Charles Duelfer | The Search For Truth In Iraq | Page 2

Oops – Human in the Loop

There was a discussion at the Council on Foreign Relations last week with Henry Kissinger (former Secretary of State) and Eric Schmidt (former chairman of Google) moderated by Judy Woodruff (PBS NewsHour). The subject was their newly released book, “The Age of AI: And Our Human Future”. An unlikely pairing at first, but their book opens the grave subject of the pending consequences of artificial intelligence for international security. Schmidt certainly has a grasp of the magnitude of this technological leap for human activity (and importantly, non-human activity). Kissinger was a prime mover in conceptualizing the implications of the onset of nuclear weapons for international security after World War II. Together they make a compelling case that there will be critical consequences as AI is incorporated in more decisions, information processing and weapons systems among other things. Indeed, they argue the world needs to begin thinking urgently about the strategy implications and rules of the road as AI evolution is advancing rapidly. Policy will have to catch up.

It was a huge challenge to maintain a global security balance as advancing nuclear weapons filled the arsenals of the US and Soviet Union. Deterrence theory, the mechanisms of delivering weapons, command and control, warning systems, targeting strategies, etc. all seemed to evolve together. Technology did not follow a strategic objective as much as strategy was constructed around technical capability. There were elements of great delicacy–for example, did we have sufficient sensor capabilities (satellites, radars) to detect and assess the intentions of an missile attack against the US? Could we do this in time to launch our forces before the missiles or bombers hit their targets? Could a president have sufficient data and time to make such a decision? Fortunately, we never really found out, but the questions were critical. There was serious attention given to the option of “launching under attack.” Possibly we could have done this, but certainly the Soviet side had to consider this response option should they think about trying a “disarming first-strike”. There were many such scenarios considered in the formulation of US and Soviet strategy.

Somehow both sides accumulated enough mutual understanding and evolved rules of the road for a (wobbly) strategic nuclear balance and, with a sizeable amount of luck, nuclear war was avoided during the cold war.

Kissinger and Schmidt point out that we are on the threshold of a similar disruption of strategy and international balance. They point out that among the many things AI presages is that control and understanding of technical and potentially even policy decisions will be beyond the comprehension of simple humans. AI will have the ability to assimilate data beyond our control and be able to determine consequences and outcomes that the human mind simply can’t understand…but it may be logically correct. Where does that fit in the concept and use of force (military or financial market actions)? If we put a human in the loop it may delay or even disrupt a winning outcome for our side. But if we don’t, do we trust Chinese or Russian AI enabled forces to be similarly constrained? AI on one side is not likely to negotiate with AI on the other…or would it? As Kissinger and Schmidt point out, we need to think through these problems sooner rather than later. And eventually some exchange of concepts with Allies and competitors will be necessary.

It’s unnerving to consider automatic responses based on sensors and computers–as a pre-delegated decision by the president to implement a launch-under-attack option.

However, at the Council on Foreign Relations meeting, I inadvertently made the case for the computers. Members connected via zoom and the tool bar beneath the screen has two adjacent button, one for “chat” (which provided a list of participants) and the second was “raise hand” meaning you wanted to ask a question. Well when Woodruff opened the discussion the moderator said “Our first question will be from Charles Duelfer”. I had no intention of asking a question and simply mumbled that was a mistake. I had hit the “raise hand” button in addition to the “Chat” button without noticing it. Had I been quicker thinking, I would have pointed out that my error was an argument for downside of having a human in the loop (or at least not me in the loop).

Indisputably Kissinger and Schmidt raise a looming problem problem where technology is again way ahead of international policy and politics.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Taiwan is to Xi Jinping as Ukraine is to Vladimir Putin…

This analogy is too simple, but helps to think about the vise jaws that the Biden Administration now finds itself between. 

The similarities:  Both Xie and Putin have maneuvered to be in power for the foreseeable future.  The duration of “foreseeable” is limited by domestic dynamics not susceptible to outside understanding, much less manipulation.

Both leaders have a desire to rebuild an empire they believe is historically founded.  They both accrue domestic stature/security to the extent they promote national aggrandizement to include territorial gain.  Nationalism is good in their frame of reference.  Both leaders gain more than they lose by diminishing the United States. (Their behavior does not suggest belief in “Win-Win” vice “Zero Sum” in any relevant timeframes.)

Dis-similarities:  Putin cannot afford to be as patient.  He heads an inherently much weaker state, albeit with a lot of nuclear weapons, natural gas and geography. The Russian economy is weak and not strengthening.  This implies a more fragile internal base.  Putin can, however, leverage his military and energy advantages over weaker neighboring states in slices that are small enough to avoid unacceptable penalties.  Nothing has caused a unified “West” led by the United States to make him role back what he as seized by force.  He has the advantage of having less to lose and more to gain.

Xi has a lot to lose. Chinese economic growth and expansion seems to be continuing at a decent pace.  His incremental territorial gains have been achieved on implicit not explicit military dominance.  This has paid off in the South China Sea expansion and Hong Kong—at virtually no cost.  Probably not a Chinese proverb, but slowly boiling the frog seems to be working. Xi could have confidence of success in absorbing Taiwan (a very big economic prize) with the win coming garnished with another rollback of Western dominance.  Probably there is a proverb along the lines of “revenge is a dish best served cold….”

So we are now in circumstances where the apparently weaker United States is vulnerable to internal fractures open to external manipulation.  It’s as though the Chinese and Russians had discovered both the Permian basin in the US and hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) technology. And Putin is riffing off the Xi lead to his own advantage. 

Even some of our smaller, but strategic Allies see this.  NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made a tough case publicly following a meeting with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba at NATO today.  This former Norwegian Prime Minister gave a more potent case than Washington for pushing back against the inherently weak Putin. 

The best way to signal China is by pushing back against Putin.  We need to interrupt their riff.  If Ukraine falls due to limp Western support, Taiwan doesn’t stand a chance. Japan is watching carefully to say nothing of the Gulf States, Africa, Argentina, etc. 

My guess is Bill Burns at CIA sees this, but there may be climate change fog elsewhere.  Probably Wall Street realists see this. Watch Wall Street investments in Taiwan.  Betting on an independent Taiwan next year is one thing. But going long on Taiwan companies?  Not so much. 

Just before the Russian invasion of Crimea (shortly after the Olympics in Russia) there was a massive trade from Russian rubles into Japanese Yen. An indication of intentions especially given the absence of firewalls between policy decisions and Putin’s cronies. Watch for same in regarding Ukraine.

There are important differences between Putin and Xi. Putin is more: L’audace, tourjours l’audace. And Xi more: A little impatience will spoil great gains.

Where are we?

Posted in Allies, China, Cyber Threat, Elections, Intelligence, NATO, Russia, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Bill Burns – A Glimmer of Hope

Finally there is some ground for imagining a glimmer of hope in Afghanistan. CIA Director Bill Burns is reported to have met with Taliban leadership in Kabul Monday. Burns is exactly the right person with, hopefully, the right amount of leverage and authority. Regarding the immediate crisis of getting people out of Afghanistan safely, one can imagine a path forward that allows civil evacuation operations (not US military) that might be agreeable to the Taliban. It could be a way to demonstrate the Taliban can operate the airport responsibly and gain some credence internationally and avoid a military crisis at current deadline of 31 August.

Moreover, if the Taliban demonstrate more moderate behavior (akin to their public statements), it might not be delusional to imagine a future where development of relations and business between the US and Kabul is possible. There are demonstrable interests at stake for the US. Consider simply the welfare of the Afghan people, the mineral resources that China clearly expects to inherit, the control of territory that could easily revert to breeding and training Al Qaeda and those who explicitly seek to attack the US at home and abroad.

For all of the despicable acts of the Taliban in the past, it is possible their actions in the future may be moderated. Do they want to be strictly dependent upon China, or seen as a pawn of Russia? In American jargon, they may be the dog that caught the car. Suddenly they have a big country to run—again. They failed last time. Possibly they will recognize they need connections to the international systems for finance, health, education, training, etc. They may find they need the West.

A Taliban government in Afghanistan is certainly not what we hoped for. But we may still be able to avoid some of the worst outcomes. There are an imaginable series of steps where joint interests intersect. Steering toward them and avoiding landmines (including many placed by opponents beyond the Taliban–e.g. Beijing and Moscow) may be possible with much luck and skill.

Bill Burns, with his long practical experience at State department and current position heading an agency where he should be able to operate with discretion and authority is the best reason for hope.

Posted in Allies, China, Intelligence, Russia, Terrorism | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Afghanistan: Looming Tragedy – Will President Biden Blame Bad Intelligence?

President Biden visited the Office of the Director of National Intelligence Tuesday (27 July).  In his public remarks he praised the Intelligence Community (IC) and promised to never politicize their workSounds promising and clear-cut.  But reality is never that pure.

Not being Trump, one might assume the President asked the IC for assessments on the future of Afghanistan before he decided to pull out quickly.  Did the IC provide analysis that underpinned the President’s calculation that full withdrawal was the way to go? 

Did the IC assess the Taliban would abide by commitments in their negotiations?  How long did the IC or President Biden think the government in Kabul would last?  Did the IC warn that the Taliban would eradicate all associated with the US (and our coalition partners)? 

The Taliban will decimate those Afghanis associated with the US  (interpreters among others). Thousands of Afghani citizens must flee or die.  Fear is more contagious that the Delta Covid variant.  How many will risk their lives (and their families) on the strength of the Afghan army?  How soon will the Afghan Army melt away, leaving abandoned uniforms in trash heaps?  The fall of Saigon is an obvious lesson.  (My mother as a retired teacher in the 70’s spent her time tutoring a Vietnamese family in English. One family of tens of thousands.) 

Will the President blame his policy decisions on lousy intelligence?   Or will his people create some other narrative that the collapse of the government was inevitable?  This could get ugly in many ways.

Possibly the intelligence assessments were bad. But you would think after two decades of total access to the country that there might be some folks in the US government who might have some foreboding insight into the fragility of Kabul absent even symbolic US military presence.  And someone must have warned that the Taliban would be brutal to those left behind. This is not a hard target like Iraq. Before we invaded, sources inside Iraq were scarcer than chicken’s teeth.

As the Afghan drama unfolds it will test the character of all involved.  After all, Biden’s foreign policy leaders are experienced veterans and colleagues from the Obama Administration.  And Biden is the most experienced foreign policy president as any since George H. W. Bush.  He was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before most Foreign Service Officers were born.  He co-sponsored a bill to provide additional humanitarian assistance for South Vietnam and Cambodia in 1975.

Of course that experience may give him reason to be skeptical of IC pronouncements—which can be way wrong (sometimes for good reasons).

But what were the intelligence assessments that Biden either relied upon or dismissed?  This question will not go away. The press and even Democrat-controlled congressional committees will ask some pointed questions.  The looming disaster of Afghanistan will be a test of how non-political the Administration will treat the IC.  (I suspect an investigation is inevitable and, sadly, will become politically driven.)

CIA director Bill Burns has wisely stayed out of the limelight.  Last week, in a rare interview with National Public Radio he was pressed about Afghanistan.   National Public Radio’s Mary Louise Kelly asked if reports that the IC estimated the Afghan government could fall in as little as 6 months were true.  Burns danced around this inevitable question.  You can see his response tests the balance between candor and avoidance of damage to political leaders.  Remaining completely apolitical is not easy.  

Burns said, “Well, the trend lines that all of us see today are certainly troubling. The Taliban are making significant military advances; they’re probably in the strongest military position that they’ve been in since 2001.” 

Kelly pressed, “But that date, as soon as six months, is that correct?”

“Well, there are a lot of possibilities out there. I mean, what I would say is that the Afghan government retains significant military capabilities. The big question, it seems to me and to all of my colleagues at CIA and across the intelligence community, is whether or not those capabilities can be exercised with the kind of political willpower and unity of leadership that’s absolutely essential to resist the Taliban. So, as I said, the trend lines are certainly troubling. I don’t think that that should lead us to foregone conclusions or a sense of imminence or inevitability, but they really are worrying as well. So the U.S. government, as the president has made clear — and CIA will play a part in this — will continue to be strongly supportive of the Afghan government in every way that we can. And for CIA, we will be sharply focused beyond the withdrawal of the U.S. military and continuing terrorism challenges.”

Burns did a good job parrying Kelly’s question with a question.  But in private, he and his analysts will have made an assessment.  That’s their job.  They can’t simply respond to a president and shrug, “Gee Boss, that’s a good question. We were wondering the same thing.   Seems like a lot of our supporters might have a problem.”  They have to make a judgment, state their confidence level and what data underlies the judgment.

(There is more to the interview and the juggle of candor and political risks.  See:

Most tragic is the fate of the Afghani citizens and especially those who supported the US.  The consequence of our withdrawal cannot possibly have been a surprise to anyone familiar with the collapse of South Viet Nam.  The absence of preparation for this knowable tragedy will be tough to explain. The Biden Administration is populated with experienced State and Defense hands.

The government process to deal with so-called special immigrant visas is bureaucratic insanity.  Former Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, to his great credit, raised this horror we are bequeathing to those we leave behind.   Crocker testified on 23 June before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee and detailed the appalling bureaucratic process that will last much longer than the collapse of Afghanistan. The 14-step labyrinth (involving bureaucrats with no stake in the outcome and plenty of excuses for doing nothing) can take years.  The loyal supporters of the US will be long dead. Crocker knows this from his Iraq experience.  There were the same issues—but the timelines were less critical.

Unless urgently fixed, this will be a black stain on the US reputation for a long time.  Loyal support downrange is essential in any American or NATO operation.  Loyal support needs to be reciprocated.  (See Crocker’s testimony at:

It will be hard for Biden and his administration not to own what comes in Afghanistan. Watch those who may wish to run in 2024. There will be many moon-walking away. Afghanistan may be to President Biden, what Iraq was to George W. Bush.  The difference maybe in degree and direction, one going in and one getting out. 

Posted in Allies, Intelligence, Iraq, NATO, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

BYOB? — US and UK F-35s operate from UK Carrier against ISIS

UK and US F-35s have conducted strike missions against ISIS targets from the new carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. ( ) This is good news.  It points to the potency of close allies working together.  We draw strength in many ways from allies.  As difficult as it is to manage coalitions and allied relationships, the joint benefits are substantial.*  Common operating procedures, communications, intelligence and equipment provide great strength.  The absence of this is weakness. 

Hence, the problem posed by the decision of Turkish President Erdogan to purchase Russian S-400 air defense system–a big win for Putin.  First deliveries occurred in 2019 and in response, the US cut Turkey off from the F-35 program.  First test launches came in 2020 and the Trump administration levied sanctions. However, neither Trump nor Biden have been able to convince Erdogan to reconsider this move.  Turkey’s interests and NATO’s interests are complicated to say the least. But having a Putin ally as part of the NATO integrated military can not work.

So, its good to see US aircraft operate from a UK carrier.  No doubt there are complications of coordination, e.g. is it a BYOB (bombs) invitation? But better to have more options than less.

* As Churchill is quoted in 1945, “There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them.”

Posted in Allies, ISIS, NATO, Russia | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Reward for What?!

According to news reports, the US State Department announced that in response to the continued attacks on US diplomatic personal and assistance missions in Iraq it was offering a reward of $3 million for information about the perpetrators. 

This seemed weird.  Our people are in Iraq have been subjected to continuing attacks. In fact, Lockheed is withdrawing their staff supporting the Iraqi Air Force F-16s. Washington has repeatedly asked PM Mustafa al-Kadhimi to stem this problem.  Nothing happens.  The Iranian-backed Iraqi militias (who receive their salaries from the Iraqi government) grandly state they will expand such attacks until the US military leaves. Iraq at one point arrested a few militia members but soon released them presumably due to militia threats to the government.

And so we offer a reward for information about those responsible?  Huh?

I thought this might have been fake news.  I checked the State Department press releases and found nothing.  The State Near East Bureau had no such announcement. The Rewards for Justice site had no announcement. Maybe it was fake.

So I checked the sources of the articles that carried this story—the first articles appeared in Arabic press.  It turns out they were quoting a twitter announcement by the Rewards for Justice program.

Sure enough, you look up the RFJ twitter account and they really are offering money (and have an imbedded video) for information about attacks on US presence in Iraq.


(Google translation:  Oh loyal people of #Iraq, cowardly terrorists attack US diplomatic missions in Iraq and then rush to hide among the civilian population. America is offering a reward of up to $3 million for information on planned or past attacks against US diplomatic facilities. Text us via WhatsApp, Telegram or Signal.)

So, we are so disturbed about these attacks that we quietly offer $3 million for reports about attacks on the US.  Is that the best we can do?

First of all, it will generate all sorts of useless responses.  When the Iraq Survey Group was pursuing WMD evidence in 2003-5 in Iraq, someone had the idea of offering rewards for tips.  Well more tips than could ever be checked out came in.  Useless.  Some were just misguided.  Somebody would see something that looked weird (like the cryo bottles for a SAM missile) but wasn’t WMD.  More damaging, tipsters would provoke raids against somebody they had a grudge against.

But worse, it is the responsibility of the government of Iraq to provide protection.  They can’t or won’t. The government cannot control the militias they fund.  Clearly Iran has more control than Baghdad and is even upgrading their ability to hit the US with attack drones like those used by the Houthis in Yemen.

So, in response the US issues an Arabic twitter statement asking for information—and offering a reward.  Is that the best we can do? 

It’s difficult not to conclude that Washington is unwilling to address the source of the attacks—Tehran–so as not to upset the nuclear JCPOA talks in Vienna.  This repeats the approach of the Obama Administration.  The highest priority was the JCPOA and all other issues were subservient to that goal.  Iran seems to understand this and take advantage of it.

Where this leaves Iraq remains a sad question. And where does this leave the US, or do we just leave?

Posted in Allies, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sunni, Syria | Leave a comment

The New CIA Director

Ambassador William J. Burns is a great and timely choice to head the CIA. He will assure that the Administration has the intelligence collection and analysis for the critical security issues facing the United States. He is a long time diplomat, but not without knowledge of the CIA. He was Ambassador in Moscow and therefore close to his CIA counterpart. Russia will be a key issue and he can calibrate the Agency’s production and critically appraise the analytic products. And he can make sure the staff are addressing the right questions.

The same understanding of policy and process apply to the rest of the world (especially China). Burn’s experience as deputy Secretary of State invests him with long experience in consuming intelligence products (and approval of various collection activities). He knows when assessments are useful to policy decision-makers and if operations offer too much risk and not enough benefit.

Moreover, Burns has long experience in working with the national security team Biden has assembled. Whether you like the Iran deal or not, Burns certainly knows the players from his experience in the Obama administration. He knows foreign leaders first hand. He will be a tough consumer for the analysts who create profiles of foreign leaders–he knows them and the analysts don’t.

Can he run the Agency? He ran State Department as Deputy. Of course that’s quite different from many activities at CIA. For example, there are massive programs in science and technology and the newer digital world with no counterpart at State. But careful selection of his team should keep the CIA growing where it needs in these areas. Forward thinking staff and managers can be unleashed in an organization with improved morale. The sense of mission reportedly slumped in last administration. If the US is to leap ahead of competitors like China, it will need the agency to be inspired and amped up for a sustained period. This is not different from State Department.

Of course, Burns will face tough choices. What emphasis to give the “War of Terror”? Currently, the popular concern is domestic insurgency–how much of that is being pumped up by foreign actors? What to do about that? What to do about cyber? How to interface with private sector actors in new ways? The list is endless.

Burns has been around the national security world long enough to understand the value in sustaining expertise in areas that are not currently fashionable. Russian experts were out of favor for a long time, but the expertise is now needed. Corporate memory is valuable behind a vision for the future.

Burns is seen as a calm, extremely competent, diplomat. This should not be confused with softness. A colleague observed that transgressions would have consequences–perhaps without “sturm und drang”, but there would be costs, severe costs. In this vein, I would expect greater attention to “Moscow Rules”.

I had the opportunity to work with (and learn from) his father, then Army Brigadier General William F. Burns, when he was detailed to State Department as deputy assistant secretary for Politico-Military Affairs. He integrated diplomacy and military power to build national security in the Reagan Administration. (I only interacted with the younger Burns on limited occasions regarding Iraq when Bill headed the Middle East Bureau at State in 2001-2005.) In my opinion, there is every reason to believe he will bring the full capacity of the CIA to bear in the world that we now face–and maintain its apolitical stance. Such balance is all the more important today when all government assessments are scrutinized for political bias.

This may be the hardest and most important task. It requires staying hard-wired to the factual basis for statements and being explicit about uncertainties when making assessments. I had a non-trivial experience in sustaining (recreating) credibility in the CIA when presenting the factual outcome of the investigation into Saddam’s WMD programs in the midst of the 2004 presidential elections. To be trusted simultaneously by the White House and Congress, let alone our Allies, is a major challenge. Staying out of the public eye makes it easier. Staying clear of being used in someone else’s narrative is critical.

Bill Burns is great choice for Director.

Posted in Allies, China, Cyber Threat, Elections, Intelligence, Iran, Russia, Uncategorized, WMD | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Most Hyperbole In the History of the Galaxy, Or, Does Democracy in America Really Hang by a Thread?

The recurrent statements following the chaos of January 6, were nothing, if not cataclysmic, i.e. “democracy hangs by a thread!”

Unfortunately, foreign friends and allies tend to watch events in Washington via television like everyone else.  On multiple occasions conversations with such friends reach a point when they gently suggest that they must re-evaluate their own security and policy positions in light of the circumstances (weakness/chaos) in Washington.     

Fortunately, even the casual foreign observer of American television reporting (and other media) may notice the preponderance of the use of hyperbole.  If you don’t declare that something is the worst or best in the history of the galaxy, then you don’t have an opinion worth airing.  Only superlatives get attention.  Or so it would seem…especially related to President Trump.

To foreign friends I caution against quick reactions.  Look beyond the latest news cycle before compromising with China or Russia.  I urge them to consider the longer term.  Decipher the current narratives promoted relentlessly by elements in the US. Groups/individuals have substantial stakes in sustaining those narratives.  Without steering foreigners to any particular conclusion, I think it is constructive to advise some historical context.  The easiest and perhaps shortest way I have found is to remind interlocutors of 1968. 

In April that year, Martin Luther King was assassinated and riots engulfed Washington and dozens of other cities.  Blocks in Washington were burned and took years to recover.  Armed National Guard troops were deployed to restore order around the country.  Live ammunition was distributed and used.  In June, Robert Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles.  In August, the Chicago Democratic convention (which nominated Hubert Humphrey after Johnson declared he would not run) was engulfed in riots. 

The Vietnam War tore the country. Thousands of Americans and Vietnamese were dying (remember the 1968 Tet Offensive). War protesters flooded Washington filling the Mall.  The Black Panthers got headlines and there were shootouts and trials.  Remember the Huey Newton and Bobby Seale trials?  Later in 1968, Shirley Chisholm became the first black woman elected to the House of Representatives. Yale decided to admit women undergraduates.  Nixon beat Humphrey by  .7 percent of popular vote.  And remember George Wallace? He carried five southern states.  Perhaps reading American’s distraction, the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia putting an end to “Prague Spring.”

Oh and by the way, don’t forget we were balancing the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union throughout all this.  The United States had 300,000 troops in Europe to deter Soviet aggression.  There were tens of thousands of nuclear weapons all over the planet, ICBMs, SLBMs, B-52’s, large and small nuclear artillery, etc.  Accidents happened.  In 1968, a B-52 crashed in Greenland with four nuclear weapons on board. Yikes!  While Greta Thunberg, may never forgive the boomer generation for not reining in carbon emissions, at least total thermonuclear war was avoided.  Think of all the dead pandas and whales.

After 1968, the country eventually got out of Vietnam.  While Nixon was consumed by the Watergate crisis, the country advanced.  Social issues evolved in ways unimaginable in the 1950’s.  Arguably, the United States became stronger socially, economically, militarily, technologically and scientifically (we landed on the moon in 1969).  Democracy did not die as was predicted by many.  Western democratic societies endured and the world was not incinerated by accidental or intentional nuclear war. 

So while the confluence of current narratives requires pundits/parrots to shriek in full-throated superlatives, I suspect the current divisions in the country will heal as they have in the past.  And new divisions will inevitably follow.

The United States and its like-minded friends and Allies will, at worst, muddle through.  The connective tissue of our common ideals is strong.  The inventiveness of people unleashed from authoritarian governments is strong.  Our capitalist system tempered by government energizes innovation that serves the people. Cell phones have done as much as anything to raise living standards globally. While we may scare our friends (and ourselves) with the hysteria promoting assorted narratives and interests in the media, I strongly suspect we’ll come out stronger.

And consider whether Xi’s China or Putin’s Russia will help you be what you want to be.

Posted in Allies, China, Elections, journalism coverage, NATO, Russia, Uncategorized, United Nations | Tagged | 1 Comment

9-11 Nineteen Years On…

This day used to re-kindle memories of an attack against America. Little attention is now paid. It does not fit the current narrative. In this political season, neither candidate benefits from the old narrative. Today’s atmosphere seems to be that the threat to the United States comes from its own citizens and, probably always has. For those who do reflect upon 9-11 there is ample reason to consider the decisions made afterwards and the difference they made or did not make.  But today’s popular mindset is not one of reflection, but an entire paradigm shift–the problem is not out there, but in here.

It is striking that the heroes of the early post 9-11 days, including the NYPD and other police departments, are now the villains in the present “narrative.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 8 Comments

Asteroid Near Miss (?): Monday, 2 November 2020

Indications and Warning – You won’t get anywhere else

Based on European Space Agency database (drawing on JPL and many other sources), on Monday, 2 November 2020 Near Earth Object (NEO) 2018 VP1 will pass very close to earth(est. 62,000 km). This puts it up on their RISK category.  The good news is that its size (estimate based on object reflectivity) is only 2.6 m.  So if it hits Earth, it won’t be a species-ending event (remember mass extinction of the dinosaurs of 65 million years ago).  However, the kinetic energy of impact would still be 2.6 megatons TNT equivalent. (Sourcing below.)

Analysis:  This will be reported as a Trump campaign plan to depress voter turnout.  Or, another reason to mail in absentee vote.  Or, fund US Space Force…or…;jsessionid=ca1211b1d52e2f16d5f94f198ade

Posted in Asteroids, Elections, Intelligence, Space | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment