Friday News Roundup — February 21, 2020
Bloomberg’s Blunder(s); China Appeasement; All-Domain Operations; Plus News You May Have Missed
Good Friday morning from Washington, D.C., where 2020 continues in high dudgeon. While most politically-attuned were focused on the Nevada Democratic Primary debate — more on that to come — the news also came Wednesday night that President Trump would be appointing Ambassador Richard Grenell to hold the post of Acting Director of National Intelligence. While critics have slammed Ambassador Grenell’s lack of intelligence experience, he is seen in the administration as a trusted team member who has acted loyally on behalf of the president and one who enjoys the president’s trust. The story escalated on Thursday evening, as news broke that rifts had grown between the White House and the ODNI over a briefing on election interference delivered to Congress.
Meanwhile, at the debate in Nevada, debate-stage newcomer Mayor Michael Bloomberg was immediately the target. While it may have slowed the momentum towards making the race a Bloomberg-Sanders matchup — and increased the likelihood of a contested convention — Senator Sanders still looked to benefit the most. That said, Mayor Bloomberg can still saturate the airwaves, and for all the drama of the debate stage, the real verdict will come Saturday night, we hope, from the caucus-goers of The Silver State.
Finally, while the Coronavirus Covid-19 outbreak continues, there is concern about the accuracy of Chinese data, the virus’s spread to South Korea and Iran, and its impact on the global economy.
Recently at CSPC, we joined with partners at Common Cause, The Leadership Now Project, Issue One, the Equal Citizens Foundation, and RepresentUs as amicus curiae in Daunt v. Benson. Currently before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the case is a challenge to the Independent Redistricting Commission instituted by the people of Michigan in their state. We hope that our amicus brief will help convince the court to uphold popular sovereignty and protect common sense gerrymandering reform. You can read the full brief here.
In this week’s roundup, Chris covers Bloomberg’s rise and the fiery Democratic debate in Nevada. Dan covers how, despite their differences, President Trump and Mayor Bloomberg reflect a transactional approach towards China. Ethan discusses the force management and execution implications of “All Domain Operations,” as Pentagon planning looks towards the potential conflicts of the future. As always, we wrap with news you may have missed.
Bloomberg’s Breakthrough Blunted By Blunders
Chris Condon
The candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2020 have spent over a year decrying the rich as parasites on the working class. Enter Michael Bloomberg, one of the richest people in the world and former Republican turned Independent turned Democratic mayor of New York City. After declaring in early 2019 that he would not seek the Democratic nomination but would commit resources to defeating Donald Trump, Bloomberg reversed his position and jumped into the race in November of last year. Since entering the horse race roughly 10 weeks ago, Mayor Bloomberg has spent a whopping $233 million on digital and television advertising — more than double what all of the other Democratic candidates currently in the race have spent in total. Such staggering amounts of spending have drawn much ire from the other candidates, but have not gone unrewarded for Bloomberg. In national polls, he has risen to roughly 16%, nearly tying former Vice President Joe Biden.
Bloomberg has been excluded from the debates so far because he is not accepting donations (debate rules required candidates to reach a threshold of individual contributions). This time around, the Democratic Party eliminated the donor threshold for candidates to enter the debates, allowing Mayor Bloomberg to participate for the first time in Nevada on Wednesday night. Although he will not appear on the ballot until Super Tuesday, he decided to take the opportunity to join the field in a more visible way — and visible it was.
From the very first moments of the debate, candidates pounced on the former mayor. Elizabeth Warren, who herself has been struggling to gain traction after disappointing finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, led the charge against the media mogul. She attacked him largely on his personal conduct, with perhaps the most striking takedown revolving around non-disclosure agreements signed by women who have accused Bloomberg of fostering a hostile work environment. For a candidate that presents himself as a no-nonsense crusader against President Trump in his ads, Mayor Bloomberg looked weak and feckless on stage.
The mayor’s personal flaws were hardly the only things about him subject to attack. Candidates from Bernie Sanders to Joe Biden attacked Bloomberg’s record on stop and frisk and redlining, two policies that target minority communities: the former regarding policing and criminal justice and the latter relating to housing and economic mobility. During his tenure as mayor, Bloomberg supported both of these policies, although he challenges the context in which his record is taken. His lukewarm disavowing of his past policy positions certainly did not earn him any friends on the stage, and likely did him no favors among the largely black and hispanic primary electorates in South Carolina and Nevada. The last and perhaps most anticipated avenue of attack against Bloomberg was the amount of personal money he has been pouring into his campaign. While the attacks themselves went about as expected, the breadth of the criticism was interesting — even more “moderate” candidates like Pete Buttigieg accused Bloomberg of attempting to “buy the Party.”
While Bernie Sanders still leads the field by a considerable margin and this debate performance likely did little to help Mayor Bloomberg, his presence raises some interesting questions. In previous debates, candidates were often reluctant to attack each other directly, and any attacks were fairly tame. Although the lion’s share of the conflict involved the New York billionaire this time around, attacks on other candidates also ramped up significantly ahead of the Nevada caucuses. It is difficult to assess whether Bloomberg’s presence on the stage or the debate’s proximity the next spate of high-stakes contributed more to this, but it is likely that they are both factors in the campaign strategy pivot for each candidate. Most notably, we saw a tense encounter between Senator Amy Klobuchar and Mayor Buttigieg, who clashed first over Klobuchar’s knowledge of foreign affairs (spurred by her forgetting the President of Mexico) and later more broadly over the validity of each candidate’s experience.
This conflict between candidates has come much later than it did in the 2016 GOP presidential primary, and the Democratic Party may be weaker for it moving into the general election. The primary process, for all of its faults, helps the electorate vet candidates before they square off in a larger contest against the other party’s candidate. It is better from the Democratic perspective to have potential candidate weaknesses exposed now as opposed to during the campaign against President Trump, by which point it will be impossible to choose a stronger nominee. Even Michael Bloomberg himself was able to point out some of these flaws as the debate wore on, criticizing Sanders’ champagne socialism and decrying the most left-wing policies on the stage as “communism.” While the far-left candidates shrugged off these critiques, they will be driven home by Donald Trump in the general election, and may make it difficult for a candidate like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders to appeal to the middle third of the electorate in November.
Moving forward, there are a few things to watch. Mayor Bloomberg’s rise was almost entirely at the expense of former Vice President Joe Biden, who has been bleeding support since the Iowa Caucuses. As the South Carolina primary (supposedly Biden’s strongest state and best hope for a boost) approaches next week, Bloomberg’s siphoning of Biden’s African-american support posed a substantial threat to the vice president’s candidacy. After such a calamitous showing Wednesday night, it will be interesting to see whether this transfer of support continues. To a lesser extent, Bloomberg’s presence also likely blunted the rise of Pete Buttigieg, who had been battling with only Amy Klobuchar as the natural “moderate” successor were Biden’s candidacy to implode. If Bloomberg instead is indeed the one to implode, perhaps Buttigieg will continue his upward trajectory after strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire.
For what it’s worth, Wednesday night’s debate likely ensured that Michael Bloomberg will not face off against Donald Trump in November (as a Democrat, at least). It also exposed some important fissures that the Party will need to reckon with as we inch closer to the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee.
Trump & Bloomberg’s Transactional China Approaches
Dan Mahaffee
Despite their many contrasts, it is safe to say that President Trump and Mayor Bloomberg both see themselves as consummate dealmakers. Both of their political careers have been built on the foundation of their perceived and actual business acumen. For President Trump, this has been the development of a real estate, entertainment, and hospitality portfolio, and for Mayor Bloomberg, the development of a massive financial information and media conglomerate.
While Chris covered the details of the Las Vegas debate brouhaha, one thing that stood out was Mayor Bloomberg’s comments on working with China to solve the climate crisis, and his half-true, half-false assertion that India, not China, was the greater future challenge to carbon emissions. Yes, India’s carbon emissions are growing the fastest — but China has recently seen increased carbon emissions as it has tried to stimulate its economy with construction and cheap energy, while also exporting dirty coal technology to the developing world through existing relationships and its Belt and Road Initiative.
At the same time, this week saw continued developments in the growing technological divide between Washington and Beijing. We continued to unpack the growing divide between the United States and our key allies in Europe over the future of 5G systems and whether Chinese firms — epitomized by Huawei — can be part of a secure future for European 5G. At the same time, President Trump weighed in, via Twitter, that he would oppose a proposed ban of GE aircraft engine sales to China, despite concerns that reverse engineering of these engines — designed for civilian airliners — could help China close the gap in terms of the aircraft engine technology needed for military airlift or advanced fighters and bombers. It was important to the president that the United States continue to be “open for business.”
This comes not long after the Department of Defense had raised, then dropped, its objections to an administration plan to strictly limit exports to Huawei. When in opposition to the ban, the Pentagon’s reasoning was that the ban would too severely harm the revenues of U.S. microchip companies, thus harming their R&D efforts needed for future innovations. This is a legitimate debate over the impact of trade restrictions with China and their impact on commerce. At the same time, there have been plenty of times where President Trump seemingly tied security-related actions against Chinese companies to the course of trade negotiations or his relationship with President Xi Jinping. All of this combines to confuse our allies, as Uri Friedman points out in The Atlantic. Simply put, how should we expect our allies to pick between Washington and Beijing when it seems like Washington can’t clearly decide?
Mayor Bloomberg’s history with China may not have the immediate security ramifications of the administration’s pending decisions, but it also reflects the complexity of the Mayor’s business career, dealings with China, and balancing the business goals of his financial interests with the media rights of his news reporters. His business interests in China and ties to Chinese leaders have drawn scrutiny as his presidential campaign has unfolded. In an interview with PBS, Mayor Bloomberg repeatedly insisted that Xi Jinping was not a dictator, despite his consolidation of power and scrapping of term limits. Finally, there is the 2013 decision by Bloomberg News to halt the publishing of articles about the hidden wealth of Chinese leadership, which prompted debate whether the concern was about the safety of reporters and their access to China or the broader interests of the Bloomberg company related to business in China.
President Trump’s, and his administration’s, back-and-forth on China policy reflects the complicated challenges of China policy. There are the clear security challenges posed by a rising China and its plans for technological dominance. At the same time, there is vast economic interdependence. Vying for re-election, it is natural that the President would want to ensure that his record on trade and the economy is strong. That cannot come at the expense of our security. Mayor Bloomberg’s China approach reflects the complicated web of business interests spanning the Pacific, and how China has used its leverage in those interests to shape business leaders from Bloomberg to the NBA to Hollywood executives. If he seeks the nation’s highest office, we should ask how he would weigh the economic and business relationship with U.S. security interests or the promulgation of our fundamental values of free speech, human rights, and self-determination.
If we continue to have such a transactional approach to China, we may find a way to manage our co-existence, but the absence of a clear strategy will keep Washington at a disadvantage. While the current administration, and potential future administrations, seem to waffle in the nature of their China policies, the Congress, for once, has seen broad unity on the issue of the approach to China. While it is often said that “nothing can be accomplished in the ‘even years’” — i.e. election years — perhaps this is now a window for Congress to begin to shape what could be the outlines of a long-term, bipartisan China strategy.
The New Norm of Global Deterrence — All Domain Operations
Ethan Brown
Recent entries in this space have identified and elaborated on the emerging Command and Control system of systems currently being tested by the Department of Defense, specifically looking at rapid information sharing across the spectrum of operations. This entry will continue the overall theme of force management and execution, but through the prism of recent comments by Gen. John Hyten, recently appointed Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. In a recent interview, Gen. Hyten coined a phrase which encapsulates the strategic vision of the future warfighting capabilities of the US Military: “All Domain Operations”; (note: while the buzzword is owed to Gen. Hyten, he credits former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dunford with embracing the concept and current Chairman Gen. Milley with initiating the movement to adopt the philosophy across the branches of service).
The old ways of conducting global operations
In order to properly define why this concept means a titanic shift in US military application, the preceding context of national defense operations must be summarized. Over the past two decades, the preponderance of DoD efforts have been subjected to the high volume rotational construct of the Global War on Terror, where the definition “Joint” became the calling card of the assorted branches in embryonic form. However, these war efforts have been largely cuffed to specific locales like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and pockets of Violent Extremist Organization (VEO) network targeting in various theaters around the globe. The driving force behind US military strategy has been securing the safety of the homeland and US citizens by denying safe haven to non-state actors abroad, while promoting the counter terror capabilities of partner and host nations where instability has prompted the footprints of such VEOs to find footing.
To a certain degree, broader state conflict has marginally remained a point of preparation by the DoD, but largely associated with states known to support VEOs and undermine liberal democratic order abroad. With the rumors growing on a near-total withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, the well-documented retrograde of forces from the counter-ISIS fight in Syria, and the volatile posturing of defense forces in and around Europe, the DoD is clearly consolidating its fighting power away from the non-state engagements into a new arena.
Further, the recent budget crunch by the Pentagon and service chiefs, leading to multiple public and hotly contested defenses of budget priorities, subjected to Defense Secretary Espers “limited topline growth” prognostications and a focus on developmental programs offers clear evidence that a dramatic shift in US military strategy, doctrine, and execution is cresting the horizon.
All-Domain Operations — buzzword, theory, possible?
Returning to the lede, this idea of ‘All Domain Operations’ began under the theorizing of Gen. Dunford with the 2018 National Defense Strategy, beginning with the re-assessment of Global Force Management, in essence, looking for ways to streamline jurisdictional divides between theater commands. If the Global War on Terror taught strategy makers anything, its that divides between different colored uniforms was a paradigm which required elimination. In such, the idea of Joint is the lynch-pin of DoD constructs moving forward. Gen. Dunford further purported the concept of ‘global fires’, encompassing both kinetic (delivered munitions) and non-kinetic (cyber attack) strikes in the future pantheon of conflict.
Moving such concepts forward to this week’s comments, Gen. Hyten highlighted the emerging arenas of warfare, new and increasingly critical ones, as foundational pillars for strategy and preparation. However these new arenas are not to dominate the policy discussion, but a sum-greater-than-the-parts approach. Whereas the counter terror, counter insurgency, and nation building concepts once occupied the preponderance of combatant commanders preparation and force alignment, new arenas like space and cyber are to be new facets of warfighting alongside land, sea, and air power alignment. Unifying these areas of force allocation is the emerging Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) mechanism under the Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS), spearheaded by the United States Air Force test and development functions.
This ABMS system, as this space has intensely scrutinized in recent weeks, offers the potential to fuse all battlefield data across all fighting functions- a quintessential cloud of connectivity for the sole purpose of bringing the collective might of the US and its allies warfighting capabilities to bear against global threats.
The New Deterrence
All Domain Operations and its system of systems mechanisms offer the potential of taking ‘Joint’ to a whole new level. In this endeavor, the array of military capabilities has the possibility of unprecedented mobilization and threat response- two key areas of Great Power Competition. Under the All-Domain Operations construct, the Global Integration of Deterrence stands as one of Gen. Milley’s four main elements. Deterrence was once a theory firmly entrenched in the Cold War/nuclear arms race paradigm, beholden to intercontinental strike systems and political poker bluffs. Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Podcast euphemized the ‘sword of Damokles’ when referencing the era of nuclear deterrence and the author would challenge anyone to craft a better analogy. But in the 21st century, the global threats to stability and order have outgrown the exclusivity of ICBMs from the Star Wars deterrence heyday, and as such, demand a much more comprehensive mechanism for preventing the outbreak of conflict.
Global Integration of Deterrence seeks to project the streamlined, rapid mobilization and cross-domain pollination into the new deterrence model. This effort starts in the near future with building on existing wargaming models (dubbed ‘Global Integration Exercises), integrating the emerging command and control mechanisms with inputs and participation from the lowest warfighter all the way up to the National Security Council- a new approach to conflict preparedness. When combined with global messaging, the fusion of All-Domain Operations is intended to “reassure allies and deter adversaries…[with] the use of all means, not just nuclear, to make potential enemies think twice about attacking”. The system (of systems) is not operational yet, but with the NDS in place and visionary’s like Gen. Hyten pressing this wholesale integration of capabilities, the new construct will change how the US aligns its military might against threats of the future of warfare.
The views are of the author, and do not reflect the views, position, or policy of the U.S. Air Force or Department of Defense.
News You May Have Missed
Chinese Authorities Continue Arrests in Detainment of Xu Zhiyong
Wyatt Newsome
In a continued crackdown on opposition and calls for human rights, Chinese authorities arrested activist and lawyer Xu Zhiyong this weekend. Xu was known for founding the New Citizens’ Movement, which advocates for civil liberties and transparency. He was also likely targeted due to his criticisms of General Secretary Xi Jinping on social media, especially in response to the government’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak. Xu had been fleeing from authorities for approximately fifty days, but was known to provoke them on social media during his time on the run. This is not Xu’s first arrest, as he previously served a four-year term for civic activism that ended in 2017.
Germany Shooting: Investigation Into Deeply Racist Gunman’s Links
Aida Olivas
Suspect Tobias R killed nine people and injured six others in a shooting that took place at two shisha bars in Hanau, Germany. The attacks were targeted against the migrant community with many of the victims being of Kurdish origin. The suspect had shown evidence of a “deeply racist mindset” while also being influenced by conspiracy theories and had posted a manifesto online with far-right extremist views. It has also been reported that despite Germany’s strict gun laws, the suspect had a firearms license, ammunition, gun magazines in his car. Hanau had been known for having a peaceful relationship with people from different cultures and faiths, and the tragedy has deeply shocked those living there. Politicians of several different political backgrounds have accused the AfD of rousing anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant, and anti-Islam sentiment in Germany that has been seen in other countries around the world.
UK Says Russia Behind Georgia Cyber Attack
UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab asserted this week that a massive cyber attack against the nation of Georgia was perpetrated by the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence apparatus. The hack affected a multitude of websites in Georgia, including government pages for the presidency and the country’s national television broadcaster. Part of a spate of recent activity across eastern Europe, Russia’s activities likely seek to sow division in the small former Soviety republic, according to the UK government. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo decried the attack, calling on Russia to cease such attacks and all similar activities. During the hack, many affected websites were replaced with a cryptic photo of former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili with the captain “I’ll be back.”
Ruth Bader Ginsberg Versus the Equal Rights Amendment
Aida Olivas
On February 13, the House of Representatives voted to remove the decades old deadline on the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) after Virginia became the latest state to ratify the amendment along with discussion on whether there is still a true need for the ERA. Most notably, Supreme Court Justice and feminist icon Ruth Bader Ginsberg made clear her opinion against it due to high levels of controversy, citing the five states that have rescinded their support and stating that she would much rather “see a new beginning”. This created a sense of validation among the Senate Republicans who have decided to not vote in favor of the ERA, while also causing supporters to take the uncomfortable position of disagreeing with Justice Ginsberg. The head of the ERA Coalition’s Legal Task Force, veteran appellate attorney Linda Coberly, has acknowledged that RBG’s comments have received a lot of attention due to the strong role she played in the fight for sex equality. However, while she agrees the timing of the comments is unfortunate, Coberly also understands that Justice Ginsberg’s comments were not focused on the legal side of the ERA, but rather on the strategy because there can be reasonable disagreements about plans of action in any movement.
Lesotho PM Resigns, Will Be Charged With Wife’s Murder
Thomas Thabane, Prime Minister of the small southern African nation of Lesotho, cited old age as the reason for his forthcoming resignation as that country’s chief magistrate. His resignation comes on the heels of brewing legal struggles regarding the mysterious killing of his first wife. Thabane’s current wife, whom he married two months after the murder of his first wife, has already been charged with ordering the murder. Although the Prime Minister did not mention the murder in his resignation announcement and spokespeople have denied this as the reason behind the move, Lesotho’s Deputy Commissioner of Police Paseka Mokete recently told reporters that “the prime minister is going to be charged with the murder. The police are preparing directives and he will probably be charged tomorrow.” Thabane failed to appear in court this morning due to “urgent medical treatment” in South Africa.
Harriet Tubman to Appear on Debit Card
Wyatt Newsome
OneUnited Bank, the largest black-owned bank in the United States, has announced a new design featuring abolitionist and activist Harriet Tubman. The Harriet Tubman Card joins a lineup of eight other #BlackMoneyMatters designs, including the Justice Card to commemorate immigrants and the Amir Card in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. Critics have dubbed Tubman’s expression as too similar to the Wakanda salute from Black Panther, but the bank cited the sign language symbol for love as the inspiration. In 2016, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced that Tubman would replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 by 2020 in response to the Women on 20s campaign to place a woman on paper money, as well as criticism of President Jackson’s decision to exile Native Americans westward. However, the Trump Administration has stalled this action, with current Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announcing the replacement would not go into effect until 2028.
Lt. Gen. Chuck Pitman, USMC (ret.), passes away at 84; famous for “borrowing helicopter” in 1973 New Orleans sniper standoff
Lt. General Chuck Pitman, Marine and recipient of the Silver Star, four Distinguished Flying Crosses, a Bronze Star, and a Purple Heart, passed away this Thursday at age 84. Among his achievements were three tours of duty in Vietnam and participation in the operation to rescue American hostages from Tehran in 1980 — he also commanded an Air Wing and was the Deputy Chief of Staff for Marine Corps Aviation. What he is perhaps best known for, however, is his quick thinking to subdue a gunman in New Orleans. After a Navy veteran became radicalized and went on a killing spree, he barricaded himself in a NewOrleans hotel and began raining gunfire on anyone who came near the building. Breaking multiple rules and regulations, then-Lieutenant Colonel Pitment commandeered a helicopter to fly to the scene. He loaded police officers onto the vehicle, and they were able to subdue the gunman due to Pitman’s heroism. Despite the successful resolution of the crisis, Pitman would face court martial until U.S. Congressman and House Armed Services Chairman F. Edward Herbert intervened. Lt. General Pitman exemplified valor and service, and was a hero in many ways; Semper Fidelis.
The views of authors are their own, and not that of CSPC.
