Author Archives: golsen@the-noble-polymath.com

Waging asymmetric war in the financial system

Leave a reply

The UK is going to start requiring foreign investors in property to begin disclosing the beneficial owners.  The article highlights the benefits in combatting organized crime.  But the real benefit will be enabling further weaponization of the financial system.

Asset seizure is a key tool for combatting asymmetric influence operations, cyber attacks, state sponsored terrorism, and even responding to military provocations.  Targeting key figures in Russia close to the regime becomes much easier when you know what their assets are.

This is a better route than military threats which could escalate to war.

Forming an Informed Opinion on an Issue

Leave a reply

There has been a lot of research on the way mass opinion is formed.  The research typically falls into two buckets: (1) diffusion models where opinion makers (elites) set informed opinion, which diffuses through the populace based on its persuasiveness and how supported the opinion is, and (2) interaction models where people hold independent opinions with varying levels of confidence, which are either reinforced or changed based on interactions with others.

There are variations on these two models that explore details, for example, the role of extremist views and clustering of like-minded people into opinion ghettoes.  There is a growing body of work on the impact of Internet social networks on the process of opinion formation.

At root, this research is all about how to influence public opinion.  It is instrumental.  How can I, as an elite, leverage the process to achieve my political ends?

I would like to take a slightly different take on this.  Why is it so many would-be opinion makers fail to do their homework and make so many errors of fact?  Members of the media are theoretically supposed to do the homework before reporting, yet, errors creep in all the time.  Is the error willful, laziness, the effects of time pressure, shrinking editorial resources, inability to detect “Astroturfing,” or that the Internet has made us stupid?

Willful Errors

An opinion maker (or informed agent who transmits information) willfully spread falsehoods or exaggerations in order to achieve some higher goal. Gun control is an issue area beset with claims on both sides that are factually inaccurate and uses ad hominem as a rhetorical technique.

Laziness

Presented with an issue, we formulate an opinion of that issue based on a combination of prior learning (stored knowledge) and through a process of categorization according to temperament and experience. The process is short circuited and we immediately “jump to a conclusion” in this model. It leads to error, because no effort was expended in investigation.

Time Pressure

In a 24-hour news cycle at Internet speed, opinion makers and informed agents in media operate under extreme time pressure which produces the same effect as laziness, although, not because the agent refuses to expend the time and energy in investigation, but because there isn’t time to do the investigation. The net effect is the same, bad information.

Shrinking Editorial Resources

I see this in my local paper. Basic errors that should have been caught by editors slip through to the printed page, and unlike the Web page, a printed paper cannot be corrected after the fact.

Inability to Detect Astroturfing

Organizations with agendas have weaponized the research on mass opinion formation and are very, very good at manufacturing opinion in a given issue area. This process is called Astroturfing (as opposed to authentic grass roots movements). Detection of Astroturfing is difficult. There are a few strategies, like hearing the same vocabulary from multiple sources, the use of ad hominem (attacking the characteristics of the opponent), and genetic arguments (attacking the source of the argument). The way Astroturfing works is to make an opinion seem more widespread, and therefore more influential, than it is. Make it seem to be generally held common sense and people will be more persuaded.

The Internet Makes Us Stupid

The Internet is a tremendous store of data and information. The Millennials and the iGen are the first to have grown up with instant access to huge stores of information available at a key stroke. Acquisition of knowledge requires effort. Reading at that level is work. Since there is so much information available for recall, it is merely practical that a person would just use Google as memory. The problem with this approach is that in the process of knowledge acquisition, a person learns a set of skills to evaluate information presented: such as logic and rhetoric for fallacy detection, synthesis through typologies and analogies, use of statistics, and experimental design.  Without the effort expended in knowledge acquisition a person is crippled in the ability to form informed opinion, and temperament takes over.

In an ideal world, a person presented with an issue would first search his/her existing store of knowledge and, having a motivation to learn, would conduct a search of existing information, filter that information based on the merits, while using the meta-self (self-criticism) to assess personal bias, coming to an informed conclusion.

Instead what seems to happen is one of two methods:

First, when presented with an issue, a person searches the existing store of knowledge, finding none, merely formulates an uninformed opinion or accepts an argument from authority as long as it conforms with the person’s temperament.

Or there may be a failure to apply a bias failure if there is indeed a desire to learn.

In this era of “alternative facts,” “fake news,” Astroturfing, and opinion ghettoes, how can we as a citizenry address this problem? Do the work is one. For example, it has been reliably shown that handwriting notes is superior to typing.  Learn how to read a book.  Bring back the study of rhetoric.  Second, be curious and skeptical, but temper skepticism with common sense. Radical skepticism, the root of academic schools of thought labeled Critical and Theory, with a capital C or T, does not lead to knowledge but destroys it. It is corrosive to positive knowledge. It is solipsistic. When I take the epistemological position that only what is in my own mind is “real” and there is no objective reality, then “alternative facts” are no longer “fake.”

Thomas Reid, a philosopher in the Scottish common sense tradition, wrote: “It is so irksome to reason with those who deny first principles, that wise men commonly decline it.” Some skeptical criticism of positivism (the philosophical position that positive objective knowledge is possible) is valid. Positivism cannot answer every question—e.g., metaphysical questions are a misapplication of positivism—but it can answer many questions. Radical skepticism denies the ability to gain positive knowledge on first principles. However, radical skepticism fails the lamp post test. Were we to take the position that the senses are unreliable and therefore no reality exists outside my own mind, then we would forever be walking into lamp posts, since they are unreal. Advice: Be skeptical of the radical skeptics and decline to adopt their first principles.

A Final Note

There is no denying the challenge of knowledge specialization. So much new knowledge is produced in narrow specialized areas that the average person is not capable of synthesizing it due to lack of context and knowledge. Based on that fact, a person of average intelligence is now required to accept arguments from authority. However, the person of average intelligence can be armed with certain tools for evaluation. For example, publication bias is a real phenomenon. Only surprising findings make it into print. Scientific confirmation of common sense is viewed as proving the apodictic and never makes it into print. Furthermore, negative findings never make it into print, so do not assume that one study makes an established fact.

Be extremely suspicious of epidemiological studies. Unless there is miraculously a “natural experiment,” where all other plausible causal factors except the one under investigation are controlled for, these studies are highly suspect. They rely typically on self-reported data, possibly non-random samples, and assumptions of population homogeneity. Epidemiological studies are the beginning of the formulation of a research question, not the end. Correlation is not necessarily causation. Without controlled experiment and establishing a causal chain, findings are an unconfirmed hypothesis as to causation. This is why government diet advice flip-flops so much—don’t eat too many eggs, because they cause heart disease—oops, my bad—you can eat eggs again.

In social science, do not make the assumption that an empirical finding is reliable. Social phenomena are complex and any study applies a theoretical approach that defines the model (a simplification of reality) to explain a phenomenon. The theoretical approach defines what variables will be omitted in a study. Correlations without a strong argument for causation are just that, a correlation. The model chosen can determine the result. Take for example the debate over IQ and life outcomes. When statistical regression is chosen as a tool for analysis, you’ve just made the assumption that factors do not interact, unless you create interaction terms a priori. The variables are independent causal factors that are pitted against one another for statistical significance according to an arbitrary threshold (the conventional test is a less than 5% chance that the result is in fact accident). Thus, there are two sides of the debate: People doing parsimonious (few variables) regression models who say that IQ and not upbringing is highly determinative of life outcomes (the quantitative researchers) and people who take an “intersectional” approach that say that multiple causal factors interact in non-linear and possibly incommensurable, ways to produce the measured effect (the qualitative researchers).

Britain, the US and France

Leave a reply

Two opinion pieces today highlight Britain’s post-EU situation well. Tunku Vadarajan highlights the change in relative diplomatic status between Britain and France. He contends that France is the United States’ new principle ally among European great powers as evinced by the state visit of Marcon last week. This is at the expense of Britain, because a Britain outside the EU is no longer consequential.

The second piece by Ted Brumond puts a spotlight on the decline of the RAF and British military generally. The Royal Navy is now so small that it can field only 5 frigates at a time. The Army has only 227 main battle tanks. Budget cuts have cut deeply in the UK’s ability to project power in any meaningful way.

These are two sides of the same coin. A Britain outside the EU has a smaller “continental commitment.” Whether Britain should be engaged on the European continent and prepared to wage a land war or not, has always been at the heart of defense politics. Armies are expensive and furthermore, the Army is organized on the regimental system. The basic organizational unit in the British Army is a regiment of about 3 battalions of combined arms and self-supporting. It is an ideal way of organizing for low-intensity conflict (LIC) and military operations other than war (MOOTW). The British Army is a professional volunteer force recruited geographically into regiments. A regiment’s smaller size, close to an American Brigade or a USMC Marine Expeditionary Unit (however the MEU is purposely built and trained for expeditionary warfare). Its organization, size, and capability, the perfect solution for colonial policing. In the post-colonial era, the regiment has transitioned well to counterinsurgency, peacekeeping, and armed humanitarian operations. You could say that the British Army’s character was determined by empire (the American Revolution, being the first of many LICs the British Army fought).

The British Army is not built to wage total war with massed forces. Only were it organized on the basis of the division could it be considered a force for waging continental war against the Russians. British Army doctrine is focused on maneuver (much like the USMC), because they expect to be outgunned and outmanned.

More disturbing in the Weekly Spectator piece is the decline of the Royal Navy. With empire now a generation in the past and the Cold War over, a substantial peace dividend was harvested (navies are exceedingly expensive to build and maintain).  The US Navy took over responsibility for providing the global public good of policing the global maritime commons (a mission the US has been trying to shirk since the end of the Cold War, because it is expensive).  The Royal Navy did not need to be as large.  However, it would appear that perhaps too much peace dividend has been harvested. I say this, because 5 frigates and a couple of submarines is not enough ASW capability to police the coasts, let alone enough firepower and presence to impose a blockade of Europe. Russian submarines will prowl the North Atlantic.

This decline in RN capability could be an additional reason for US diplomatic disengagement unmentioned by Vadarajan. The RN won’t matter in a European conflict.

In the modern era Britain has always avoided a continental commitment where possible. From one perspective, Brexit is about precisely that issue. After the Second World War, Britain appeared to double down on a continental commitment in order forstall another European total war. Part of that commitment was not merely NATO, but participating in the EEC/EU in order to have influence on the continent, however the cost of participation in the EU project rose higher than the immediate benefit of participation. Brexit is a retreat from the continental commitment, which has always happened with extended peace time.

Which brings me to France. Vadarajan, ably points out the reasons for increasing US engagement with France. Post Brexit, the US wants to have influence, and France is a powerful partner in the EU. Furthermore, France also is not the complete military basket case that Germany is.

This is not to say that France will ever be as close to operating with US Forces the way the British Army has. Language and cultural barriers will make that difficult. This is not to say that there aren’t substantial differences between British and American strategic culture. For example, British military doctrine is based on maneuver and harrassment, whereas, American military doctrine has been shaped by the Civil War, World War II, and Vietnam towards waging total war and not LIC. It is still division centric and geared towards fighting total war, even after more than a decade of LIC in Southwest Asia. The US may come to work more closely with French forces over time. This is particularly true of deterrence missions in Europe (e.g., tripwire deployment in Eastern Europe) and LIC/MOOTW in Africa (e.g., Mali where French and US forces are deployed to increase state security and combat Islamist forces).

Where does that leave Britain viz. the US relationship? It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Britain could forge a truly consequential trade relationship with North America via NAFTA or some other new Multilateral arrangement, however, the “special relationship” is probably over in the new world disorder.  Britain has returned to a geopolitical situation similar to before the Elizabethan age–a territorial defense Army and a Navy too small to protect Albion’s interests beyond the Channel and sometimes not even that.

Study Habits

Leave a reply

The Wall Street Journal features a humorous/lifestyle article at the bottom center of the front page each day.  Today features an article on the trauma today’s keyboard generation suffers when students are faced with a professor who bans laptops in the lecture hall.

This is the first generation to be weaned on a keyboard and who may not have learned cursive script in elementary school.  Some schools no longer teach it.  The students then are at a loss to take lecture notes by hand.

As someone who is a product of the California public schools and University of California, Santa Barbara, albeit in a prior generation (Gen-X), I can tell you that in school, I learned to “do school” and not to learn.  It is not surprising that these students are struggling with certain skills like note-taking.

It wasn’t until my third masters degree, International Relations at Troy University, that I was actually taught certain skills, like

  • structured note-taking on articles read
  • how to write a literature review
  • how to do literature searches
  • how to develop research questions
  • how to write a research proposal

The first two were taught in the required course that prepared students for their comprehensive exams, which was called Theory and Ideology in International Relations.  The final three were taught in the required course in research methods.

There is research that supports the laptop ban.  Students retain more when they take handwritten notes, rather than typewritten ones.  It is for this reason that I have resisted using the computer and am maintaining handwritten lab books as I conduct research for my PhD in Politics at University of Leicester.  (The University would rather I use electronic tools, but I resist.)

Leicester also has an excellent induction program that teaches the skills necessary to be a successful researcher.  There are some excellent sources to learn how to be efficient and successful in higher ed that I recommend.

First, indispensable is Cal Newport’s How to Become a Straight-A Student. In it he lays out some key strategies for being successful while working less hard: time management, deep work, triage, and writing effectively.  My key take-away from the book is the time management method from Seven Habits.  I now maintain a daily to-do list and a things to remember list in a small pocket-sized notebook.  Reserving time for deep work is also really important.  What works for me is scheduling a block of time 50-90 minutes, when I can concentrate on a topic deeply without any distractions.  Here is were the laptop (and phone) ban can help since working with pen and paper prevents you from browsing the Web or checking Twitter, Facebook, email, etc.  The devices are so seductive.

Second, I bought on a whim Mort Adler’s book, How to Read a Book, which for the first time, systematized for me the process of reading critically, interrogating the text.  It also taught how to do a literature review–what he calls syntopical (same topic) reading.  That said, the chapters on specific genres are can be safely skipped in my opinion, because they are biased by his Great Books of the Western World program of which he is famous.

Third, Doing a Literature Review by Chris Hart, used in the research training at Leicester, is an excellent resource on how to do a literature review.  He presents multiple strategies for categorizing a body of literature on a topic.  I am partial to lists rather than graphical methods, like mind maps, but do whatever works for you.  He also covers the practicalities of structuring the literature review for a thesis in different fields.

Skepticism, Cynicism and the Trolls

Leave a reply

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal chronicles the activities of a Russian influence activities on the Internet before attempting to influence the election in 2016:

While it is impossible to be sure what was in the minds of Russians tweeting false stories in 2014 and 2015—which also included tales of contaminated water, terrorist attacks and a chemical-plant explosion—these experts say it is as if the Russians were testing to see how much they could get Americans to believe.

Americans seem pretty gullible, willingly believing Internet hoaxes spread via social media.  Part of the problem is technology itself.  Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, et al. do not encourage thoughtful reflection.  But what truly accounts for the gullibility?

For decades, public education curricula have been built around the concept of ‘critical thinking’ skills.  Universities, since the 1980s in the liberal arts curriculum, have emphasized radical skepticism.  Is it possible that these education interventions have actually made Americans more gullible?  I contend they have.

First, the critical thinking skills taught are for evaluating arguments.  For example, my ten-year-old is being taught how to separate opinion from fact in non-fiction writing and how to argue from evidence this year.  They are not taught, however, how to recognize coordinated media manipulation.

Second, skepticism takes two forms, radical and methodological.  Radical skepticism cuts to the heart of how we know what we know.  Going back to David Hume, if the senses are not a diaphanous veil, then we have reason to distrust experience and certainly to distrust hearsay.  Radical skepticism presents a problem because it leads to many paradoxes.  Like in The Matrix, is reality real, or are we all plugged into a machine producing our experience of reality? The common sense philosophical tradition stresses that we must live as if reality is real.  To do otherwise, we would be forever walking into lamp posts.  Methodological skepticism is the core of the scientific method.  In order to establish positive knowledge, the research must doubt his beliefs, posit a hypothesis that is falsifiable with which to challenge those beliefs, and construct an experiment to test the hypothesis.  The great challenge in the scientific method is that there is no absolute certainty since any theory (a hypothesis established as contingently true based on experiment) is subject to falsification.  Confirmed enough times, theories become laws.  There are very few scientific laws.

Radical skepticism actually disarms people from being able to tell fact from fiction.  Once all claims to knowledge are merely competing narratives, only those that confirm one’s own biases are likely to be accepted.

Skepticism is destructive when cynical.  The political influence operation run by the Russians leverages cynicism regarding political institutions.  Democracy relies on a belief that the individual citizen is sovereign.  Trust in public institutions has been on the decline since the 1960s.  When radical skepticism combines with distrust of political institutions, the average Americans become ripe for conspiratorial thinking, denial of narratives that don’t confirm their own beliefs, and to believe the worst of institutions.  Now add the amplifying effects of social media shaped by trolls and you’ve got a highly effective way to destabilize an open society.

What we need is not more training in critical thinking, but three things: more methodological skepticism applied to one’s own beliefs, less radical skepticism, i.e., philosophically bypass it because it leads to absurdities and therefore invalid, and less cynicism.  While psychology research has shown that negative affect improves the ability of a person to detect falsehood, it doesn’t mean that a person needs to believe every negative narrative. Instead interrogate those narratives.  Does the tweet use inflammatory language?  Does the tweet impugn motives without denying accuracy of claims?  Does the same language appear over and over again in multiple sources?  These are all indicators of media manipulation.

You may think you have a good BS detector, but how is your Astroturf detector?

 

Context-free reporting

Leave a reply

There was an item in the Reuters news feed about an attack in Northern Kenya by al Shabaab guerrillas on a Kenyan police patrol, killing 5 and setting the truck on fire.  The story was essentially context free with the explanation given:

Al Shabaab has also launched other attacks in Kenya targeting civilians, in revenge for Kenya moving its troops into Somalia in late 2011.

The deployment of African Union troops to Somalia as peacekeepers (really peace enforcers since there is no peace to keep) is not really the background of this story.  Somalia is principal irredentist state (now failed state and hole in the political map) in Africa.  Somalia from the start challenged the inviolability of borders enshrined in the Organization of African Unity Charter (now the African Union).  At decolonization, the newly created African states were multi-ethnic.  In fact, Somalia is the rare example of a nearly ethnically homogenous state.  Patriotic sentiment was lacking, states were weak, and therefore, it was instrumental that states agreed to respect each other’s borders in the OAU.  Somalia rejected that position, arguing that all Somalis should be living in a greater Somalia.  It even triggered the Ogaden War between Ethiopia and Somalia (1977-1978).

There are large numbers of ethnic Somalis in Northern Kenya and ethnic unrest has been endemic, spurred on by Somali nationalism.  It is ironic though that Somali nationalism is a strong cultural force, there is in fact no Somali state any longer due to another stronger cultural force, kin-based clans, which have warred for control of the territory for decades now without any victor emerging, hence the fundamental hole in the political map that is the failed state of Somalia.

Boomers Seeking Prestige

Leave a reply

The Wall Street Journal has an article today about late cohort Baby Boomers returning to “fellowship” programs at prestigious universities before embarking on a late stage career change.  As a GenX-er who has completed 3 masters degrees–one for me, one to further my career, and one to set me up for a career change for the second half–and who has been admitted to University of Leicester for a PhD starting in 2018, I can’t help but think that these Baby Boomers are wasting money in non-degree programs at Harvard and Stanford.

These people are already accomplished.  They are not 25 year-olds, needing the prestigious name.  They should be preparing themselves for a second act, cost-effectively.  For example, when I went shopping for an MBA at age 41, I settled on University of Nebraska, because: (a) it is a D1 football school everybody has heard of, (b) it had a program that was outside of my area of expertise from work, Finance (why study something you already know?), and (c) I could do the degree for less than $35,000 while keeping my day job.

I did my degree in International Relations at Troy University in Alabama, because it was cost effective and provided an excellent education in the field.  It is true that it is a school only known regionally, but was a stepping stone towards a PhD (the required credential for policy work in D.C.).

I settled on a UK-based PhD, because it was cost effective and short.  US-based PhD programs were 4 times more costly in money and 50% more costly in time.  As a holder of 3 masters degrees and previous employment as a scientist, I didn’t need the course work equivalent of two more.  What I needed was research training and supervision in my field, hence the UK.

Most of these people would probably be better served at Oxford, Cambridge, King’s College, or Aberdeen than in a non-degree program at full freight private university in the US.

Wooden Ships, Iron Men

Leave a reply

The New York Times had an article about the fallout of the multiple collisions in the US Seventh Fleet. The investigations are not complete. Yet actions are already being taken:

  • Operational tempo of forward deployed forces will be slowed to allow for more training and maintenance
  • Ships will be required to turn on AIS when in crowded shipping lanes
  • Paper charts and CPAs are back in fashion
  • Standing rules for watch officers will be standardized
  • Watch durations are being adjusted
  • Ships without training currency will now be allowed out

Additionally several senior heads have already rolled. Vice Admiral Aucoin is already out. Admiral Swift is going to be out, as will Admiral Rowden.

AIS is a system that uses digital selective calling on VHF FM marine radio to broadcast information about a ship and its location, which is then received by other vessels and Vessel Traffic Service and displayed on a chart plotter or Radar plan position indicator. There is extended coverage with satellite based receivers as well.  Warships normally don’t operate with AIS turned on, because it makes enemy target acquisition, surveillance, and reconnaissance easier. Now they will operate with AIS on in congested waterways.

One of the challenges a Navy vessel faces in a congested waterway is the ship has been designed for stealth. The ship is painted a gray color designed to be difficult to distinguish from atmospheric haze. The ship also is designed to have a small Radar cross section and appear smaller on a PPI than it is—essentially look like a fishing boat, not a warship.

In the old days, a quartermaster, a petty officer responsible for navigating the vessel, was responsible for calculating the closes point of approach (CPA) for all targets reported from the Radar and lookouts and keeping the Captain up to date on other vessels maneuvering near the ship. A special piece of polar coordinate graph paper called a maneuvering board was used to graphically solve the vector arithmetic problems of all the target vessels.

Maneuvering Board Image

Example of a maneuvering board

If you tour the USS Midway in San Diego, you will find a glass divider between the workstation and the Captain’s chair. The quartermaster would receive reports of targets on the sound powered telephone, do the calculations, and write the CPA on the glass partition backwards(!), so the Captain is always aware of risks of collision.

In the USCG cutters are required to maintain a paper plot of position at all times, regardless of the electronic gizmos on board. The position reported by electronic navigation is checked by celestial navigation at solar noon each day. The USCG still has a wooden ships and iron men mentality. The Navy is re-learning. Recently, the US Naval Academy has added celestial navigation back into the curriculum, given the fragility of the GPS system to spoofing and jamming. Furthermore, anticipating conflict with a peer adversary, the government has put out a tender for a new radio navigation system, since Loran-C was decommissioned in 2010. With GPS out of commission an accurate way of finding position will be needed.

Fundamentally, the source of the problem is that the demands being placed on forward deployed forces are not compatible with sequestration. You can’t shrink the Navy and expect the same operational tempo to be sustained for very long. Ships systems begin to fail. The ship’s company gets out of currency on training. One effect is that in challenging navigation situations, like operating in a congested waterway or at night, the Captain relies on only the most senior watch standers, whose fatigue mounts with the extra hours. With fatigue, lapses of attention and judgment happen.

Hobbes and the Risks in Proxy Wars

Leave a reply

Thomas Hobbes described the state of nature as a “warre of all against all.” That describes the war in Syria. Every player has different goals in the conflict. The Syrian government is fighting to survive and reclaim territory. Russia has allied with the Syrian government to maintain basing in the Mediterranean and disrupt the European Union. The United States wants to remove a terrorist stronghold and strangle in the cradle a nascent Islamist revolutionary state, ISIS. Iran wants to create a crescent of influence that includes Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The Gulf monarchies want to counter Iran’s plans. Turkey wants to avoid the creation of a Kurdish state in Syria and counter Iran.

The United States has used proxies to fight a war on ISIS. The most effective fighting forces have been Kurdish militias. I had not expected Kurdish forces to move outside their ethnic strongholds and take the fight to ISIS, but they have. The ISIS stronghold of Raqqa has been encircled by Kurdish militias, Syrian Democratic Forces (Turkey’s proxy), and Free Syrian Army (another Turkish proxy).

The United States allied with Kurdish forces, because they were the most capable fighting force. The Kurds allied with the United States with the hopes of support for a Kurdish state in the region. Turkey does not want a Kurdish state, fearing the dismantling of eastern Turkey. Turkey invaded Northern Iraq to limit Kurdish control over territory adjacent to Turkey. More recently, Turkey has shelled Kurdish positions in Syria. The United States has repositioned its special operations forces embedded with the Kurds in order to fend off Turkish advances against Kurdish forces.

The US forces are a tripwire force. Attacking Kurds with US embedded forces risks a wider conflict with the US, something Turkey wants to avoid. This is a dangerous brinksmanship, but necessary to keep the pressure on ISIS. Were the Kurds to withdraw forces to fight Turkey, it would delay the defeat of ISIS.

Let’s war game out a scenario. Raqqa falls to a Kurdish and SDF/SFA turkish proxies. Raqqa becomes like a divided Berlin, carved up into zones of control. The US maintains its presence to police ISIS sympathizers and deter the Russian backed Syrian government and Iranian backed militias from attempting to retake eastern Syria. The Kurds take the opportunity to establish a de facto state in eastern Syria and northern Iraq. The tripwire force is now hostage to the Kurds. Does the United States withdraw and start a new war, this time between Kurds, the Syrian government, and Turkey, or does it back a Kurdish state?

Either way, the fall of Raqqa is really just the end of the beginning of the realignment of the Middle East. Humpty Dumpty cannot be put back together again.

SOCOM wants Captain America

Leave a reply

For those not in the know, the Marvel Comics character Captain America was a super soldier.  A weakling, Steve Rogers, was used as a guinea pig in experiments during World War II to create a super soldier.  He was given a serum that turned him into a superhero.

The Special Operations Command, according to this article, wants to do the same thing with special operations soldiers.  The idea is to experiment with regimens of supplements and performance enhancing drugs to expand the limits of human endurance and strength.

I have concerns over this approach.  The selection process for Navy SEALs, et al. is already designed to have the cream rise to the top.  Only the most mentally and physically tough make it.  Given that every drug has side effects, I would not want operators being forced to adulterate their bodies with cocktails of drugs to create super soldiers.  They already are super soldiers–elite warriors.

This seems to be an expedient to be able to get more of them.  There seems to be an insatiable demand for operators in the Global War on Terror (GWT).  Elite athletes are few and far between.  Perhaps the objective is to either extend the careers of warriors (much the way Major League Baseball players in the steroid era were using PEDs to deal with injuries and age) or to allow those not physically endowed to get through training able to make it.