RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/wp-admin/post-new.php

Recently JFK biographer Ira Stoll argued against the knee-jerk demonization of the defense industry. He described an event at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government at which an executive from defense contractor Raytheon spoke, sparking protests and chants against “warmongers, imperialists and Zionists” who foment unnecessary wars to make money and advance their oppressive ideologies.

This verbal trifecta of ancient leftist clichés and villains reminds us just how old, simplistic, and dangerous our foreign policy idealism is in a world of ambitious state predators.

This idealistic narrative reflects several bad ideas about how we should defend our security and interests, and deal with aggressors. For over a century now, what British historian Corelli Barnett called “moralizing internationalism,” and we call the “rules-based international order,” has assumed that rather than a tragic constant of interstate relations, war is an anomaly to be corrected.

Supposedly, our advances in understanding human nature and motivation can replace war with non-lethal policies for adjudicating conflict. Multinational treaties and covenants, transnational institutions, and international diplomacy can manage interstate conflict and avoid war’s horrors and destruction.

Only the wicked keep this peaceful settling of conflict from stopping war. One villain frequently blamed for wars after World War I is the arms manufacturers, what became known as the “merchants of death,” today one of our sturdiest and most tired clichés. The animus against armament businesses fed the antiwar sentiments of the interwar periods, and promoted pacifism, disarmament, and the reliance on non-lethal methods for settling conflict.

But as George Orwell pointed out in 1940, the horrors of the industrialized carnage of the Great War promoted the question-begging “meaningless slaughter” take on World War I. Even “to have any knowledge of or interest in military matters . . . was suspected in ‘enlightened circles.’” These attitudes contributed to the growth of pacifism, cutbacks in defense budgets, and a preference for multilateral covenants and institutions, all of which contributed to the disastrous policies of appeasement that culminated in Munich.

Yet despite that epochal failure, the antimilitarism, naïve non-violent approaches to resolving conflict, and the moral hazard created by the projection of weakness such polices create, have become the received wisdom of our foreign policy establishment. Just consider the Biden administration’s disastrous attempts to restart the Iran nuclear deal. Under cover of “diplomatic engagement,” we have not just made the mullahs’ path to nuclear weapons easier, but also financed the regime’s malign aggression.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/replicator-drones-pentagon-u-s-military-china-kathleen-hicks-9f585dce?mod=opinion_lead_pos4

The Pentagon said last week that the U.S. will build thousands of drones to counter China, and a 24-month timeline fits the urgency of the Pacific military threat. But beware the idea that nascent technology can patch growing U.S. vulnerabilities on the cheap.

The Pentagon is rolling out an initiative called Replicator that aims to speed up the “shift of U.S. military innovation to leverage platforms that are small, smart, cheap and many,” said Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks in a recent speech. The Chinese Communist Party “has spent the last 20 years building a modern military carefully crafted to blunt the operational advantages we’ve enjoyed for decades.”

Ukraine has deployed cheap drones to great effect, from reconnaissance to apparent sea explosives cobbled together with jet-ski parts. Drone swarms could help the U.S. jam or distract enemy radars and surface-to-air missiles. Armed seacraft could offer more offensive missile power at lower risk to U.S. troops.

Ms. Hicks says new systems will “help us overcome the PRC’s advantage in mass: More ships, more missiles, more forces.” The new drones, styled as “all-domain, attritable autonomous systems,” will help defeat the Chinese plan to push U.S. forces out of the Pacific.

Innovation is welcome, but so is caution about thinking that the U.S. can use better technology to make up for a smaller military, as the U.S. Navy looks set to shrink to 285 ships in the coming years. Ms. Hicks invoked the Cold War example of offsetting Soviet advantage in forces with precision weapons. But Ronald Reagan also built a 600-ship Navy and rejected a false choice between better tech and more ships and ammo. The U.S. won the Cold War with both.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-defense-bill-veto-house-republicans-military-pentagon-china-3a985ff6?mod=opinion_lead_pos4

By now you’ve seen headlines that the House GOP is descending into dysfunction, but a rump of Republicans aren’t the only intransigents in Washington. The White House is firing off veto threats about a GOP military spending bill, which is rich considering how the Biden crowd claims to be focused on deterring China.

The White House on Monday issued a veto threat for the House Republican Pentagon spending bill, which is moving through the lower chamber this week. As part of the debt-ceiling deal, the GOP agreed to cap defense at Mr. Biden’s $886 billion request, even as many Republicans think the military needs more to deal with proliferating world problems.

The Biden Administration now says it “strongly opposes” the GOP bill because Republicans dared to exert Congress’s prerogatives. The bill blocks funding for a Pentagon policy that offers leave and transportation expenses for service members traveling to get an abortion. That unilateral Biden policy is not, as the White House claims, “in full accordance with the law,” and it has served mainly as an accelerant to America’s cultural wars.

The White House also objects to provisions on climate change. But the House is controlled by Republicans, so Mr. Biden will have to deign to negotiate with a co-equal branch.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/beyond-fbi-failure-on-9-11/

Presidents regularly mount the podium but FBI directors have kept rather quiet on September 11. Last year, Christopher Wray delivered remarks that prove enlightening.

“It’s fitting that we mark this anniversary here, at the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC),” Wray said, “because the TSC is a prime example of the strides we made following the attacks—developing new capabilities and working in concert with our partners to keep people safe. It demonstrates the ingenuity, the dedication, and the spirit of collaboration we’ve brought—as a collective law enforcement and intelligence community—to the fight against terrorism.”

The Terrorist Screening Center, in Vienna Virginia, was established in 2003 to “consolidate the government’s approach to terrorism,” The TSC is administered by the FBI, with support from the Intelligence Community, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, Department of Treasury, and Department of Defense.

The impact of 9/11, Wray explained, “profoundly shaped the way we do our jobs, the way we collaborate and communicate with partners, and the way we tackle challenges. Really, it all comes down to one thing—keeping people we will never know, and families we will never meet, safe from harm.” Wray did not put a number to “the people who died that day,” and the only casualties he named were two FBI agents.

“Because of that terrible day, we’ve transformed the bureau in ways that have made us stronger and better, and our country safer. Those transformations have proven critical over the past 21 years—and will remain critical in the face of a continuously evolving terrorist threat. As we carry on this mission to protect Americans from terrorism, we bring to our work the same sense of purpose and resolve that we felt on 9/11 and in the days that followed.”

And so on, with a few significant omissions. The FBI failed to prevent the attack of September 11, 2001, and also slipped up on the prequel.

In 1993, the FBI failed to prevent Islamic terrorists from bombing the World Trade Center, which claimed six victims. The lessons went unlearned. For all its money, power and resources, the FBI failed to prevent terrorists from hijacking airliners and crashing them into the Pentagon and World Trade Center.

https://www.aol.com/news/chinese-gatecrashers-access-us-military-111145878.html

Chinese spies posing as tourists have been infiltrating US military bases by booking hotels, asking directions to Burger King and scuba diving near missile sites.

American facilities and other sensitive sites have been accessed by Chinese nationals up to 100 times in recent years, US media reported.

The apparent rudimentary attempts at espionage come after threats from Chinese spycraft, including from air balloons drifting over nuclear bases.

Officials told the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that Chinese citizens have been found claiming to have a reservation at hotels on military bases.

In one recent case, a group claiming to be tourists tried to push past guards at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, saying they had booked a stay at a commercial hotel there. The base is home to the army’s 11th Airborne Division, which is responsible for Arctic warfare.

In two other unusual episodes, Chinese nationals were found crossing into a US missile range in New Mexico and scuba divers were spotted in murky waters near a rocket launch site in Florida.

On another occasion, possible spies have been found asking for directions to the nearest Burger King, which happens to be on a military base.

https://www.digitalfirstmagazine.com/accelerating-innovation-security-education-in-the-digital-age/

Chuck Brooks, President of Brooks Consulting International, is a globally recognized thought leader and subject matter expert Cybersecurity and Emerging Technologies. LinkedIn named Chuck as one of “The Top 5 Tech People to Follow on LinkedIn.” He was named as “Cybersecurity Person of the Year by Cyber Express, as one of the world’s “10 Best Cyber Security and Technology Experts” by Best Rated. Chuck received two senior Presidential appointments, including as Legislative Director of The Science & Technology Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security and as Special Assistant to the Director of Voice of America. He has also served in executive roles for Fortune 500 companies. Chuck has an MA in International relations from the University of Chicago and a BA in Political Science from DePauw University.

Recently, in an exclusive interview with Digital First Magazine, Chuck shared his insights on the future of cybersecurity landscape, his career trajectory, what sets Brooks Consulting International apart from other market competitors, the key qualities required to be a successful security leader, future plans, pearls of wisdom, and much more. The following excerpts are taken from the interview.

What are your thoughts on where the cybersecurity industry is heading?

The Cybersecurity industry is heading toward the right paths and it along many divergent paths. First, there is more focus by the C-Suite on the importance pf protecting digital assets. It is being taken more seriously in budgets, responsibilities and in planning. Compliance and policy recommendations from The US Security Exchange Commission (SEC) and The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s CISA, and in the EU, the GDPR have reinforced the need for enhanced cybersecurity and privacy. Private/public cooperation is expanding as is global cooperation. Also, emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and early quantum computing algorithms are impacting the landscape in terms of automation, threat detection, and analytics. The Cloud is becoming more competitive and secure, and managed cybersecurity providers are helping close gaps for small and medium businesses that do not have the resources to hire expertise and procure top of the line solutions. However, having said all that, it is still a game of catch up as internet connectivity continues to expand. In addition, the sophistication of criminal hackers (also employing AI and ML tech) that are often abetted by nation states is becoming more brazen and successful with ransomware and DDoS attacks. Cybersecurity is in a state of flux and there will always be gaps to fill but the challenges and opportunities for the cybersecurity industry certainly have not been lessened.

https://nypost.com/2023/07/18/nypd-names-new-counter-intel-boss/

The NYPD has named a new counterterrorism chief after the top post sat vacant for the better part of a year.

Rebecca Weiner, a 17-year NYPD veteran, was sworn in Tuesday as deputy commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism — becoming the first woman to serve in the role on the department’s executive team.

“This pick is again a history-making pick at the NYC police department,” Mayor Eric Adams said at a ceremony announcing the appointment at One Police Plaza.

“The incoming deputy commissioner is an impressive and experienced intelligence analyst who has spent 17 years with the NYC police department, during which she has held nearly every civilian title in her field,” he added.

Weiner fills the role left empty by John Miller, who retired in June 2022 after nearly a decade in the civilian position.

The Harvard-educated attorney, joined in the NYPD in 2006 as a civilian employee and rose to assistant commissioner in the department’s Counterterrorism Operations and Analysis sections. She was joined by her husband and their two young boys as she took her oath of office Tuesday.

Noting the position is one of the city’s “most important aspects” in combatting terror attacks, Adams told reporters it took more than a year to fill the spot because his administration had to “get it right.”

“Even without a deputy commissioner in that position… you still have professionals that are still in place,” Adams said of the unfilled role, touting the NYPD’s “deep bench,” including Weiner, who continued to run the day-to-day operations.

Chief Thomas Galati stepped in to run the division in December as a three-star chief, the uniformed equivalent of the civilian role. He announced his retirement in March. 

https://amgreatness.com/2023/08/08/house-committee-focuses-on-chinese-efforts-to-steal-agriculture-ip/

The House Select Committee on China is turning its focus on efforts by the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to steal intellectual property from the American agriculture industry.

According to Fox News, the ranking members of both parties – Chairman Mike Gallagher (D-Wisc.) and Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) – traveled to Dysart, Iowa to speak with farmers about the systematic theft of agricultural technology by the CCP, and how these plans are undermining the sovereignty of American agriculture.

“Our country is filled with invisible factories and invisible farms — those that would have been built or planted here if we’d chosen to protect American technology and resources,” said Gallagher in a statement. “Both the Trump and Biden administrations have oriented U.S. strategy around ‘competing’ with the Chinese Communist Party. But we’re not “competing” if we’re letting the CCP steal hundreds of billions of dollars from Americans–we’re throwing the game from the outset.”

One example of agricultural technology that has been sought by the Chinese is seed engineering. In 2011, a field manager in Iowa discovered and exposed a Chinese seed smuggling ring. In 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecuted and convicted a Chinese scientist for conspiring to steal rice seeds from a biopharmaceutical research facility in Kansas; the scientist was sentenced to 10 years and one month in prison.

In 2022, Chinese national Xiang Haitao pled guilty to conspiracy to commit economic espionage; he was sentenced to two years in prison. The technology he sought to steal was a central algorithm for a software platform that aimed to help farmers visualize and analyze field data.

In his own statement, Krishnamoorthi said that the threat must be taken “very seriously,” and that the U.S. must “show the CCP some consequences for these actions.”

The rise in attempted agricultural espionage coincides with another alarming tactic being employed by the CCP, in which Chinese-linked companies and other entities have been purchasing many acres of American farmland, often located near military bases and other strategic points of interest.