Diversity Thursday

Yes, progress towards a color blind society where individuals are seen as - individuals - who should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin (or other immutable characteristics) can be found here and there, but we have a long way to go.

It appears that things will have to get worse - much worse - before they get better.

Elections have consequences, and when one side conducts a full court press when they are in power, and then cow the other party to only stand still when they get their turn in power, you get what you get. 

Though it is happening on his watch and with his Executive Orders, this cannot be put squarely on the shoulders of President Biden. No, this is a bi-partisan problem. 

I saw the advance all the way back to the 1980s and all the (R) and (D) administrations since. The Boomer and older generations just have to fade from power before things can really be fixed. Too many of them and their followers are stuck in 1973.

For those not familiar with the Executive Order signed by President Biden on 16 FEB 2023, I encourage you to read it in full. It is a long one, and it is much worse than it looks.

No one tried to slow the regular growth of the nomenklatura populated by the otherwise unemployable cadre of the diversity industry in government. Everyone is afraid of being called names. 

This cadre managed to set the foundation for this month's actions almost two years ago with one of the first EOs of the Biden Presidency, and now they are going for the full effort.

Remember - regardless of how they try to define "equity" in the EO, we know how it is operationalized in light of the direction and guidance - and already established practice - in the EO.

Good news, this is only an Executive Order. It isn't law. It may not even be legal. The only remedy is either through legislative action or legal review. The former is unlikely and the later takes years.

No, to reverse this EO it will take a different Chief Executive who will repeal it. That takes winning elections. Such a person won't appear until the winter of 2025 at the earliest. As such, what is in the EO is what we will have to live with. 

While the goal is "equity" - a concept that has nothing to do with equality. The real driving force, as you will see, is the growth in number and more importantly - power - of the diversity bullies in the nomenklatura.

You have to admire the hustle.

Achieving racial equity and support for underserved communities is not a one-time project.  It must be a multi-generational commitment, and it must remain the responsibility of agencies across the Federal Government.  It therefore continues to be the policy of my Administration to advance an ambitious, whole-of-government approach to racial equity and support for underserved communities and to continuously embed equity into all aspects of Federal decision-making. ... advance equity in health ... equitable procurement practices ... educational equity ... equity in science ...

As most of you reading here are familiar with the Department of Defense - the most easily manipulated and quick to action in government - I want you to think about how DOD under the Biden Administration - and our Navy who is led by an admirer of Ibram X. Kendi - will execute the CINC's guidance. 

Everything will have to be tracked by self-identified (and the subsequent fraud that comes with it) immutable characteristics. 

... the Secretary of Defense ... shall, within 30 days of the date of this order, ensure that they have in place an Agency Equity Team within their respective agencies to coordinate the implementation of equity initiatives and ensure that their respective agencies are delivering equitable outcomes ... Each Agency Equity Team shall be led by a designated senior official (senior designee) charged with implementing my Administration’s equity initiatives, and shall include senior officials from the office of the agency head and the agency’s program, policy, civil rights, regulatory, science, technology, service delivery, financial assistance and grants, data, budget, procurement, public engagement, legal, and evaluation offices, as well as the agency’s Chief Diversity Officer, to the extent applicable. 

Administrative burden much? Just imagine the money it will not just take to pay for all these make work billets - but the opportunity cost of all the lost productivity, distraction, and bloat. 

 The senior designee at each agency shall be responsible for delivering equitable outcomes, ... Each Agency Equity Team shall support continued equity training and equity leadership development for staff across all levels of the agency’s workforce. 

    (iv)   Each agency’s senior designee shall ... ensure that the Agency Equity Team has sufficient resources, including staffing and data collection capacity, to advance the agency’s equity goals.  Agency heads shall ensure that their respective Agency Equity Teams serve in an advisory and coordination role on priority agency actions. 

Money and power. Power and money.

Each agency head shall support ongoing implementation of a comprehensive equity strategy that uses the agency’s policy, budgetary, programmatic, service-delivery, procurement, data-collection processes, grantmaking, public engagement, research and evaluation, and regulatory functions to enable the agency’s mission and service delivery to yield equitable outcomes ...  The Government-wide goal for Federal procurement dollars awarded to small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals (SDBs) shall be 15 percent in Fiscal Year 2025.  

If you can't smell the fraud from here, you've never seen how these things work under today's rules ... this brings it the incentives to a whole other level.

Here's the empire building;

Agencies shall consider opportunities to: 

    (a)  further elevate their respective civil rights offices, including by directing that their most senior civil rights officer report to the agency head; 

    (b)  ensure that their respective civil rights offices are consulted on decisions regarding the design, development, acquisition, and use of artificial intelligence and automated systems; 

Woe be to the agency who does not. Also, when you get a chance, like in (b) above, search the document for its reference to "artificial intelligence" - it is mentioned a lot. There is something deep going on about controlling the code. As you'll soon see - the equity agenda seems to have an issue with math.

    (f)  prevent and remedy discrimination, including by protecting the public from algorithmic discrimination.    

What about differential equation discrimination? It sure hated me.

Let's discuss definitions, specifically "equity." We've discussed it often here for well over a decade. 

How does the National Association of Colleges and Employers define the word?

The term “equity” refers to fairness and justice and is distinguished from equality: Whereas equality means providing the same to all, equity means recognizing that we do not all start from the same place and must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances. The process is ongoing, requiring us to identify and overcome intentional and unintentional barriers arising from bias or systemic structures.

Of course, they also provide a nice link to visuals for the reading challenged that represent the most patronizing collection of the usual diagrams. 

Merriam-Webster tries to give the historical background of the word;

Equity usually appears in courts of law as a term related to justice or proportional fairness, or in financial offices to property or one's share of a company. The derivative root of the noun, which gained stability in the English language during the 1300s, is Latin aequus, meaning "even," "fair," or "equal"; however, to be fair, it was introduced to English by the French, whose adaptation of the Latin was equité. The French word has clear legal connotations; it means "justice" or "rightness," and those meanings, plus a splash of "fairness," carried over to the English word equity.

In the modern context, I think The United Way of the National Capital Area gives the best operational definition;

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF EQUITY?

Equity, in its simplest terms as it relates to racial and social justice, means meeting communities where they are and allocating resources and opportunities as needed to create equal outcomes for all community members.

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF EQUALITY?

Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources and opportunities, regardless of their circumstances. In social and racial justice movements, equality can actually increase inequities in communities as not every group of people needs the same resources or opportunities allocated to them in order to thrive.

Note how fair and balanced I am - all the above are leftist organizations. 

Speaking of which, how does the EO define the word?

The term “equity” means the consistent and systematic treatment of all individuals in a fair, just, and impartial manner, including individuals who belong to communities that often have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, Indigenous and Native American, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander persons and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; women and girls; LGBTQI+ persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; persons who live in United States Territories; persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality; and individuals who belong to multiple such communities.  

You can read the EO and know how the already existing diversity commissariat operates to understand that is not what will be operationalized in the zero-sum game that is job placement, promotion, and contract awarding.

Also, can you figure out who is left out? 

Yep'r. If you are a suburban or urban "white," male, Christian heterosexual then ... sucks to be you.

Back to math;

The term “algorithmic discrimination” refers to instances when automated systems contribute to unjustified different treatment or impacts disfavoring people based on their actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, sex (including based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related conditions; gender identity; intersex status; and sexual orientation), religion, age, national origin, limited English proficiency, disability, veteran status, genetic information, or any other classification protected by law.

Perhaps we can blame Europe for this, but in summary what this means is - even if race etc is not a variable - if an algorithm/AI spits out results that don't - what do the cool kids say - "look like America" then clearly the math is racist ... or something.

Yes, this is begging for force-moding and "making the metrics fit."  Basically, inject bias so you can say there is no bias. Get the results you want, not what the results are. A fancy way of saying, "We're lying."

I'll let you ponder the second and third order effects of this EO. You may want to read a report from Fox and The Hill on this too. (see, more balance).

Never forget, there has never been a society who survived or prospered by establishing a spoils system of rewards and punishments based on race, creed, color, or other immutable characteristics. It created strife, discord and bloodshed. 

This EO gives the nomenklatura of the diversity industry the "Ref. A" they need to further their sectarianism and discrimination - and you'll pay for it.

Will Congress do anything? Can we get through the years it will take to get through the courts?

Will we have a new President in 2025 who will roll this back?

We'll see ... but rest assured, I think DivThu will have plenty of material going forward. 

Jake Sullivan: The Well Protected Golden Boy

We’ve all seen it; those who promote, protect, and mentor the “deep select” Golden Boy become personally – and professionally – invested in their success. 

Not content to give them opportunities to succeed or fail on their own, when things do not turn out a perfect as the CV and as those mentors promised they would, the wounded instead make excuses, defend, and deflect any criticism of The Chosen One. Though years and decades pass, they still treat grown men on the edge of middle age as if they are still that promising young staffer they once were – poised for greatness at some point in the future. They never really achieve regular success, but give you the appearance that they are ready to claim success should it fall in to their lap simply because … well … look at the CV. Of course. 

The promising future is always almost there, even if the date of measure has already passed. Someone so right, you see, cannot be so wrong. Someone so highly recommended could never be suboptimal. All the right schools, all the correct mentors, all the right jobs so early.

These are smart people. These can be important parts of any successful team, but success is not granted, it is earned. Where it is not earned, but demanded – then you have dysfunction when the real world calls your bluff.

So, we have President Biden’s National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan.

In normal times, this might just be a snarky post aimed at a highly mockable Smartest Person in the Room™ - but these times are too serious and too much accountability remains undistributed. 

We are less than a month removed from the last spasms of our great national humiliation in Afghanistan. There are too many people who are just waiting for the layers of news cycles to cover up their responsibility. 

Well, no. Accountability needs to be placed and underlined.

Let’s dive into Julian Burger’s latest in The Guardian. Yes, Sal reads The Guardian.

Joe Biden was with a team of advisers and on receiving the news he asked two of them, secretary of state Tony Blinken and national security adviser Jake Sullivan, to accompany him to his private dining room to mark the moment with a call to the defence secretary, Lloyd Austin.

Blinken has been a constant presence at Biden’s side since 2002. By contrast, before he joined the 2020 campaign, Sullivan had worked for Biden for just 18 months, and that was six years earlier as the then vice-president’s national security adviser. His whole career on the national stage before then had been as Hillary Clinton’s right hand man.

People are policy. 

Yes, Biden has his own ideas, but he is briefed and supported by a staff. 

“It was a significant moment and the president wanted Jake to be there,” a senior administration official said. “I’ve watched him turn to Jake for advice on both domestic and foreign policy over the last two years. He has enormous respect for Jake’s judgment and relies on him intently.”

These are the men – and they are all men – who bear the responsibility for our national humiliation. They have been measured and found wanting. 

The White House has vigorously defended Sullivan, arguing that no one around the table in the situation room had predicted how fast Kabul would fall, and stressed the national security adviser’s role in coordinating the evacuation of 124,000 civilians, the biggest civilian airlift in US history.

That is a classic defense of a Golden Boy. Rhodes scholar. Yale law school. He can’t be the problem. It must be others.

Aged just 44, Sullivan is the youngest national security adviser American has had since McGeorge Bundy counseled John F Kennedy 60 years ago.

...

“Despite being probably one of the smartest people in the building, he’s not somebody who has walled off his process. He’s really interested in hearing what others bring to the table,” Kate Bedingfield, the White House communications director, said.

McGeorge Bundy? Really? You say that like it’s a good thing.

Where is there any evidence that there was a diversity of opinion at the table? Where is any of this connected to the world as it is?

One of Sullivan’s themes in the job is connecting US actions on the world stage to the lives and welfare of ordinary Americans, with the mantra of “a foreign policy for the middle class”.

Excuse me? How much experience in his adult life does Sullivan have with “the middle class” to the point he knows what a foreign policy for them would look like? What does it produce? What is its focus?

How does Jake come to this world view?

So, he left Yale law school at age 27. Clerked for a circuit judge then a SCOTUS judge. 

After practicing and teaching law in Minneapolis, Sullivan’s first foray into politics was as chief counsel to Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar. Klobuchar introduced him to Hillary Clinton, who lured him away to work on her 2008 presidential run.

Spent some time as a junior lawyer at a firm before being plucked four years after law school at age 31 to work for Sen. Klobuchar. From there, mainlined in to (D) presidential campaign support and staff.

She drew on his debating expertise (he came second in the 2000 World University Debating Championship in Sydney)

That is farcical. Maybe one step above an adult man – or his mentor – bragging to others about all the awards he received at the Model UN the summer after their junior year of high school. No wonder she lost to Trump. 

It was only much later that Reines was informed where Sullivan had been – in Oman with the CIA director, William Burns, in the first secret talks with Iranian officials that ultimately led to the breakthrough 2015 nuclear deal. At the time, Sullivan was 35 years old.

“It just speaks volumes about him that the secretary of state of the United States and the president of the United States thought that he could co-lead the negotiations with one of our strongest adversaries on one of the most difficult issues,” Reines said. “There’s no situation you can put him into that is over his head.”

Complete lack of self-awareness. Were the pallets of cash his idea? Does he know how played we were by the Iranians? 

As for the “over his head” comment. I’m sorry, but it is blazingly clear that he was over his head in Afghanistan – intellectually and as an advisor to the President.

“I think that’s incredibly misplaced,” she said. “I think numerous participants in the process, from [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs] General Milley to Secretary Blinken to [Director of National Intelligence] Haines, have all said that there was no indication that the Afghan government would collapse in 11 days.”

Self-selecting arrogance is no excuse. Just clear that he doesn’t bring in “what others bring to the table” because he isn’t inviting anyone with a different view to this table. 

A bunch of field-grade planners in Kabul the winter of 2009 cautioned about a rapid collapse as a possibility. This was always a known possibility. You were only shocked if you demanded that only people who agreed with you were allowed at the table, and certain things could not be briefed. 

“Trump and Biden received the same assessment: the country could collapse in days or weeks with little notice,” said London, whose book The Recruiter: Spying and the Lost Art of American Intelligence is published next week.

“The Trump White House simply didn’t care. But the Biden White House did not accept the conditions on which that assessment was based as being credible, so dismissed that scenario as unrealistic.”

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, Sullivan did voice anxiety and question the speed of the withdrawal, and particularly the abrupt abandonment in early July of Bagram airbase, the nerve centre of the US war in Afghanistan for two decades. But Biden ultimately approved the plan.

A White House official said there would be no comment on Sullivan’s advice to the president to “protect the integrity of the process”.

Bruen, who worked in the Obama White House at the same time as Sullivan, argued that the Bagram debate showed he had not shrugged off the instincts of a staffer.

“There is this tendency to be deferential, and that’s the staffer role,” Bruen said. “As a staffer, you are someone whose raison d’etre is to find justifications to support the principal’s position. Your role is very different as a national security adviser. You have to, many times, challenge the president’s views on an issue, help them to see there may be some assumptions they’re making that are wrong.”

However, when a president has made up his mind on a subject, one of Sullivan’s former colleagues said, no national security adviser could stand in the way of the elected commander-in-chief.

“I don’t have any doubt, based on my observations, that Jake Sullivan was clear on his advice,” one of Sullivan’s former White House colleagues said. “It’s very difficult for anybody to penetrate the conversations between the president and the national security adviser, but at the end of the day the president’s views prevail.”

…and “who” at the White House would that be? Jake Sullivan, that’s who.

So, let’s end this as we started. The end of the article is an attempt by one of his defenders to make excuses for Sullivan. Read this twice. In an objective reading this does not defend Sullivan at all – it actually makes the argument that he is unfit for the job.

Interim National Security Strategic Guidance: Unto the Wilderness

The Biden Administration is still filling out the mid and lower echelons of their national security and defense team, but the major players are in and the “people are policy” effect is kicking in. 

If you were paying attention to the 2020 election, you have a general idea where things are going, but it is always best to wait to see what is put out … because that is what good staff people do; wait for higher Direction and Guidance, and then form your actions to align with them. 

This week, everyone has something to chew on, President Biden’s Interim National Security Strategic Guidance. 

As I like to do with such documents, I look for larger themes through the use of words. Words matter – details matter – and you can find out a lot about priorities and themes by investigating them. 

Yes, you need to see what people do and not what they say … but what they say matters. When words and actions align, it can show a well-functioning and serious organization and give you more to work with if you are looking for clues to the future. When words and actions are not aligned, that disconnect can – depending on the aspects of the disconnect – tell you even more interesting things. 

So, before we pull some of the detailed observation from the guidance, look at the word count above. That is from the document … but that only gives you so much. 

We know that national security was a 3rd-tier concern in the 2020 election; 1st was former President Trump, and 2nd was domestic policy. What do the words used tell us? 

Wordcount time. 

As I am a navalist, let’s start there to see what focus three may be on the issues of our greatest concern: 

- Navy: 0 

- Maritime/Sea/Ocean: 0 

Huh, we see where this is going. What about the “hard” natsec challenges? 

- China: 15 

- Russia: 5 

- Iran: 4 

- Pacific: 3 

- North Korea: 2 

- NATO: 2 

Well. Everyone take out your JPME-1 notebook. 

In the DIME view of the domains of national power you have Diplomatic, Informational, Military, and Economic. You can, rightfully, accept the new reality that Military is well back in the toolbox – something they tell us in the guidance and we’ll quote later. That leaves the other three. How do these, “soft” natsec challenges come out of the wordcount? 

- Economy/Economic: 42 

- Cyber: 16 - Diplomacy/Diplomatic: 13 

- Information/Disinformation: 6 

Regulars recall a story I’ve mentioned here and on Midrats a few times; ~2010 I had with Admiral Foggo. The one point I left with him was that the best thing the Navy could do was to send more line officers off to get their PhD in Economics. Don’t shunt them off to teach at USNA, put them on your major staffs. More than any other service, the Navy needs a smart understanding of Economics. 

Ha! Sal wins again. 

Now for the real depressing part. Look at the “hard” and “soft” word counts again, and then take a deep breath. 

Center yourself. 

Go get your emotional support animal as required … now brace. 

The Terrible 20s are here, and they are pissed. 

More than anything, this document makes it absolutely clear that not only are national security issues 3rd tier, the personnel, infrastructure, and power in DOD will be used to support, advance, and defend domestic political policy agenda items. Some of that is in the “Economy” count above, but these words make it clear; 

- Climate: 27 

- Equity/equitable (NB: this does not mean equality): 11 

- Diversity: 7 

- “Build back better:” 5 

- Racial/racism: 5 

- Inclusive: 4 

- Justice: 3 

Compare those numbers and you get the direction the wind is blowing. 

It is only a 24-page document, so you should really read it all, but let me pull a few items for your consideration. 

In the President’s introduction, he outlines what he sees as the “new crisis” that demand our attention; 

...the pandemic, nuclear proliferation, and the “fourth industrial revolution.

He also wants a,

 revitalization of … our democracy. 

This in an inwardly focused national security policy, underlined by this paragraph;

Achieving these goals rests on a core strategic proposition: The United States must renew its enduring advantages so that we can meet today’s challenges from a position of strength. We will build back better our economic foundations; reclaim our place in international institutions; lift up our values at home and speak out to defend them around the world; modernize our military capabilities, while leading first with diplomacy; and revitalize America’s unmatched network of alliances and partnerships.

In a strange disconnect, there is a bone thrown in the direction of the internationalists/interventionists/R2P crowd;

And as we do this work, we must also demonstrate clearly to the American people that leading the world isn’t an investment we make to feel good about ourselves. It’s how we ensure the American people are able to live in peace, security, and prosperity. It’s in our undeniable self-interest.

They’re not wrong. The American people still do not understand the value of the Libyan chaos or underwriting German security against the Russians while the Germans are planning to surrender their energy security to the Russians. 

Good luck with that. 

The foreign aid lobby and the NGO rent seekers get a nod;

When we invest in the economic development of countries, we create new markets for our products and reduce the likelihood of instability, violence, and mass migrations.

We also have evidence that we have a large mass of people who have not learned anything from two decades in Afghanistan;

. When we defend equal rights of all people — of women and girls, LGBTQI individuals, indigenous communities, people with disabilities, and people of every ethnic background and religion — we help ensure that those rights are protected for our own children here in America.

“Build back better” – the Biden version of a campaign slogan like “Make American Great Again” – as outlined above, makes a few appearances in the document. It strives in places to want to return to some ill-defined point in the past where things were somehow better. Well, we don’t have a time machine, and the world advances in many places on its own agenda and in directions that may or may not be in our control … nor should be. 

That is a dangerous place to be. It sets up perverse incentives and unrealistic policy goals. This is the 3rd decade of the 21st Century, not the 1990s.

Diplomacy is back. Alliances are back. But we are not looking back.

If you have to say it … well. So, remember when I warned you this was mostly aligned with domestic policy agenda items?

We confront a global pandemic, a crushing economic downturn, a crisis of racial justice, and a deepening climate emergency. We face a world of rising nationalism, receding democracy, growing rivalry with China, Russia, and other authoritarian states, and a technological revolution that is reshaping every aspect of our lives. Ours is a time of unprecedented challenges, but also unmatched opportunity.

See what leads, then note what follows. Order defines precedence. Precedence established priorities. 

A final note; nothing here is “unprecedented.” It is hard to get more inwardly focused as this;

The United States must lead by the power of our example, and that will require hard work at home … to truly address systemic racism,

I am trying hard to find something that could be used in our competition against China … but as there is so little clarity and so much domestic play here, they can be used either way. One example was the use above of “racial justice.” Are we talking about domestic policy here – as we clearly do in other mentions of racial challenges – or could that be used concerning China’s treatment of Uighurs and Tibetans? 

What about the “digital authoritarianism” below, domestic or Chinese social credit system and censorship?

Together with our allies and partners, we can modernize the architecture of international cooperation for the challenges of this century, from cyber threats to climate change, corruption, and digital authoritarianism.

To further underline the desire to use the umbrella of national security to chase domestic policy shadows, note the first paragraph on page-9 under “Our National Security Priorities:”

…we must redefine America’s economic interests in terms of working families’ livelihoods, rather than corporate profits or aggregate national wealth. That places an imperative on an economic recovery grounded in equitable and inclusive growth, as well as investments to encourage innovation, strengthen national competitiveness, produce good-paying jobs, rebuild American supply chains for critical goods, and expand opportunities for all Americans. And we must remain committed to realizing and defending the democratic values at the heart of the American way of life.

If I am looking for a hook to claw back defense dollars for domestic use and call it national security related, that paragraph gives me all I need. 

Right after that … and whoever snuck this is I want them to drop me a line so I can send them a Harry and David gift basket, is something actually useful and good;

At its root, ensuring our national security requires us to:

- Defend and nurture the underlying sources of American strength, including our people, our economy, our national defense, and our democracy at home;

- Promote a favorable distribution of power to deter and prevent adversaries from directly threatening the United States and our allies, inhibiting access to the global commons, or dominating key regions; and

- Lead and sustain a stable and open international system, underwritten by strong democratic alliances, partnerships, multilateral institutions, and rules.

First bullet is “America First.” Second is to keep China down. Third is promoting a rules based international order. 

Sold. 

Someone get me an endorsement letter to sign. Keep this, throw away the rest, and we’re good to go. 

This next goal will end in tears if the recent Yemen decision that emboldens Iranian proxies is any indication;

Our aim will be to de-escalate regional tensions and create space for people throughout the Middle East to realize their aspirations.

The order here is incorrect, but I am very happy Africa gets a mention;

We will help African nations combat the threats posed by climate change and violent extremism, and support their economic and political independence in the face of undue foreign influence.

The next line is cringe. So 1980s, so “with whom?”

We will head off costly arms races and re-establish our credibility as a leader in arms control.

China – whose defense budget just grew by 6.8% while ours is posed to fall, has zero to gain from this … and anything with Russia is meaningless because they are not a problem and will violate it anyway. 

We know … and this is smart.

…we will make smart and disciplined choices regarding our national defense and the responsible use of our military, while elevating diplomacy as our tool of first resort.

On page 14 is something that is just gobsmacking if you wonder if we are a learning institution. It is as if the mistakes of Rumsfeld and the Age of Transformationalism – that we still have not started to recover from – have been forgotten. As if no one remembers the lie of “throw away what you have now and will need to fight in 5 years for the promise of pixie dust powered unicorns bearing sharks with laser beams on their head tomorrow.” 

The people with this mindset keep popping up because no one holds them accountable for their errors.

…working with the Congress, shift our emphasis from unneeded legacy platforms and weapons systems to free up resources for investments in the cutting-edge technologies and capabilities that will determine our military and national security advantage in the future. … We will prioritize defense investments in climate resiliency and clean energy

Of course. The Great Green Fleet was such a success, let’s throw more rare funds down that onomastic rat hole. 

There is going to be a hell of a battle in this administration over Afghanistan. You can see the conflict in this document itself.

The United States should not, and will not, engage in “forever wars” that have cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. We will work to responsibly end America’s longest war in Afghanistan while ensuring that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for terrorist attacks against the United States.

I will give credit to the writers. They make it clear that national security policy is a supporting entity to the supported effort; domestic policy agenda items;

…our trade and international economic policies must serve all Americans, not just the privileged few.

There is a great scene in Dr. Zhivogo where the Red Partisan commander is arguing about all he has done for the revolution and is reminded by the Commissar that once the war is over, everyone will be judged politically regardless of what they did in the war. Boy, is that clear here.

…our strength abroad requires the United States to build back better at home. A dynamic, inclusive, innovative national economy with a flourishing population is a critical American advantage that must be renewed. That starts by decisively responding to the public health and economic crises unleashed by COVID-19. Our national strategy—reinforced by the 12 initial executive actions issued by President Biden in his first two days in office—centers on restoring trust with the American people; mounting a safe, effective, and comprehensive vaccination campaign; and mitigating disease spread through masking, testing, an expanded public health workforce, and better data.

It easy to ignore such documents or, in the wave of a cynical hand, dismiss them as meaningless – but that would be a mistake. Smart staffers try to align what they do with whatever direction and guidance they can find from those up the chain. This is that. 

Reality will change things, but for the first year of the administration, this is what we have to work with. Let me book mark this post with something to back up what we started with on the wordcounts. Why, you may ask, would such domestic issues be of such importance in a national security document? 

To understand it, you need to realize the world those appointed in the Biden Administration come from. What are their interests? What are their supporters concerned with? 

Where they can, the above will be reflected in all parts of our government under the control of the Executive Branch. You don’t have to agree with it, but it would be irresponsible not to recognize it and prepare accordingly.

Biden's Preliminary NATSEC Direction and Guidance

Did you catch Biden's speech where he introduced him nomination for Secretary of Defense?

In it, if you look at a certain angle, you can see an outline of what you can expect from him - broadly - for national security priorities.

I have quotes and details over at USNIBlog.

Come by and give it a read and tell me what you think.

Biden's Natsec Record is Fair Game

For months, the news cycle has been dominated by COVID-19, China, and now riots – which is understandable – but this is an election year in the USA and there has been a dangerously small amount of coverage about what the policy background is of the person who has a solid chance of replacing Donald Trump.

Those who have followed me for any length of time know my position on Trump since 2015. It has not changed. Some here are big Trump supporters, some #NeverTrump, and even some of you brave souls are pro-Biden.

All are welcome here, but one thing I will not cotton to is the idea that to say anything contra-Biden, then you must love Trump.

No. Adults must be able to talk to each other, and one of my favorite adults, Kori Schake, has put out a marker over at The Atlantic saying what all knowledgeable people cannot deny; Joe Biden is a highly problematic person in the areas of foreign and defense policy.

Read the whole thing, but here’s some pull quotes;

Joe Biden has been wrong a lot on foreign and defense policy. A lot. This year’s presumptive Democratic presidential nominee voted against the 1991 Gulf War, in which the United States and a broad multinational coalition quickly achieved their goals, and in favor of the 2003 Iraq War, and regretted both votes. Years into hostilities, he opposed the troop surges that brought some stability to both Iraq and Afghanistan and even insisted that “the Taliban per se is not our enemy.” He argued for carving Iraq into sectarian statelets even as Iraqis voted for cross-sectarian political lists. And he opposed the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. These stances suggest not only that he lacks a philosophy of how to use military force effectively, but also that his instincts on when to use it are often faulty.
…
Robert Gates, who served as the secretary of defense under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, wrote in his 2014 memoir that Biden “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” Last year, Gates reiterated his concerns. “I think that the vice president had some issues with the military,” he declared on CBS’s Face the Nation.
…
…Trump’s and Biden’s positions on Afghanistan are indistinguishable: Both vow to “end the forever wars” by withdrawing American troops, but neither has a plan for what happens after that. Biden said last year that Trump’s withdrawal from Syria was “a complete failure,” yet he advocates the same policy for other places. When talking about Syria, Biden rightly asks, “Who will stand with us if the United States is reduced to an unreliable partner?” But he neglects to apply that standard to abandoning Afghanistan, where 60 allies have fought alongside the U.S.
…
As for defense policy, neither Trump nor Biden appears to have a view about what the size and sticker price for U.S. forces ought to be. Biden seems to think America has spent too much on “traditional warfare” while also believing we need to retain military superiority. He merely waves his hands and vaguely supports more emphasis on America’s space and cyberdefense capabilities.

Finally, Kori puts out a challenge to fair-minded people in the natsec arena to explore;

But Biden’s continued advocacy of muddled and mistaken foreign policies shouldn’t be overlooked, and he can best help his cause by quietly rebooting them.