilities, and identifying buffers available to absorb cyber risk–induced shocks.


Internet usage is globally expanding at a rapid pace. According to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), 1.5 billion new users accessed the internet between 2010 and 2016.1 Although internet access fosters digital, social, and financial inclusion, the ever-expanding digitalization of life increasingly provides opportunities for adversaries. These opportunities range from criminals conducting financial fraud and information theft to sophisticated hackers conducting disruptive and even destructive cyber attacks.

NATO: Past, Present and Future

by David J. Bercuson

On its seventieth birthday, several questions are being posed about the future of NATO. This alliance was formed in 1949 as a deterrent to the Soviet Union, to link the United States and its nuclear umbrella to the defence of Europe, and to prevent Soviet dominance over European states that lay just to the west of Soviet or satellite border lands. In general, NATO was to “contain” the USSR, in the words of American diplomat George Kennan, until such time as the Soviet system collapsed, as in fact it did.

NATO now faces a number of challenges: The presidency of Donald Trump; The re-emergence of nationalism and populism in Europe; the problem of marginal nations in the alliance alongside the 2% guideline for defence spending and further NATO expansion; the complexity of NATO coalition operations; what does NATO need in the future to stay relevant.

Trump’s Trade Wars: A New World Order?

Dr. James M. Dorsey

President Trump’s declared economic protectionism has taken the United States’ international relations with several foes and allies to some uncharted territories. His open-ended trade wars toward several nations have triggered criticism among conservatives and liberals alike in the United States. He has justified his actions by arguing for a downturn of America’s trade deficit. However, a recent Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll survey shows 63 percent of registered voters said that tariffs imposed on Chinese products ultimately hurt the U.S. more than China; while 74 percent said that American consumers are shouldering most of the burden of those tariffs. (1) The political network funded in part by billionaire libertarian Charles Koch has contested Trump’s approach toward China, and decided to shape an alternative strategy in the year of the U.S. Presidential elections. One Koch senior official has acknowledged, “It doesn’t penetrate with the people that are willing to go along with the argument that you have to punish China.” There is now a pursuit of a “two steps back strategy,” which will involve putting together a team of almost 100 business leaders to call on the Trump administration and lawmakers to end the trade war with China. (2)

In this paper, James M. Dorsey, senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University and the Middle East Institute of the National University of Singapore, examines the ramifications of President Trump’s policy of economic sanctions and tariffs vis-à-vis several nations and international groupings. He also looks at China’s counter strategy, and whether Middle Eastern countries, like Saudi Arabia, will be caught in the web of the current trade wars. 

Campaign Planning Handbook AY20

COL Mark Haseman
Source Link

The purpose of this document is to assist United States Army War College students during the Military Strategy and Campaigning (MSC) course. It also serves to assist commanders, planners, and other staff officers in combatant commands (CCMD), joint task forces (JTF), and service component commands. It supplements joint doctrine and contains elements of emerging doctrine as practiced globally by joint force commanders (JFCs). It portrays a way to apply published doctrine and emerging doctrine at the higher levels of joint command, with a primary emphasis at the combatant command level.

Stay protected while connected

We’ve all got locks on our homes, on our cars, even on our gym lockers. It’s how we keep our valuables secure; our physical valuables, that is.

But what about our digital valuables, the files, photos and personal information we all hold dear? Even now, there seems to be less vigilance when it comes to protecting cyber data.

Raytheon is joining the National Cyber Security Alliance, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and other industry partners for October's National Cybersecurity Awareness Month – an effort to help all Americans stay safer and more secure online. This year's theme is "Own IT. Secure IT. Protect IT." that encourages personal accountability in security and privacy best practices.

“Our goal is to make these security practices a lifetime campaign and not just something that we do during the month of October,” said Kelvin Coleman, NCSA executive director. “I hope this becomes as commonplace as putting on your seat belts.”

Inside the British Army's secret information warfare machine


Abarbed-wire fence stretched off far to either side. A Union flag twisted in a gust of wind, and soldiers strode in and out of a squat guard’s hut in the middle of the road. Through the hut, and under a row of floodlights, I walked towards a long line of drab, low-rise brick buildings. It was the summer of 2017, and on this military base nestled among the hills of Berkshire, I was visiting a part of the British Army unlike any other. They call it the 77th Brigade. They are the troops fighting Britain’s information wars.

“If everybody is thinking alike then somebody isn’t thinking,” was written in foot-high letters across a whiteboard in one of the main atriums of the base. Over to one side, there was a suite full of large, electronic sketch pads and multi-screened desktops loaded with digital editing software. The men and women of the 77th knew how to set up cameras, record sound, edit videos. Plucked from across the military, they were proficient in graphic design, social media advertising, and data analytics. Some may have taken the army’s course in Defence Media Operations, and almost half were reservists from civvy street, with full time jobs in marketing or consumer research.

Integrate cyber maintenance into the US Army’s battle rhythm

By: Col. Stephen Hamilton and Jan Kallberg   

The U.S. Army continually transforms over time, and the latest iteration is the transformation to support the concept of Multi-Domain Battle. This concept describes how the Army will operate, fight and campaign successfully across space, cyberspace, air, land and maritime domains. While cyberspace is defined as a domain, it is not separate and integrates across all other domains. Maintaining cyber physical systems is critical to succeed across all domains.

Future conflict will likely unfold quickly and immediately initiate U.S. forces to move from current positions to theater. Therefore, readiness is key to success, and maintained equipment is a part of the preparation for these transitions to war fighting. That is a known fact.

Here’s what the Marine Corps battlefield network needs

By: Mark Pomerleau
Source Link

Winning the next conflict against a highly sophisticated adversary will require speed of information and movement. This means forces will need both data on demand and systems that won’t weight them down on the battlefield.

For the Marine Corps, this means deploying its network for forces that will have to move quickly on the ground.

“We are learning to deploy the [Marine Corps Enterprise Network] MCEN forward. No longer will be able to deliver tactical networks and reach back into a garrison network,” Lt. Gen. Lori Reynolds, deputy commandant for information, said Oct. 7 at an AFCEA-hosted event in Tysons Corner, Virginia. “We have to be able to be mobile.”

She noted that when she deployed to Fallujah, Iraq, years ago, she knew they weren’t going to have to move anywhere.