JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17697
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

seacoaster wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 7:21 am What is the most likely cause of the damage to the Connecticut?
Collision with a super quiet French diesel-electric sub, running on batteries.

USS Connecticut has a history confronting the Bear.

https://web.archive.org/web/20050314034 ... sp?id=7751
User avatar
youthathletics
Posts: 14730
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by youthathletics »

Maybe it was the Red October, maybe it was Ramius performing a crazy Ivan? ;)
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17697
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

As exciting, encouraging & significant as AUKUS is, we have to find a way to mend fences with the French & draw them into this emerging, growing Pacific strategic & naval alliance. Japan & S Korea are also significantly enhancing their naval capabilities by buying the same F-35B's that our Marines operate from our base in Japan & they are building or converting ships to serve as light aircraft carriers similar to the Brits & our USS America class Amphib Assault aircraft carriers, one of which is homeported in Japan.

France remains a formidable naval power, equal to or stronger than the Brits. They're very proud & jealous of their independence, both in operations & in acquisition & development. We need to find a way to make up with the French & entice them to join us in the Pacific as they have in the mideast.

This 3 page archive chronicles French - US naval cooperation over the past 6 years :

https://news.usni.org/tag/charles-de-gaulle/page/3

this article illustrates how closely we work together in carrier flight operations & training.

https://news.usni.org/2018/04/30/33210#more-33210
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17697
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

As exciting, encouraging & significant as AUKUS is, we have to find a way to mend fences with the French & draw them into this emerging, growing Pacific strategic & naval alliance. Japan & S Korea are also significantly enhancing their naval capabilities by buying the same F-35B's that our Marines operate from our base in Japan & they are building or converting ships to serve as light aircraft carriers similar to the Brits & our USS America class Amphib Assault aircraft carriers, one of which is homeported in Japan.

France remains a formidable naval power, equal to or stronger than the Brits. They're very proud & jealous of their independence, both in operations & in acquisition & development. We need to find a way to make up with the French & entice them to join us in the Pacific as they have in the mideast.

This 3 page archive chronicles French - US naval cooperation over the past 6 years :

https://news.usni.org/tag/charles-de-gaulle/page/3

this article illustrates how closely we work together in carrier flight operations & training.

https://news.usni.org/2018/04/30/33210#more-33210

Maybe we could offer access to our new carrier based refueling UAVs, at our cost, with no R&D charges.
It should plug right in with their Hawkeyes & Rafales.

https://news.usni.org/2021/08/19/boeing ... ed-hawkeye

We should invite & encourage the French to lead a composite NATO carrier strike group on a WPac cruise, with the de Gaulle as flagship, including a port visit & celebration in Perth or Sydney welcoming the French into our newly formalized Pacific alliance.

AUKFUS ?

Interesting details on the diplomacy (or lack thereof) which lead to the contretemps with France.
https://www.firstpost.com/world/submari ... 86431.html
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32341
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17697
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

:shock: ...they live in the Hillsmere section of Annapolis, right next to my dog park.
The wife has been a faculty member for 10 years at the Key School which is also located in Hillsmere.

He mentioned difficulty with the translation. I wonder if it was French.
Another report noted lights on in the house & dogs barking.
More dogs headed to the Anne Arundel County Animal Shelter.

https://www.capitalgazette.com/maryland ... story.html

A Navy nuclear engineer and his wife, who live in Annapolis, have been arrested on charges of trying to pass secrets to a foreign government, according to a federal court document unsealed Sunday.

Jonathan and Diana Toebbe were taken into custody Saturday in Jefferson County, West Virginia, on espionage charges, the Justice Department said in a news release.

A federal court filing alleges the pair traveled to sites in West Virginia, Virginia and Pennsylvania over the course of this year, where Jonathan Toebbe dropped off memory cards with secret information that he believed an official of the foreign government would collect.

“The complaint charges a plot to transmit information relating to the design of our nuclear submarines to a foreign nation,” U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said in a statement. “The work of the FBI, Department of Justice prosecutors, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the Department of Energy was critical in thwarting the plot charged in the complaint and taking this first step in bringing the perpetrators to justice.”

Toebbe, 42, a former naval officer, held a top-secret security clearance and had worked on projects related to naval nuclear propulsion of submarines since 2012. He was assigned to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, also known as Naval Reactors.

His wife, 45, is a humanities teacher, according to the court filing. In a statement Sunday afternoon, the Key School in Annapolis confirmed she was on its Upper School faculty and had worked there for 10 years.

According to the filing, Jonathan Toebbe sent a package in April 2020 to the foreign government, which was described only as “COUNTRY1,” containing a sample of restricted data. An FBI official in that country obtained the package in December 2020 and began communicating with Toebbe, posing as an official from the foreign government.

The document said the package included a letter reading, “I apologize for this poor translation into your language. Please forward this letter to your military intelligence agency. I believe this information will be of great value to your nation. This is not a hoax.”

During the months of negotiations that ensued, the complaint alleges, Toebbe expressed multiple concerns about secrecy and safety. The complaint quoted him as writing this spring: “Is there some physical signal you can make that proves your identity to me? I could plan to visit Washington, D.C., over Memorial Day weekend. I would be just another tourist in the crowd. Perhaps you could fly a signal flag on your roof?”

The undercover FBI contact responded that “We will set a signal from our main building observable from the street.” The FBI then placed a signal “at a location associated with COUNTRY1″ over Memorial Day weekend, it said. Within days, the complaint said, Toebbe confirmed he’d received the signal and was ready to go ahead with a dead drop.

Toebbe allegedly agreed to provide data in exchange for thousands of dollars’ worth of cryptocurrency. With his wife, Toebbe drove June 26 to a location in West Virginia to drop off an SD card, wedged in a peanut butter sandwich, containing restricted material that cannot be shared under the federal Atomic Energy Act, the complaint said. Diana Toebbe appeared to be “acting as a lookout” as her husband left the material, according to the court filing.

The next month, Toebbe and his wife drove to a location in south-central Pennsylvania and allegedly dropped off another SD card with hundreds of pages of schematics, drawings and other documents. The complaint described it as sealed in a Band-Aid wrapper on this occasion.

“This information was slowly and carefully collected over several years in the normal course of my job to avoid attracting attention and smuggled past security checkpoints a few pages at a time,” the FBI quoted Toebbe as messaging them. “I no longer have access to classified data so unfortunately cannot help you obtain other files.”

In late August, Jonathan Toebbe allegedly dropped off another SD card in Virginia, concealed in a chewing gum wrapper.

“There is only one other person I know is aware of our special relationship, and I trust that person absolutely,” the FBI said he wrote in an attached message. The court document said authorities believe that person was his wife.

When he and his wife arrived Saturday in Jefferson County, allegedly for another drop-off, they were arrested.

The complaint said Jonathan Toebbe told the person he was in contact with regarding leaking the data to that he had “considered the possible need” to leave the U.S. on short notice.

“Should that ever become necessary, I will be forever grateful for your help extracting me and my family. I surmise the first step would be unannounced travel to a safe third country with plans to meet your colleagues. We have passports and cash set aside for this purpose,” the document quoted him as writing.

Also Saturday, FBI agents were at the Toebbes’ home in the Hillsmere Estates neighborhood of Annapolis, FBI spokeswoman Samantha Shero said. The Toebbes bought the three-bedroom, split-level in 2014 for $430,000, according to state real estate records.

It’s three blocks from the private Key School, where Diana Toebbe taught. In its statement, the school said: “Key School is in no way connected to the investigation nor any personal criminal activity involving the Toebbes. Diana Toebbe has been suspended from Key School indefinitely pending the outcome of the investigation.”

The head of school, Matthew Nespole, said in his statement that the school was “shocked and appalled to learn of the charges.” He said the school didn’t know anything about the couple’s alleged criminal activities but would cooperate with the investigation if asked.

Neighbors huddled together across the street Sunday from the Toebbes’ home. While swapping stories about what they knew about them and what happened Saturday, they declined to give their names, but reported more than 15 police cars and at least 25 agents swarmed the brick house with light-brown siding for more than eight hours.

A woman who lives across the street got out a pair of binoculars and said agents took photos of everything. Other neighbors recounted how officers “ransacked” a white Mini Cooper: Everything was taken out, including the seats and a GPS computer.

Two FBI agents knocked on every door in the quiet, kid-friendly tree-lined neighborhood. They mostly wanted to know about the couple’s “patterns of life,” how they acted or whether they ever heard any arguing, the neighbors said.

The neighbors said they weren’t much help. The couple, who had two children, mostly kept to themselves. A man who lives two houses down from the Toebbes on the same side of the street said he’d try to greet them as he helped his wife tend their garden. But they usually didn’t acknowledge him.

The information Jonathan Toebbe allegedly provided during the sting included information about Virginia-class nuclear submarine reactors, according to a court document.

The Navy on late Sunday afternoon provided a summary of Toebbe’s military career that said he joined the service in 2012 in Denver, studied at the Officer Training Command in Newport, Rhode Island, and was a nuclear engineering officer based in northern Virginia and Pittsburgh. He became a lieutenant in 2016 and left active duty in 2017. He was a human resources officer in the reserves until he left the Navy in December 2020.

The court document noted that he had his top-secret clearance renewed in March 2020, just five days before he allegedly sent his package offering secret information to the foreign government.

It does not describe how the FBI obtained what it said was Toebbe’s original communication to COUNTRY1, nor how the FBI arranged to signal him over Memorial Day weekend from a location in Washington associated with that country.

The Toebbes are due to appear Tuesday in court in Martinsburg, West Virginia, according to online court records.

Messages left Saturday at two phone numbers listed in Jonathan Toebbe’s name were not returned.
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32341
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

old salt wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:43 am
:shock: ...they live in the Hillsmere section of Annapolis, right next to my dog park.
The wife has been a faculty member for 10 years at the Key School which is also located in Hillsmere.

He mentioned difficulty with the translation. I wonder if it was French.
Another report noted lights on in the house & dogs barking.
More dogs headed to the Anne Arundel County Animal Shelter.

https://www.capitalgazette.com/maryland ... story.html

A Navy nuclear engineer and his wife, who live in Annapolis, have been arrested on charges of trying to pass secrets to a foreign government, according to a federal court document unsealed Sunday.

Jonathan and Diana Toebbe were taken into custody Saturday in Jefferson County, West Virginia, on espionage charges, the Justice Department said in a news release.

A federal court filing alleges the pair traveled to sites in West Virginia, Virginia and Pennsylvania over the course of this year, where Jonathan Toebbe dropped off memory cards with secret information that he believed an official of the foreign government would collect.

“The complaint charges a plot to transmit information relating to the design of our nuclear submarines to a foreign nation,” U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said in a statement. “The work of the FBI, Department of Justice prosecutors, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the Department of Energy was critical in thwarting the plot charged in the complaint and taking this first step in bringing the perpetrators to justice.”

Toebbe, 42, a former naval officer, held a top-secret security clearance and had worked on projects related to naval nuclear propulsion of submarines since 2012. He was assigned to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, also known as Naval Reactors.

His wife, 45, is a humanities teacher, according to the court filing. In a statement Sunday afternoon, the Key School in Annapolis confirmed she was on its Upper School faculty and had worked there for 10 years.

According to the filing, Jonathan Toebbe sent a package in April 2020 to the foreign government, which was described only as “COUNTRY1,” containing a sample of restricted data. An FBI official in that country obtained the package in December 2020 and began communicating with Toebbe, posing as an official from the foreign government.

The document said the package included a letter reading, “I apologize for this poor translation into your language. Please forward this letter to your military intelligence agency. I believe this information will be of great value to your nation. This is not a hoax.”

During the months of negotiations that ensued, the complaint alleges, Toebbe expressed multiple concerns about secrecy and safety. The complaint quoted him as writing this spring: “Is there some physical signal you can make that proves your identity to me? I could plan to visit Washington, D.C., over Memorial Day weekend. I would be just another tourist in the crowd. Perhaps you could fly a signal flag on your roof?”

The undercover FBI contact responded that “We will set a signal from our main building observable from the street.” The FBI then placed a signal “at a location associated with COUNTRY1″ over Memorial Day weekend, it said. Within days, the complaint said, Toebbe confirmed he’d received the signal and was ready to go ahead with a dead drop.

Toebbe allegedly agreed to provide data in exchange for thousands of dollars’ worth of cryptocurrency. With his wife, Toebbe drove June 26 to a location in West Virginia to drop off an SD card, wedged in a peanut butter sandwich, containing restricted material that cannot be shared under the federal Atomic Energy Act, the complaint said. Diana Toebbe appeared to be “acting as a lookout” as her husband left the material, according to the court filing.

The next month, Toebbe and his wife drove to a location in south-central Pennsylvania and allegedly dropped off another SD card with hundreds of pages of schematics, drawings and other documents. The complaint described it as sealed in a Band-Aid wrapper on this occasion.

“This information was slowly and carefully collected over several years in the normal course of my job to avoid attracting attention and smuggled past security checkpoints a few pages at a time,” the FBI quoted Toebbe as messaging them. “I no longer have access to classified data so unfortunately cannot help you obtain other files.”

In late August, Jonathan Toebbe allegedly dropped off another SD card in Virginia, concealed in a chewing gum wrapper.

“There is only one other person I know is aware of our special relationship, and I trust that person absolutely,” the FBI said he wrote in an attached message. The court document said authorities believe that person was his wife.

When he and his wife arrived Saturday in Jefferson County, allegedly for another drop-off, they were arrested.

The complaint said Jonathan Toebbe told the person he was in contact with regarding leaking the data to that he had “considered the possible need” to leave the U.S. on short notice.

“Should that ever become necessary, I will be forever grateful for your help extracting me and my family. I surmise the first step would be unannounced travel to a safe third country with plans to meet your colleagues. We have passports and cash set aside for this purpose,” the document quoted him as writing.

Also Saturday, FBI agents were at the Toebbes’ home in the Hillsmere Estates neighborhood of Annapolis, FBI spokeswoman Samantha Shero said. The Toebbes bought the three-bedroom, split-level in 2014 for $430,000, according to state real estate records.

It’s three blocks from the private Key School, where Diana Toebbe taught. In its statement, the school said: “Key School is in no way connected to the investigation nor any personal criminal activity involving the Toebbes. Diana Toebbe has been suspended from Key School indefinitely pending the outcome of the investigation.”

The head of school, Matthew Nespole, said in his statement that the school was “shocked and appalled to learn of the charges.” He said the school didn’t know anything about the couple’s alleged criminal activities but would cooperate with the investigation if asked.

Neighbors huddled together across the street Sunday from the Toebbes’ home. While swapping stories about what they knew about them and what happened Saturday, they declined to give their names, but reported more than 15 police cars and at least 25 agents swarmed the brick house with light-brown siding for more than eight hours.

A woman who lives across the street got out a pair of binoculars and said agents took photos of everything. Other neighbors recounted how officers “ransacked” a white Mini Cooper: Everything was taken out, including the seats and a GPS computer.

Two FBI agents knocked on every door in the quiet, kid-friendly tree-lined neighborhood. They mostly wanted to know about the couple’s “patterns of life,” how they acted or whether they ever heard any arguing, the neighbors said.

The neighbors said they weren’t much help. The couple, who had two children, mostly kept to themselves. A man who lives two houses down from the Toebbes on the same side of the street said he’d try to greet them as he helped his wife tend their garden. But they usually didn’t acknowledge him.

The information Jonathan Toebbe allegedly provided during the sting included information about Virginia-class nuclear submarine reactors, according to a court document.

The Navy on late Sunday afternoon provided a summary of Toebbe’s military career that said he joined the service in 2012 in Denver, studied at the Officer Training Command in Newport, Rhode Island, and was a nuclear engineering officer based in northern Virginia and Pittsburgh. He became a lieutenant in 2016 and left active duty in 2017. He was a human resources officer in the reserves until he left the Navy in December 2020.

The court document noted that he had his top-secret clearance renewed in March 2020, just five days before he allegedly sent his package offering secret information to the foreign government.

It does not describe how the FBI obtained what it said was Toebbe’s original communication to COUNTRY1, nor how the FBI arranged to signal him over Memorial Day weekend from a location in Washington associated with that country.

The Toebbes are due to appear Tuesday in court in Martinsburg, West Virginia, according to online court records.

Messages left Saturday at two phone numbers listed in Jonathan Toebbe’s name were not returned.
Fine people. They served the country.
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17697
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:47 am
old salt wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:43 am
:shock: ...they live in the Hillsmere section of Annapolis, right next to my dog park.
The wife has been a faculty member for 10 years at the Key School which is also located in Hillsmere.

He mentioned difficulty with the translation. I wonder if it was French.
Another report noted lights on in the house & dogs barking.
More dogs headed to the Anne Arundel County Animal Shelter.
Fine people. They served the country.
More details.
https://news.usni.org/2021/10/10/fbi-ar ... more-89026
2 kids. I wonder how old. Their lives are shattered. I hope they have family to take them in.
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32341
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

old salt wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:49 am
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:47 am
old salt wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:43 am
:shock: ...they live in the Hillsmere section of Annapolis, right next to my dog park.
The wife has been a faculty member for 10 years at the Key School which is also located in Hillsmere.

He mentioned difficulty with the translation. I wonder if it was French.
Another report noted lights on in the house & dogs barking.
More dogs headed to the Anne Arundel County Animal Shelter.
Fine people. They served the country.
More details.
https://news.usni.org/2021/10/10/fbi-ar ... more-89026
2 kids. I wonder how old. Their lives are shattered. I hope they have family to take them in.
Happens in Baltimore all the time. Grandmother will step in.
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17697
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

Yep. Real Patriots. Viva La Resistance & a BLM yard sign leaning against the front of the house. :lol:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/wife-navy-nu ... m-feminism
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32341
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

old salt wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:53 pm
Yep. Real Patriots. Viva La Resistance & a BLM yard sign leaning against the front of the house. :lol:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/wife-navy-nu ... m-feminism
:lol: :lol: :lol: Probably selling secrets to Nigeria!

Image

:lol: :lol: :lol:
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17697
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

US policy on Taiwan -- strategic ambiguity or strategic coherence ?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/ ... e/#slide-1
The ignominious U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan punctuated a feckless policy based on a false premise of opposition to “forever wars” promoted by the Trump and Biden administrations. The implications of that doctrine — that a commitment of U.S. troops overseas without a specified duration constitutes an endless war and “nation-building” — will ripple across U.S. relationships around the world for some time. The Biden administration has been explicit that the U.S. will not support extended military commitments for partners unwilling or unable to fight for themselves.

The lesson of the U.S. withdrawal was not lost on Taiwan, with which the U.S. has an important, long-standing relationship. President Tsai Ing-wen took to social media to acknowledge that the situation shows “that Taiwan’s only option is to make ourselves stronger, more united and more resolute in our determination to protect ourselves.”

Just the same, even applying the Biden worldview, Taiwan comes out pretty well. After all, Taiwan is one of the wealthiest, most vibrant democracies in the world. Nation-building? Not a problem; a nation has been built without a U.S. military presence and despite decades-long determination by the People’s Republic China and, in some ways by the United States, to blunt or ignore it.

Is Taiwan willing to defend itself? The PRC seems to be putting Tsai to the test. Marking the occasion of its National Day, October 1, China over several days sent nearly 150 military aircraft into Taiwan’s air-defense identification zones to remind Taiwan and the world that it has no intention of leaving the island nation to its own future. For its part, the U.S. has stepped up military operations in the region. Recent reports that U.S. special-operations teams are in Taiwan providing training suggest that the PRC’s provocations will not be ignored.

President Tsai’s comments indicate her resolve. And she’s putting actions behind the words. After several years of declining defense spending by previous governments, Tsai’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has committed to increase the spending to 3 percent of GDP, which the U.S. has long encouraged. This year’s budget reflects a rise of about 10 percent in defense spending, with additional increases projected in coming years. While even more is needed, including smarter acquisitions of the right capabilities, at 3 percent, Taiwan’s percentage of GDP spent on defense would be more than double that of Germany and Japan, where the U.S. has about 35,000 and 55,000 troops, respectively.

This emerging resolve is taking place against a backdrop of an ongoing debate about how the U.S. and other supportive countries should characterize the nature of their commitment to foster Taiwan’s freedom from control by Beijing. For decades, the policy has been characterized as “strategic ambiguity.” This means that the United States has no explicit commitment to defend Taiwan in the event of an attack by the PRC. U.S. policy has been to provide Taiwan military support but not to support by force any effort by either Beijing or Taipei to change the status quo.

Ambiguity has been embedded in U.S. policy since the 1979 passage of the Taiwan Relations Act, which Congress passed (with the support of Biden, a senator at the time) after President Jimmy Carter abrogated a mutual-defense treaty that the United States had signed with Chiang Kai-shek’s Republic of China government on Taiwan in 1954.

The 1954 pact had been ratified by the U.S. Senate. Congress passed the 1979 Act to counter Carter’s decision to recognize the PRC as “the sole legal government of China.” Congress, in a bipartisan consensus, always has seen itself as the defender of Taiwan’s status even as presidents of both parties over the years treated the PRC with kid gloves in an attempt to modulate Beijing’s behavior. That approach has failed. The PRC has become more emboldened and aggressive on every front, including Taiwan.

Some analysts and many in Congress would like to see a shift in U.S. policy from “strategic ambiguity” to “strategic clarity.” The Taiwan Protection Act, the Taiwan Invasion Prevention Act (TIPA), and other legislation has been introduced to provide that clarity. TIPA provides the president the authority to use military force “to secure and protect Taiwan against . . . direct armed attack by the military forces of the People’s Republic of China.”

In fact, that kind of clarity is not the most appropriate alternative to the current policy. As a superpower, the United States should preserve flexibility in its global security relationships. It also is not even obvious that Taiwan’s body politic would welcome an explicit security guarantee from the United States. Both major political parties in Taiwan — the ruling DPP and the opposition KMT — over many years have shaped how they refer to the current reality. They are not stuck in the rhetoric of 1979 even if the United States is. It could be problematic for the U.S. to be seen as upsetting their characterizations of cross-strait reality.

Even from the U.S. perspective alone, a security guarantee for Taiwan is not the most obvious response to the failure of strategic ambiguity. The U.S. is bound by treaty to respond to an attack on any NATO ally, and lackluster defense spending by NATO national governments is one apparent outcome of that guarantee. A commitment to come to Taiwan’s defense in the event of a PRC attack could affect the policies of other countries in the region that are aligned with U.S. policy and concerned about Beijing’s posturing and defense buildups. As the superpower, the U.S. has marshaled the support of South Korea, Japan, Australia, India, and others. A security pact with Taiwan would give a propaganda wedge to the PRC, which could declare that the U.S. has upset the balance and created a potential casus belli.

Just because “strategic clarity” about a security guarantee for Taiwan is the wrong approach doesn’t mean that the status quo is preferable. Everything about the PRC and Taiwan has changed, in fundamental ways, since the policy was adopted more than four decades ago. A different approach is in order. Despite being coddled and cajoled by the world since 1979, the PRC has emerged as a totalitarian, human-rights-abusing, anti-market belligerent actor in the region and globally. And despite being isolated by the world, Taiwan has become a vibrant, democratic, free-market, progressive nation. To cite just one indicator: Taiwan’s per capita income on a purchasing-power basis is more than three times that of the PRC, where nearly half the population lives on $5 per day.

A better approach to PRC–Taiwan policy is one of “strategic coherence,” based on transparency about what is at stake. This begins by acknowledging and speaking to these realities: Taiwan is a friend of democratic, free-market countries, and the PRC is not. These inconvenient truths have been ignored by successive U.S. governments for decades. That should end. The U.S. president and other leaders should be at least as expressive about the value of Taiwan’s democratic capitalism to the world as prior leaders were in encouraging Beijing’s market-opening periods.

In practical terms, this should be accompanied by further opening of engagement with the Taiwanese government. The Trump administration upgraded U.S. diplomatic and political relations with Taiwan. President Trump spoke with President Tsai during his transition to office in 2016. This was the first and only direct discussion between a U.S. president or president-elect and a Taiwanese leader. If the United States can engage the Taliban in its role as head of government in Afghanistan, surely we can regularize presidential calls with the democratically elected leader of Taiwan. This opening should include continuing Trump-era cabinet-level and senior military engagement with Taiwan. Biden’s team has sustained some of the practices of its predecessor. It should continue them and build on them.

During the Cold War, Ronald Reagan reoriented U.S. policy toward the USSR through the simple recognition that the U.S. no longer accepted that Soviet power was inevitable, either within Russia or around the world. That initially rattled U.S. allies and much of the U.S. foreign-policy establishment. Both groups had grown comfortable in accepting that the USSR was an expansionist power that had to be reckoned with, provided space, and not pressured. Once it became obvious even within the Soviet politburo that Reagan was right, the U.S. foreign-policy elite and European allies soon found themselves recognizing that, if the Soviet Union itself knew it was in trouble, Western leaders should probably acknowledge it themselves.

A policy of strategic coherence toward the PRC and Taiwan would include the adoption of an analogous posture toward Beijing. The current global consensus is that the PRC is ascendant and taking bold steps to consolidate its emerging power. There are ample reasons to challenge that presumption by focusing on profound underlying structural fractures:

The population is aging and shrinking.
The one-child policy created crushing burdens on those who must support four grandparents and two parents.
The education system has failed to anticipate the needs of new entrants to this smaller workforce. Rural workers are poorly educated, with inadequate elementary and secondary education, leaving them unable to fill skilled-labor positions that are crucial to the PRC’s role in the global supply chain. In the cities, a burgeoning number of college-educated only children are overqualified for the jobs that are available. Urban college-educated unemployment is a serious problem.
The economy is burdened by a profound debt level, upward of 300 percent of GDP.
Real-estate speculation has led to bubbles that will create havoc when they burst. See the collapse of the developer Evergrande. While extreme, it may be just the beginning. Heavily leveraged urban middle-class homeowners are panicking at the prospect that their life savings may dissolve. Most of the rest of the world went through a period of economic contraction and financial crisis in 2008–10. The PRC avoided that through massive government action to inflate the economy and paper over underlying weaknesses. Whether or not Evergrande is a harbinger of the inevitable reckoning, a reckoning is coming.
The Chinese Communist Party has devastated China’s environment in its quest for development.
President Xi and the CCP understand that all of this creates a cauldron for social unrest. Xi, in his own words, has lowered expectations of what the CCP can deliver. Now it is simply “modest prosperity.” Recent actions of his — e.g., cracking down on ostentatious wealth, breaking up big companies — that prop up his own power also reflect his grave concerns that the promise of modest prosperity is at risk and that the public will not stand for the regime’s failure to meet that low bar. Chinese citizens generally are not agitated by the lack of democracy, freedom, and rule of law. The one commitment they understand is the one to modest prosperity, and now the prospect of that is uncertain.

The communist government knows that its hold on society is tenuous. Attempts by the party to maintain control are reflected in the totalitarian use of data, artificial intelligence, and facial-recognition technology as well as in the internment of religious minorities, the crackdown on Western values, the leaning into Chinese nationalism, and efforts to control of all media, especially social media. These are the actions not of a confident regime but of one that knows it is at risk.

These domestic challenges, and the CCP’s intensified nationalism, will be reflected in external actions. Most notably, we will see continued smothering of dissent in Hong Kong and attempts to stifle Taiwan through threats and military posturing.

A U.S. policy of strategic coherence is not intended to cheer on such disequilibrium. But without question the U.S. should speak truth about the actual situation on the mainland and about what is at stake in Taiwan. The PRC is not on a path to dominate the world. It is a fragile, unconfident power that will continue to take extreme measures to control its citizens, all the while blustering to be seen as projecting power and self-assuredness. As Reagan did with the Soviet Union, we should be honest and forthright in our own recognition of the truth. We should speak that truth clearly and, in so doing, express our conviction that the CCP is a malignant force in global relations and that it must be checked and confronted without fear or accommodation.

This should include other practical elements. The U.S. should continue to support Taiwan in improving its military capabilities. We should continue to work with like-minded allies to improve strategic readiness in the region. The recent meeting by President Biden with the so-called Quad Group is an important and healthy step in that direction, as is the superb decision by the administration to join with Australia and the United Kingdom to bolster Australia’s strategic naval forces. Whether that could have been handled with more aplomb vis-à-vis France is an academic question. France is an important ally and well positioned in the region. The United States must work with her and across the European Union to continue to accelerate strategic alignment to isolate and call out the PRC.

By the early to mid 1970s, the U.S. government and foreign-policy cognoscenti had concluded that the USSR was a rising hegemony and that the best the U.S. could do was accommodate it and establish a global consensus that it was possible to manage the decline of Western power in the face of rising Soviet communism. Reagan changed that through the simple act of exposing the lie and then developing a coherent policy to check that outcome. Core to that policy was the encouragement of countries, in Eastern Europe and around the world, that found themselves in the Soviet sights and then turning up the pressure. The Reagan Doctrine called for strengthening the U.S. itself and standing by those countries, in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere, that were willing to challenge the Soviet perception of expansionism.

Nigh on half a century later, we face another faux rising power. We have it within ourselves to check that and reverse what has seemed inevitable for too long. Taiwan stands in the way of the PRC narrative of inevitability, and a policy of strategic coherence toward both the PRC and Taiwan could be the way to begin to roll that back. It is time.


...& meanwhile, we should arm Taiwan to the teeth. They can afford it.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/ ... h/#slide-1
China continues to provide reminders of the threat.

We warned China to stop its incursions into Taiwan’s air-defense identification zone — and the Chinese responded by flying even more aircraft into the zone.

The 52 Chinese flights on Monday brought the total for October to 145, already the year’s highest monthly total.

The flights have been steadily increasing in recent years, as Beijing harries Taiwan and demonstrates its discontent with the island nation’s closer relationship to the United States. The Chinese may also want to wear down the Taiwanese by forcing them to constantly respond.

Regardless, the flights underscore why Taiwan is the most dangerous and potentially most consequential flashpoint on Earth.

If China can successfully absorb Taiwan while limiting the military, economic, and diplomatic costs, it would vindicate President Xi’s vision of an ascendant China undoing past humiliations, represent a milestone in China’s campaign to establish hegemony in the most important region of the world, and, perhaps, collapse the credibility and global position of the United States.

On the other hand, a debacle in Taiwan could have devastating economic and diplomatic consequences for China, threatening Xi’s rule.

In other words, attention must be paid — the trajectory of the modern world is conceivably at stake.

The Trump administration began to reorient the U.S. defense posture toward this threat, and the Biden administration has followed up, most importantly, with the nuclear-submarine deal with Australia.

It’s been completely obvious for a long time that China has been preparing, if it so chooses, to take Taiwan by force of arms and keep us from being able to do anything about it.

It has massively increased its force of ballistic missiles, better to target a wide array of ships and hold at risk U.S. ground units. Prior to the latest, more serious iteration of the missile threat, Tom Shugart of the Center for New American Security estimated that a preemptive Chinese strike on our bases in the region “could crater every runway and runway-length taxiway at every major U.S. base in Japan, and destroy more than 200 aircraft on the ground.”

China has been churning out long-range strike aircraft and engaged in a historic naval buildup. It now has the largest navy in the world.

Nonetheless, invading and occupying Taiwan after launching a gigantic, logistically taxing amphibious operation across a 110-mile strait would be no small feat, to put it mildly.

It should be our objective to keep China at bay, toward the goal of keeping it from establishing its dominance over Asia, as former Trump defense official Elbridge Colby argues in his compelling new book The Strategy of Denial.

But the Taiwanese haven’t exhibited the urgency one would expect of an island of 24 million people coveted by a nearby nation of 1.4 billion people that makes no secret of its compulsion to try to swallow it whole.

Until a few years ago, Taiwan’s defense budget was shockingly inadequate. Its military reserves are lackluster. Its frontline units tend not to operate at full strength. It has often been seduced by the allure of so-called prestige weapons, such as top-end fighter aircraft that are irrelevant to its predicament.

We should be fortifying Taiwan and making it as difficult as possible for China to take. That means stockpiling food, energy, and munitions against a Chinese blockade. It means making its infrastructure more resilient and enhancing its cyber capabilities. It means increasing its capability to detect an early mustering of Chinese forces. It means more mines, anti-ship missiles, air-defense capabilities, and unmanned systems to frustrate a cross-strait invasion.

The Chinese have been focused on “area denial,” missiles, and the like to deny our access to Taiwan and its environs. But these capabilities can be turned against China, too.

If we are ever inclined to forget about how pressing the threat is, not to worry, the Chinese will have more flights or other provocations to remind us.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17697
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

old salt wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:53 pm
Yep. Real Patriots. Viva La Resistance & a BLM yard sign leaning against the front of the house. :lol:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/wife-navy-nu ... m-feminism
They were dealing with a "friendly" country who contacted the FBI.
He apologized for his poor translation.

Israel ? France ? Germany ? The Dutch ? Japan ?
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17697
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

Amusing insights on AUKUS & the French reaction from WRM (Walter Russell Mead) from behind the WSJ paywall :
https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-fr ... 1632166702

America Should Be Frank With France

The two nations need each other, despite French anger over the Aussie defense deal.

Connoisseurs of fine French pique enjoyed a rare feast last week as France reacted volcanically to its exclusion from the Aukus defense partnership and the cancellation of its $40 billion submarine pact with Australia by recalling two ambassadors. Usually Paris calls back only one when in this mood (see Turkey 2020 and Italy 2019). Better still, as a supreme expression of contempt and disdain, the French hit on the novel punishment of leaving its ambassador to the U.K. in place.

To be sure, the loss of contracts valued at more than $60 billion after cost overruns is a staggering blow to France, whose total defense budget was just above $50 billion in 2020. But its agreement with Australia meant much more than money, and Canberra’s decision to drop a long-term defense relationship with Paris to form the Aukus partnership with London and Washington cuts deep.

It is, to begin with, a massive public humiliation for Emmanuel Macron just as the next French electoral campaign begins to heat up. President Macron and his government were blindsided by a development of vital importance to French interests and international standing. The French Foreign Ministry has accused the Aukus powers of “backstabbing” and even treachery, but it’s the business of a country’s diplomatic, military and intelligence establishments to prevent such surprises. The French don’t elect their presidents to be hapless patsies hornswoggled by stupid Americans, provincial Australians and unspeakable Brits.

But this is bigger than Mr. Macron. The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France? As the French position in Africa continues to weaken in the face of Chinese competition and jihadist violence, and as the limits of its Mediterranean influence from Libya to Lebanon become steadily more evident, the world as seen from Paris grows more grim. With Francophiles like Antony Blinken and John Kerry playing leading roles in the State Department of an anti-Brexit Irish Catholic president, France hoped for better relations with Washington. The French certainly didn’t expect the Biden administration to anoint Boris Johnson as its privileged partner in Europe.

Given the French reaction, Team Biden has been taking friendly fire from liberal internationalists for both the substance of the new partnership and the handling of its formation. Disarmament advocates are horrified by the administration’s apparent intention to supply Australia with the weapons-grade nuclear fuel needed to power advanced nuclear submarines. NATO advocates and Europeanists wonder what has happened to Mr. Biden’s promises to rebuild the trans-Atlantic alliance.

Those concerns are misplaced. Substantively, the formation of Aukus is a major step forward for America’s Indo-Pacific policy, and while the U.S. could have been more tactful, there are few elegant ways to cancel a wedding. Indeed, the perception that Washington is willing to risk alienating an important European partner to advance its Pacific strategy sends an important signal to friends and foes alike.

Aukus is more than an agreement about improving Australia’s submarine fleet. The three countries have also committed in the pact to cooperate across a range of cutting-edge technologies, initiating a period of intensifying military and political cooperation among these already-close allies. Enthusiastically applauded in Tokyo and Taipei, the partnership reassures key regional allies that America’s pivot to the Indo-Pacific is real.

That said, France’s many friends in the U.S. need to think hard about what comes next. Paris is a high-maintenance ally, and it is only natural that some Americans relish the discomfiture of a country that so frequently and stridently lectures us on our shortcomings. But without the contributions of a strong France, many of the most serious problems in American foreign policy—maintaining the stability of Europe, Africa and the Middle East, and constructing a stable order in the Indo-Pacific—become significantly more difficult.

Paris aspires to occupy a significant place in world affairs, and it is in America’s interest to help the French find and fulfill it. But the Franco-American strategic dialogue has been superficial. It needs to become deeper and more frank if the West is going to cohere.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17697
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

Encore on AUKUS from WRM :
https://www.wsj.com/articles/aukus-indo ... 1632775481

Aukus Is the Indo-Pacific Pact of the Future

Imagine if Japan, India, Taiwan and the bloc swap tech and coordinate defense.

International summits almost inevitably end in grandiose joint communiqués, most of which are quickly forgotten. This month’s announcement of the Aukus partnership by President Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison won’t be. This isn’t because the pact made France unhappy or even because it highlights America’s long-term commitment to the Indo-Pacific. Aukus is a deep but flexible partnership between leading tech powers that could shape the 21st century and serve as the model for U.S. alliances in the Indo-Pacific.

The impetus for the agreement, Prime Minister Morrison told me in an interview during his recent trip to Washington, came from the Australians. After years of escalating pressure, last November Chinese diplomats in Canberra warned that to enjoy better relations with Beijing, Australia’s government must address 14 Chinese grievances. It must, among other things, stop funding “anti-China” research, refrain from provocative actions like requesting a more thorough World Health Organization investigation of the origins of Covid-19, stop opposing strategic Chinese investments into Australia, and block private media outlets from publishing “unfriendly” news stories about China.

Meanwhile, the size and speed of China’s naval buildup had forced Australian defense planners to rethink their national defense strategy. One casualty of that review was confidence in Australia’s strategic partnership with France which was anchored by the now-cancelled submarine program. Faced with a relentless and rising China, the Australians concluded that only closer ties to the U.S. could provide the deterrence and protection they need.

As the Morrison government cast about for ways to stave off Beijing, it hit on a novel approach. There is little appetite in the Indo-Pacific for a formal regional security pact like NATO, but Australia wanted something more solid and durable than the kind of loose ad hoc coalition of the willing that American diplomat Richard Haass famously calls a “posse.” Instead, the Australians would persuade the British and U.S. partners to use the deep trust that the members of the “Five Eyes” intelligence partnership (America, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) have built up over the decades since World War II to create something new.

Between the intelligence sharing over terrorism following 9/11 and more recent cooperation over China, the Five Eyes had never been more robust. Why not, the Australians thought, expand the partnership from intelligence to include research and defense planning? A model for this cooperation already existed: The U.S. shared highly sensitive nuclear propulsion technology with the British submarine program. The Australians thought joining that program and proposing further tripartite collaboration in fields ranging from quantum computing to artificial intelligence, electronic warfare, missiles and cyber could offer economic as well as military and diplomatic benefits.

With strong support from the Biden administration, especially from Jake Sullivan and Kurt Campbell at the National Security Council, and the enthusiastic embrace of a U.K. prime minister eager to put substance behind his “Global Britain” slogan, the agreement came together, by the standards of international diplomacy, at blistering speed.

What comes next will be more difficult as the three countries struggle to bring their unwieldy national-security bureaucracies into alignment and get the private sector to buy in to the process. Describing the level of cooperation he’d like to see, Mr. Morrison is ambitious. When it comes to defense and security planning, he says, “we want to be in on it before it’s even thought of. . . . We want to be in the thinking of the group about what the [defense and technological] needs are.” That won’t happen overnight, if it happens at all, but whatever form it ultimately assumes, Aukus has a unique flexibility and depth. And in an age when the link between information technology and defense capability has become critical, the centrality of cooperative research and development massively enhances the value of this new kind of alliance.

These are all reasons Aukus is a better model for pacts with Indo-Pacific powers than the alliances that fought the Cold War.
Indo-Pacific countries are less interested in pooling sovereignty and creating rule-driven, bureaucratic structures than many European states are. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations is looser than the European Union, and the Quad is looser than NATO. If Chinese behavior continues to drive its neighbors into closer partnerships with the U.S. and each other, Japan and Taiwan may enter deeper and more Aukus-like arrangements—and perhaps into Aukus itself. A bloc that shares technology and coordinates defense policies that includes Japan, India, Taiwan and the Aukus countries would be a formidable force.
User avatar
youthathletics
Posts: 14730
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by youthathletics »

China putting the democrat style spin on their fighter jets, flipping the script...." these were exercises in defending Taiwan"


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ch ... 2Ccvc%3A11
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17697
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

Why we need Turkey --

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/1 ... es/186156/

...& we need to continue defusing their conflict with Syria Kurds.

Brett McGurk is quiet & low profile now that he's back in govt.

https://newlinesmag.com/argument/brett- ... -our-time/
User avatar
Kismet
Posts: 4473
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by Kismet »

Salty's hero former-General Flynn and his family lost their $75 million defamation suit against CNN yesterday. A magistrate judge said it wasn't defamatory to call them QAnon followers and wrote in his opinion -
"The Flynns’ own statements establish that they meet the dictionary definition of a follower of QAnon."

Stupid is as stupid does. Morons. :oops:
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32341
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

Kismet wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 10:33 am Salty's hero former-General Flynn and his family lost their $75 million defamation suit against CNN yesterday. A magistrate judge said it wasn't defamatory to call them QAnon followers and wrote in his opinion -
"The Flynns’ own statements establish that they meet the dictionary definition of a follower of QAnon."

Stupid is as stupid does. Morons. :oops:


He’s a hero. Judge liked Hillary.
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”