Tag: Terrorism
Trouble in the Gulf will require more than arms
Here are the speaking notes I used yesterday at the Third Annual Conference of the Gulf International Forum:
- The Gulf today is engulfed with multiple dimensions of conflict and instability.
- Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are still at odds with Qatar as well as with Turkey and Iran about leadership in the region and the role of political Islam in the Muslim world.
- The US is pursuing a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran that has repercussions throughout the Gulf and the Levant, especially Iran and Iraq.
- Iran is responding with “maximum resistance,” which includes continued support for the wars on their own people by Bashar al Assad and the Houthis as well as shifting Iranian foreign policy in the direction of Beijing and Moscow.
- Global warming, declining oil prices, youth bulges, sectarian resentments, and COVID-19 are challenging the ability of Gulf states to maintain their social contract: authoritarian stability and material prosperity in exchange for political quiescence.
US Interests and Disinterest in the Region - US priorities in the Gulf have shifted. Oil is far less important economically and politically than it once was, and America’s main terrorism threat is domestic, not international.
- Higher priority in Washington now goes to countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction and limiting the influence of rival powers in the Middle East.
- The problem for the United States is that none of its interests in the Gulf are well-served by coercion, but neither are they well-served by withdrawal, which hurts partners and allies, even giving them incentives to develop nuclear weapons, while opening new opportunities for rivals.
- Whoever is elected President next month, the US interest in reducing its commitment to the Gulf will continue, but it needs to be done without endangering friends and encouraging adversaries or unleashing a regional arms race.
- Biden and Trump should be expected to behave differently in pursuing US goals.
- President Trump is impatient and transactional. He will likely pull the plug on US troops in places not prepared to protect or pay for them (Iraq and Syria). The “Abrahamic” agreements are transactional: Israel gets recognition in exchange for its help in sustaining Gulf autocracies.
- Biden did not invent this idea, but he isn’t opposed to it.
- Where the candidates differ is on Palestine and on governance in the Arab world. Biden continues to favor a two-state outcome for Israel and Palestine, whereas Trump and his Israeli partners seek to eliminate any possibility of creating a viable Palestinian state.
- While safeguarding Israel’s security, Biden would push for a better deal for the Palestinians than the one Trump has offered. He would also be less tolerant of Gulf human rights abuses.
- Biden and Trump also differ on the value of the Iran nuclear deal, but it is important to recognize that they share the same goal: to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
- Trump’s approach is “maximum pressure,” mainly through unilateral sanctions but also including the threat of kinetic action. He aims to force Iran back to the negotiating table to negotiate a “better deal” that would include regional issues, missiles, and extending and expanding the nuclear agreement.
- Biden wants to negotiate with Iran on the same issues but is prepared to lift some sanctions to incentivize a return to the status quo ante: Iranian and US compliance with the nuclear deal. Whichever candidate wins, Iran is unlikely to change course before its June election, if then.
A Much-Needed Regional Security Framework
- Neither Trump nor Biden rules out war with Iran, which would be catastrophic for the Gulf states. Doha has the most to lose.
- But war is not an attractive proposition for Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Manama either. Israel and the Gulf states don’t want Iran to get nuclear weapons and will cooperate to prevent it, but the Arabs will not want to risk joining Israel and the US in an overt conventional war with Iran whose winner may be predictable but whose consequences could be catastrophic for the Gulf.
- President Trump has been a welcome figure in the Arab Gulf, especially in Saudi Arabia. He has shielded the Kingdom and its Crown Prince from accountability for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and continued the Obama Administration’s support for the Yemen war, despite growing bipartisan discomfort in the US.
- Because of his human rights commitments, Biden will be less favored in the Gulf. He will not be sword dancing in Riyadh or cheering the war in Yemen.
- But the differences should not obscure the similarities. The two candidates share the desire to reduce US commitments in the Gulf and the interest in preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Several of their predecessors also had these goals and failed to achieve them.
- The reason is all too clear: the Americans have relied too heavily on coercion and too little on diplomacy.
- The United States has enormous destructive military, political, and economic power. But that alone cannot build what is needed: a regional security network that will reduce threat perceptions in all the Gulf states, Iran included, decrease incentives to develop nuclear weapons, and prevent encroachments by rival powers.
- This framework will require a stronger diplomatic nexus of mutual understanding, restraint, and respect. Continued low-intensity and gray zone conflict, or a real war, will make that much more difficult to achieve. The Gulf is not a military challenge, but rather a diplomatic one.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | September 28 – October 2, 2020
Notice: Due to recent public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
1. Political, Security, and Public Health Dimensions in the Horn of Africa | September 28, 2020 | 3:00 – 4:30 PM EDT | Brookings | Register Here
The Horn of Africa continues to face multiple challenges from persistent terrorism and militancy threats to significant global warming repercussions. A country of significant U.S. and international state-building and counterterrorism investments, Somalia continues to struggle with increasing al-Shabaab militancy, a security situation in which Ethiopia, Kenya, and other members of the African Union Mission in Somalia play important counterinsurgency roles. Yet Somalia and Ethiopia are also undergoing large and challenging political transitions. Ethiopia, too, faces the rise of escalating intra-ethnic tensions and political violence. The entire region has become a place of difficult competition among regional and great powers. Layered over these issues, the coronavirus pandemic has devastated local economies, exacerbating already high levels of poverty. Moreover, it has further destabilized fragile, fractious, and explosive political processes.
On September 28, the Africa Security Initiative at Brookings will hold a panel discussion to explore these complex and overlapping issues. The panel will feature Director of Programmes of the United Nations University’s Centre for Policy Research Adam Day, Brookings Senior Fellow Vanda Felbab-Brown, United States Institute of Peace Senior Advisor Payton Knopf, Institute for Security Studies Senior Researcher Allan Ngari, and Brookings Nonresident Fellow Zach Vertin. Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon will moderate the discussion.
Speakers:
Adam Day: Director of Programmes – Centre for Policy Research, United Nations University
Vanda Felbab-Brown: Co-Director – Africa Security InitiativeSenior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence
Payton Knopf: Senior Advisor – United States Institute of Peace
Allan Ngari: Senior Researcher, Complex Threats in Africa Programme – Institute for Security Studies
Zach Vertin: Nonresident Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence
Michael E. O’Hanlon (moderator): Director of Research – Foreign PolicyCo-Director, Security and StrategySenior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and IntelligenceThe Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair
2. 2020 Election Integrity and Foreign Interference | September 29, 2020 | 3:00 PM EDT | Atlantic Council | Register Here
As part of our Interference 2020 effort, please join the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) on September 29 from 3:00 – 4:00 pm ET for a timely discussion of recent allegations of foreign interference in the 2020 election. The event will be opened by Craig Newmark, who has worked to uplift journalism in the face of disinformation, as well as connect efforts working to counter destabilizing foreign interference. The discussion will feature POLITICO’s Natasha Bertrand and David Sanger of the New York Times on their experience covering foreign interference ahead of the election and their process when assessing credibility of interference claims and attribution.
The DFRLab will also launch the Foreign Interference Attribution Tracker, an open-source database that captures allegations of foreign interference in U.S. elections. This event will offer a first look at the tool which is intended to build public attribution standards, provide an independent and reliable record of foreign interference in the 2020 election, serve as a resource for stakeholders about the evolving threat, and help to build public resilience against future efforts of foreign influence and disinformation.
Disinformation poses an existential threat to the future of American democracy. Nowhere is this more evident than in the question of foreign interference: a phenomenon which is heavily dependent on the spread of disinformation, yet which is also increasingly the subject of it. Over the past nine months, numerous U.S. officials, agencies, technology companies, and civil society organizations have identified instances of foreign disinformation campaigns and social media manipulation—often using drastically different standards of evidence to make their case.
We hope you will join us online and in the effort ahead of U.S. elections.
Speakers:
Craig Newmark: Founder: Craigslist, Craig Newmark Philanthropies
David Sanger: National Security Correspondent, New York Times
Natasha Bertrand: National Security Correspondent, POLITICO
Emerson Brooking: Resident Fellow, Digital Forensics Research Lab
Graham Brookie: Director and Managing Editor, Digital Forensics Research Lab
3. Domestic Terrorism and the U.S. Presidential Election | September 30, 2020 | 1:30 – 2:30 PM EDT | CSIS | Register Here
Please join the CSIS Transnational Threats Project and Defending Democratic Institutions Project on Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 1:30pm to discuss the domestic terrorism threat in the United States before, during, and after the 2020 presidential election. The panel will examine the domestic terrorism threat landscape; the role of security and law enforcement; the use and misuse of military force, including legal provisions governing violence mitigation; the spread of extremism on digital platforms; and the role of foreign actors.
Seth Jones, CSIS Harold Brown Chair and Director of the Transnational Threats Project and Suzanne Spaulding, Senior Adviser for Homeland Security to the International Security Program will be joined by Brian Michael Jenkins, Senior Adviser to the RAND President, RAND as well as Cathy Lanier, Senior Vice President, Chief Security Officer, National Football League (NFL), and former Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia.
Speakers:
Brian Michael Jenkins: Senior Adviser to the RAND President, RAND
Cathy Lanier: Senior Vice President, Chief Security Officer, National Football League (NFL); and former Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia
4. Envisioning COVID-19’s Legacy on Global Stability and Security | September 30, 2020 | 2:00 – 3:00 PM EDT | American Enterprise Institute | Register Here
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has taken lives, devastated the world economy, and threatened the fabric of politics around the world. As Henry Kissinger warned, “The coronavirus epidemic will forever alter the world order.” So what will a post-COVID-19 world order look like? In their new book, “COVID-19 and World Order” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2020), AEI’s Hal Brands and Francis Gavin of Johns Hopkins University convened leading experts in policy, economics, governance, international security, medicine, and technology to consider the international aftermath of the pandemic.
Please join AEI’s Hal Brands, Kori Schake, and Colin Dueck for a panel discussion with Elizabeth Economy and Francis Gavin to examine COVID-19’s legacy on global stability and security.
Speakers:
Hal Brands: Resident Scholar, AEI
Elizabeth C. Economy: Senior Fellow for China Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
Francis J. Gavin: Director of Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Kori Schake: Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, AEI
Colin Dueck: Visiting Scholar, AEI
5. The Future of US Policy in Afghanistan | September 30, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM EDT | Brookings | Register Here
Over the course of the past 19 years of war in Afghanistan, successive American presidents and presidential candidates have promised to make ending the war and bringing troops home a priority. While the U.S.-Taliban deal signed in February and the intra-Afghan peace talks that began earlier this month in Doha offer a path toward complete U.S. withdrawal, the talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government will be long and difficult and a successful deal between the two parties is far from guaranteed. Questions also remain regarding whether the Taliban did indeed cut off ties with al-Qaida, as outlined in the U.S.-Taliban deal.
On September 30, Foreign Policy at Brookings will host a virtual event to assess political and security developments in Afghanistan, U.S. interests in the country, and foreign policy options for the next administration to pursue.
Viewers can submit questions via email to events@brookings.edu or via Twitter at #Policy2020.
Policy 2020 events aim to empower voters with fact-based, data-driven, non-partisan information so they can better understand the policy matters discussed in the 2020 election.
Speakers:
Madiha Afzal: Assistant Professor, School of Public Policy – David M. Rubenstein Fellow: Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence, Center for Middle East Policy
Vanda Felbab-Brown: Co-Director – Africa Security InitiativeSenior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence
Michael O’Hanlon: Director of Research – Foreign PolicyCo-Director, Security and StrategySenior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and IntelligenceThe Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair
6. Turning Black to Green | September 30, 2020 | 17:00—18:00 EEST (UTC+3) | Carnegie Endowment for Peace | Register Here
While September 2020 marks 100 years since the Proclamation of the State of Greater Lebanon, the country today is plagued by a myriad of crises. This may prove a critical inflection point for Lebanon as a whole. The Carnegie Middle East Center and Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung are hosting a four-part series of panel discussions, which will look at where Lebanon stands on its Centennial, as well as the opportunities and challenges for the new century.
Lebanon is endowed with a rich and diverse national ecosystem, and has the potential and responsibility to fight pollution and deforestation, while investing in green spaces and clean energy. Moving forward, how can Lebanon ensure that the environment does not take a back seat in its national priorities, given the many other pressing issues facing the country today?
Join us on Tuesday, September 29 from 5:00-6:00 p.m. Beirut (GMT+3) for this fourth panel discussion on Lebanon’s environmental concerns and potential. The event will be held in English. Viewers may submit their questions via the Live Chat feature on YouTube during the livestream.
Speakers:
Ziad Abi Chaker: CEO of Cedar Environmental.
Marc Ayoub: research assistant with the Energy Policy and Security department at the American University of Beirut.
Nada Ghorayeb Zarour: former president of the Lebanese Green Party and the current head of its Arbitration Council.
Dalal Mawad: award-winning journalist and senior MENA video producer and correspondent with the Associated Press.
7. Regional Expansionism: Iran’s Militias in the Levant | October 1, 2020 | 1:00 PM EDT | Atlantic Council| Register Here
The United States’ policy towards Iran is one of the most contentious foreign policy issues currently dividing Democrats and Republicans in the 2020 election season. While containing Iran’s nuclear activity is a priority for both parties, it remains unclear how either one plans to deal with Iranian-backed militias, which remain a threat to lasting stability in the Middle East and a danger to America and its allies’ national security interests.
Speakers:
Joel Rayburn:Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Levant and Special Envoy for Syria, US Department of State
Michael B. Herzog: Milton Fine International Fellow, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Ariane Tabatabai: Middle East Fellow, Alliance for Securing Democracy, The German Marshall Fund of the United States
Hamdi Malik: Middle East Analyst; Contributor, Iran International TV; Al-Monitor
Navvar Saban: Conflict Analyst and Expert; Nonresident Researcher, Omran Center for Strategic Studies; Orsam Center
8. Election 2020 U.S. Foreign Policy Forum | October 1, 2020 | 3:00 PM EDT | Council on Foreign Relations | Register Here
Between the first and second presidential debates, please join us for a discussion of the foreign policy challenges awaiting the winner of the 2020 election and the critical issues for Americans to consider as they cast their vote this November.
This event is free and open to all. To register, please sign up on the Eventbrite page. Zoom access instructions will be emailed to registrants on the evening of Wednesday, September 30.
Speakers:
Reuben E. Brigety II: Vice-Chancellor and President, University of the South; Former U.S. Representative to the African Union and U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN Economic Commission for Africa (2013–2015)
Richard N. Haass: President, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Special Assistant to President George H.W. Bush (1989–1993)
Jami Miscik: CEO and Vice Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.; Former Co-Chair, President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (2014–2017); Former Deputy Director of Intelligence, CIA (2002–2005)
Frances Fragos Townsend: Vice Chairman, General Counsel, and Chief Administration Officer, MacAndrews & Forbes Incorporated; Former Assistant to President George W. Bush for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Chair, Homeland Security Council (2004–2008)
Juju Chang: Co-anchor, Nightline, ABC News
9. Overcoming Polarization in Ukraine | October 2, 2020 | 10:00 AM EDT | Atlantic Council| Register Here
Since Ukraine first gained independence in 1991, historical memory and national identity have been a point of contention and subject for manipulation. Thanks in good part to Kremlin aggression, a real sense of Ukrainian identity has emerged in the center and east of the country, too. Yet, the memory war that has characterized Ukraine for the past three decades has not disappeared. And it has been exacerbated by Kremlin disinformation campaigns. The Kremlin has inflamed controversy over historical narratives, weaponizing history in the unsuccessful effort to undermine Ukrainian statehood. A groundbreaking recent report by the London School of Economics and Political Science’s (LSE) Arena program, From ‘Memory Wars’ to a Common Future: Overcoming Polarisation in Ukraine, outlines the scope of challenges facing Ukraine’s information environment along with comprehensive recommendations for reducing societal polarization.
Speakers:
Anne Applebaum: Director, Arena, LSE
Natalia Gumenyuk: Co-founder, Public Interest Journalism Lab
Peter Pomerantsev: Visiting Senior Fellow, Institute of Global Affairs, LSE
Yevhen Hlibovytsky: Founder, ProMova
Ambassador John Herbst: Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
10. Disinformed Democracy: The Past, Present, and Future of Information Warfare | October 2, 2020 | 9:15 AM – 1:0 PM EDT | Brookings | Register Here
In 2016, Russian operatives waged an information war, including cyberattacks and inauthentic social media campaigns, designed to stoke political divisions and undermine the U.S. presidential election. Before they became front-page news, Russian influence operations had existed for decades. But in recent years, a range of domestic and international factors — in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere — have spotlighted the dangers of information manipulation campaigns, which now threaten the 2020 election. These drivers, alongside a rapidly evolving information technology and communications landscape, necessitate innovative policy ideas and a whole-of-society approach to protect democratic societies.
On October 2, Foreign Policy at Brookings will host a virtual conference to examine the past, present, and future of disinformation and efforts to combat it. Following welcome remarks by Brookings President John R. Allen, Brookings Senior Fellow Fiona Hill and former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster will frame the event with a conversation on McMaster’s new book, “Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World.” Then, Hill and Brookings Fellow and Deputy Director of the Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technology Initiative Chris Meserole will moderate three panel discussions on the history of Russian influence operations leading up to 2016, the domestic factors that contribute to disinformation and other threats to democracy, and novel strategies for combatting information warfare in the future.
Speakers and Schedule:
Welcome remarks
John Allen: President – The Brookings Institution
Opening conversation: How disinformation threatens world order
H.R. McMaster: Former U.S. National Security Advisor, Fouad and Michelle Ajami Senior Fellow – Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Fiona Hill: Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe
Panel 1: The road to Russian interference in 2016
Catherine Belton: Special Correspondent – Reuters
Arkady Ostrovsky: Russia and Eastern Europe Editor – The Economist
Thomas Rid: Professor of Strategic Studies – Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
David Shimer: Global Fellow – Woodrow Wilson International Center for ScholarsAssociate Fellow – Yale University
Fiona Hill: Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and
Panel 2: Domestic drivers of disinformation
Renee DiResta: Research Manager – Stanford Internet Observatory
Elaine Kamarck: Founding Director – Center for Effective Public ManagementSenior Fellow – Governance Studies
Kate Starbird: Associate Professor, Human Centered Design & Engineering – University of Washington
Chris Meserole: Deputy Director – Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technology Initiative, Fellow – Foreign Policy
Panel 3: Novel strategies for countering information warfare
Eileen Donahoe: Executive Director – Global Digital Policy Incubator, Stanford University; Former U.S. Ambassador – United Nations Human Rights Council
Thomas Kent: Adjunct Associate Professor of International and Public Affairs – Columbia University
Daniel Kimmage: Principal Deputy Coordinator, Global Engagement Center – U.S. Department of State
Teija Tiilikainen: Director – European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats (Hybrid CoE)
Fiona Hill: Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 22
– Josh Rogin says secret CIA assessment says Russian leaders are probably directing an influence campaign against Biden.
– WaPo says DOD shifted Covid money to buy jet engine parts and body armor.
– BuzzFeed says government documents show failure to block suspicious financial transactions linked to drugs and terrorists.
– WSJ says Chinese leaders divided over blacklisting US companies.
–Russia rejects US New START ideas.
– Flouting nonpolitical norms, Pompeo plunges into politics, Politico says.
– CNN says Milley and Esper have different approaches to evading Trump.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 18
The respected annual poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs finds sharp partisan divisions among Americans, even though they support engagement abroad. WaPo has a good report.
For Democrats, the five leading threats to US vital interests are, in order, the coronavirus pandemic, climate change, racial inequality in the United States, foreign interference in U.S. elections and economic inequality in this country.
For Republicans, the top five threats to vital US interests are the development of China as a world power, international terrorism, large numbers of immigrants and refugees coming into the country, domestic violent extremism and Iran’s nuclear program. Here’s the survey.
NYT says China is losing friends in Europe.
Senate Democrats have a $350 billion package to counter China.
Politico says China issue won’t determine US elections. Former DHS aide to VP Pence on coronavirus quits, blasts Trump
StratCom head sees no need for nuclear test. [Note: this is an issue in net week’s exercise]
NATO report says Taliban is flush with cash.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, June 22
– While the national security adviser writes in WSJ that “no formal announcement has been made,” he then explains that US troops will leave Germany and why.
-NYT explains the lapses in vetting that allowed the Saudi pilot to kill in Pensacola.
— NYT also explains how Amb. Grenell seized control of Kosovo policy.
-Bolton blames many policies on “the split between Trump and Trump.”
–Bolton has more harsh words in ABC interview. Transcript here.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, June 2
– The US Constitution and existing laws place enormous limits on the federal government’s use of force. There is supposed to be civilian control, under the president. In the District of Columbia the president is in direct control of the national guard. That probably explains why guard forces aggressively dispersed protestors even before the DC Mayor’s 7pm curfew last night.
Earlier, in a call to governors, the president said CJCS General Milley was”in charge.” By law, of course, the Chairman is not in the chain of command over the armed forces, only over the Joint Staff. He cannot give combat orders. The White House press secretary said that there would be a “central command center” to deal with the riots nationwide. But the US military can’t be part of that without presidential invocation of the Insurrection Act. Contrary to the press secretary, the Justice Department told FP that it would be in charge, which is consistent with what Attorney General Barr told the governors, that the issue would be handled by the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
BTW, his ignorance of the law also explains the president’s talk of declaring “antifa” a terrorist organization.
I’m troubled by several things: the president’s glorification of military force as the first response to civil protests; his disregard of the laws and norms by urging federal military intervention nationwide; the apparent complicity of the SecDef and CJCS in this situation. I agree with Kevin Baron of Defense One that “Trump now has the war he wanted.” And that’s bad for civilian control and order in law.
-How timely, Former SecDef Gates warns about the “overmilitarization” of American foreign policy.
-A Columbia prof confirms my concerns that US cyber programs are overwhelmingly focused on offense rather than defense and resilience.
– Time and the UN report the Taliban are colluding with al Qaeda again.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
