Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Military’

World War III Anyone?


waving flagJuly 25, 2016 By

That's Nothing Watch ThisA 25 page document recently released by the Atlantic Council (AC), based in the U.S., states that Russia could “attack Poland overnight.” The report claims that Russia could take advantage of NATO “being distracted by another crisis” or by misinterpreting activities NATO is involved in. After the annex of Crimea in 2014, the Baltic States have become legitimately nervous, wondering who Ruusia’s next target may be.

Many of these think tanks are employed from time to time to hash out war-game scenarios, as it were. But this is noStand-Off-590-LA game. The Atlantic Council is deadly serious, even going so far as to suggest possible counterattack targets should Russia decide to move on Poland – targets including the Kaliningrad and Metro Moscow.

They warned that “Even if Moscow currently has no immediate intent to challenge NATO directly, this may unexpectedly change overnight.” The Council also recommends that the Obama administration authorize more shipments of missiles to the Baltic region.

In recent years Poland has had a tough time holding onto its citizens. Young men of fighting age have been pulling up stakes and leaving to find work elsewhere. The report recognizes this to be a potential problem and urges Poland to find a way to halt the exodus. They give no suggestion of how this should be accomplished – only that it needs to be a priority.

Sanctions-Bear-LittleVladimir Putin seems to think the escalation between Russia and the West was and is inevitable and claimed in a speech from earlier this year that, “Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one.putin However, today Russia sees the outbreak of global war is almost inevitable, is prepared for, and is continuing to prepare for it.”

Do you believe him? Neither do I. I’m not sure he wants to start World War III and I don’t think he thinks war is inevitable. Escalation of tensions yes – war – I’m not so sure.  I do however believe that Putin thinks the West is weak and has grown cowardly.

But I also believe he has a bit of a hotheaded streak and could be prone to overreaction. He is also, for good or bad (mostly bad), bold and does not go in for the covert.

The report states that, “Russia rarely disguises its true intentions. On the contrary, it has proclaimed to them very publicly on various occasions, but, in general, the West is chosen not to believe Russia’s declarations and disregards its willingness to carry them out.”

Needless to say Poland is not thrilled by the report. Not that they don’t believe it, but they are tired of the whole thing – after centuries of being ruled by others. First by the Russian Empire – then Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939. After World War II, it was back under the Soviet boot until 1989 and now this again.

Putin over ObamaWhether it’s a coincidence or due in part to the AC report, four NATO countries, the United States, Canada, Germany and Britain will send 1000 troops each to the region. Naturally Russia took this as a provocation and warned if NATO dispatched the 4000 troops, “Moscow would respond by posting three new divisions of its own close to the frontier.”

Although many still believe Putin is bluffing about his intentions, the defense minister of Lithuania is certainly not. When questioned on the feasibility of a Russian attack he said: “We cannot exclude it. They might exercise on the borders and then switch to invasion in hours.”

This situation is as serious as it gets. Much more so than ISIS or other terrorist networks. And who do we have as commander-in-chief? The feckless Obama. As long as he remains at the helm, Putin believes he can act without regard. And Putin is not prone to bluffing. He may take a while to set up his chess pieces, but don’t be surprised if you wake up one morning and find he’s made his first move (or second if you count Crimea).

fight Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Transgenders in Military: Impeachable, Damaging, and Expensive


By: Bryan Fischer; Posted: Friday, July 1, 2016

Transgenders in Military: Impeachable, Damaging, and Expensive

Will every military base be retooled to provide completely separate bathrooms and shower rooms and bunkhouses for men who think they are women…?”

– Bryan Fischer

President Obama and the Pentagon have violated the Constitution and committed an impeachable offense by unilaterally admitting transgenders, transvestites, and transexuals into the military. According to Article I, Section 8 only Congress has authority to change the rules which govern the military. Congress has never authorized the induction of those who engage in these behaviors into the armed forces. For the commander-in-chief to make and implement a decision of this magnitude is an impeachable offense on any number of levels, not the least of which is the plain fact that it defies the Constitution and trashes the entire concept of the separation of powers.

This decision will have a negative impact on recruitment, retention, and readiness. A diminishing number of vigorous young males will be interested in joining this kind of military, or signing up for another stretch.

The pragmatic challenges alone are enough to prove this is a terrible idea. Will every military base be retooled to provide completely separate bathrooms and shower rooms and bunkhouses for men who think they are women, and a whole different set for women who think they are men? What about accommodations aboard ships and submarines where space is at a premium? The mind reels at the logistical nightmare this will create for a military whose job is to protect us, not engage in radical and foolish social engineering.

President Obama is drastically downsizing the military, cashiering experienced soldiers, apparently so he can replace them with soldiers who have no idea what sex they are.

This decision will have serious implications for the military budget, which is strained as it is. According to the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (not part of the vast, right-wing conspiracy) there are at least 10 significant health challenges that transgenders, transvestites, and transexuals face that sexually normal people do not. 

According to the GLMA, transgenders are at elevated risks of

  • heart attacks,
  • strokes,
  • high blood pressure,
  • and diabetes.
  • They have an increased cancer risk due to hormone use.
  • They have an elevated chance of contracting sexually transmitted infections because of the risks they take in sexual matters.
  • They tend to have problems with substance abuse, including alcohol consumption that can damage their livers.
  • They have an elevated risk of obesity and depression,
  • and frequently put themselves at medical risk through silicone injections. 

Transgenders will demand hormone injections and sex-change operations at taxpayer expense. In fact, the military will now become the destination of choice for people seeking sex-change operations since they’ll be able to get taxpayers to foot the $30,000 to $50,000 bill. 

All of these health risks, of course, come at a cost to taxpayers for treatment, and every one of these health challenges will impact a transgender soldier’s fitness for combatengineering

If the purpose of changes in military policy is to improve the military and make it more able to face our national security challenges, this is exactly the wrong way to go. 

But while this act on the president’s part is an impeachable offense, and represents an unquestioned weakening of military strength, morale, and cohesion, the GOP establishment will, as usual, do absolutely nothing. To my knowledge, we haven’t heard anyone in the GOP establishment complain about this, let alone try to do anything about it. Instead, they are busy sending $500 million to the U.N. to solve the non-existent problem of global warming and scheduling votes on gun control legislation. 

Bonus Bytes 

  • Federal judge Carlton Reeves blocked Mississippi’s religious liberty law (HB 1523) on grounds that it represents “state-sanctioned discrimination” against LGBTs. But the truth is it’s exactly the other way round. This ruling is judge-sanctioned discrimination against people of faith. For instance, county clerks will now be required to violate their consciences and their deeply held religious convictions or face termination or jail just as Kim Davis did. Reeves has also discriminated against churches, wedding vendors, therapists, schools, and adoption agencies who act on their deeply held convictions about marriage, family and sexuality. The radical homosexual agenda represents the greatest threat to religious liberty in our nation’s history, and this dismal ruling is just further evidence.
  • Japan monitors everyone who embraces an ideology which threatens its national security. Under Mayor Bloomberg, NYPD surveilled mosques, shops, restaurants, and the Muslim community in general, and kept New York safe. Safe that is, until Mayor DeBlasio came along and undid it all. There is no reason the entire United States cannot do what Bloomberg did in New York for a decade and what Japan is doing today. And the United States should. If our government monitors white supremacists, it certainly should monitor Muslim supremacists.

fight Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

There Are Now More Bureaucrats With Guns Than U.S. Marines


waving flagBY:   June 22, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://freebeacon.com/issues/now-bureaucrats-guns-u-s-marines/

IRS Raid

Police officers from the IRS Criminal Investigation Division / AP

There are now more non-military government employees who carry guns than there are U.S. Marines, according to a new report.

Open the Books, a taxpayer watchdog group, released a study Wednesday that finds domestic government agencies continue to grow their stockpiles of military-style weapons, as Democrats sat on the House floor calling for more restrictions on what guns American citizens can buy.Comming Soon 02

The “Militarization of America” report found civilian agencies spent $1.48 billion on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment between 2006 and 2014. Examples include IRS agents with AR-15s, and EPA bureaucrats wearing camouflage.

“Regulatory enforcement within administrative agencies now carries the might of military-style equipment and weapons,” Open the Books said. “For example, the Food and Drug Administration includes 183 armed ‘special agents,’ a 50 percent increase over the ten years from 1998-2008. At Health and Human Services (HHS), ‘Special Office of Inspector General Agents’ are now trained with sophisticated weaponry by the same contractors who train our military special forces troops.”Why

Open the Books found there are now over 200,000 non-military federal officers with arrest and firearm authority, surpassing the 182,100 personnel who are actively serving in the U.S. Marines Corps.forced compliance

The IRS spent nearly $11 million on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment for its 2,316 special agents. The tax collecting agency has billed taxpayers for pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns, semi-automatic Smith & Wesson M&P15s, and Heckler & Koch H&K 416 rifles, which can be loaded with 30-round magazines.American Gestapo 02

The EPA spent $3.1 million on guns, ammo, and equipment, including drones, night vision, “camouflage and other deceptive equipment,” and body armor.DHS

When asked about the spending, and EPA spokesman said the report “cherry picks information and falsely misrepresents the work of two administrations whose job is to protect public health.”

“Many purchases were mischaracterized or blown out of proportion in the report,” said spokesman Nick Conger. “EPA’s criminal enforcement program has not purchased unmanned aircraft, and the assertions that military-grade weapons are part of its work are false.”

“EPA’s criminal enforcement program investigates and prosecutes the most egregious violators of our nation’s environmental laws, and EPA criminal enforcement agents are law enforcement professionals who have undergone the same rigorous training as other federal agents,” Conger continued.Leftist Propagandist

Other administration agencies that have purchased guns and ammo include the Small Business Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Education, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.Why

The report also highlighted that the Department of Health and Human Services has “special agents” with “sophisticated military-style weapons.” Open the Books also found $42 million in gun and ammunition purchases that were incorrectly coded.

“Some purchases were actually for ping-pong balls, gym equipment, bread, copiers, cotton balls, or cable television including a line item from the Coast Guard entered as ‘Cable Dude,’” the report said.

Open the Books appealed to both liberals like Bernie Sanders—who has called for demilitarizing local police departments—and conservatives in its report.

“Conservatives argue that it is hypocritical for political leaders to undermine the Second Amendment while simultaneously equipping non-military agencies with hollow-point bullets and military style equipment,” Open the Books said. “One could argue the federal government itself has become a gun show that never adjourns with dozens of agencies continually shopping for new firearms.”Disarmed Citizenry

_

Update June 23, 10:15 a.m.: Following publication of this article, Adam Andrzejewski, the CEO of Open the Books who wrote the report, pushed back against the EPA’s statement, and provided contract data to back up his claims.

“How can the EPA spokesperson deny hard facts from their own checkbook?” he said. “Alongside our oversight report, OpenTheBooks.com also released a PDF of all raw data. This line-by-line transactional record from the EPA’s own checkbook on page 113 clearly shows that in 2013 and 2014 the EPA purchased tens of thousands of dollars of ‘Unmanned Aircraft’ from Bergen RC Helicopters Inc which on a net basis amounted to approximately $34,000.”

“All of the assertions in our oversight report are the quantification of actual spending records produced and reported to us by the federal agencies themselves,” Andrzejewski said.

 Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

The sorry state of our military: Is it happenstance or design?


March 23, 2016

The sorry state of our military: Is it happenstance or design? / Commander in Chief delivers latte salute

How it must have pained Marine Corps General John Paxton to tell Congress that his service might not be prepared for war. Last week, the Assistant Commandant candidly admitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the U.S. Marine Corps isn’t what it used to be. “I worry about the capability and the capacity to win in a major fight somewhere else right now,” said the general. He fretted over inadequate training and equipment particularly in the fields of communications, intelligence, and aviation.

Cynics might see Paxton’s testimony as a plea for more money, a quantity that isn’t usually forthcoming when no obvious shortcomings can be identified. Yet this rebuttal strikes me as an out-of-hand dismissal of Paxton’s concerns. It would also be uncharacteristic of the Marines, undoubtedly the proudest of the services, to denigrate themselves if it weren’t true. When a senior Marine officer describes the Corps as borderline dysfunctional, I believe him.

Nor is the Marine Corps alone in its negative self-assessment. Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley told Congress that his branch is prepared to do battle with ISIS — and no other potential adversary. The U.S. would probably lose a war with China, according to General Milley. Or with Russia, North Korea, or Iran. According to an Associated Press article: “Mark Milley says years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, constrained budgets and troop cuts have had a cumulative effect on the service.” Essentially, our military is capable of defeating the guys Obama described as the JV team but not a conventional force of any heft. Pathetic.

How’s the Air Force faring? If recent trends are any indicator, it may soon be incapable of fulfilling its raison d’être — air superiority. It’s been a very long time since America has gone to war without first asserting absolute dominion over the sky. Air superiority will probably be more difficult to establish in coming years as other nations, particularly China and Russia, fortify their air defenses with new technologies while we continue to fly 1970’s-era F-15s and F-16s as our primary fighters.

Air Force General Frank Gorenc, who commands NATO Allied Air Command, U.S. Air Forces Europe and U.S. Air Forces Africa, is not confident that U.S. forces will be able to achieve and maintain air superiority in future conflicts. “The advantage that we had from the air, I can honestly say, is shrinking…. This is not just a Pacific problem. It’s as significant in Europe as it is anywhere else on the planet…. I don’t think it’s controversial to say [Russia has] closed the gap in capability.”

I don’t believe that any of these generals — Paxton, Milley, or Gorenc — takes pride in admitting this sorry state of affairs because it is essentially an admission of failure. Duty nonetheless dictates that they tell it like it is. They’re playing with the hand they were dealt and I doubt anyone else could do it better.

It doesn’t help that their commander-in-chief pretends not to hear what they’re saying. Just two months ago, President Obama delivered a State of the Union address in which he pooh-poohed the very idea that our armed forces are languishing in disrepair. Said Obama:

“I told you earlier all the talk of America’s economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker. The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It’s not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined.” [Emphasis added]If his mouth is open he must be lying

What a dolt. Surely he can’t believe that our military’s combat effectiveness can be measured in dollars spent? The measure of any endeavor is always results. His argument reminds me that, once upon a time, Obama was just a left-wing community activist. He still sounds like one.

Didn’t President Obama consult his top military leaders before including that remark in his speech? If he had they would have told him what they told Congress last week — namely, that the military is woefully unprepared. If we rule out the possibility that he’s never had such a conversation with the brass then we must conclude that he flippantly dismissed what they told him, probably with the same nifty factoid about military expenditures that he used at the State of the Union. Obama clearly didn’t listen to his advisors because they told him something he didn’t want to hear.

Or is there another possibility? Could it be that this president knows quite well how much the military has atrophied under his administration and he’s pleased with it? In order to prove such a claim definitively I would have to get into his mind to determine his true motives, which I obviously can’t do. There’s nothing in his public statements to indicate a hostility toward the military, though there’s enough anecdotal evidence to indicate a casual disrespect, such as his now infamous latte salute and the completely unreasonable rules of engagement he imposed on combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a man with no military experience and it shows.freedom

He’s also the president who opened all combat positions to women. That alone would have been a mistake, but of course his administration exerted downward pressure to get women into elite units such as the Army Rangers without actually requiring them to meet standards. After two women “passed” the Ranger course this summer, it came to light that they had received special assistance and unlimited opportunities to reattempt portions of the course that they had failed. “We were under huge pressure to comply,” said one Ranger instructor. “It was very much politicized.”

It seems that Obama likes the military only as a production line for historic “firsts” that he can take credit for. He’s the guy who gave us the first two female Rangers and the first openly homosexual service secretary, Eric K. Fanning. Just last week Obama nominated another “first” — the first female combatant commander, Air Force General Lori Robinson. I’m not necessarily saying that General Robinson is unqualified for the job though the fact that she was nominated by Obama, a man of unspeakably poor judgment, suggests that she’s probably a hot mess. I am however saying that if she’s truly the best candidate for the job then her sex shouldn’t matter. But to Barack Obama, it matters quite a bit because her nomination provided another “first” for his presidential legacy. Isn’t that what the military is for?

If you want to know what Barack Obama thinks about the military, look to the man he claimed as a mentor in his first memoir “Dreams From My Father”Frank Marshall Davis, a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. Davis first became a member of the CPUSA during the Stalin era, as well as during the time of the Comintern when all communist parties around the globe met periodically in Moscow to receive their marching orders. Davis was a determined opponent of U.S. foreign policy, especially the Marshall Plan and NATO, and he hated the U.S. military which he saw as a global force for evil. To believe that the president doesn’t share even a hint of this hostility toward our armed forces is to say that Barack the protégé learned nothing from Frank the mentor, a conclusion I find plainly absurd.

If that doesn’t convince you, look at some of his other influences, such as his pastor, the anti-American firebrand Jeremiah Wright, as well as his heroes Saul Alinsky, Desmond Tutu, and the communist terrorist Nelson Mandela. Obama has always admired people who hate U.S. military power but we’re supposed to believe that he doesn’t.Alinsky Rules for Radicals

Our military has fallen on tough times, and it will be up to the next president to rehabilitate it. Whether the harm that has befallen our military is the result of mere neglect or actual malfeasance is difficult to determine though I wouldn’t rule out the latter.

Heart Die true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Something Fishy About Iran’s Catch and Release of Navy Boats


waving flagPosted 9 hours ago by

muslim-obamaTalk about a snow job. Even for the Obama Administration, thanking the Iranian government for capturing two Navy boats and 10 sailors is low.

The whole incident, in which the Iranian government publicly castrated President Obama hours before his self-aggrandizing State of the Union speech, is now being spun by the White House as some sort of positive for U.S.-Iranian relations.

Secretary of State and all-around tough guy John “I Fought in Vietnam” Kerry called the matter a “testament to the critical role diplomacy plays in keeping our country safe.”Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

Baloney.

If anything, it was the promise of billions of dollars from the impending lifting of international sanctions against Iran that got those sailors released, not anything John Kerry did. Even the obtuse leaders of Iran weren’t going to jeopardize that payday.

The funniest lie of all, though, came from Vice President Joe Biden, who responded to Iranian officials’ statement that the sailors were released after apologizing by saying, “There was no looking for any apology.” Then what pops up? A video of the senior Naval officer apologizing to the Iranians at their request. Biden even went so far as to claim the entire embarrassing incident was “standard nautical practice,” that Iran was rescuing two boats in distress and acted as “ordinary nations would do.”Lies Lies and More Lies

Sure, releasing photos of rescued foreign sailors with their hands behind their heads, forcing the lone female to wear a hijab, then detaining the crews overnight — all standard. 

White House spokes-monkey Josh Earnest insisted that the sailors were “afforded the proper courtesy that you would expect.” Especially the part where they dressed up our female sailor like a Burka Barbie.

The coup de grace, however, was Kerry actually thanking the Iranians for their “cooperation.”

Thanks for the swirly, guys. Maybe next time you could give our country a wedgie, too.

The whole incident smells rotten and seems to defy the U.S. Armed Forces Code of Conduct, particularly the part about never surrendering of your own free will.

I’m no expert on military procedure, but from what I’ve been given to understand, if those boats truly broke down in enemy waters, those crews should have immediately issued a distress call to any nearby Navy vessel, then manned the guns on their boats in a defensive posture until rescued or until they could get under weigh again.

The government of Iran is an enemy power. So why would a Navy crew surrender unless there was an order from higher up to do so? There’s also the matter of the video apology by the Navy officer, which I’m told is also prohibited under the Code of Conduct. Again, why did this happen?

Then there’s the whole question of what those boats were doing there and why they both “broke down.”**

No, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered, and the Obama Administration, as it has done so often in the past, has gone into coverup mode.

My two centsSince this happened, I was immediately reminded of the following information. There is NOTHING coincidental about this incident. Please read and consider the following and then ask yourself, “Does Iran, or their Russian partner, possess this technology?

Electromagnetic pulse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse
This article is about the phenomenon in general. For nuclear EMP weapons, see Nuclear electromagnetic pulse.

An electromagnetic pulse (EMP), also sometimes called a transient electromagnetic disturbance, is a short burst of electromagnetic energy. Such a pulse’s origination may be a natural occurrence or man-made and can occur as a radiated, electric or magnetic field or a conducted electric current, depending on the source. The term “electromagnetic pulse” is commonly abbreviated EMP (which is pronounced by saying the letters separately, “E-M-P”).

EMP interference is generally disruptive or damaging to electronic equipment, and at higher energy levels a powerful EMP event such as a lightning strike can damage physical objects such as buildings and aircraft structures. The management of EMP effects is an important branch of electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) engineering.

The damaging effects of high-energy EMP have been used to create EMP weapons. These are typically divided into nuclear and non-nuclear devices. Such weapons, both real and fictional, have become known to the public by means of popular culture.

General characteristics[edit]

An electromagnetic pulse is a short burst of electromagnetic energy. Its short duration means that it will be spread over a range of frequencies. Pulses are typically characterised by:

  • The type of energy (radiated, electric, magnetic or conducted).
  • The range or spectrum of frequencies present.
  • Pulse waveform: shape, duration and amplitude.

The last two of these, the frequency spectrum and the pulse waveform, are interrelated via the Fourier transform and may be seen as two different ways of describing the same pulse.

Types of energy[edit]

Main article: Electromagnetism

As with any electromagnetic signal, EMP energy may be transferred in any of four forms:

In general, only radiation acts over long distances, with the others acting only over short distances. There are a few exceptions, such as a solar magnetic flare.

Frequency ranges[edit]

A pulse of electromagnetic energy typically comprises many frequencies from DC (zero Hz) to some upper limit depending on the source. The range defined as EMP, sometimes referred to as “DC to daylight”, excludes the highest frequencies comprising the optical (infrared, visible, ultraviolet) and ionizing (X and gamma rays) ranges.

Some types of EMP events can leave an optical trail, such as lightning and sparks, but these are side effects of the current flow through the air and are not part of the EMP itself.

Pulse waveforms[edit]

The waveform of a pulse describes how its instantaneous amplitude (field strength or current) changes over time. Real pulses tend to be quite complicated, so simplified models are often used. Such a model is typically shown either as a diagram or as a mathematical equation.

" "
Rectangular pulse
" "
Double exponential pulse
" "
Damped sinewave pulse

Most pulses have a very sharp leading edge, building up quickly to their maximum level. The classic model is a double-exponential curve which climbs steeply, quickly reaches a peak and then decays more slowly. However, pulses from a controlled switching circuit often take the form of a rectangular or “square” pulse.

In a pulse train, such as from a digital clock circuit, the waveform is repeated at regular intervals.

EMP events usually induce a corresponding signal in the victim equipment, due to coupling between the source and victim. Coupling usually occurs most strongly over a relatively narrow frequency band, leading to a characteristic damped sine wave signal in the victim. Visually it is shown as a high frequency sine wave growing and decaying within the longer-lived envelope of the double-exponential curve. A damped sinewave typically has much lower energy and a narrower frequency spread than the original pulse, due to the transfer characteristic of the coupling mode. In practice, EMP test equipment often injects these damped sinewaves directly rather than attempting to recreate the high-energy threat pulses.

Effects[edit]

Minor EMP events, and especially pulse trains, cause low levels of electrical noise or interference which can affect the operation of susceptible devices. For example, a common problem in the mid-twentieth century was interference emitted by the ignition systems of gasoline engines, which caused radio sets to crackle and TV sets to show stripes on the screen. Laws had to be introduced to make vehicle manufacturers fit interference suppressors.

At a high voltage level an EMP can induce a spark, for example from an electrostatic discharge when fuelling a gasoline-engined vehicle. Such sparks have been known to cause fuel-air explosions and precautions must be taken to prevent them.[1]

A large and energetic EMP can induce high currents and voltages in the victim, damaging electrical equipment or disrupting its function.

A very large EMP event such as a lightning strike is also capable of damaging objects such as trees, buildings and aircraft directly, either through heating effects or the disruptive effects of the very large magnetic field generated by the current. An indirect effect can be electrical fires caused by heating. Most engineered structures and systems require some form of protection against lightning to be designed in.

The damaging effects of EMP have led to the introduction of EMP weapons, from tactical missiles with a small radius of effect to nuclear bombs tailored for maximum EMP effect over a wide area.

Types of EMP[edit]

An EMP arises where the source emits a short-duration pulse of energy. The energy is usually broadband by nature, although it often excites a relatively narrow-band damped sine wave response in the victim. Some types are generated as repetitive and regular pulse trains.

Different types of EMP arise from natural, man-made and weapons effects.

Types of natural EMP event include:

  • Lightning electromagnetic pulse (LEMP). The discharge is typically an initial huge current flow, at least mega-amps, followed by a train of pulses of decreasing energy.
  • Electrostatic discharge (ESD), as a result of two charged objects coming into close proximity or even contact.
  • Meteoric EMP. The discharge of electromagnetic energy resulting from either the impact of a meteoroid with a spacecraft or the explosive breakup of a meteoroid passing through the Earth’s atmosphere.[2][3]
  • Coronal Mass Ejection (CME). A massive burst of gas and magnetic field arising from the solar corona and being released into the solar wind sometimes referred to as a Solar EMP.[4]

Types of (civil) man-made EMP event include:

  • Switching action of electrical circuitry, whether isolated or repetitive (as a pulse train).
  • Electric motors can create a train of pulses as the internal electrical contacts make and break connections as the armature rotates.
  • Gasoline engine ignition systems can create a train of pulses as the spark plugs are energized or fired.
  • Continual switching actions of digital electronic circuitry.
  • Power line surges. These can be up to several kilovolts, enough to damage electronic equipment that is insufficiently protected.

Types of military EMP include:

  • Nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NEMP), as a result of a nuclear explosion. A variant of this is the high altitude nuclear EMP (HEMP), which produces a pulse of a much larger amplitude and different characteristics due to particle interactions with the Earth’s atmosphere and subsequently the Earth’s magnetic fields driving an oscillation in electric current after the original pulse from the particle and ray interactions on the atmosphere.
  • Non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NNEMP) weapons.

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

GOP candidates battle to stake their positions in first 2016 debate


waving flagPublished August 07, 2015; FoxNews.com

From fiery criticism of ObamaCare and the Iran nuclear deal to support for Israel and the rights of the unborn, the top 10 Republican presidential candidates did all they could to define and separate themselves Thursday night during the Fox News debate in Cleveland, Ohio.

The governors on stage, notably John Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, touted their economic records. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz vowed to scrap the Iran deal. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson reminded voters in his closing remarks of the professional background that separates him from the rest: “I’m the only one to separate Siamese twins.”

Throughout the debate, Donald Trump was the unrivaled lightning rod, but the prime-time showdown made clear he’s not the only fighter on the stage – or in the race.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie reclaimed his reputation as a tough-talking executive, blasting his rivals for their positions on domestic surveillance and entitlements. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul traded barbs with several candidates, including Christie.

Meanwhile, one-time front-runner former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush found himself on defense several times and largely avoided tangling with Trump on the Fox News/Facebook stage.

Perhaps the most fiery moment came in an exchange between Christie and Paul. Long-simmering tension between the two exploded when Christie stood by his criticism of the senator for opposing NSA bulk collection of Americans’ phone data.

Paul said he’s “proud of standing for the Bill of Rights,” but Christie called his stance “completely ridiculous” – suggesting he wants to cherry-pick only some data.

“When you’re sitting in the subcommittee just blowing hot air about this, you can say things like that,” Christie said.

Paul fired back: “I know you gave [President Obama] a big hug, and if you want to give him a big hug again, go ahead.” Christie said the hugs he gave were to the families of 9/11 victims, and then accused Paul of playing “politics,” by using videos of floor speeches to raise money.

The exchange was striking, even in a debate that was tense from the start. Though several rivals stood out, Trump did not hold his fire, either – making clear he’s not softening his approach to campaigning as he picks up steam in the polls.

If anything, the debate signaled the primary race is about to get tougher and is still wide open as 17 candidates vie for the lead with months to go until the opening contests.

Trump, the billionaire businessman front-runner, sparred at the outset of the debate with Paul after refusing to pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee if it’s not him and to swear off an independent run.

“I will not make the pledge at this time,” Trump said.

Paul accused him of “hedging his bet on the Clintons.”

“He’s already hedging his bets, because he’s used to buying politicians,” Paul said. (Trump later acknowledged he gave money to the Clintons and demanded Hillary Clinton “be at my wedding” in exchange; he called this a sign of a broken system.)

Trump also stood firm on his vow to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. “If it weren’t for me, you wouldn’t even be talking about illegal immigration,” Trump said, blasting “stupid leaders” in the U.S. harboring illegal immigrants.

Bush said a comprehensive solution is needed, including a “path to earned legal status,” which he said is not “amnesty.”

Moments later, Cruz said some on stage support “amnesty”, while he does not.

A big question going into the debate was whether Bush would aggressively challenge Trump and try to knock him off his perch.

But he would only go so far as to question Trump’s tone, calling his language “divisive.” Hours before the debate, Politico ran a story saying Bush recently told a donor he thinks Trump is a “buffoon” and a “clown.” Asked about that report on stage, Bush denied it.

“It’s not true,” Bush said.

Trump then called Bush a “true gentleman.”

As for his tone, Trump said it’s “medieval times” in the Middle East, and, “We don’t have time for tone.”

But other candidates were able to stand out on the crowded stage. Carson called Hillary Clinton the “epitome” of the progressive movement.

“She counts on the fact that people are uninformed. The Alinsky model, taking advantage of useful idiots,” he said.

Walker also blasted the Iran nuclear deal, as did other candidates: “This is not just bad with Iran, this is bad with ISIS, it is tied together and once and for all we need a leader who is going to do something about it. It is yet another example of the failed foreign policy of the Obama-Clinton doctrine.”

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio landed laughs when, upon being asked about his faith in God, he said: “I think God has blessed us, he’s blessed the Republican Party with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.”

Rubio also vowed to repeal and replace ObamaCare, and called the lack of accountability after the Veterans Affairs scandal “outrageous.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee vowed to defend entitlements and stood his ground on social issues. He blasted Planned Parenthood and defended his pro-life views, accusing abortion providers of “selling” fetal parts “like they’re parts to a Buick.”

Kasich, like Walker and Bush, tried to keep the focus on his record in his state.

“America is a miracle country and we have to restore the sense that the miracle will apply to you,” he said.

And Cruz vowed, if elected, to prosecute Planned Parenthood, cancel the Iran nuclear deal and nix Obama’s executive orders. “I believe the American people are looking for someone to speak the truth,” he said.

Trump was challenged several times on his conservative views. He previously was pro-choice, but said he’s “evolved” on the issue.

Also, under questioning from moderator Megyn Kelly about past disparaging comments he made about women, Trump interrupted to say, “Only Rosie O’Donnell.” He then said, “Honestly, Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry.”

The candidates squared off at the second of two kick-off debates, hosted by Fox News and Facebook in conjunction with the Ohio Republican Party.

The seven other Republican hopefuls spent much of the first debate doing their best to hammer home the message that Clinton represents four more years of Obama. In the earlier debate, the candidates largely avoided sparring with each other and instead trained their fire on the Obama years — with promises to roll back ObamaCare and undo the Iran nuclear deal.


 

waving flagHuckabee: ‘The Military Is Not A Social Experiment’ [VIDEO]

Reported by Steve Guest; Media Reporter

URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/07/huckabee-the-military-is-not-a-social-experiment-video/#ixzz3iA7i4eqC

During the Fox News GOP debate Thursday, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee stated, “The military is not a social experiment.” Huckabee continued, “The purpose of the military is kill people and break things. It’s not to transform the culture by trying out some ideas that some people think would make us a different country and more diverse. The purpose is to protect America. I’m not sure how paying for transgender surgery for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines makes our country safer.”

huck


 

Fiorina stands out in Republican ‘happy hour’ debate

Getty Images

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina stood out Thursday in the first GOP primary debate, taking shots at Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton while showing off her foreign policy acumen.

Fiorina, the only woman among the 17 Republican candidates taking part in Thursday’s two debates, shined as the seven candidates who didn’t make the Republican top 10 squared off in a 5 p.m. undercard.

Minutes into what’s being called the happy hour debate, she took a shot at GOP front-runner Donald Trump for his connections to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

“I didn’t get a phone call from Bill Clinton before I jumped in the race. Did any of you get a phone call from Bill Clinton? I didn’t,” Fiorina said, referencing reports that Trump spoke with Bill Clinton ahead of his presidential launch.

“Maybe it’s because I haven’t given money to the foundation or donated to his wife’s Senate campaign,” she added.

Fiorina further highlighted Trump’s policy inconsistencies, an attack that may return in the 9 p.m. debate.

“I would also just say this. Since he has changed his mind on amnesty, on healthcare and on abortion, I would just ask, what are the principles by which he will govern?” Fiorina asked.

Fiorina outlined an ambitious agenda for her first days in office if she were to become president. She would call Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Iranian supreme leader to express displeasure with the agreement, she said, then on the second day, she’d convene a summit at Camp David with Arab allies.

Fiorina, who has often been discussed as a possible vice presidential candidate for her party, closed her performance by taking a shot at Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for that party’s presidential nomination.

She criticized Clinton for dodging questions on topics including the 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead.

“We need a nominee who is going to throw every punch, not pull punches,” Fiorina said.

Google reported that Fiorina was the most searched candidate during the early debate, and she also received the most Twitter chatter.

Pundits also gave her good reviews, with Washington Post columnist George Will saying she “stood out with precision and fluency,” and Fox News host Chris Wallace also praising her.

Fox News pundit Charles Krauthammer said she won the debate “going away.”

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry also maintained a steady performance throughout the debate, using his time on stage to tout his state’s economic performance and calling for the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by President Obama to be torn up.

It was a much stronger performance for Perry than four years ago, when his first presidential campaign quickly came crashing down after he was heard saying “oops,” when he forgot that he wanted to abolish the Department of Education in response to a debate question.

But Perry also seemed to boost Fiorina, by at one point suggesting she should have negotiated the Iran deal on behalf of the U.S. instead of Secretary of State John Kerry.

“I would whole lot rather have Carly Fiorina over there doing our negotiation than John Kerry. Maybe we would have gotten a deal where we didn’t give everything away,” Perry said.

Fiorina has not been shy about going after Clinton, whose allies quickly fired back on Thursday.

“Carly Fiorina sure seemed to like Hillary Clinton back when she spoke before the Clinton Global Initiative,” Correct the Record spokeswoman Mary Jennings said.

Correct the Record is a rapid-response organization allied with Clinton.

“In reality, Fiorina is just another cookie-cutter, out-of-touch far-right Republican — holding the same out-of-date positions as all the rest on stage, and willing to take shots at the positive, philanthropic work of others.”

The seven candidates for the initial debate performed before a mostly empty auditorium; tickets were not sold for the undercard to the 9 p.m. debate.

The Fox News hosts moderating the debate, Martha MacCallum and Bill Hemmer, essentially asked each candidate at the beginning why anyone should take them seriously.

MacCallum and Hemmer asked Perry why he’s ready to lead the country now after his failed 2012 bid; whether Fiorina comparing herself to Margaret Thatcher is “a stretch;” if former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum’s moment had “passed;” and why Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal should be president given his low popularity in his home state.

The seven underdogs spared each other from criticism, but aimed fire at two Republicans who will be on the prime-time stage: Trump and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Under questioning from the moderators, Jindal criticized Kasich for expanding Medicaid in Ohio under ObamaCare.

“I don’t think anybody should expand Medicaid,” said Jindal, who rejected the Medicaid expansion in his state. “I think it was a mistake to expand Medicaid everywhere, in Ohio and across the country.”

Kasich stands out among the Republican presidential candidates for accepting the expansion. Under ObamaCare, states have the choice of expanding eligibility for Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor, up to 138 percent of the poverty level.Complete Message

Former New York Gov. George Pataki sided with Jindal.

“I don’t think you expand entitlements when so many people are dependent on government,” he said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who appeared loose and open in a New Hampshire forum earlier this week, seemed tense at the start of Thursday’s debate and rambled on an answer about Clinton’s comment that she and her husband were “dead broke” when they left the White House.

But near the end of the debate, Graham shared a compelling story of depending on Social Security after his parents died.

“Today I’m 60. I’m not married, I don’t have any kids. I would give up some Social Security to save the system that Americans are going to depend on now and in the future,” Graham said.

The Democratic National Committee panned the debate as a repeat of GOP candidates who ran for president four years ago.

“They are outdated, out of touch and out of line, but not out of company. If you missed the pre-show, these ideas will be on full display again in a few hours,” DNC spokeswoman Holly Shulman said in a statement.

Jesse Byrnes and Peter Sullivan contributed.

This story was updated at 7:46 p.m. 

More straight dope on Jade Helm 2015 and the ‘Human Domain’


Coolest dudes on the planet, no matter whose pond they're wading in. (Image: U.S. Navy SEALs)
Coolest dudes on the planet, no matter whose pond they’re wading in. (Image: U.S. Navy SEALs)

Back in March, I wrote that Texas wasn’t being invaded in exercise Jade Helm 2015.  The exercise isn’t about confiscating guns, and it won’t involve violations of Posse Comitatus.

I’ve updated information as it has come along on the exercise: when Texas Governor Greg Abbott decided to have the Guard monitor it (which I support), and when it became clear that the exercise is to be spread geographically further across Texas than originally briefed (which bears watching).

Now it’s time to take on a theme that has taken off over the last month.  The Jade Helm exercise motto is “Master the Human Domain,” which has been a head-scratcher for many.  The expression “human domain” comes from a Department of Defense effort, dating from the mid-2000s, to codify and plan for the environment of human activity in which the military has to operate during non-traditional missions.

  • There are three things to say up front.  One, it does matter that this was chosen as the motto of the exercise.  It’s not just a cute slogan; it means the exercise is focused on “mastering the human domain.”
  • Two, almost all of the speculation I’ve seen out there on what “mastering the human domain” is about appears to be profoundly mistaken.  It’s not about eugenics, for example.  Nor do attempts to break down the words “Jade” and “Helm” as acronyms lead to anything validly connected to the DOD human domain effort.*
  • Three, the human domain aspect does illuminate some things for us, and it does suggest a particular area of concern, especially for an exercise series that is supposed to be held among the communities of the American people.

(If you’re already convinced about the DOD programmatic origins of the human domain concept – a number of websites have provided discussions of it – and if you understand that it is very much about information technology and intelligence, you can skip to the segments on “application to Jade Helm,” below.)

Notional geography for Exercise Jade Helm 2015.  (Army Special Operations Command briefing)

The “human domain”

The need for a “human domain” effort became clear as the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq unfolded.  Counterinsurgency, with its aspects of embeddedness and pervasive contact across all segments of society, just isn’t the same thing as the more conventional model of rolling in hot, blasting military targets to bits, and forcing a political settlement on a recognized authority in a capital city somewhere.

But information connectedness is also a key to understanding the idea of the human domain.  Modern insurgents and other disruptive elements make tremendous use of information technology (IT) – and that in turn means that DOD wants to find ways to use it even smarter than the bad guys do.  Instead of detection and intelligence systems being stovepiped and specialized, a modern military needs to move and breathe in a pulsating environment of smart data on the human domain, if it’s to be the most agile, fastest-moving actor in the conflict problem.  The smart data can cover everything from local social customs and economic activities to alerts gleaned from social media and the “meta-patterns” of cell phone use.

For obvious reasons, special forces – the ones whose disciplines are being exercised in Jade Helm 15 – find the human domain to be an especially big deal.  Because of the tasks they are assigned, the human domain is particularly likely to be relevant to their operations.  And the link between the human domain push in DOD, and the human domain motto of Jade Helm 15, has left a traceable paper trail.

When DOD issued the first strategic guidance for the “human domain” of warfare in 2010, the military services hopped on board with their individual program lines to do R&D and develop doctrine in their respective warfighting spheres.  Figure 1, from an Air Force presentation on human domain factors modeling, shows a snapshot of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps players from 2011.  The focus on irregular warfare is clear (although the effort still lacked programmatic specificity at that point.)

Figure 1.  Service programs to optimize operations in the human domain.  "HSCB" refers to Human Social, Cultural, Behavioral factors. (Graphic: Briefing by Dr. Mark T. Maybury, Chief Scientist, USAF. Link in text)

The broad extent of the human domain effort can be seen in figure 2, from the Defense Technical Information Center.  It depicts several years’ worth of related studies and projects contracted by DOD entities – both the DOD staff and the services – through a DOD program launched in 2008 called the Minerva Initiative.  The high-level interest in the human domain as a focus of warfighting was affirmed in a white paper from the Army, Marine Corps, and Special Operations Command in 2013.

Figure 2.  List of DOD Minerva initiative studies commissioned with universities, 2009-2016. Most related directly to human domain requirements. (Graphic: DTIC.  See link in text)

The thread we are most interested in is the one that runs through the Army, whose special forces command, USASOC (U.S. Army Special Operations Command), has been on point to the public for Jade Helm.  The Army was already on the trail of human domain warfighting at the time DOD adopted it as an official line of effort.  By 2007, the Army had cobbled together an Army Human Terrain System (official website here), which deployed Human Terrain Teams to try to operationalize insights from anthropology and related disciplines to improve operational methods and outcomes in Afghanistan.  The project has, admittedly, come in for intense criticism from multiple vectors (e.g., here, here, and here).

But Army doctrine authorities remain committed to human domain programming (i.e., training for it, developing systems for it, having doctrine for it).  And Army special operations forces are building their plan for the future force around it, as laid out in the ARSOF 2022 planning document.

In doing this, ARSOF planners draw their authority partly from the joint Special Operations Command (SOCOM), whose vision for a force in 2020 is cited on page 7 of the ARSOF 2022 document:

“SOCOM must not only continue to pursue terrorists wherever we may find them, we must rebalance the force and tenaciously embrace indirect operations in the Human Domain — the totality of the physical, cultural and social environments that influence human behavior in a population-centric conflict.” …

“While SOF is designed to contribute to or support efforts in every domain of warfare, the vast majority of SOF expertise lies in the Human Domain of competition, conflict and war. The Human Domain is about developing understanding of, and nurturing influence among critical populaces. Operating in the Human Domain is a core competency for SOF and we are uniquely suited for successful operations or campaigns to win population-centric conflicts.”

It would require too much space here to discuss all the elements taken into account in “population-centric conflicts.”  For further reading, I recommend a study updated for USASOC in 2013 called Human Factors Considerations of Undergrounds in Insurgencies.

The SOF emphasis on the human domain is significant because Jade Helm is a SOF exercise.  But it’s also significant because Jade Helm is designed to feature interoperation between special forces and conventional forces.  That point has been emphasized in the public briefs on the exercise, and Jade Helm makes so much of it because of a recent trend in thinking about such interoperability in the Department of Defense, both within the SOF community and at the higher levels of command that subsume all warfare communities.

See background links within the text of my March post on Jade Helm – but also see here: an Army War College paper from 2013 on “Interdependence between U.S. Army Special Operations Force and Conventional Forces.”  This paper has been broadly cited in community discussions of the needs and future of SOF, and it too places a significant emphasis on the human domain.

Unquestionably, the capstone SOF exercise of a generation – which is what Jade Helm 2015 is – will be about operating in the human domain.  The motto “Master the Human Domain” reflects that.

Application to Jade Helm: Cultural understanding

But what does that mean for the exercise this summer?  A lot of websites out there are trying to make this about population control of some kind (i.e., through deception, subversion, detention), up to and including a eugenics push.  (Just do a search on “Jade Helm” and “eugenics” and you’ll come right to the websites.) It is, however, nothing of the sort.

For one thing, nothing in the background material on the human domain effort can legitimately be read in that light.  The essential premise of the military’s human domain concept is quite clearly that populations and their cultures and routine activities take moral and political precedence over military tasks.  The military posture will be one of adapting – working within the constraints of local norms – and, if possible (as mission-appropriate), influencing and persuading.  Whether SOF or conventional forces, the U.S. military expects to operate frequently in an environment dictated by local human conditions – not to dictate those things to the local people.

The strategic utility of this mindset, and whether America ought to be sending forces out to operate in this way, are topics for another time.  (I don’t dispute that it’s legitimate to question using military force in this way.)  The point here is that mastering the human domain is predicated on it, and the exercise play in Jade Helm will be too.

This point underlies one of two key aspects of Jade Helm that we can extract from the emphasis on “mastering the human domain.”  I’ll address the second aspect in the segment below on “intelligence operations.”

Regarding the first aspect, which I refer to generally as “cultural understanding”: we know that Jade Helm is an unconventional warfare exercise, meaning that it’s about the irregular warfare discipline of supporting foreign insurgencies against hostile governments (again, see my March post).  There are two big clues as to what that means for the exercise.

One clue was embedded in the USASOC brief shopped around Texas in March and April.  Slide 7 of that brief explained why Texas was chosen for the live-play terrain:

The United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has conducted numerous exercises in Texas because Texans are historically supportive of efforts to prepare our soldiers, airmen, marines and sailors to fight the enemies of the United States.

The second bullet on that slide provides a good compilation of operating requirements that are common to SOF and all human domain warfighting:

To hone advanced skills, the military and interagency require large areas of undeveloped land with low population densities with access to towns.  The proposed areas offer the conditions conducive to quality training because of real obstacles to challenge joint and IA personnel during planning and execution of their tasks.  These challenges include:

– Operating outside the normal support mechanisms

– Adapting to unfamiliar terrain, social and economic conditions

– Operating in and around communities where anything out the ordinary will be spotted and reported (locals are the first to notice something out of place)

The opportunity to work with civilians to gain their trust and understanding of the issues

In an interview with blogger Aaron Wilson, the Army spokesman for Jade Helm, LTC Mark Lastoria, added some depth to that earlier clue:

Q: [Wilson] What is this “blending in” that you talked about in Bastrop [TX]?

A: [Lastoria] We want to get the Midwest mindset going, it is an adaptive technique, a subtly [sic] we need to master, quite different than Atlantic Coast style.

What Lastoria is talking about is learning and adapting to cultural cues in the human domain.  He points out (elliptically, but you know this if you know where ARSOF regularly conduct exercises) that the cultural conditions in Texas will be somewhat different from those on the Atlantic Coast.  (Primarily North Carolina.)  That’s a desirable feature for a robust training evolution.

But put that together with the original point from the briefing: that Texas was chosen because of the traditional friendliness of the population.  That characteristic fits well with the population profile SOF would expect if it deployed abroad for unconventional warfare.  The U.S. would deploy SOF to link up with friendly elements of local populations for an unconventional warfare mission.

Putting it all together now: we might know going in that these foreign populations were friendly (like Texas) in the sense of sharing a political goal with us.  But SOF would still need to understand their local norms to operate among them successfully.  That, in sum, is the live-play proposition of Jade Helm.

The other big clue to this “cultural understanding” aspect of the human domain in Jade Helm is also from Lastoria’s interview with Aaron Wilson.  It’s this brief passage:

Q:  What does the wooden clog symbolize in your logo center between the crossed arrows and dagger?

A:  It relates to N. European resistance to tyranny going back some 70 years and a reuniting with a democratic form of governance.

Frankly, although I didn’t key on the clog, I immediately thought of the U.S. connection with European resistance movements when I first saw the original briefing back in March, and connected it with the meaning of “unconventional warfare.”  The main example that occurred to me was the French resistance in World War II.  The clog would symbolize equally the resistance movements in the Netherlands and Belgium.  (Although Lastoria refers to “northern Europe,” other examples from the same period would be the resistance movements in Greece and the Balkans.)

image: http://libertyunyield.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Jade-Helm-logo.jpg

Jade Helm logoJade Helm, in other words, really is about practicing the skills needed to embed with a resistance movement in a foreign population, where the government is hostile.  “Mastering the human domain” relates to the requirements and skills for that mission.

I don’t believe the exercise scenario designates the state government of Texas as a hostile entity.  There is no indication of that.  Given the fact that straightforward conclusions about Jade Helm make sense based on DOD policy, and on what has actually been said about the exercise, there appears to be no reason to speculate fancifully on this head.

“Hostile,” where it is played live in these exercises, is typically played by a separate force drawn from the designated agency or service participants, and organized to act independently.  In this case that would include DOD entities and players from other agencies, such as homeland security and the FBI.  (If you’d like a concurring opinion on that from another vet, I can recommend the very sensible post here.)

Application to Jade Helm: Intelligence operations

That said, the second key aspect of Jade Helm should be of concern to us.  And the validity of this concern is revealed most clearly by filtering the Jade Helm event through the prism of the “human domain.”

To put it briefly: from the perspective of American citizens, collecting and processing intelligence for human domain operations is likely to be intrusive and unacceptable in the IT realm.

Almost nothing has been said in public about the IT element in human domain operations, as it relates to Jade Helm.  But if you investigate human domain theory, IT figures hugely in it.  Much of operationalizing the human domain concept is about leveraging – wait for it – “Big Data”: that universe of data now floating around on people and events.

An example that would probably apply to an exercise like Jade Helm is monitoring the routine communications of the local population, whether by scooping in data from social media or by some means of watching patterns in communications metadata (e.g., big spikes in cell-phone calls just before major events, or just after something unique has been detected by the locals).  These are simplified examples, meant to suggest the categories of phenomena that human domain intelligence would be looking for.

Figure 3.  Schematic of old-style intelligence collection and analysis: stovepiped “INTs” tasked against specific targets, and compared and analyzed with a focus on those targets to produce an assessment.  Note the arrow at the top pushing outward from the grab-bag of INTs. (Graphic: Chandler P. Atwood, National Defense University. Link in text)

But the Big Data aspect of the approach is what’s most important.  (Hang in there with me; I promise you, this all matters.)  The concept of human domain intelligence explicitly says that the old-style collection of data – against designated targets, and once those targets are thought to be meaningful – is inadequate.  See figure 3 for a representation of this old-style mode of collection.

What human domain intelligence envisions is using the Big Data construct of persistent surveillance, meaning that the types of activity from which you can sometimes need to draw conclusions should be collected constantly and comprehensively, and then stored, and “pulled” from – data-mined – at the moment of need.  (See figures 4 and 5.)

Figure 4.  Schematic of “activity based intelligence” (ABI): persistent, all-INT collection from which network connections in the human domain can be developed, and which can be data-mined for specific current needs.  Note how the orange arrow is inverted, “reaching into” the Big Data database for what is needed for a particular problem.  (Graphic: Chandler P. Atwood, National Defense University. Link in text)

If this sounds like the description of NSA’s notorious database – the trillions and trillions of bits of unfiltered metadata being collected and stored on Americans’ IT activities over the past decade – that’s because it is.  The chirpy tone in which DOD briefers and contractors discuss the need for a persistent, Big Data approach indicates how routine and accepted the concept is today in government planning.

(For additional perspective, see the entire brief here from which figure 5 is an excerpt, and note the proposed application for emergency management and law enforcement use in slides 30-32.  The vision for using Big Data involves massive and persistent “mapping” of human activity.  In DOD’s human domain approach, Big Data is focused through the lens of an analytical rubric called Activity Based Intelligence, or ABI, which is discussed in the slide presentations linked above as well as here and here.)

Figure 5.  The emphasis on "persistent surveillance" as a core element of activity based intelligence. The idea is to record activities, or events, as they occur, store them in a massive database, and mine them later as necessary.  GEOINT refers to geospatial intelligence, which includes human activities referenced to terrain as well as natural physical features. (Graphic: Joseph D. Fargnoli, RITRE Corp. Link in text)

Now, constant collection is a very fine thing against foreign targets. If our special forces deploy into foreign territory to assist an insurgency we support against a hostile government, I hope the military is collecting the living snot out of the whole environment, IT included, as persistently and intrusively as we can manage.

But if an exercise is being held in the state of Texas – whose IT environment is being persistently collected against, to simulate the conditions special forces need for mastering the human domain?  What are they doing with the data?  What happens to the data afterward?  Is this something the citizens of Texas would approve?

Interestingly, in spite of the cloak of secrecy that always attends special operations, I’ve seen one reference to IT surveillance in reporting on Jade Helm, from this Gawker post by William M. Arkin in May:

Jade Helm is particularly focused on what’s called intelligence preparation of the battlespace (IPB), and the skills of surveillance and cellphone interception—targeting—that goes on in the Middle East and Africa.

Arkin doesn’t say what the source of this factual assertion is, but it does fit in with the common focal points of special operations and human domain operations.  And Arkin gets some other things right, like his allusion to “Phase Zero” as the earliest preparing-the-battlespace phase of a campaign’s life cycle.  We can assume with confidence that he’s correct here.

Concerns about Jade Helm 2015

That’s why I conclude this post with a reiteration of concern about Jade Helm.  The more we know, the better defined our concerns can be.  Initially, my main issue was that Americans should not simply accept being conditioned to having military exercises unfold in the midst of our communities.  We need not imagine that anyone has bad intentions, to recognize that that is still a bad idea.  It opens a door to misuse, down the road, of inherently dangerous activities we’ve become complacent about.

The other concern is what exactly will be going on with the IT-oriented, persistent-surveillance-plus-Big-Data aspect of Jade Helm and its human domain focus.  Someone in Texas – ideally, starting with the governor – should know what’s being done in that regard.

Big Data and the human domain: a simplified schematic of the mass of collectible "event" data available for characterizing the human domain in which a military force will operate.  It's one thing if this schematic is overlaid on Afghanistan.  It looks a little different if it's overlaid on Texas.  Whose data and "events" are being recorded, to map the human domain?

In fact, a condition of holding this kind of exercise in a state should be that the governor can select some people to be read into the requisite defense programs, and watch what’s being done in real time.

Senators and congressmen certainly have the right to inquire into this on behalf of their constituents.  There’s a valid need for operational secrecy, but if the American people are being collected on by any agency of the government, they have the right to critical, skeptical, even adversarial representation.  Ideally, more than one branch or level of government should be looking out for their interests.  One of the purposes of checks and balances is to ensure against just such a situation as unchecked presumptions being made in favor of the executive branch.

Government collecting Big Data on the American people, for general purposes, is a whole separate question, and I won’t get into it here.  But the necessity of doing it for a military exercise – assuming that is in fact what’s being planned – is a distinct question in and of itself.  The line protecting Americans’ rights becomes very shaky if military exercises start treating the citizens as if we are foreign collection targets, just because that can be done undetectably, without citizens being aware of it. 

* A number of websites are repeating a theme that “Jade” stands for Joint Assistant for Deployment and Execution, and that this planning software is connected somehow to the human domain aspect of the exercise.  This is incorrect (indeed, rather laughably so).

The Air Force commissioned a DARPA project in 1997 to produce a computerized tool that would help build a fearsome deployment-planning database known to harassed mid-grade officers as the TPFDD (“tip-fid,” or Time-Phased Force Deployment Data).  The project ran through 2001, and was reported out here.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the human domain effort.

The word Helm, meanwhile, is not an acronym for “Homeland Eradication (or Elimination) of Local Militants.”

freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: