Indian Strategic Studies

27 March 2024

Growing Lethal Drone Threat is a ‘Scourge,’ Says U.S. SOCOM Commander

JOHN GRADY

The “secret sauce” for Special Operations Command in quickly closing capability gaps is its acquisition executive, its top general told a House panel Wednesday.

Army Gen. Bryan Fenton said “that’s first and foremost” the difference between SOCOM and other major commands. He added, “and [the executive] works for us” using the authorities given by Congress to the command in how it can spend money and cooperation with contractors.

“We bring industry forward with us into theater,” he told the House Armed Services Intelligence and Special Operations subcommittee.

To guarantee speed and agility under those circumstances, Fenton added, “we’re willing to work as fast as industry.” The example he used came from developing counter-unmanned aerial system (UAS) defenses.

The need for these defenses is urgent and growing as groups like the Houthis in Yemen use advanced unmanned systems in their attacks. Three American soldiers were killed in Jordan in late January in a drone strike on an outpost monitoring the Syrian civil war and the continuing presence of ISIS.

Fenton called UAS threats a “scourge,” and said SOCOM is partnering with Central Command in a layered defense across the Middle East to not only “sense” the threat, but also “to defeat and destroy.” He said the command has learned much on UAS offensive and defensive operations from the war in Ukraine.

In prepared testimony, he and Christopher Maier, assistant secretary for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict, said the command “is a trailblazer for data-driven decision-making to both inform and execute our service-like and combatant command responsibilities, focused on the talent, architecture and processes needed to capitalize on data and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related technologies.”

Netanyahu’s decision to cancel Rafah meetings causes new rupture with Biden

Kevin Liptak and MJ Lee

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision Monday to scrap a planned delegation to Washington — a trip President Joe Biden personally requested a week ago, hoping to offer a constructive approach — amounts to a low point in the ever-deepening rift between the two men.

Netanyahu threatened to pull the delegation if the US did not veto a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza on Monday. When the US abstained from the vote, allowing it to pass, the Israeli prime minister followed through, canceling meetings that already amounted to a political risk for Biden.

American officials had planned to offer the Israeli delegation a suite of alternative options for going after Hamas in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, hoping to forestall what the US believes would amount to a humanitarian catastrophe if Israel launches a full-scale ground invasion.

Those alternatives will still be shared, American officials said, including in talks early this week between top Biden advisers and Israel’s defense minister. But the public break-off of the in-person talks made for a stark illustration of what has become an increasingly fraught dynamic between Israel and its top backer.

American officials said they were perplexed by Netanyahu’s decision to cancel the delegation after the US allowed the resolution to pass at the United Nations Security Council calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Inside the White House, the move was viewed as an overreaction that most likely reflected Netanyahu’s own domestic political concerns, according to a US official. Hours after the delegation was canceled, Israeli minister Gideon Sa’ar submitted his resignation from the current government after not being included in the war cabinet.

U.S. Warned About Possible Moscow Attack Before Concert Hall Shooting

Julian E. Barnes, Constant Méheut and Anton Troianovski

The U.S. Embassy in Moscow issued a security alert on March 7, warning that its personnel were “monitoring reports that extremists have imminent plans to target large gatherings in Moscow, to include concerts.” The statement warned Americans that an attack could take place in the next 48 hours.

The warning was related to the attack on Friday, according to people briefed on the matter. But it was not related to possible Ukrainian sabotage, American officials said, adding that the State Department would not have used the word “extremists” to warn about actions ordered from Kyiv.

Pro-Kremlin voices immediately seized on the U.S. Embassy’s warning to paint America as trying to scare Russians.

America officials are worried that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia could seek to falsely blame Ukraine for the attack, putting pressure on Western governments to identify who they think may be responsible. Mr. Putin frequently twists events, even tragic ones, to fit his public narrative. And he has been quick to accuse Ukraine of acts of terrorism to justify his invasion of the country.

U.S. officials said Mr. Putin could do that again after Friday’s attack, seeking to use the loss of life to undermine support for Ukraine both domestically and around the world.

US had warned Russia ISIS was determined to attack

Mary Kay Mallonee, Katherine Grise and Chris Lau

The US warned Moscow that ISIS militants were determined to target Russia in the days before assailants stormed the Crocus City Hall in an attack that killed scores of people, but President Vladimir Putin rejected the advice as “provocative.”

Gunmen stormed the concert hall near Moscow on Friday, opening fire and throwing an incendiary device in the worst terrorist attack on the Russian capital in decades.

Isis has claimed responsibility for the attack.

Experts said the scale of the carnage – some of which was captured in video footage obtained by CNN showing crowds of people cowering behind cushioned seats as gunshots echoed in the vast hall – would be deeply embarrassing for the Russian leader, who had championed a message of national security just a week earlier when winning the country’s stage-managed election.

Not only had Russian intelligence services failed to prevent the attack, they said, but Putin had failed to heed warnings from the United States that extremists were plotting to target Moscow.

Earlier this month, the US embassy in Russia had said it was “monitoring reports that extremists have imminent plans to target large gatherings in Moscow,” including concerts, and it warned US citizens to avoid such places.

US National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson said the US government had “shared this information with Russian authorities in accordance with its longstanding ‘duty to warn’ policy.”

ISIS claims responsibility for attack at Moscow-area concert venue that left at least 60 dead

Mariya Knight, Anna Chernova and Darya Tarasova

ISIS has claimed responsibility for an attack at a popular concert hall complex near Moscow Friday after assailants stormed the venue with guns and incendiary devices, killing at least 60 people and injuring 145.

The terror group took responsibility for the attack in a short statement published by ISIS-affiliated news agency Amaq on Telegram on Friday. It did not provide evidence to support the claim.

Video footage from the Crocus City Hall shows the vast complex, which is home to both the music hall and a shopping center, on fire with smoke billowing into the air. State-run RIA Novosti reported the armed individuals “opened fire with automatic weapons” and “threw a grenade or an incendiary bomb, which started a fire.” They then “allegedly fled in a white Renault car,” the news agency said.

State media Russia 24 reported the roof of the venue has partially collapsed.

The fire had been brought largely under control more than six hours later. “There are still some pockets of fire, but the fire has been mostly eliminated,” Moscow governor Andrey Vorobyov said on Telegram.

The deadliest terror attack on Moscow in decades, Friday’s assault came less than a week after President Vladimir Putin won a stage-managed election by an overwhelming majority to secure another term in office, tightening his grip on the country he has ruled since the turn of the century.

With attention focused on the country’s war with neighboring Ukraine, Putin had trumpeted a message of national security before Russians went to the polls.

The carnage broke out before a concert by the band Picnic, according to Russia 24.

“Unidentified people in camouflage broke into Crocus City Hall and started shooting before the start of the concert,” the Prosecutor General’s Office said, cited by TASS.

Israeli-Palestinian Peace Must Reflect Reality

Lawrence Haas

“I hate the ‘to be sure’ sentences,” an Israeli opinion leader once told me, referring to critiques of the Jewish state. For instance, “To be sure, Israel is surrounded by enemies.” Or, “to be sure, Israel faces a genocidal Hamas to its south and a more powerful genocidal Hezbollah to its north.”

He hated the “to be sure” sentences, he explained, because they were throw-away lines, sops to reality that writers felt compelled to acknowledge before they returned to their central task of overwhelmingly blaming Israel for the region’s tumult.

Well, “to be sure”-ism has returned as top U.S. and Western officials and opinion leaders resurrect the ever-elusive “two-state solution” for Israeli-Palestinian peace and criticize Israeli military operations in Gaza that, they say, will kill it.

“I will never understate the grave threats Israel faces, and has faced, for the entirety of its existence,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in classic “to be sure”-ist fashion before focusing his fire on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – in a high-profile speech that President Biden praised for raising concerns “shared… by many Americans.”

“I want to be very clear about one thing Schumer and Biden have also made clear:” New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman added in similar fashion before firing away at Netanyahu. “The war in Gaza was forced on Israel by a vicious attack by Hamas on Israeli border communities…”

The problem with “to be sure”-ism amid the war is that in pressuring Jerusalem to scale back its military plans and pursue the two-state solution at this moment, its critics ignore an ugly reality on the Palestinian side – that among its leaders and people, there is no constituency for “two states living side by side in peace.”

Iran and Hezbollah shaken by Israel's new warfare tactics, Saudi expert says

MAARIV ONLINE

Assad Awad, the military commentator from the Saudi channel Al-Hadath, appeared on the channel on Thursday. He addressed the situation in Israel’s North and analyzed the IDF's tactics in the region.

Awad addressed Israel’s conflict between Hezbollah and Iran. Speaking on the conflict, Awad suggested, "Israel was surprised by the extent of the tunnels in Gaza and the military methods [of Hamas,] and it has adopted a new strategy for regional deterrence," he said at the outset.

In the heart of civilian villages: Hezbollah's weapon production

In the initial stage, according to Awad, "Israel severely hit Iranian shipment operations to the region and destroyed many weapon shipments that were on their way from Iran.

"In the next stage, warehouses in eastern Syria were attacked and destroyed. [The warehouses] contain[ed] weapons that could have been deployed to the border with Israel within hours. In fact, it undermined Iran's supply lines to Hezbollah and Iranian militias in the region.

The exterior of a house damaged by a rocket fired by Hezbollah in Lebanon, amid ongoing cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israeli forces, near Israel’s border with Lebanon in northern Israel. March 19, 2024. (credit: CARLOS GARCIA RAWLINS/REUTERS)© Provided by The Jerusalem PostThe exterior of a house damaged by a rocket fired by Hezbollah in Lebanon, amid ongoing cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israeli forces, near Israel’s border with Lebanon in northern Israel. March 19, 2024.

Israel’s victory will be Netanyahu’s downfall This war has broken his authority

Edward Luttwak

Weeks ago, the Israeli army came up with a perfectly serviceable plan to finish the war in Gaza. Their strategy was to simultaneously push their ground forces into the remaining Rafah segment of the strip to destroy the last of Hamas, while opening a secure evacuation route to allow the displaced Palestinians to return home to Gaza City and Khan Yunis. Desperate to see an end to the fighting, the Biden White House had been privately willing to approve a limited offensive, provided that the Israelis continued to fight without the support of aerial bombing except in rare cases, and continue to be sparing with their artillery.

All was seemingly prepared; but then nothing happened. Now the war is in stasis, neither properly continuing nor adequately resolved, while yesterday Biden effectively ruled out any support for a major ground assault.

Why did Israel miss its chance? Part of it was down to the “friction” that pervades every and any war, to the great frustration of all strategists. As first articulated by Carl von Clausewitz, friction is made up of many separate impediments. Some are really trivial — like a flat tyre on the eve of a family outing — while others represent a fundamental threat to any war effort. In Israel’s case, the impediments were substantial, from supply officers claiming they needed more time to provide food and water along the evacuation route, to the open-ended delays caused by the Qataris’ negotiations over Hamas’s hostages, which have swung back and forth without resolution, and with even the Qataris losing patience with their Hamas clients. Meanwhile, there are concerns that not all the tunnels under Gaza City and Khan Yunis had been found and destroyed. Again and again when it seemed that the day had come, the finding of new tunnels caused another delay. Just this week, there was a serious fight at Al Shifa, where the first battles was fought back in October

But these are the usual travails of war, and there is another, far more significant source of friction, located at the heart of the Israeli leadership. When I asked an officer at IDF headquarters why so much time had passed with Rafah untouched, his answer was unexpectedly gnomic: “Netanyahu is not Ben Gurion.” The comparison is charged: Ben Gurion was not only Israel’s first prime minister, but its spiritual founder, midwife to a nation born under siege. When he declared independence on May 15, 1948, he triggered the invasions of four Arab states, each one better equipped than his underground Jewish militias, for whom a rifle was precious and artillery an impossible dream. With this act, Ben Gurion ignored American and British warnings that the war would end in a massacre and went it alone, demonstrating a faith in the fighting spirit of his young country and a conviction in his own powers of leadership.

A Defining Moment for America's Role in the World

SPENCER BOYER

Congress’ failure to push through urgently needed aid to Ukraine has dominated transatlantic discussions for the past several weeks. As the specter of a new administration disinterested in U.S. involvement in European security once again looms large, debates about European strategic autonomy—or significantly reducing European dependence on U.S. security—are back. The key issue, however, goes much deeper than the direction of U.S. policy towards Europe or Russia, or even transatlantic security more broadly.

The present moment will clearly define whether enough Americans are ready to elevate U.S. engagement with allies and partners to a core value and voting issue in 2024 to maintain American leadership for the second half of the decade. Recent polling by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs shows that only 40 percent of Trump Republicans believe the U.S. should take an active role in world affairs or that America’s European alliances are mutually beneficial—two core tenets of America’s post-World War II foreign policy.

This is just one troubling indicator that much of the American public does not appreciate the value of international engagement. While foreign affairs only rarely moves voters, this summer’s NATO summit in Washington, D.C., commemorating the 75th anniversary of the alliance’s founding, offers a unique opportunity to remind Americans why multilateralism and alliances matter in times of peace and war—and in a crucial year.

The Kremlin’s war on Ukraine, which just entered its third year, and unprecedented transatlantic cooperation in pushing back on Russian aggression are emblematic of a larger multilateral ecosystem under assault. It is clear to all objective observers that Putin’s blitz against Ukraine and subsequent human rights violations against its people are not only a gross violation of international law, but also an attack on the global rules written in no small part by the United States in the aftermath of World War II.

There is no ‘axis of evil’

Daniel DePetris

Adm. John Aquilino and Assistant Secretary of Defense Ely Ratner traveled to Capitol Hill on Wednesday for an appearance in front of the House Armed Services Committee. The topic of the hearing: the U.S. military posture in Asia.

It was a relatively uneventful occasion for those used to watching them. But there was a moment that raised an eyebrow. At one point in the hearing, Aquilino, the commander of Indo-Pacific Command, referred to the budding relationships between China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea as an aspiring “axis of evil” primed to undermine U.S. interests not only regionally but globally.

Ratner seemed to agree with his military counterpart, insisting that what happens in Europe directly affects security in Asia. You could be forgiven for thinking you were transported back to 2002, when then-President George W. Bush coined the phrase “axis of evil” to hype a connection between Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Iran, and North Korea.

The term didn’t make sense back then. Iran and Iraq were mortal enemies for decades. Saddam launched a war of choice against the Iranians in 1980 in part to stir up a counterrevolution against the ayatollahs, whom he viewed as expansionist troublemakers. The war lasted for eight long years, and the two neighbors have been highly distrustful of each other ever since. North Korea, meanwhile, was concerned first and foremost with its own survival. While the North Koreans and Iranians cooperated to a degree on missile development, it was less about striking an alliance and more about bolstering their own domestic capabilities.

Twenty-two years have gone by, but the “axis of evil” phraseology is still alive and well. The so-called members of this evil grouping may be different, with the exception of North Korea, but the assumptions undergirding the “axis of evil” framing are as silly today as they were in 2002. Simply put: Just because U.S. adversaries may be cooperating doesn’t mean they are engaged in a global conspiracy against the United States. To suggest as much gives China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea far too much credit.

With World's Attention on Gaza, ISIS Is Making a Global Comeback

Tom O'Connor

With much of international attention gripped by the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip, the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) has been steadily ramping up operations across continents and setting the stage for a resurgence of global mayhem.

This latent threat came to life on Friday with ISIS claiming responsibility for a massacre targeting a concert held at Crocus City Hall outside of Moscow. It marked the deadliest militant attack on Russian soil since the 2002 theater hostage crisis in the capital. Experts and officials warn the next operation could target virtually anyone, including U.S. citizens.

Just one day before the attack, U.S. Central Command chief General Michael Kurilla told lawmakers in Congress that "ISIS-Khorasan retains the capability and the will to attack U.S. and Western interests abroad in as little as six months with little to no warning." Weeks earlier, the U.S. Embassy in Moscow had urged U.S. nationals to avoid crowded events, "to include concerts."

The latest attack has reclaimed international headlines for the jihadis who, at their peak just a decade ago, presided over a self-styled caliphate spanning the size of Portugal. However, the roots of ISIS' attempted resurgence have been taking hold for some time.

The group's so-called Khorasan province (ISIS-K or ISKP) has been particularly active in its base country of Afghanistan, using the Taliban-held nation to launch attacks at home and against neighboring Iran and Pakistan, in spite of efforts by all three governments. The militants also began expanding operations beyond the region, with Russia, Germany, Turkey and Tajikistan recently cracking down on alleged ISIS-K plots.

"The recent spike in ISIS-K's activity in the region is not an overnight development," Amira Jadoon, a professor at South Carolina's Clemson University who has regularly engaged with the U.S. government on issues of counterterrorism, told Newsweek, "but rather something that ISIS-K has been planning through a multi-pronged approach since a few years."

Shoigu Has Promised Combined Armies, Divisions, and Brigades

Pavel Luzin

Executive Summary:

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced the creations of a new army corps, motor rifle division, and Dnipro River flotilla, along with the establishment of 30 large unspecified units.
Moscow’s manpower resources and the size of the officer corps remain limited, and these new divisions and brigades are doomed to be understaffed without a significant expansion of the officer corps and massive conscription.
The Russian High Command may create an organizational framework to increase the number of drafted soldiers and/or another round of mobilization despite demographic and economic limitations.

On March 20, Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu announced the establishment of a new army corps, motor rifle division, and Dnipro River flotilla. He also claimed that two combined armies, 14 divisions, and 16 brigades would be established in 2024. Shoigu did not, however, clarify the specific make-up of these 30 large units (e.g., motor rifles, artillery, etc.) (Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD), March 20). These efforts followed the establishment of the Leningrad and Moscow military districts three weeks ago and build on the Ministry of Defense’s (MoD) course to increase the assigned strength of the Russian Armed Forces and the number of positions available for generals (see EDM, February 29). The MoD’s efforts will likely come with significant difficulties primarily related to heavy losses along the Ukrainian frontlines, a limited office corps, and the prospects of public uproar in the face of mass mobilization.

Russian manpower resources and the actual size of the officer corps remain limited. Consequently, Moscow can employ three main means to establish the planned units: (1) transforming the existing brigades into new divisions, which has taken place over the past decade; (2) redistributing units and arms from existing units and military districts; and (3) transforming the existing separate motor-rifle regiments staffed by mobilized soldiers, prisoners, recently recruited contracted soldiers, and soldiers deployed in Ukraine into the new brigades and divisions. These new groupings, however, are doomed to be understaffed without a significant expansion of the officer corps and massive conscription.

The reported manpower increase in the Russian Armed Forces from 1,150,628 troops to 1,320,000 troops corresponds with the total assigned number of 14 divisions and 16 brigades, which consist of 170,000 soldiers and officers (Kremlin.ru, December 1, 2023). The MoD is creating new units according to the assigned military budget; however, the devil is in the details. The Kremlin’s elevated military spending will likely hurt the domestic economy as a whole and may be difficult to put into practice due to lost revenue from Western sanctions.

The meaning of Russia’s presidential election

Nigel Gould-Davies

Vladimir Putin’s overwhelming victory in Russia’s 2024 presidential election was a foregone conclusion. But the conduct and context of the vote offer three insights into the country’s condition and point to the regime’s likely evolution.

The first indicator is how far the Kremlin went to ensure Putin’s victory. In a civil society and media landscape flattened by repression, it nonetheless chose a small field of candidates who presented no challenge. The anti-war candidate Boris Nadezhdin was barred from running after an unexpectedly vigorous registration campaign, and members of his team have since been arrested. A month before the election, Putin’s most articulate critic, the imprisoned opposition leader Alexei Navalny, was silenced.

Even with these restrictions, the results – a record turnout (77%) and vote for Putin (87%) – were certainly falsified, as past elections were, such as the 2020 referendum that changed the constitution to allow Putin to run again. The use of electronic voting, for the first time in a presidential election, added a further layer of opacity. Official results even claim that 72% of Russians abroad, many of whom have fled the regime, voted for Putin. The outcome also humiliated the docile and obliging ‘systemic opposition’ that had long participated in the theatre of managed competition. The election was instead an emphatic performance of power that left nothing to chance.

Secondly, the Kremlin ran this as a war-time election from the start, when Putin announced his intention to run at a meeting with serving soldiers. This was not inevitable. Ever since the regime failed to win a rapid, easy victory in Ukraine, it has been adapting Russia’s economy and society to a slow, hard war. This has meant testing and learning to what extent elites and society will bear its growing costs. In doing so, the regime has sought to resolve a dilemma. Should it maintain a semblance of normality, minimising the visibility of the war in the eyes of a population that it has long sought to keep politically apathetic? Or should it mobilise active commitment even as it imposes ever-greater repression? The Kremlin’s management of the election, with its overt appeals to the war in Ukraine, has confirmed it is moving towards the latter.

Apple, Meta and Google to be investigated by the EU

Tom Gerken & Zoe Kleinman

The EU has announced investigations into some of the biggest tech firms in the world over uncompetitive practices.

Meta, Apple, and Alphabet, which owns Google, are being looked into for potential breaches of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) introduced in 2022.

If they are found to have broken the rules, the firms can face huge fines of up to 10% of their annual turnover.

EU antitrust boss Margrethe Vestager and industry head Thierry Breton announced the investigations on Monday.

Just six companies have obligations under the DMA, but they are also the world's largest tech firms: Alphabet, Apple, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft and ByteDance.

None of the firms are actually based in Europe - five of them are in the US, while ByteDance has headquarters in Beijing.

Three of them are now facing questions just two weeks after submitting their compliance reports, which will have been meticulously compiled.

It comes three weeks after the EU fined Apple €1.8bn (£1.5bn) for breaking competition laws over music streaming.

Meanwhile, the United States accused Apple of monopolising the smartphone market in a landmark lawsuit against the tech giant introduced last week.

An Apple spokesperson says the company will constructively engage with the investigation and that they're confident that their plan complies with the Digital Markets Act.

The Case Against TikTok Is Thin at Best

Zachary Karabell

The U.S. Congress hasn’t passed a budget on time since 1996, and many members spend more time preening and posturing than legislating. Yet at the beginning of the month, the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives voted 50-0 on a bill that would have de facto given the president the authority to force ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, to divest its control of U.S. operations or face a ban of the app. The full House passed the bill less than a week later by a margin of 352-65.

But that speed should give us pause. The question of what to do about TikTok depends on what TikTok is actually doing. And the evidence of clear and present danger just isn’t there yet. As things stand, banning TikTok is not just bad policy; it’s hollow as well. It won’t make the United States safer, and it will allow those in government—both in the national security bureaucracy and in Congress—to pretend that it is doing something without doing much at all to address the real issues of data, privacy, and foreign influence.

The main national security argument for forcing TikTok to sell to a U.S. owner or face an effective ban is that Chinese laws require ByteDance to turn over user data to the Chinese government if requested. That leads to fears that user data could provide a way for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to perform massive surveillance of Americans, and that the party could (and may already) use the algorithms that power TikTok’s feed to manipulate public opinion in the United States to the detriment of U.S. democracy and civil society, and hence tilt the nascent China-U.S. cold war in China’s favor.

Each of these cases rest on very thin reeds. And what’s more, almost all of the threats cited are about what TikTok could potentially do, and not about what it has been or is doing.

First, yes, Chinese law does obligate companies to turn over data. Arguably, though, every government can commandeer user data through whatever laws empower either domestic police or foreign intelligence gathering (in the United States, that would include the FBI for domestic issues, and the CIA and National Security Agency for foreign intelligence, though the lines blur at times). But in the United States, companies can often resist initial demands to turn over data, although courts can compel them. No such recourse exists in China.

Why Artificial Intelligence Must Be Stopped Now – Analysis

Richard Heinberg

The promise of AI is eclipsed by its perils, which include our own annihilation.

Those advocating for artificial intelligence tout the huge benefits of using this technology. For instance, an article in CNN points out how AI is helping Princeton scientists solve “a key problem” with fusion energy. AI that can translate text to audio and audio to text is making information more accessible. Many digital tasks can be done faster using this technology.

However, any advantages that AI may promise are eclipsed by the cataclysmic dangers of this controversial new technology. Humanity has a narrow chance to stop a technological revolution whose unintended negative consequences will vastly outweigh any short-term benefits.

In the early 20th century, people (notably in the United States) could conceivably have stopped the proliferation of automobiles by focusing on improving public transit, thereby saving enormous amounts of energy, avoiding billions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions, and preventing the loss of more than 40,000 lives in car accidents each year in the U.S. alone. But we didn’t do that.

In the mid-century, we might have been able to stave off the development of the atomic bomb and averted the apocalyptic dangers we now find ourselves in. We missed that opportunity, too. (New nukes are still being designed and built.)

In the late 20th century, regulations guided by the precautionary principlecould have prevented the spread of toxic chemicals that now poison the entire planet. We failed in that instance as well.

The Age of the M1 Abrams Tank Is Coming to an End

Brandon J. Weichert

After months of building up in neighboring Kuwait. Constant exchanges between the leaders of the countries involved. Operation Desert Storm, the mission of allied powers to liberate the tiny oil-producing nation of Kuwait from the vile clutches of the Baathist gangster and Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, had begun. Fearinga Vietnam War in the desert, the George H.W. Bush Administration was overjoyed by the efficiency with which America’s advanced military jogged through the desert, crushing what was then the fourth-largest army in the world.

Still, the Iraqis were not without their own elite forces. The infamous battle-hardened Iraqi Republican Guard and their Soviet-built tanks had decided to catch the Americans off-guard. Not realizing, though, that the Americans were armed with the most lethal killing machine to have ever rolled across a battlefield: the M1A1 Abrams tank (developed by General Dynamics).

The M1 Abrams Fights the Greatest (and Last) Tank Battle of the Twentieth Century

The stage was set for one of the greatest tank battles of the twentieth century. In fact, it has been dubbed as the “last tank battle” of the twentieth century. Until the recent outbreak of hostilities between Russia and Ukraine, many military theorists had assumed it might have been the final tank battle ever.

Known to history as the “Battle of 73 Easting,” the bizarrely named conflict earned its title from the identifier on the battle maps of Coalition forces. It was the sector that the Coalition forces had been traversing. An astonishing 200-300 Coalition armored vehicles of various types had been assembled there along with 4,000 infantrymen. On the other side of the battle lines was approximately 300-400 armored Iraqi vehicles and 2,500-3,000 infantrymen.

ARMY WRITING AND THE ZOMBIE (NOUN) APOCALYPSE

Trent Lythgoe

The undead lurk among us—zombie nouns. These word cannibals have invaded Army writing, where they consume lively prose, leaving it dense and dead. When we, the living, find ourselves slogging through esoteric emails or impenetrable information papers, zombie nouns are close by.

Zombie nouns—nominalizations, formally—are nouns created from other parts of speech, such as adjectives (quick becomes quickness) and other nouns (favorite becomes favoritism). But the most insidious zombie nouns feed on verbs, turning them into undead, abstract nouns. Plan becomes planning. Prepare becomes preparation. Execute becomes execution.

Professor Helen Sword coined the term zombie noun to stress that nominalization words rob them of liveliness. For example, we can rehearse a briefing because rehearse is a lively verb. But we cannot rehearsal a briefing. Reanimating zombie nouns requires us to add a verb. We must conduct a rehearsal of a briefing.

Although zombie nouns are perfectly correct—and occasionally necessary—overusing them produces dense, wordy writing. We could plan, prepare, and execute a task. But when we nominalize these verbs, we must conduct planning for, perform preparations for, and implement the execution of it.

To be sure, many factors contribute to tedious Army writing. However, zombie nouns stand out as especially irksome yet easily fixable. To improve Army writing, let’s slay zombie nouns.

Readable Writing

I started this study not to find zombies but to understand what’s wrong with Army writing—the professional writing soldiers produce in everything from emails to memorandums to doctrine to published articles. Army standards demand clear, concise writing that conforms to federal plain language guidelines. Yet, much Army writing does not meet these standards. The problem is not new. Army writers have struggled for decades to write plainly and clearly. The struggle continues. One author recently criticized the Army’s operations doctrine—a prominent example of Army writing—as needlessly dense. Indeed, Army doctrine is more challenging to read than War and Peace, according to one study. But it’s not just doctrine. Dense Army human resources documents, for example, require readers to have two years of college to readily understand them (good luck, Private Snuffy).

26 March 2024

The Indian Giant Has Arrived

MOHAMED A. EL-ERIAN and MICHAEL SPENCE

India’s recent economic success, solid momentum, and promising prospects are making the country ever more influential both regionally and internationally. But the experience of other countries – most notably China over the last three decades – suggests that such rapid influence and robust progress can be tricky to manage. After all, an action that makes sense domestically may conflict with what other countries expect from a systemically important economy. By the same token, actions that make sense internationally could complicate domestic economic progress.

Like China, India’s systemic importance has become apparent earlier in its growth and development process than was the case with other emerging economies, primarily because it boasts the world’s largest population (over 1.4 billion). Its growing presence is easy to detect. It is the world’s fifth-largest economy, and with an annual growth rate 5-6 percentage points above that of Germany and Japan, it could well move into third place in about four years.

Relative per capita incomes paint a different picture, however. India’s per capita GDP, at $2,389, is still far below the level of high-income economies, and remains considerably lower than that of China. In terms of overall economic size and income levels, India is roughly where China was in 2007, nearly a generation ago.

Adjusting for differential price levels – the so-called purchasing-power-parity adjustment – lower and lower-middle-income countries tend to move up in relative size. With the PPP adjustment, India is already in third place, at about half the size of the US economy.

POISED FOR CONTINUED GROWTH

Carbon dioxide emissions, another dimension of global impact, paint a similar picture. India ranks behind only China and the United States in terms of overall CO2 emissions. But this, again, is a function of its large population; its per capita emissions are still quite low, at 1.89 metric tons, well below the global average of 4.66 metric tons.

Poppies to Pig-Butchering: Inside the Golden Triangle’s Criminal Reboot

CHARLIE CAMPBELL

It all started with a Facebook ad. Rachel Yoong was bored and fed up at work when a job posting for a casino in the Myanmar capital Yangon popped up on her phone. The purported $4,500 monthly salary was seven times what the Malaysian earned as a real estate agent in Kuala Lumpur, so she eagerly applied. Before long, Yoong was invited to two separate interviews with suave, well-attired agents. By July 2022, she was booked on a flight to Yangon and upon arrival told to rest up in a hotel. On the third day a car arrived to take her to her new place of work.

“But when I got inside there were two big, tough guys with guns,” Yoong, 30, tells TIME. “That’s the moment I knew I was in trouble.”

Instead of a casino in the city, Yoong says she was driven over 18 hours through 700 miles of winding mountain roads to Myanmar’s lawless northern region of Kokang by the border with China. There, she was sequestered in what was effectively a 10-story concrete prison inside state capital Laukkai with about 200 other human trafficking victims from China, Taiwan, Malaysia, and elsewhere across Asia. Sleeping eight to a cell, they were forced to conduct online scams for 17 hours each day, posing as attractive women using photos gleaned from social media to dupe predominantly American victims out of as much cash as possible. Those who didn’t meet their target of $1,000 every three days were subjected to beatings, electrocutions, and worse. “I saw three people die,” says Yoong. “One coworker jumped from the roof; two others were pushed.”

Yoong is one of hundreds of thousands of people across Southeast Asia and beyond who have been lured by fake job adverts into “pig-butchering” scam centers. (The term stems from fattening a hog for slaughter.) Whereas victims were originally drawn from Chinese-speaking communities in Malaysia, Thailand, or Singapore, today people are being trafficked to the region from as far afield as South America, East Africa, and Western Europe. Other than beatings, workers are subjected to sexual assault, rape, and having their organs forcibly harvested, according to Interpol. “What began as a regional crime threat has become a global human trafficking crisis,” said Interpol Secretary General Jürgen Stock.

China’s Public Wants to Make a Living, Not War

Tao Wang

“I am opposed to war, unless in self-defense.” This was the most-liked comment on Douyin—the Chinese counterpart to TikTok—in reaction to a speech delivered by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Jan. 9. In his address, Wang previewed China’s top diplomatic goals for 2024 and emphasized “the unwavering resolve of all 1.4 billion Chinese citizens to achieve reunification with Taiwan,” a statement made just days prior to the island’s general election.

The Indo-Pacific Strategy’s Fatal Blind Spot

CARL BILDT

STOCKHOLM – Is the dominance of “Indo-Pacific” thinking leading Western strategists astray?

Originating in Australian foreign-policy circles, the United States adopted this label in 2018, when the Hawaii-based US Pacific Command was officially renamed the Indo-Pacific Command. The status of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (“Quad”), comprising Australia, India, Japan, and the US, was duly elevated, and Europe, too, got on board, with a minor avalanche of policy documents bearing the same label.

In pushing the Indo-Pacific line, Western strategists usually emphasize the importance of bringing India into the fold. But the real objective – though it is seldom stated explicitly – is to contain China in the region.

Jordan: On the Edge?

Emily Milliken

Jordan, which has enjoyed deep relations with the United States for over seventy years and hosts nearly 3,000 American troops, is a vital partner in America’s presence in the Middle East. Having received over $20 billion of U.S. assistance since 1951, Amman has served as a valuable partner for American counterterrorism operations, particularly in Iraq and Syria, and a mediator between Israel and Palestine. In January 2023, Amman and Washington agreed to a $4.2 billion deal that would provide the Jordanian government with advanced Block 70 F-16 fighter jets as part of an expansion of a seven-year Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2022.

However, recent widespread protests across the country have brought Jordan’s status as a bastion of security and stability in the region into question.

Since the October 7 Hamas assault on Israel and the resulting Israeli invasion of Gaza, thousands of Jordanian protesters have taken to the streets to criticize the government’s policies toward Israel. This includes allowing the Israelis to use Jordanian territory as part of a land corridor for transporting goods amid insecurity due to the Houthi Red Sea attacks. In mid-February, Jordanian protesters chanted, “the land bridge is treason,” and even formed a human chain to block trucks carrying goods crossing the Jordan-Israel border. The development is unsurprising given that more than half of Jordan’s population is Palestinian, including two million registered Palestinian refugees. While many now hold Jordanian citizenship, an estimated eighteen percent of refugees live in thirteen official and unofficial refugee camps around the country.

Recognizing the powder keg it is sitting on, the Jordanian government has enacted a widespread crackdown that has included prohibiting demonstrations and gatherings in the Jordan Valley and along its borders, firing tear gas at demonstrators trying to storm the Israeli Embassy, closing roads and access to the United States and European Embassies, and arresting at least 1,000 people between October and November alone. The government has also leaned on its restrictive cybersecurity laws to arrest people for social media posts expressing pro-Palestinian sentiments that criticize Amman’s relationship with the Israeli government or incite public strikes and protests.

The Urgent Need to Deploy C-UAS Technology Domestically

Brian J. Cavanaugh

The United States confronts a critical imperative: safeguarding its borders, strategic defense installations, and domestic critical infrastructure against the escalating threat posed by illegal drone infiltrations. This month, General Gregory Guillot, Commander of NORAD, told congress that over 1,000 drone incursions into U.S. airspace occur from the southern border every month. As unmanned aerial vehicles proliferate, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Defense (DOD) find themselves engaged in a relentless battle for supremacy in the skies. What is urgently required is not merely heightened vigilance, but the swift operationalization of low or no collateral kinetic effectors capable of decisively neutralizing unmanned aerial systems (UAS).

UAS present a multifaceted threat to the security of U.S. borders, exploiting their nimbleness and versatility to bypass traditional defenses. Along the southern border, illegal drone incursions have become a favored tactic for smuggling people and contraband, including drugs and weapons, into the country. According to CBP, human smugglers are using small UAS to surveil agents on patrol, enabling them to evade ground detection. Some reports suggest the cartels are even conducting surveillance of agents themselves which presents a significant risk to law enforcement and their families. The ability of UAS to evade detection systems and navigate rugged terrain makes them formidable adversaries in the hands of criminal actors seeking to exploit vulnerabilities in border security.

At U.S. military installations, the proliferation of UAS poses a grave risk to national defense capabilities. A recent media report indicates Langley Air Force Base experienced waves UAS incursions throughout December 2023. Drones equipped with surveillance payloads can gather intelligence on military activities, infrastructure, and personnel movements, compromising operational security and potentially enabling hostile actors to plan and execute attacks with greater precision against U.S. military assets and personnel.

The menace of unmanned aerial systems extends beyond traditional security perimeters to encompass the nation's domestic critical infrastructure. Power plants, water treatment facilities, communication networks, transportation hubs, and even private industry trade secrets are all vulnerable to disruption or sabotage by drones operated by malicious actors. The potential for coordinated drone attacks to cripple essential services and infrastructure highlights the urgent need for robust countermeasures to detect, track, and neutralize rogue UAS threats before they can inflict catastrophic damage on the nation's economy, public safety, and national security.

New Gaza hospital raid shows Hamas is not a spent force

Yolande Knell and Rushdi Abualouf

Four months after Israeli troops first stormed Gaza's biggest hospital, al-Shifa, claiming it was a cover for a Hamas command and control centre, they have returned.

The Israeli military said it had "concrete intelligence" that Hamas operatives had regrouped there. Palestinians have told the BBC of their fears at being trapped in fierce battles.

While this week's raid again highlights a desperate humanitarian situation, it is also a strong reminder that Hamas is far from a spent force.

Some analysts suggest it shows the desperate need for a comprehensive strategy to deal with the Islamist armed group and a clear plan on the post-war governance of Gaza.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) now claim to have killed "over 140 terrorists" in ongoing fighting at al-Shifa and to have made some 600 arrests, including dozens of top Hamas commanders as well as some from Islamic Jihad. Two Israeli soldiers have also been killed.

Israeli reports suggest that in recent weeks the army found that senior Hamas figures had resumed operations at al-Shifa and that some even took their families to the hospital. The IDF says it uncovered arms caches and a large quantity of cash at the site.

Hamas has denied that its fighters were based there and claims that those killed were wounded patients and displaced people.

Palestinian witnesses have told the BBC that gunfire and Israeli air strikes have been endangering patients, medics and hundreds of people still sheltering in the grounds.

A local journalist has shared footage of smoke billowing from the complex.

In another unverified video, shared on social media, dozens of women can be seen hunkering down in a building with their children. One says: "They took our men to an unknown place and now they're asking women and children to leave. We don't know where we'll go".

The United States Has Less Leverage Over Israel Than You Think

Stephen M. Walt

The Biden administration has faced relentless criticism for its failure to halt Israel’s retaliatory campaign in Gaza. U.S. President Joe Biden and his aides are reportedly alarmed by the mounting death toll (now exceeding 30,000 people) and frustrated by Israel’s refusal to allow an adequate supply of humanitarian assistance to reach the hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians who have been forced to flee their homes. Yet Biden has not halted the flow of U.S. arms, and the United States has vetoed three U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for a cease-fire (a resolution the U.S. might approve is reportedly in the works). Unlike Canada, the United States has yet to reverse its decision to halt funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), even though accusations that the UNRWA staff in Gaza was filled with Hamas supporters now seem dubious.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)