A ‘hammer attack’ just outside Boise: Indian, U.S. special forces train for urban raids

Sarah Cutler

Source Link

A desire to counter China’s influence has pushed the relationship between India and the U.S. to “new heights” in recent years, most visibly with Indian President Narendra Modi’s official state visit to Washington, D.C., in 2023, according to the U.S. Institute of Peace.

India’s “deepening relationship” with the U.S. adds it to “the bulwark of nations committed to countering Beijing’s malign influence,” according to a report by the institute.

This month, part of that relationship-building is taking place in Ada County. Since early November, nearly 100 American Green Berets and Indian Special Forces have been training together at the Orchard Combat Training Center, a combined arms training site about 20 miles south of Boise. The nearly 200,000-acre training site provides “some of the best training ranges in the world,” said Lt. Col. Christopher Borders, a public affairs officer for the Idaho National Guard.

he environment in Southern Idaho “resembles a lot of the areas where the U.S. military and our partners have operated over the last couple of decades,” he told the Idaho Statesman by email. Just this year, this training environment has drawn forces from Singapore, Canada, Poland and Germany to train with Idaho National Guardsmen at the Orchard Combat Training Center and the nearby Mountain Home Air Force Base, Borders said.

What Does the G20 Do

Anshu Siripurapu, Noah Berman, and James McBride

Source Link

Introduction

The Group of Twenty (G20), originally a collection of twenty of the world’s largest economies, was conceived as a bloc that would bring together the most important industrialized and developing economies to discuss international economic and financial stability. Its annual summit, a gathering of G20 leaders that debuted in 2008, has evolved into a major forum for discussing economics as well as other pressing global issues. Bilateral meetings on the summit’s sidelines have occasionally led to major international agreements. And while one of the group’s most impressive achievements was its robust response to the 2008 financial crisis, its cohesion has since frayed, and analysts have criticized its lackluster response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Tensions within the group have continued to grow as high- and low-income countries have increasingly diverged on major issues such as climate change, economic development, and the ongoing fallout from the war in Ukraine. The 2023 summit saw the entrance of the African Union (AU) as the group’s newest member, and at the 2024 summit in Rio de Janeiro, host Brazil is seeking to further strengthen the influence of the Global South in world affairs.

Who is in the G20?

The G20 is a forum comprising nineteen countries with some of the world’s largest economies, as well as the European Union (EU) and, as of 2023, the AU. The countries are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States. Spain is invited as a permanent guest.

Countering A ‘Great Jihad’ In Central Asia – Analysis

Bruce Pannier

Source Link

Concerns about Islamic extremism are rising in Central Asia. None of the governments in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, or Uzbekistan are commenting publicly about any specific threats. Still, there is a lot of activity aimed at controlling how Islam is practiced and what people say about the religion on social networks in these majority-Muslim countries.

Law enforcement agencies are carrying out security operations aimed at rooting out suspected Islamic extremists in their countries, almost certainly spurred by citizens of the Central Asian states’ involvement in terrorist plots and acts outside the region. All this has happened before in Central Asia, but previous extremism or terrorism problems affected only an individual Central Asian country. Now, all five Central Asian governments are taking actions, showing that these fresh concerns are spread across the region. Though these worries are not directly connected to the Taliban, the recent commotion in Central Asia started after the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan in mid-August 2021.

The History And Impact Of Japan’s Loans To China – Analysis

Xia Ri

Source Link

1979 was a critical year for the economic, political, and diplomatic development between China and Japan. During his visit to China, then-Japanese Prime Minister Masayoshi Ōhira explicitly stated that Japan would support China’s reform and opening-up efforts. Subsequently, Japan formally began providing government development loans to China, primarily in yen. In December 2007, China and Japan signed the yen loan agreement, and 28 years later, the Japanese government officially announced that it would cease the loans to China starting in 2008. Researchers at ANBOUND believe that yen loans played a significant role in China’s reform and opening-up, and in advancing China’s socialist modernization. However, the importance of yen loans is clearly underestimated in China, hence the need for it to be re-examined and recognized.

In its entire process, Japan provided loans to China in batches, with the initial scale rapidly increasing, peaking in 2000, then sharply decreasing. Overall, yen loans show the five characteristics of high amounts, large increases, low interest rates, long repayment periods, and high cooperation.

The first three batches of yen loans saw a significant increase in scale. The first batch (1979-1983) amounted to JPY 330.9 billion, with an interest rate of 3% and a 30-year repayment period, including a 10-year grace period. The second batch (1984-1989) was announced during Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone’s visit to China in 1984, with a loan of JPY 470 billion, an interest rate ranging from 3% to 5%, and the same 30-year repayment period, including a 10-year grace period. The third batch (1990-1995), announced during Prime Minister Takeshita Noboru’s visit in 1988, involved JPY 810 billion, a 2.5% interest rate, and a 30-year repayment period, also with a 10-year grace period.

What The Arakan Army’s Rise Means For The Rohingya – Analysis

Dr. Azeem Ibrahim

Source Link

The Arakan Army is emerging as the dominant force in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, a dramatic shift that could redefine the region’s political landscape. Over the past year, this group has not only entrenched itself militarily, but it has also sought to carve out a role as a governing authority. This transformation, while significant, brings both opportunities and challenges for Rakhine’s people, including the long-persecuted Rohingya minority.

The Arakan Army’s military achievements are striking. By mid-October, it had established control over an estimated two-thirds of Rakhine State, including critical areas such as the state capital Sittwe, the Kyaukphyu Special Economic Zone and the Myanmar military’s strategically important Western Command base. This consolidation is underpinned by the creation of nine military zones across the state and the deployment of thousands of troops in allied territories.

This rise from obscurity is remarkable. Founded in 2009 with just 26 members, the Arakan Army now fields a force of about 40,000 troops. Its rapid growth reflects both its military prowess and its ability to position itself as a credible alternative to Myanmar’s junta.

The strangulation of Myanmar’s ravaged Rakhine state

David Scott Mathieson

Source Link

Myanmar’s war-ravaged Rakhine state faces a humanitarian catastrophe just as the insurgent Arakan Army (AA) looks set to take almost complete control of the area from the border with Bangladesh down to the Irrawaddy Delta after a year of brutal armed conflict.

The anti-military AA is currently besieging the central town of Ann, home to the Myanmar military’s Western Command, and is still engaged in furious fighting in Maungdaw to overrun Border Guard Police Camp 5, the final installation after months of grinding street battles and destructive drone warfare.

The coup-installed State Administration Council (SAC) military junta has been dropping reinforcements and supplies into both areas by parachute and helicopter, prolonging the fighting.

The AA has seized more than ten townships in several months of brutal fighting. The state capital, Sittwe, is effectively surrounded, forcing thousands of inhabitants to flee south to Yangon by ship.

The seaport and airport are still functioning, but land routes are reportedly closed. SAC security forces are fortifying the city in anticipation of an imminent AA assault. Recent photos emerging from Sittwe show deserted streets; a longstanding internet blackout frustrates a full picture of the situation inside the city.

Is China Ready for the Trump Trade War 2.0?

Yan Liang

Source Link

Donald Trump’s first term as U.S. president ushered in a sweeping trade war with China and his second term promises to double down on the tariffs on China. Pundits disagree on whether his campaign trail pledge to institute a 60 percent across-the-board tariff on imports from China amounts to a bargaining chip for a trade deal or a decoupling strategy.

On the one hand, Trump is known for his unpredictability and transactional inclinations, and there is a lot that he could ask from China. Some of the items that are high on his wish list may include: voluntary export restraints to reduce Chinese exports to the U.S.; more imports of U.S. farm products; more Chinese investments in the U.S. to create jobs; and additional purchases of treasuries. Trump could also request China to exert more influence on Russia, North Korea, and Iran for the United States’ geopolitical interest, and the list goes on.

On the other hand, a 60 percent tariff may not be a tactic to strike a trade deal but an integral part of the “America First” strategy. Some of the emerging signs would attest to this possibility. First, Trump has announced several key Cabinet members who clearly and forcefully denounce China as a strategic rival. These China hawks could make any pragmatic deal-making difficult. Second, Trump may genuinely believe that tariffs are paid by the Chinese side and that tariff revenues can replace other taxes to fund a downsized government. Third, Trump may be disappointed by the results of the Phase One trade deal and decide not to replay the old trick. And finally, Trump may be led to believe that the trade war would devastate the Chinese economy while solidifying the United States’ economic might.

Dr. Li Bicheng, or How China Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Social Media Manipulation

Nathan Beauchamp-Mustafaga, Kieran Green, William Marcellino, Sale Lilly & Jackson Smith

Source Link

Chapter 1. Introduction

In the spring of 2016, Li Bicheng, a computer science professor, left the technology-focused

Information Engineering University (IEU) in Zhengzhou, China, and moved to the language- and culture-focused Huaqiao University in Quanzhou, China. But Li is no ordinary academic, and this was no ordinary midcareer job change. Li Bicheng is a Chinese military researcher who, we argue, is likely the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA’s) top expert on social media manipulation and at least partly responsible for overseeing its operationalization of this capability since the mid-2010s. 

Additional details on Li’s move help explain this significance. IEU is a part of the PLA Cyberspace Force (PLACSF), which is responsible for the PLA’s cyber, electronic warfare, and core foreign influence operations.1 Huaqiao University is affiliated with China’s United Front Work Department (UFWD), which is responsible for much of China’s interpersonal influence operations for both domestic and foreign target audiences.2 This also means that Li officially appears to have retired from his military service in the PLA and become a nominally civilian academic at Huaqiao, although plenty of evidence suggests Li has maintained his PLA ties. For the purposes of this report, we consider him to still be a PLA -affiliated researcher. 

More Than Brute Force Is Needed To Upset Hezbollah’s Financial Network – Analysis

James Durso

Source Link

Israel recently attacked banks in Lebanon it alleges are part of the financial network that supports Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah (a member of the Lebanese government). While Israel is great at the blowing-up aspect of fighting Hezbollah’s financial network, a bank is just a building, a mailing address — not “the network.”

The U.S. government has been working to disrupt Hezbollah’s financial network since it designated the group a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1997, part of a broader strategy to weaken the group’s operational capabilities and reduce its influence.

Among the tools used by the U.S. are: 

• Sanctions and financial alerts: The U.S. Department of the Treasury has imposed sanctions on individuals and entities involved in financial operations with Hezbollah ties. These sanctions are designed to restrict Hezbollah’s access to the global financial system. In addition, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued alerts to financial institutions to help them identify and report suspicious activities related to Hezbollah.
• International cooperation and targeting financial networks: The U.S. has coordinated with other countries, such as Qatar, to impose sanctions on Hezbollah financiers. Also, the U.S. has targeted Hezbollah’s financial networks, including those involved in oil smuggling, money laundering, and illegal weapons procurement.

On Climate, Will Trump Have It All His Own Way? – Analysis

Dhesigen Naidoo

Source Link

Donald Trump’s comments during his 2024 campaign trail, together with his actions during his first presidency, suggest doom and gloom for the global climate agenda – and a severe retardation of climate action during his upcoming second term.

But new factors determine the global landscape compared to 2016, offering a more nuanced set of possibilities for climate action.

Trump announced the United States’ (US) withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change in 2017. The official exit came in November 2020, just before the end of his first term. Although President Joe Biden’s administration soon reversed the departure, some damage was done. A second withdrawal could be devastating.

Trump also appointed climate change sceptics to key positions within the US administration and beyond. He picked Scott Pruitt as Environmental Protection Agency head and nominated David Malpass – famous for denying the scientific consensus on the link between fossil fuels and global warming – as president of the World Bank. The bank is a key body expected to support an international movement to a lower carbon economy.

Elon Musk’s $2 Trillion Fiscal Fantasy

JEFFREY FRANKEL

Source Link

When the US presidential election was called for Donald Trump, the yield on ten-year US government bonds increased from 4.3% to 4.4%, and the 30-year-bond yield rose from 4.5% to 4.6%, with both remaining at those levels ten days later. As the bond market declined – higher yields mean lower prices – the stock market rose. Clearly, investors expect the next Trump administration to produce higher government budget deficits and more debt.

It is not difficult to see why. During Trump’s first term in office, he added $8 trillion to the national debt – all previous presidents combined had accumulated $20 trillion – despite having promised to run budget surpluses so large that they would eliminate the national debt within two terms.

In the campaign, he vowed to cut taxes for seemingly every group that caught his fancy. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s central estimate, Trump’s tax proposals imply $10 trillion in foregone revenue over the next ten years. Add to that an extra $1 trillion in interest accrued on the national debt, and the losses far exceed the $3 trillion in added revenue that would come from the sky-high tariffs that Trump has pledged to introduce. This will require the federal government to sell a lot of bonds – a practice that will keep their price low and interest rates high.

Securing AI Labs in the U.S. is a National Imperative

Michael Groen

Source Link

The United States is at a critical juncture with artificial intelligence as it scales to become capable across a wide range of applications. If current trends continue, advanced AI will transform both national security and economic competitiveness. And as U.S. tech companies and federal laboratories alike continue to push the frontiers of AI capabilities, they become prime targets of espionage, particularly from adversarial nations like China. Congressional leadership can increase protections against foreign espionage as they finalize the National Defense Authorization Act for 2025 to counter this strategic threat. Our adversaries are capitalizing on AI advancements. The time is now for us to act to close the gaps in our security.

The breakthroughs in machine intelligence have placed AI at the center of the global race for technological dominance, with nations competing fiercely not only for the economic advantages AI can unlock but also for its critical military and intelligence applications. The United States, home to world-renowned research institutions, and leading federal and private AI labs, holds the razor-thin edge in this race. However, this advantage is under threat from China, whose government heavily invests in its domestic AI industry and state-sponsored cyberattacks, espionage, and intellectual property theft against U.S. national and private labs are on the rise.

To address these threats, the U.S. government, academia, and the private sector need to take coordinated action. As AI technologies play an increasingly critical role in both civilian and military applications, we need close coordination with counterintelligence agencies to help AI labs identify security vulnerabilities, detect insider threats, and safeguard intellectual property, while also adhering to export control regulations that prevent the unauthorized transfer of AI technologies.

Americans Love a Tough Guy

Jeffrey A. Friedman and Andrew Payne

Source Link

During the 2024 presidential campaign, the U.S. foreign policy establishment was virtually united in declaring Donald Trump unfit to serve as commander in chief. More than 100 Republican national security leaders joined with Democrats to endorse Kamala Harris, condemning Trump as an aspiring autocrat who would upend the U.S.-built global order. Even several of Trump’s own top officials—including two secretaries of defense, two national security advisers, and a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—warned that Trump posed a clear and present danger to the United States’ interests abroad and its democracy at home.

Yet Trump is now returning to the White House, and foreign policy appears to have helped him get there. Although international relations are not as important to voters as the economy, polling data indicates that global issues did play a role in the election’s outcome and that this factor worked to Trump’s advantage. This was partly because of Trump’s stance on immigration, which was the top international issue on voters’ minds by a wide margin. But it was also because Trump convinced voters that he is a strong leader—which is the attribute that the electorate values most in a commander in chief. Harris, meanwhile, struggled to explain how she would inject new life into U.S. foreign policy at a time when most Americans say they are dissatisfied with their country’s standing in the world.

Will Ukraine become Europe’s forever-problem?

Gabriel Elefteriu

Source Link

As the war reached its 1000th day this week, any form of victory seems further away from Kyiv’s grasp than ever before. Militarily, Ukraine’s situation is dramatic; politically, after the US election, it is irrecoverable. Soon, the West – especially Europe – may have to face the final results of its Ukraine policy. We should not shy from discussing the worst case scenario, not least because the record of Western strategy over the past 30 years suggests that versions of the worst are rather likely. The full reality of where things could realistically end for Ukraine is almost too hideous to contemplate, but it is important to be clear on the risks so we avoid even greater policy mistakes as the endgame approaches.

Negative prospects

The greatest risk is that Ukraine becomes Europe’s insoluble, festering, forever-problem and a recurring source of conflict with a major military power; a war-torn land that never gets to recover, locked in a spiral of resentment, corruption and violence, drained of talent and living on the charity of its sponsors; and perhaps an inadvertent exporter of trouble, including vast refugee flows, among its neighbours. Some might find in this parallels with how Palestine is seen by many Arab states.

Sweden, Finland Urge Residents To Be Ready For War

Source Link

Sweden on Monday began sending some five million pamphlets to residents urging them to prepare for the possibility of war, as neighbouring Finland launched a new preparedness website.

Both Sweden and Finland dropped decades of military non-alignment to join the US-led military alliance NATO in the wake of Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Since the start of the war, Stockholm has repeatedly urged Swedes to prepare both mentally and logistically for the possibility of war, citing the serious security situation in its vicinity.

The booklet "If Crisis or War Comes", sent by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB), contains information about how to prepare for emergencies such as war, natural disasters, or cyber attacks.

It is an updated version of a pamphlet that Sweden has issued five times since World War II.

Biden’s ATACMS Gambit on Ukraine Could Blow up in America’s Face

Daniel L. Davis

Source Link

The U.S. embassy in Kyiv closed its doors on Wednesday, warning all its employees to “shelter in place” in the event of an air raid siren. The embassy shut down over fears a Russian attack against the American building could be imminent after Biden’s inexplicable escalation of the war by authorizing long-range American weapons to be used deep inside Russia.

It is unclear why, this late in the war and in the eleventh hour of his presidency, Biden chose to take action that carries a significant war escalation risk. That this decision represents a serious and unnecessary danger to the United States—while simultaneously raising the chances of a Ukrainian defeat—is very clear.

It is clear to those willing to see through the lens of reality. There are those in America that, on the surface, appear to have great credentials and have hailed Biden’s decision to allow the ATACMS missiles to be used by Ukraine to attack targets deep in Russia. Former generals Jack Keane, Barry McCaffrey, and Wesley Clark all came out in support of the president’s decision. Keane actually complained that there were still too many restrictions on the use of the missiles.

Decades Of Failure To End TB And Tobacco Use – OpEd

Shobha Shukla

Source Link

Despite strong scientific and community-based evidence to support tobacco and TB control, 1.1 million people died of TB in 2023 and over 8 million died of tobacco use in the same year. “Tobacco is an entirely preventable epidemic,” rightly said Dr Tara Singh Bam who is a force for change when it comes to stronger actions to prevent avoidable diseases and save lives in low- and middle-income countries.

TB too is preventable, and no one needs to die of it. We have the tools to find all TB, treat all and prevent all TB but the ground reality is that TB is neither preventable, not treatable for millions of people every year. In 2023, over 10.8 million people got infected with TB worldwide (and 1.1 million died of TB), said Dr Tara Singh Bam citing the recently released WHO Global TB Report 2024.

Dr Bam serves as Board Director of Asia Pacific Cities Alliance for Health and Development (APCAT), Asia Pacific Director for Tobacco Control at Vital Strategies, and till very recently served as Asia Pacific Director of International Union Against TB and Lung Disease (The Union). The Indonesian Ministry of Health had awarded Dr Bam in recognition of his nearly two decades of contribution to public health earlier this year.

Measuring The Implications Of AI On The Economy – Speech

Kristalina Georgieva

Source Link

Opening Remarks at the 12th IMF Statistical Forum

Good morning, and welcome. Let me start by thanking Bert and the Statistics Department for organizing the 12th IMF Statistical Forum on ‘Measuring the Implications of AI on the Economy.’ You always choose a topic that is timely and important—and also fascinating!

It has been just two years since generative AI emerged from the lab and became a tool that anyone with internet access can use. We still feel the excitement of something new and world changing. At the same time, we are all concerned about potential harms.

AI has huge potential to boost growth and efficiency—call centers, for example, have reported productivity gains of 34 percent among new and lower-skilled workers. But AI could also disrupt labor and financial markets. And it could deepen inequality within and among countries, destabilizing societies at a time when many are already very polarized.

To make AI a force for good that boosts inclusive economic growth, we need concerted, coordinated actions by governments, the private sector, and civil society.

Going Out With A Bang? Biden Plays Nuclear Chicken With Russia – OpEd

Dave Lindorff

Source Link

There is no justifiable explanation for lame duck President Joe Biden’s sudden turnabout decision to okay Ukraine’s use of longer-range US ATACMS ballistic missiles which can hit targets as much as 200 miles inside Russia.

Biden and his ironically-dubbed national security “brain trust” of Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan have for most of this year been nixing Kiev’s request for such missiles as well as permission for Ukraine use Britain’s Storm Shadow stand-off air-launched long-range cruise missiles to hit Russian targets. They did this arguing that such attacks on the Russian heartland could lead to a spiraling escalation of that war — an escalation that could quickly go nuclear.

Now those two out-of-their-depth but supremely over-confident advisors and the doddering outgoing president they serve are claiming the US “has to respond” to Russia’s supposed escalation of the war. They are referring to Vladimir Putin’s acceptance of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s offer of over 10.000 North Korean troops to assist Russia in driving invading Ukrainian forces out of its Kursk region north of Ukraine.

This Is Serious: Why North Korea Is Fighting and Dying in Ukraine For Russia

Anna Matveeva

Source Link

Big news: North Korea is not a black hole. It is a country that is now sending its military to the other side of Eurasia.

Historically, Pyongyang’s problem has been its military’s lack of combat experience against a determined enemy. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has not fought in a significant conflict since the Korean War armistice in 1953. Yet, Ukraine’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk region provided a unique chance to master the art of war.

In October, after brief training in the Far East, up to 12,000 North Korean troops out of the 1.3 million-strong army were deployed to the battlefields in Russia.

DPRK provides its military assistance under the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement, which came into effect last week. The treaty commits the parties to mutual defense against external attack. This provision legitimizes the involvement of North Korean troops as long as they fight on Russia’s internationally recognized territory.

North Korea’s three brigades are conducting combat operations in Kursk and defending the neighboring Belgorod region, allowing Moscow to free up troops for an offensive in Ukraine. The North Korean military will likely learn to operate drone technology and use Russian weapons.

Explaining SpaceX’s Success

Rainer Zitelmann

Source Link

Yesterday marked the sixth test launch of SpaceX’s “Starship” shuttle, following a fifth successful test in October. If you want to know how this was possible, you should read this book. There are plenty of books about the aerospace company SpaceX, and I have read most of them. However, the recent book by astronomer and space expert Eric Berger, Reentry: SpaceX, Elon Musk and the Reusable Rockets that Launched a Second Space Age, stands out as the best. In particular, it portrays the checkered relationship between NASA and SpaceX.

Initially, the CEO, Elon Musk, faced significant opposition from both political figures and NASA officials. Charles Bolden, who would serve as NASA administrator during President Obama’s tenure in the White House, was a skeptic of Musk and SpaceX. The powerful U.S. senator who held NASA’s purse strings, Richard Shelby (R-AL), declared that efforts to rely on private companies like SpaceX represented a “death march” for NASA.

These were strong words, especially after NASA’s shuttle program had fallen far short of every one of its stated objectives, with each shuttle launch costing approximately $1.5 billion including “development costs, maintenance, renewal, and other expenses.”

They were also strong words when you consider that launch costs more or less stagnated between 1970 and 2010 and that several attempts by NASA to develop reusable rockets (the X-33 and X-34) were abandoned.

Can Technology End Corruption?

AZALINA OTHMAN SAID

Source Link

At the end of October, the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) held its annual meeting in Vienna. Representatives from 81 member states assessed progress on the organization’s mission to fight corruption through education, capacity-building programs, and research.

Leaving X Makes It Worse – OpEd

Jacob Wulff Wold

Source Link

Isolating X from mainstream content is more likely to enhance than dampen conspiracy theories and polarisation.

Elon Musk and social media platform X are accused of being an epicentre of misinformation, with competitor Bluesky gaining millions of users after the US election.

The Guardian left X, calling it a “toxic” media platform with disturbing content “including far-right conspiracy theories and racism.”

Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia followed suit, saying X has become an “echo chamber” for disinformation and conspiracy theories.

The reasoning is curious. Indeed, X does not become any less of an “echo chamber” if opposing viewpoints vanish, nor X does not become any less “toxic” if moderate content is removed.

Targeting X’s finances could prove difficult, as the world’s richest man previously said “we’re going to support free speech rather than agree to be censored for money.”

Bridging the Marine Corps’s Digital Chasm

Scott Humr

Source Link

The Marine Corps’s approach to providing commanders decision-making tools at the tactical level requires a fundamental reconceptualization if it is to support effective decision-making on the twenty-first-century battlefield. The current proliferation of both commercial and government-developed sensor technologies combined with authoritative data sources across the joint force opens up the opportunity to develop critical decision-making applications at the point of need. To achieve this, the Marine Corps must develop a trained data workforce and behave as a software- and data-centric organization. A trained digital workforce can create a tectonic shift that negates ponderous bridge building across the digital chasm between the enterprise and tactical levels. However, this will require the Marine Corps to break its cycle of outdated information technology (IT) practices, create a trained cadre of digital professionals, and develop an ecosystem that can appropriately scale across the enterprise.

Review of Conflict Realism

Bill Murray

Source Link

At a time when the conversation around military strategy is increasingly dominated by technological innovation and the prospect of an almost bloodless, surgical form of warfare, Fox’s Conflict Realism offers a vital corrective. If you’re looking for a book that will tell you some emerging technology is poised to replace sound strategy, or that conventional wars and battles are becoming obsolete, Conflict Realism is not for you. Instead, Fox urges readers to return to the fundamentals of military theory and to recognize the enduring nature of war and warfare—where state and non-state actors alike operate in a coherent, self-interested, and value-seeking manner. As he aptly puts it, “Thinking about the future of war must see beyond situational fads, fake novelty, and military myths.” In this review, we will explore the depth and nuance of Dr. Fox’s arguments, discuss the themes that run through each chapter, and reflect on why this book is an essential read for military professionals and scholars alike.

In Chapter 1, he identifies four schools of thought that dominate modern military discussions: the institutionalist, the futurist, the traditionalist, and the realist. By categorizing these perspectives, Fox gives readers a useful framework for understanding how different schools shape military strategy and decision-making. The institutionalists often rely on rigid structures and established norms, while futurists focus on emerging technologies and the idea that future warfare will look radically different from past conflicts. Traditionalists, on the other hand, are more grounded in history but sometimes fail to account for present and future developments. Fox is quick to advocate for the superiority of the practical realist approach. Realism, he argues, recognizes the messy, unpredictable nature of conflict and the need for military strategies that are flexible and adaptable. Rather than being swayed by the allure of technology or institutional dogma, the realist emphasizes practical solutions and hard truths—something often missing in the more idealistic or overly optimistic perspectives of other schools.