Tag Archives: report on national security kinetics

Foreign Policy Research & Analysis, Military Operations, History & Cyber Warfare, National Security, Weapon Systems

RNSK Vol 2, Edition 5

UPDATE: American Weaponry & Gear Sent to Ukraine

Published July 8, 2022

black rifle

In the 12 months preceding Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine on February 24th, the U.S. supplied approximately $700 million in military weaponry & gear. From the commencement of hostilities until July 1st, Ukraine has received $6.9 billion in military equipment, weaponry, and munitions from the U.S. The DoD announced on July 1st that an additional $820 million in military hardware was on its way to Ukraine.
For anyone familiar with the cost of military logistics, which encompasses the purchasing, transportation, storage, repair and inventorying of everything a military unit needs to function, it’s a massive, complex and costly endeavor. Numerous estimates have been reported on the annual cost of a soldier deployed to a war zone. It runs from $850,000-$1.4 mil. Granted, these are U.S. military costs, and Ukraine’s are likely half as much, if that. Regardless, you get the point that combat forces burn through an incredible amount of money to sustain the fight. By time U.S. and NATO equipment arrives in Ukraine, it’s quickly distributed. They don’t have the luxury of stockpiling.
Here’s a list of military gear that comprises the new $820 million package.
• 36,000 105mm artillery rounds;
• 126 Tactical Vehicles to tow 155mm Howitzers;
• 19 Tactical Vehicles to recover equipment;
• Eight High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and ammunition;
• Two National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS);
• 20 Mi-17 helicopters;
• 400+ Up-Armored Humvees;
• 200 M113 Armored Personnel Carriers;
• 10,000+ M203 grenade launchers, M4 Rifles and M9 Pistols;
• 59+ million rounds of small arms ammunition (including AK-47 ammo);
• 75,000 sets of body armor and helmets;
• 121 Phoenix Ghost Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems;
• 1,000 AGR-20 70mm APKWS Laser-guided rocket systems;
• Puma Unmanned Aerial Systems;
• Six Unmanned Coastal Defense Vessels;
• 26 counter-artillery radars;
• Four counter-mortar radars;
• Four air surveillance radars;
• Two harpoon coastal defense systems;
• 18 coastal and riverine patrol boats;
• Explosive ordnance disposal protective gear;
• Medical supplies, including first-aid kits, and CBRNE protective gear;
• Electronic jamming equipment;
• Training, maintenance & sustainment

Ciao,

Steve Miller, IAPWE – Certified & Member
Managing Editor
The Report on National Security Kinetics™
Seattle, WA. USA
vietvetsteve@millermgmtsys.com

Steve Miller © 2022 – All Rights Reserved
Standard
Military Operations, History & Cyber Warfare, National Security

RNSK Vol 2, Edition 4

A Famous Writer’s Most Profound Utterance About World War I

Published July 4, 2022

Orwell pix

In May 1946, the famous English essayist, novelist & satirist, George Orwell (1903–1950), published an article in the short-lived British magazine “Polemic,” in which he analyzed the political, socioeconomic, and nationalistic single-mindedness of the four dominant state participants of World War I: England, Russia, Germany, and France. They all thought it would be a quick war. The concept of World War I being thought of as a quick war, became easy prey for journalists & authors during the War, and for the following 30+ years. Throughout this entire period, George Orwell grew into one of the most revered writers of the 20th Century.

It is fitting that an Orwellian comment about the folly of a quick war has been preserved. Orwell’s 1946 sobering quote has proven its enduring accuracy for decades.

Orwell said: “The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.”

Read on to understand why he felt the way he did.

All wars are terrible, but World War I occupies a unique, but tragic place in history: It started based on the hubris of the major political powers noted above. There were no tyrannical despots involved; no hegemonic land-gobbling; no dastardly sneak attacks; no irreconcilable political squabbles in the pre-war years. Undoubtedly, Europe’s highly developed countries were compressed into a small area, and they could, at times, behave like a burlap sack full of cats! Compounding the problem that led to such horrific loss of life & destruction was the flawed military strategy on both sides that combined 20th Century weaponry with 19th Century ground combat tactics. An example of the mind-boggling statistics is the British Army’s losses at the 1916 Battle of the Somme, where they lost 60,000 soldiers on just the first day of battle. That’s equivalent to 12 army divisions.

Until June 28, 1914, everything was business as usual. Then in Sarajevo (modern-day capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina), a Bosnian dissident assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand. High-level political wrangling ensued over the next 30 days over Austria-Hungary’s intent to “punish somebody” for the assassination. Due to a mish-mash of treaty alliances between the various countries, the hubris kicked-in when one country declared, “if you attack so & so, then we will attack you.” Then a third country said, “well, if you attack my friend, then I will come to his defense.” Meantime, everyone mobilized for war, and by July 28th no one would back down, with war being declared against each other: England, France & Russia, versus Germany, Austria-Hungary & the Ottoman Empire.

Quite literally, each country saw themselves as the embodiment of the right cause to fight for, and kept it that way for more than four years; no one was willing to back down. So self-assured were the major powers, that each thought the opposing armies would collapse in just a couple of months; in essence, it would be a quick war. Each belligerent saw themselves as victors, ensuring everyone would be home for the Christmas 1914. Instead of a “quick,” planned war of four months, the combatants got four years of unscripted warfare. Everyone was a loser in W.W. I.

Ciao,

Steve Miller, IAPWE – Certified & Member
Managing Editor
The Report on National Security Kinetics™
Seattle, WA. USA
vietvetsteve@millermgmtsys.com

Steve Miller © 2022 – All Rights Reserved
Standard
Foreign Policy Research & Analysis, Miscellaneous Topics, National Security

RNSK Vol 2, Edition 3

How Knowledgeable Is The Average American About World Events & Trends?

Published July 3, 2022

paper world map with continents and water

In a nutshell: Americans are not as knowledgeable as they could, or should be.

Most people are aware of the American phrase,“Land of the Free.” Many Americans translate this freedom into “doing-their-own-thing,” meaning: “I am free to know as little as possible about anything happening at home or abroad.”

An amusing example of this philosophy can be found numerous times on You Tube. One of America’s best known comedians, Jay Leno, hosted a late night talk show for two decades. Leno frequently recorded a shtick during the day for use on the show later that night. He called it “Jay Walking.” Leno would go outside with a microphone and cameraman, and talk to passersby on the streets of Hollywood. One of his favorite questions was showing someone a picture of President Bush, and asking, “Who is this?” A high percentage of people had no clue who Bush was!

Here are some examples of legitimate questions asked by major polling organizations, such as, Gallup, the New York Times, and others. The question results are pretty scary!

1. 28% of those surveyed thought the United States and the Soviet Union fought each other in World War II; 44% did not know they were allies.
2. Three previous nuclear weapons treaties had already been completed by time the fourth nuclear treaty, SALT II, was inked. Right after SALT II was signed, American adults were polled about the two participants; 77% of the respondents did not know the treaty was between the Soviets and Americans.
3. Only 10 years after the Vietnam War was over – a war that claimed 58,000 American lives – less than 60% of American adults knew the U.S. fought on the side of South Vietnam.

These are just a few examples that demonstrate the frustrating apathy that is ever-present in American society. I am proud to be an American; but, it does not make the foregoing any easier to rationalize.

Even though globalization is spreading like wildfire, a large segment of the American population still lives their life in isolation, much like they did 100 years ago. The biggest difference back then versus now is: In 1920 a hard-scrabble life was common among Americans, but they still strongly believed in a participative democracy where the individual was subordinated to the whole.

Today’s America is more about redefining the meaning of democracy to focus on individualism, and the subordination of the whole.

Ciao,

Steve Miller, IAPWE – Certified & Member
Managing Editor
The Report on National Security Kinetics™
Seattle, WA. USA
vietvetsteve@millermgmtsys.com

Steve Miller © 2022 – All Rights Reserved
Standard
Miscellaneous Topics, National Security, Terrorism Information

RNSK Vol 2, Edition 2

 

United States Supreme Court Decision:                             U.S. v Abu Zubaydah         Published March 3, 2022

An Important Decision In Protecting Classified National Security Information

 

Introduction

The Zubaydah case has significant National Security implications, and the Court ruled in favor of the United States.  For most people, court cases can be pretty boring, and even more so at the Supreme Court level; unless, of course, you are fascinated by legal proceedings like me.

In the Zubaydah case, a common court procedure, “discovery,” became a critical issue that could have had a major effect on national security.  In criminal cases, it sometimes becomes important for the prosecution or defense to prove or disprove the physical presence of a person involved in the case in order to establish a defendant’s guilt or innocence.  However, a person’s physical presence at a certain location, or their whereabouts, is not always material to the case; this includes the location of someone when evidentiary information was obtained from them.  For example, if a murderer confesses to a murder while in the back of the patrol car heading to jail, the fact that it occurred in the car makes no difference to its admissibility than if the defendant confessed to it in a police station interrogation room.  In Zubaydah’s case, one of the attorneys-of-record decided to file a motion for discovery to determine Zubaydah’s physical presence at a certain location where his testimony/confession had been disclosed.  This discovery motion is what stirred up national security concerns.

Background of the Case

Zubaydah is currently a detainee at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. Zubaydah was a senior Al Qaeda lieutenant who was sought in connection with the World Trade Center Attack in September 2001.  He was ultimately caught in 2002 and remanded to U.S. custody.  During Zubaydah‘s detention in 2010, he filed a lawsuit against the USG, alleging that in 2002-2003 he was held by the CIA at a “black site” in Poland.  His lawsuit complained that he was unlawfully detained at the black site, citing the Supreme Court decision that enhanced interrogation techniques were illegal, as well as, unlawful detention, which prejudiced his criminal arrest warrant for conspiracy in the 9-11 attacks, and therefore any information which may have been obtained from Zubaydah was inadmissible; ergo his case ought to be dismissed.

Zubaydah had/has multiple criminal charges pending, with some relying on the confession/testimony he alleged came from his black site detention.  Although Zubaydah’s black site claim might get the charges dropped that relied on information obtained at the black site, it would not affect other pending charges that did not rely on that information.  Sometimes a key factor in a criminal case is proving/disproving the defendant was/was not physically present at the location(s) where events of the case may have occurred.  In the case of Zubaydah, the information he revealed at the alleged Polish black site had been confirmed by the USG as valid, but that was not as important as the alleged location where information was obtained. 

U.S. District Court Activities

When the district court considered the defense’s discovery motion, which requested the CIA disclose the location where the defendant’s confession/testimony was obtained, the prosecutors declined to confirm/deny anything about a Polish black site, citing that CIA methods & trade craft are classified information that may harm U.S. national security if revealed.  Prosecutors stated that it was common practice by the USG that when the public requested information, or asked for corroboration of certain information already in the public domain, which may or may not have classified national security implications, the USG may choose to reply that they cannot confirm or deny what was being asked for.  Prosecutors further stated that there was no statute or case law that compelled the USG to declassify and disclose classified national security information based on a formal or informal request, regardless if the requestor alleges the information is already public knowledge.  The prosecution moved to dismiss the discovery motion.  The District Court judge concurred with the CIA, dismissing Zubaydah’s discovery motion, as well as dismissing the defense’s lawsuit against the CIA.  None of these proceedings had any immediate affect one way or the other on pending criminal charges against Zubaydah, and other defendants, that stemmed from the alleged Zubaydah black site interrogation.

U.S. Court of Appeals Activities

Zubaydah’s attorneys appealed the lower court decision to dismiss the discovery motion, and the lawsuit, to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Zubaydah’s attorney’s submitted that once classified information is found in the public domain, which was alleged to be the case about the black site’s existence, it was no longer sensitive, national security-classified information.  In layman’s terms, it was like “the-cat-was-already-out-of-the-bag,” so what’s the big deal?  The Appeals Court agreed with the defendant, and reversed the District Court’s ruling, agreeing that once the information was in the public domain, it was moot to retain a national security classification.  Reversing the lower court’s dismissal of the discovery motion, and lawsuit, meant the USG could be compelled to acknowledge the black site’s existence in Court, and any details about it.  The case was remanded back to the District Court, where Zubaydah’s attorneys would compel the CIA to reveal the black site’s existence, and therefore move to dismiss criminal case(s) based on the Supreme Court’s prior ruling that black site detention locations and enhanced interrogation techniques were unconstitutional.

U.S. Supreme Court Activities

Before the District Court judge could rule on reversing the dismissal of the discovery motion, and lawsuit, based on Appeals Court guidance, CIA lawyers sought an injunction from the Supreme Court until they could rule on the merits of the motion-to-dismiss.  The injunction was granted, allowing time for the case to be heard by The Supreme Court.  After the prosecution and defense argued their cases in front of the Court, the Court issued a ruling in favor of the CIA.  The Court opinion noted that it has been standard USG practice that if any sort of classified information has been disclosed to the public, the USG is not required to confirm or deny anything about the alleged classified information, since it was classified by the USG in the first place. 

Basically, just because alleged classified information has been leaked to the public, the U.S. Government is not required to comment or corroborate the leaked information.  This would be a kin to releasing photos to the public of a man standing on the sidewalk near a bank that was being robbed, with the photo clearly showing he was looking right at the robbers as they exited the bank to leave in their getaway car.  Speculation was rampant on social media that the man in the photo was a well-known baseball player, but the picture was grainy, and no one was 100% positive it was him.  If a discovery motion was filed by the prosecution to compel the baseball player to admit it was him in the picture, and thereby subpoena him to testify against the robbers, but the player is not being charged or investigated for wrongdoing, there’s no statute or case law that says he is required to confirm his identity.

The concept here that applies to national security information is that if it is leaked to the public, the USG cannot be compelled to publicly acknowledge the veracity of the information, nor whether it carries a national security classification, if any.  Had the Supreme Court allowed that any alleged USG privileged information that was compromised to the public, could compel the USG to confirm or deny it, if so requested, could cause unintended harm to others.  This would mean that such information as might appear on Wikileaks, for example, anyone could submit a formal request to USG compelling them to disclose the veracity of the information. 

Aftermath of the Supreme Court Ruling

In the Zubaydah case, the defense attorneys were quite shrewd.  By filing a discovery motion seeking to compel the USG to confirm or deny the site, whatever the outcome, the cases stemming from the information obtained at the black site would end up being dismissed.  If the CIA confirmed the black site’s existence and the information obtained there, those cases would be dismissed, BUT more importantly, it would have damaged the Polish government in the court of public opinion for allowing the black site operation, as well as, destroy any trust between the two governments.  Alternatively, if the CIA denied the black site’s existence, they would be committing perjury, which has no statute of limitations.  Poland’s reputation would remain intact, and Zubaydah would likely have been convicted of the crimes stemming from the black site-obtained information.  The third option, which was allowed by the Supreme Court, gave the CIA the ability to use the standard reply in these situations – that the information could not be confirmed or denied.  This kept Poland’s reputation intact, and did not require the USG to corroborate classified information in the public domain.  Unfortunately, the third option meant the District Court’s dismissal of the defense’s discovery motion might create doubt as to the validity of the information if it were utilized in a jury trial.  The defense would show the jury that the prosecution could not testify as to where or how the incriminating information was obtained, thereby casting suspicion on the veracity of it.  The jury would learn the USG was hiding something, and be unlikely to convict someone using evidence that may have been obtained illegally.  So, rather than chase down that rabbit hole, the prosecution had no choice but to concur with the judge’s ruling to dismiss the case(s) using the black site information.  Zubaydah still had many other charges pending based on other evidence, but the defense attorney’s very shrewdly got rid of a sizable chunk of the court cases against Zubaydah.  Other defendants implicated in Zubaydah’s black site testimony also had some charges dropped.

The moral to this story is that a democratic form of government has a lot more plusses than minuses.  In order to have the benefit of all of the favorable aspects of living in the United States, there are going to be times that you have no choice but to accept the bad.  No one really doubted Zubaydah’s guilt; he would be convicted on other charges stemming from different information sources.  But to get a conviction (a good outcome of democracy) on Zubaydah’s black site confession, it would have required representatives of the U.S. Government to lie under oath (a bad choice), which is not how a democracy works.  Zubaydah and his attorneys relied on the fact America’s democratic-based legal system would get him off-the-hook.

Ciao,

Steve Miller, IAPWE – Certified & Member
Managing Editor
The Report on National Security Kinetics™
Seattle, WA. USA
vietvetsteve@millermgmtsys.com

Standard
Miscellaneous Topics, National Security

RNSK Vol I, Edition 7

August 9, 2021

 

A Tale of Two “Skits”

 

It has been a wild ride in America since March 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic hit.  No one I’ve spoken to can recall a time when there was so much unrest in society.  Even all the unrest in the 1960s related to civil rights, the Cold War, and the Vietnam War, pale in comparison to 2020.  In 2020-2021, we’ve had police brutality, rioting, extensive destruction of government & personal property, multiple crime waves, subversion, racism, inner-city murders on an unprecedented scale, assault & battery in broad daylight, and hate crimes of every type.  In fact, who would have thought that one of the most security-conscious environments, passenger airliners, would see so many on-board fights & unruly passengers?  It was a chaotic year that surprised and disturbed most of us.  I saw things that I never dreamed I would see in my lifetime.

Back in 1970 I was a junior in high school.  I had always been interested in the behind-the-scenes stuff that it took to make movies & T.V. shows.  So, I took an elective that year in school called “Technical Theater.”  We learned all about building sets, lighting, filming, script supervision, etc.  The Technical Theater class served as the production crew for any school plays or concerts.

One day we were gathered in the school’s theater waiting for a beginner’s acting class to finish before we could start some set construction.  The beginners were doing improvised, satirical skits, so we casually watched the last two.

In the first skit the teens all lined-up facing the audience.  When the teacher called, “action,” the students all started acting like little kids who were standing in a line.  They fidgeted, whispered to each other, and jabbed elbows into their neighbor.  Typical little kids with ants-in-their-pants.  One kid took a step forward and said, “the first grade class of Mary Louise Phillips Elementary School will now say the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.” The kid got back in line and told the others, “right hand over your heart, ready…begin…”

As they started to say the pledge, some elbowing got out of hand and two boys shoved each other.  Finally, one of them was knocked to the ground, and the other kid kicked him.  At this point the Pledge stopped, and all of the kids in the line ran up to the kid on the ground.  Rather than helping him up, they jumped-in with the bully who started it, and pretended to give this kid a class “A” beat-down!  When they were done, they got back in line.  The kid on the ground was now “dead.”  After the kids were lined-up again, they cleared their throats and said “…with liberty and justice for all.”

It was supposed to be satirical and we all chuckled mildly.  At the time I thought, “well, that was pretty far-fetched…ha!…like that would ever happen in real life.”

The second skit had the students laying on the stage as if they were relaxing under some trees in the park.  One kid declared, “it’s a nice day.”  Another said rather laconically, “yep, it’s a nice day.”  A third kid apparently thought the second kid was being mockingly sarcastic, so he ran over to the second one and loudly yelled in his face, IT’S A NICE DAY!!!”  The rest of the kids started chanting, “it’s a nice day…it’s a nice day…it’s a nice day,” as they closed-in on the second kid.  The second kid tried to leave, but the group shoved him to the ground and beat the living daylights out of him!  Once the second kid acted like he was knocked-out, the others laid down to relax on the grass again.  The very first kid who made the nice day comment piped-up and said, “you know, it REALLY is a nice day.”

Hmmm…So, what is the tale of the two skits?  In a Vietnam Era, American high school, I saw two skits with ridiculously weird outcomes.  There’s no way that either scenario could occur in real life, right?  A group of ordinary people could never be so unbalanced that they would assault another person for no apparent reason.  I held this belief over the past 50 years; there was NO tale to tell about the two skits…they were just part of a scriptwriter’s imagination.

Then 2020 came around and changed how I felt about the Tale of the Two Skits.  The screwy circumstances in the skits were no longer implausible.  We are in an era of contempt by many toward our national symbols…The Pledge of Allegiance, The National Anthem, and the U.S. Flag.  And the contempt for these symbols has now transcended the average citizen to public institutions and elected officials.  What used to be symbols of unity, are now lightning rods of divisiveness.

What about the kids in the first skit symbolizing what is normally a benign gathering…saying the Pledge of Allegiance?  Kids and adults will both act out sometimes, and the level of behavior used to be more commensurate to the situation.  We were taught that if you need to argue, do it behind closed doors, or take it outside if it is really heated.  Nowadays people seem determined that whatever might occur between two people is not taken off-line; it is going down right where they stand in the grocery line, in the bleachers at a ball game, or a local park while kids play on the nearby jungle gym.  What used to be two people discussing differing viewpoints, is now an open disagreement.  An open disagreement is now a serious argument.  A serious argument is now a shoving match.  A shoving match is now physical assault.  Physical assault is now battery with the intent to do serious physical harm.  The intent to do serious physical harm has now escalated into the use of weapons for defensive self-protection.  And finally, defensively brandishing a weapon to break-free from a fight is now using a weapon to permanently stop an altercation with someone, by killing them.

In the second skit, the teenager who took exception to what the second kid said, did so by simply reacting and immediately passing judgment.  No wisdom or discernment was applied…just react and judge.  American society is experiencing an unprecedented wave of public reaction & judgment.  Wisdom, discernment and cooler heads prevailing, seems lacking in 2020 America.

In today’s world, the Tale of Two Skits from 50 years ago would still be considered satirical.  But, do the two scenarios, or something similar, still seem like an absurd piece of fiction in 2021?  The underlying human behavior (not actual school kids or teens in a park) and the outcomes seem quite plausible to me.  If the American Dream could be compared to a sunny day, I would say the sun is still there…it just does not rise as high as it used to.

I feel certain that someday American society will exceed the fiction of The Tale of Two Skits…sigh…

Ciao,

Steve Miller, IAPWE – Certified & Member
Managing Editor
The Report on National Security Kinetics™
Seattle, WA. USA
vietvetsteve@millermgmtsys.com

Standard