Arrogance, the antithesis of that humility, is pernicious. It spreads like wildfire, consuming everything around it and leaving in its destructive wake the smoldering ash of relationships, friendships, and partnerships. Its bellowing smoke clouds vision, isolating and insulating individuals and organizations from constructive criticism and innovative thought. In the private sector, arrogance may yield short-term gains but is ultimately disastrous for sustained success. To phrase it more succinctly, if you’re lucky, you might get rich, but it will never make you truly wealthy.

In the public sector, the impacts of arrogance are more egregious, with consequences rippling across communities, academia, cultures, ethnicities. When viewed further through the lenses of national security and foreign policy, the effects can be cataclysmic: families destroyed, lives lost. These ramifications may last for years, if not generations, eroding trust in institutions, safety within communities, and confidence between allies. For instance, according to a Gallup poll in May 2025, 69 percent of adult Americans have little to no trust that the government works in the best interest of society.

On this day dedicated to his memory, we recall the words of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who, like Eisenhower, spoke of humility and of arrogance. He viewed the U.S. government’s overconfidence as a blight founded in hypocrisy, staining the character of the nation and its citizens. During his April 1967 address in support of ending the Vietnam War and in the shadow of segregation, King delivered this message with blunt elegance:

…But honesty impels me to admit that our power has often made us arrogant.

We are arrogant in our contention that we have some sacred mission to protect people from totalitarian rule while we make little use of our power to end the evils of South Africa and Rhodesia, and while we in fact support dictatorships with guns and money under the guise of fighting communism.

We often arrogantly feel that we have some divine, messianic mission to police the whole world. We are arrogant, as Senator Fullbright has said, to think ourselves “God’s avenging angels.” We are arrogant in not allowing young nations to go through the same growing pains, turbulence and revolution that characterized our history.

We are arrogant in professing to be concerned about the freedom of foreign nations while not setting our own house in order. …Our arrogance can be our doom.

Fifty-nine years later, this theme remains salient as a foundational thread within national security and foreign policy. Recent events do not simply mimic the maelstrom of domestic and international turmoil in King’s era but are deeply committed reenactments of those same egotistical decisions across multiple areas of policy.

As concerns rise about the dawn of a budding technocracy, federal guardrails meant to ensure the least harm possible from emerging technologies are currently all but nonexistent. Thus far, the Trump administration has declined to close the gap, stating: “To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation.  But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative.” State legislatures are attempting to fill the vacuum, but in doing so they create an inconsistent tapestry of regulation that is difficult for any person or group working in multiple jurisdictions (as almost all today are) to navigate. In the meantime, unchecked AI tools are currently used in an array of nefarious activity from housing redlining to the generation of pornography, including content involving children. Contrary to the government’s purported belief that a self-regulated industry will do the least harm, historical evidence shows that strong public governance in coordination with industry provides the best outcomes.

In foreign affairs, the United States’ capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and its claims of responsibility for the governance and oil of the country, is yet another chapter in American nation-building. The government conducted the removal while the Maduro regime remained in power, despite assurances that this type of interventionism would never happen again. Instead, coupled with multiple Venezuelan operations leading up to the Maduro raid, in the last year alone the United States has conducted airstrikes in Yemen, Syria, Nigeria, Somalia, and Iran with more likely to come. The current overarching U.S. foreign strategy is steeped in American exceptionalism, nationalism, and power projection, and evokes the bravado consistent with the historic critiques of the American military as a “world police force.” It is a call back to King’s remarks on the government’s internal perception of itself as “God’s avenging angels” with everything to teach and nothing to learn.

Domestically, the use of Immigration and Customers Enforcement (ICE) in widespread roundup operations – reportedly to capture “the worst criminal” noncitizens – has led to the erroneous arrests and deportation of individuals with a valid, legal status, including U.S. citizens. Inspections of facilities have declined as detention rates and deaths in custody have steadily risen according to a new report from the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), based on the 2025 data provided by Homeland Security. A number of those arrests have been conducted without warrants or probable cause, in violation of the individuals’ constitutional rights. Human rights groups reported detainees have been held in substandard conditions – such as those found in the notorious “Alligator Alcatraz” Floridian detention facility – akin to the conditions the United States often condemned as inhumane in other countries. In another instance, the government has reopened arguably unhealed wounds, utilizing the former site of a World War II Japanese internment camp to house immigrants. That facility was recently the site of an immigrant detainee’s death that the medical examiner is reportedly likely to  classify as a homicide.

Additionally, ill-prepared and trained ICE agents with limited background checks have engaged citizens, in what some former senior ICE officials and experts have identified as violations of agency procedures and conduct, sometimes with violent and fatal results. Images of these events draw comparisons to civil unrest abroad and harken back to memories of King’s civil rights era: military-style uniforms and masks similar to those used in Venezuela by the Special Action Forces (FAES) and Iranian security forces; regular use of smoke and gas grenades; deaths of unarmed civilians; and the detention of legal bystanders who speak up.

Alongside these events, the United States’ recent pressure and threats against longstanding NATO allies over desires to acquire Greenland sent diplomatic shockwaves through Western stability. The U.S. has long maintained a base on the island that is currently being expanded under previously agreed-to terms. Approximately 150 American service members are stationed at Pituffick Space Base in Greenland alongside hundreds of Canadian, Danish, and Greenlandic troops. The territory’s government stated the U.S. military could have easily expanded its footprint with the support of both Denmark and Greenland’s governments. Instead, the Trump administration’s offer to buy the autonomous territory outright and a rumored plan to pay citizens directly have been rebuffed by the government. Polling indicates both citizens of Greenland and the United States are against it. This aligns directly with King’s warning: “We [The U.S. government] feel that our money can do anything.”

Still, tensions around this issue persist. “Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland,” Senior White House Advisor Stephen Miller defiantly proclaimed during a national news interview. He refused to discuss the potential use of force to acquire the territory even if Greenlandic officials continue to reject U.S. conservatorship. Now, numerous leaders within the European Union and Parliament have strongly condemned U.S. official statements on the issue, and allied soldiers recently deployed to conduct military exercises on the island. On Jan. 17, President Donald Trump announced tariffs beginning Feb. 1 against several NATO countries supporting Greenland with a June 1 deadline to increase percentages to 25 percent if the territory wasn’t sold to the United States by that time.

With all the evolving challenges facing the United States, a fundamental question exists: What type of citizen of the global community does America want to be, and what values define our country? The United States has never been able to achieve any strategic victory alone, yet now it dives deeper into isolation. We do this while leveraging the same tactics used by those we removed from power, labeling them dictators against democracy. How is that “peace through strength”?  Strategic bombings of authoritarian regimes in support of civic upheaval while, domestically, unnamed masked agents conduct sweeping raids, threatening lawful citizens with arrest, will not achieve Eisenhower’s “peace with justice.”

In his closing remarks from that storied speech, King spoke of hope through his own patriotism and love of country.

Let me say finally that I oppose the war in Vietnam because I love America. I speak out against it not in anger but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and above all with a passionate desire to see our beloved country stand as the moral example of the world…

The U.S. government, through a constitutional structure of checks and balances in equal branches of government, is inherently imperfect. The Constitution’s preamble immediately references the mission of creating “a more perfect Union” as its guiding principle. The document has required 27 amendments throughout the 237 years since its 1788 ratification. Yet, in that imperfection we have remained resilient, maintaining the promise of hope for all those who dream of a better future. We always strive to be more perfect, to be better.

The actions of the U.S. government – all within the first year of the administration’s term – do not embody the “shining city upon a hill” or invoke the pride of the words captured in “The New Colossus,” etched in bronze on the side of our international symbol of freedom:

…cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Instead, these acts are materials in the construction of a house of hubris, and this house – our house – is on fire. With humility and our collective morals and values we must extinguish the flames, or “our arrogance will be our doom.”

The post On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Let Not Arrogance Be Our Doom appeared first on Just Security.

With this unprecedented growth, however, communities have grown more concerned about the potential risks that accompany AI. Reports indicate Chatbot GPT is already being leveraged by criminals to perpetrate fraud against unsuspecting victims. The Lensa app generated explicit images of individuals without their consent. Georgetown University School of Law’s Center for Privacy and Technology recently released a report highlighting long-held concerns of the use of face recognition in criminal investigations. Jurisdictions often lack the proper policies and procedures necessary to govern the use of face recognition evidence, and that has led to rights violations and wrongful arrests.

Existing Regulatory Frameworks

Faced with these concerns of privacy and safety, a patchwork of state and local regulation has begun to form in the United States. In 2020, Madison, Wisconsin outright banned the use of facial recognition and associated computer vision AI algorithms by any entity. In 2021, the city of Baltimore banned the use of face recognition technology with a limited exception for some use by police. That ban expired in December 2022, as council members continue to determine how to best address the privacy and data collection concerns of the community. Three states – Illinois, Texas, and Washington – have all enacted strict laws pertaining to data and privacy with face recognition. Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act, or BIPA, remains one of the country’s strictest set of AI associated privacy regulations, gaining regular challenges from tech companies over complacency issues. In recent years, a host of states from Alabama to California enacted legislation intended to regulate the use of AI. However, regulation of AI domestically still remains a patchwork, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimating less than an estimated one-third of states have at least one law that specifically addresses the use of AI technologies. Most of the existing laws focus on privacy collection, data protection, and data sharing.

Federally, there currently is no comprehensive law that governs AI development or use. The American Data and Privacy Protection Act, which would have created a national standard and safeguards for personal information collection and address algorithmic bias, failed to pass last year, and divided party control of an arguably hyper-partisan landscape doesn’t immediately give rise to the comity needed to pass new legislation.

The international regulatory landscape is just as uneven, with the European Union and China taking action to protect rights. Last year, the Chinese government’s first major AI regulatory initiative focused on informed consent, in which companies had to inform users whether or not an algorithm was being used to display certain information about them and provide them an opportunity to opt out. The government has since focused on a variety of policy initiatives with different government entities aimed at impacting international development of AI technologies and governance. However, the Chinese government’s own use of AI in privacy-invasive ways remains a deep concern. The European Union’s AI Act is much broader, designed as an all-encompassing framework focused on specific levels of risk associated with the use of AI technology.

However, thus far it has mostly been up to the tech industry to self-regulate when it comes to AI, but in a 2021 survey conducted by the consulting firm McKinsey, only fifty-six percent of responding companies had AI ethics policies and practices in place. Although countries are beginning to establish governance standards, without a unified approach or model guidance, industry will still be required to self-regulate to the requirements of the most arduous laws to which they’ve availed themselves while simultaneously attempting to understand how their business may be affected by pending global legislation.

Toward a Consistent Regulatory Approach

AI presents many possible sweeping benefits through its ability to enhance the capabilities of current technology. When algorithms are properly trained, they can make unbiased decisions, reduce human error by making processes faster and more efficient, solve complex problems, and support a host of other potential improvements to society. Conversely, AI can present challenges and risks from cyberattacks, to the aforementioned support of criminal conduct, the potential misuse of autonomous weapons, general misuse and unforeseen consequences due to poorly or improperly trained models, and a host of other potential threats.

Given the disparities in regulation both domestically and internationally and the inherent levels of risk associated with its use, the United States must pass formal regulation that provides clear guidance for industry and proper protections for society while making room for continued innovation within industry. The government will need to address concerns such as protection of privacy rights and use, aggregation, and security of personal data while ensuring loopholes are closed for potential unforeseen abuses and misuse of associated technologies. It will take a comprehensive framework to achieve this consisting of measured policies that provide protections and not draconian blanket prohibitions. Outright bans don’t allow for industry to collaborate with governments and academia to find thoughtful, sustainable answers to outgoing concerns. Additionally, companies will likely avoid engaging in business in those jurisdictions that prohibit all use, forgoing investments, infrastructure and training that will be crucial for the American workforce moving forward. Finally, setting proper regulations on the development and use of AI will make the United States safer. Ensuring all AI technologies utilized in the country meet baseline safety standards and protocols set by agencies such as the National Institute of Science and Technology, the Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security as they relate to cybersecurity and the protection of the Internet of Things, misinformation and disinformation amplification online, and other potential interests that may disrupt security operations will be paramount.

Drafting and passing a legislative framework will be difficult in this Congress, but not necessarily impossible, as legislators on both sides of the aisle have indicated strong interests in, and often concerns about, the capabilities and enhancements AI presents. The Biden administration has provided a model blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights that could serve as a good foundation for federal and state officials to build on. The AI Bill of Rights focuses on five key principles – Safe and Effective Systems, Algorithmic Discrimination Protections, Data Privacy, Notice and Explanation, and Alternative Options – each with its own correlating technical point.

U.S. legislators could also look abroad for models. The EU’s executive office, the EU Council, adopted a common position (or general approach) for its AI Act. Similar to the AI Bill of Rights, the model legislation aims to provide a balance between ensuring the rights of citizens and supporting continued growth and innovation in the sector. Both documents seek to reduce and prevent unsafe practices while allowing industry to succeed and governments to become more efficient. The EU Council AI Act is proposed legislation that takes a risk assessment-based approach while highlighting specific prohibitions, establishes an AI Board for oversight, and presents assessments for conformity, governance framework, and enforcement of law and penalties for violations. The EU Parliament has its own separate legislative process, and its own AI Act is in committee. While the EU Council AI Act takes a more nuanced, risk-based approach to governing the technology, the current draft of the parliament draft legislation has many prohibitions of AI technology to include a blanket ban on “remote biometric systems.” The two bodies will enter negotiations known as a trilogue that is similar to a conference committee in Congress to hopes of reaching an agreement on proposed legislation by the end of this year.

Both the Bill of AI Rights and the EU Council AI Act could serve as a good starting point for comprehensive American legislation, as both documents seek to strike the challenging balance between protections and innovation. Interested parties will have a keen eye set towards the legislative process in the EU, as the two opposing approaches for sweeping bans versus mitigating risk will have to be resolved during the trilogue. The resulting legislation could set a new standard of how nations address all the combined concerns.

If most legislative efforts stall on the federal level, AI regulation still could present a rare opportunity for both parties to work with stakeholders at the state and local levels in a win for bipartisanship. Government and the tech industry can work together with community leaders and subject matter experts to smartly shape AI regulation so that they don’t have a chilling effect on innovation or unforeseen consequences on positive uses of the technology. In the meantime, industry leaders should work to provide reasonable transparency about company actions in the absence of stronger regulation to help put government and societal concerns at ease.

Government officials must recognize that the AI industry has been the lead in development of this technology and endeavored at self-regulation for a long time. I’ve seen this personally as a member of the industry in a Government Affairs and Public Policy position. Working with companies to find reasonable protections for privacy and other concerns is paramount in maintaining trust and safety between society, government, and industry, and such a collaborative effort ensures that the best possible practices are established, and healthy, reasonable safeguards are put in place. Without such an effort, society runs the risk of creating policies that allow unconscious bias within algorithms, loopholes within otherwise acceptable business cases that allow for abuse and misuse by third party actors, and other negative unforeseen consequences associated with AI technology. These actions will erode societal trust in the technology as well as institutions meant to serve and protect it.

All interested parties are working towards the same goal: the protection of the rights and safety of American citizens and allies. Clear frameworks exist as models for congressional legislation that can provide much needed guidance and regulation for the tech industry as the world witnesses the evolutionary leap of AI technologies. 2023 could prove to be a major inflection point for policy, law, and regulation that govern a variety of this industry. The U.S. government must also work with communities and industry leaders to properly draft protections that won’t have a chilling effect on innovation. This is a historic opportunity to shape the future of the world through this pivotal and powerful technology. The United States should do what it has done for generations now when it comes to innovative thought and be a world leader ensuring AI supports society by providing the most benefits while producing the least possible harm.

IMAGE: Futuristic digital circuit background.(Getty Images) 

The post Regulating Artificial Intelligence Requires Balancing Rights, Innovation appeared first on Just Security.

In this all-volunteer service, service members and the families that sacrifice alongside them pledge their loyalty in defending the U.S. constitution and the freedom it provides. We do so focused on our oath and our commitment to the values and principles represented within it. And as our democratic process was threatened, the American voter pushed back by taking advantage of that protected right to vote. While this is an outcome worthy of celebration, the fact that the nation found itself at this inflection point should give all Americans pause. It reflects the fact that democracy must continuously be defended and reminds everyone that our service to our community does not end but instead shifts in its form. This is something veterans have long known and appreciated.

Nonpartisan groups like Vet The Vote came out this year as nonpolitical support, recruiting upwards of 63,000 volunteers – consisting of veterans and military family members – to serve as poll workers during this election. The United States’ electoral system has been challenged by a poll worker shortage brought on by abuse and dangerous attacks from supporters of unfounded conspiracies that past elections were unfair. Given the threats and potential dangers, many longtime volunteers decided the potential of unsafe environments created by these bad actors provided too much danger. In this difficult period, the veteran community stepped in and helped to protect and maintain the integrity of our system.

This is not to say that this one election pulls the United States from harm’s way. It will take continued discourse and debate, and potentially more legislation and legal action, to ensure that the U.S. system remains fair and clear of interference from nefarious actors. It will also take a determined electorate focused on leveraging its rights while ensuring the system remains equitable for all those with the right to participate.

The veteran and military family community will continue to be a stalwart of what it means to serve in and out of uniform. It has a long and honorable history of leading by example when the United States faces existential threats, both foreign and domestic. Watching our fellow Americans come together in rebuke of actions and rhetoric that stand as the antithesis of U.S. values reminds us why our service is so important in the first place. It should give everyone of all demographics and political backgrounds hope that, as we in the United States continue to strive towards perfection while understanding we will forever remain imperfect, we will better ourselves each day. As veterans and military families continue to serve our communities and protect the rights of all, regardless of the form that service might take, we will continue to do the most good and defend the democratic values that allow us to continue striving toward a better world for all.

IMAGE: American flags and the U.S. Capitol building. Photographer: Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg.

The post Why We Serve: Upholding the Democratic Process appeared first on Just Security.

At the outset, I acknowledge that I, myself, am no disinterested party in this. I am a proud graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, an alum of the Obama-Biden reelection campaign and administration, and the 2016 Clinton campaign. And, in my personal capacity, I’ve supported President-Elect Joe Biden and his team as they envision a new path forward for America. I am also a Black American from the South whose father served in Vietnam, and grandfather served in World War II. Both navigated discrimination and obstacles while proudly serving their country.

As article after article after article has indicated, not only is the debate about the issues associated with having a recently retired general officer leading the Pentagon, but what such an appointment could mean for maintaining a healthy distance between the senior ranks of uniformed service and civilian control. That debate shouldn’t be taken lightly. As my colleague, retired Army Lt. Col., civ-mil expert, and fellow West Point graduate Jim Golby articulated in a New York Times opinion piece,

After four years of relative, if erratic, autonomy under Mr. Trump, military leaders may chafe when civilian national security leaders ask to check their homework. To some extent, that is healthy. Too much friction can also stop or slow progress, true, but a certain level is necessary for proper governance. The need for experienced leadership in the Pentagon to manage this friction is vital.

No doubt the need for sharp, skillful, and keen civilian oversight isn’t simply a good idea but an imperative for the long-term health and stability of the national security apparatus. This is a debate that should be rigorous and difficult, if not outright uncomfortable, as we all reconcile how civilian control of the Pentagon can be properly maintained by a longtime Army leader whose professional career has been wholly in the institution of uniformed service.

But the pushback against Austin’s nomination has left little room to celebrate what is also a milestone for Black Americans in and out of uniform. As the New York Times notes, “The military is one of the most diverse institutions in the country, but its senior leadership (as in many other American institutions) is virtually all white.”

Throughout his military career, Austin has been a trailblazer, reaching positions previously closed to Black soldiers. He was the first Black commander to lead a Corps in combat, the first Black commander of an entire theater of war, and the first Black commander of U.S. Central Command, responsible for the Middle East, Central and South Asia. If confirmed by the Senate, he’ll once again break down barriers that should never have been in place. As another colleague and friend, Meg Guilford, mentioned on Twitter about Austin’s selection, “Watching the President-elect formally nominate Lloyd Austin, III as his Secretary of Defense was pretty emotional for me. I never thought I would see a Black person nominated to be the Secretary of Defense. Working for DoD, I never had a Black boss & rarely had Black co-workers.”

As I’ve reviewed many opinion pieces and comments online, I’ve noted that many commenting on Austin’s nomination explain that they understand the necessity of representation and celebrate this selection for those reasons, but immediately go no further. Instead, their next statements tend to deal with their belief that dissent in this space is a necessity given the legal, policy, and even philosophical challenges it presents. In other words, in this case, the concerns of civilian control immediately trump the opportunity for diversity. Ultimately, the refrain acknowledges that representation matters, so why couldn’t Biden select another capable person of color? Why isn’t there a Black civilian capable of serving in this capacity? Therein lies the issue: From what pool of talent could we pull a qualified individual who also maintains the appropriate acumen essential to success in the position? There will soon only be two Black senators in Congress. Diverse leadership in the senior ranks of the intelligence community continues to be a major issue. In the private sector, Fortune 500 CEO diversity remains incredibly low. For instance, there are currently only five Black chief executives accounting for approximately one percent of the total. There are currently no Black governors and only four in the country that identify as a minority. Austin is a historic leader because he has often been the first to blaze the trail.

Meanwhile, we have a military where, of the 1.3 million men and women on active-duty, approximately 43 percent of them are people of color. Until this year, however, it had never witnessed a Black man serve as a service chief of staff, a barrier broken by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown. As the New York Times’ Helene Cooper reports, of the 41 most senior commanders in the military,  only two are Black, and that includes Gen. Brown. No Black person has ever served as deputy secretary of defense or undersecretary of defense for policy. Only 6.6 percent of the civilian senior executive staff, or SES ranks, is Black when Black people make up roughly 20 percent of the civilian workforce. Only a few people of color have served in Senate-confirmed positions in the Pentagon over the course of decades, and only a couple as service secretaries or undersecretaries. In essence, there is, and has long been, a historic lack of color in the executive levels of national security, broadly, and in civilian defense positions, specifically. Instead, it is the uniform service that has long acted as a path of upward mobility for Black Americans and the present day is no different.

The military once led the country in integration, having officially desegregated in July 1948. Though, it took roughly a decade to fully implement the change, it still far outpaced American society. Even still, the most senior positions and ranks within the military remain elusive. Leaders such as Austin are unique in the fact that he has continuously navigated racial barriers successfully.

Of course, there are other competitive candidates (former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, himself a man of color, has proven he is beyond capable of serving in this capacity and could no doubt be a leader to help shepherd the department through this arduous time) and populations that are also starving for representation at the highest levels of national security. Women have and must, unfortunately, continue to navigate misogyny and a variety of hardships in the national security and foreign policy space. And, Michèle Flournoy is a well-known, incredibly well-respected, and trusted leader who epitomizes the values one should wish to see in the secretary of defense. She maintains many fiercely loyal mentees, colleagues, admirers, and supporters who were disappointed that she was not selected for the job. While Biden has done a tremendous job with gender parity overall in selecting his Cabinet, to include the nomination of Avril Haines as the first female Director of National Intelligence, the necessary mandate for a future female secretary of defense has not dissolved. But this isn’t an “us versus them” or marginalized group versus marginalized group issue. When reviewing these circumstances, the test should not be why not another capable leader, but instead, why might it be so important, in this moment — even in the face of these legal and procedural hurdles — that Biden sees Austin as his top candidate and confidante for the role?

Austin served in close partnership with the former vice president in the efforts to bring the bulk of 150,000 American service members and assets home from Iraq. But, what Biden sees in Austin, and his willingness to step out in front on this nomination, apparently runs much deeper. In his recent op-ed in The Atlantic explaining his choice, Biden speaks to the empathy, thoughtful leadership, and compassion of Austin, relaying stories of the relationship between the general and Beau Biden, the president-elect’s late son, and the bond the two men built while serving together in Iraq. It is that bond that transcends politics and has led to Austin’s place as a trusted adviser. Biden’s willingness now to push this conversation and process forward amidst the concerns and opposition of parts of the national security community is a testament to how important he believes this diverse leader is for the country and department at this moment. As white supremacy and domestic terrorism threaten our country and continue to plague the military, this is the level of allyship and representation required to face both issues head on.

Whether or not the nominee has been out of the military seven years rather than four shouldn’t be the only thing that matters. It is incumbent on Congress via a legal waiver, and the Senate through the confirmation process, to engage in a rigorous review of Austin and determine if the legislative body will provide the consent necessary for him to serve at the president’s pleasure. Due diligence remains an absolute necessity in choosing the right person for the position, and that requires a great deal of honest dialogue. The selection of the first Black defense secretary, with a record of service such as Austin’s, doesn’t negate any of this process. But his nomination should not be viewed in a vacuum either. He should be given the opportunity to demonstrate why Biden would go to such lengths to see him in the position.

Image: U.S. Army (retired) General Lloyd Austin speaks after being formally nominated to be Secretary of the Department of Defense by U.S. President-elect Joe Biden at the Queen Theatre on December 09, 2020 in Wilmington, Delaware. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The post Representation at the Top: The Importance of Race in the Austin Nomination Debate appeared first on Just Security.

The renaming of these bases has garnered bipartisan and bicameral support. A provision approved by the Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee calls for renaming or removing military installations, monuments, and other symbols commemorating Confederate figures within three years. The NDAA passed in the House requires the Defense Department to rename military installations and other defense property named after Confederate figures within one year. This provision was introduced as a bipartisan amendment to the NDAA and received bipartisan approval.

Given that the NDAAs passed by both chambers include provisions mandating the renaming of these installations, and the fact that House negotiators have already publicly signaled a willingness to support the Senate provision, there should be no barriers to the final NDAA passed out of Congress including these reforms.

Commemorations of the Confederacy on military installations are inconsistent with American values, which is reason enough to change course. And these potent symbols have pragmatic implications for the military as well, such as hindering efforts to root out white supremacy within its ranks. At best, maintaining Confederate commemorations glaringly undercuts the credibility and weight of these efforts. At worst, these tributes serve as affirmative signals to white supremacists that their cause is acceptable in the military. Confederate commemorations also risk undermining military recruitment, retention, and morale, which, due to its impact on the strength of the armed forces, ultimately jeopardizes U.S. national security.

A multitude of retired military leaders and former national security officials have expressed their support for renaming these bases and removing these commemorations. As laid out in a factsheet produced by our organization, Human Rights First, the effort to remove Confederate commemorations from military installations has found broad support among national security figures including former Defense Secretary Robert Gates; retired Army General David Petraeus, who served as CIA director; retired Air Force General Michael Hayden, who served as CIA and NSA director; and Brett McGurk, former special presidential envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, special assistant to the president, and deputy assistant secretary of state.

Given the historical significance of this moment and the variety of alternatives for commemorating real, American heroism, Congress has a moral and practical obligation to take assertive action on this issue. Should members of Congress not vote to include this provision in the final bill, they would not only be averting or delaying action on this critical issue, they would be abdicating their moral leadership and providing a vindication of the legacy of white supremacy in the military.

IMAGE: A road sign entering Fort Bragg going from Connecticut Avenue in Southern Pines, North Carolina, in March 2010. (Photo by Christopher Ziemnowicz via Wikimedia Commons)

The post Trump’s Veto Threat Over Confederate-Named Bases Erodes U.S. Security and American Values appeared first on Just Security.

This blurred line between law enforcement and the military is due in part to a decades-old program — frequently referred to as the “1033 program” — that has made the weapons and equipment of war available essentially free of charge to law enforcement agencies across the United States. Congress now has a crucial opportunity to reform the Department of Defense 1033 program and help demilitarize law enforcement, as part of the legislative process for the annual must-pass National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

The trend of militarizing law enforcement not only undermines public safety and policing but also erodes democratic norms and the relationship between society and the military. And the striking images in recent months and years of military weapons and equipment being marshalled against minorities, marginalized communities, and protesters have made it increasingly clear that there is an urgent need for change.

The three of us understand — and in some cases have seen first-hand in war — the damage that the military’s weapons can inflict. Collectively, we have conducted missions in Iraq using Bradley Fighting Vehicles, which resemble tanks; performed intelligence work in Afghanistan so that armed aircraft could target enemies; and, equipped with a grenade launcher, patrolled the streets of Iraq in many of the same armored vehicles that public safety officers use today in American communities.

But American communities are not a battlefield. Our fellow citizens are not enemies. And the weapons of war do not belong in our streets.

Billions of Dollars in Military Equipment with Bad Results

The 1033 program, however, continues to pump Defense Department weapons and equipment into the hands of law enforcement. Since its establishment in the late 1990s, the program has transferred more than $7.4 billion worth of excess military equipment, such as bayonets, rifles, armored vehicles, and aircraft. The transfers occur at no cost to the receiving police departments except shipping. Military equipment has been transferred to more than 8,000 law enforcement agencies, and the ones most inclined to seek heavy equipment through the program have been those in small communities and rural areas.

Local police departments are not the only recipients — Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as Customs and Border Protection, both of which were involved in recent protest responses, are substantial beneficiaries. The program has historically been plagued by oversight and accountability issues. A few years ago, for example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was able to create a bogus law enforcement organization and procure more than 100 items, which amounted to a value of approximately $1.2 million, through the program. “It was like getting stuff off of eBay,” a GAO official said.

This program, without meaningful restrictions, carries immense risk. Consider first how the flow of war supplies to America’s communities is bad, as a pragmatic matter, for communities and for policing. One study found “a positive and statistically significant relationship between 1033 transfers and fatalities from officer-involved shootings.” In this respect, the 1033 program is outright dangerous. But even aside from this alarming consideration, other research indicates that militarized law enforcement not only “fails to enhance officer safety or reduce local crime” but also “may diminish police reputation in the mass public.” At best, then, programs that militarize police are ineffective and undermine the very police forces they are meant to support. As the nation contemplates ways to recalibrate policing so that it can better serve communities, these realities should be top of mind.

The mixing of weapons and equipment of war with law enforcement functions is also unhealthy for democracy and civil-military relations. Most fundamentally, police simply should not maintain a war-like posture against communities they are sworn to serve and protect. This is a practice that brings to mind authoritarian countries where the military is marshalled against its own people to suppress human rights. These approaches in other countries have traditionally drawn rebuke from the United States, and their images must not be replicated in American communities. In addition, by making it ever more difficult for communities to distinguish between law enforcement and the military, the proliferation of military weapons and equipment among law enforcement threatens the country’s currently high public trust in the armed forces.

The American desire to maintain a separation between the military and law enforcement is underscored by the fact that, however abhorrent the motives were at the inception of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act (it was intended to stop the federal government from using the military to help enforce federal Reconstruction laws in former Confederate states), it has long served — with certain exceptions — as an important statutory barrier to prevent the military from engaging in law enforcement activity. Funneling the weapons and equipment of war into law enforcement entities, however, subverts and erodes the spirit of this law.

Bipartisan, Public Support for Meaningful Reform

The 1033 program is clearly in dire need of reform, and change via legislation would be ideal, delivering the durability of preventing reversal by executive order. Fortunately, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are now considering ways to reform it through the NDAA.

In particular, Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) has introduced a bipartisan amendment with Senators Kamala Harris (D-CA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Rand Paul (R-KY). If passed, the amendment would prohibit the transfer of, among other items, bayonets, grenades, grenade launchers, certain high-caliber firearms and ammunition, tracked combat vehicles, weaponized drones, and asphyxiating gases. It also includes provisions that would help prevent the use of equipment provided through the program against peaceful protests and that would institute much-needed transparency and accountability measures. House lawmakers, too, have an opportunity in the NDAA process to pass essential 1033 reform. Rep. Hank Johnson’s (D-GA) Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act, which the House previously passed with bipartisan support as part of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, has been introduced as an NDAA amendment.

The bipartisan support on Capitol Hill for 1033 reform is encouraging, but perhaps not surprising, given the widespread public support for addressing racial injustice and heavy-handed policing. More than 90 non-governmental organizations have called for ending the 1033 program, and dozens — including the Law Enforcement Action Partnership — have specifically endorsed the Schatz amendment. Public polling, moreover, shows that a majority of Americans support curtailing the program.

Now, with this enthusiasm in place, it is up to Congress to follow through and help stem America’s drift toward further law enforcement militarization. Lawmakers must vote in favor of reform.

(Editor’s note: Based on a newly revised list of endorsements, this article was updated July 15 to delete one of two organizations specifically named as having endorsed the Schatz-Murkowski-Harris-Paul legislation.)

IMAGE: Activists and members of different tribes from the region block the road to Mount Rushmore National Monument with vans as they protest and confront police and military personnel in Keystone, South Dakota on July 3, 2020, during a demonstration around the Mount Rushmore National Monument and the visit of US President Donald Trump.  (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)

The post Congress Must Seize This Chance to Help Demilitarize Law Enforcement appeared first on Just Security.

The United States has failed to address issues of systemic racism for generations. Now, a groundswell of excitement has emerged to focus on racial justice and human rights. This encouraging movement, characterized by a profound desire to not only identify these issues but also work collaboratively to effectuate meaningful change, appears to be sweeping the country.

Among the issues are the longstanding symbols and names that are a legacy of the Confederacy and yet remain prominent and visible in the U.S. military. Congress appears to be listening to calls for change, and many lawmakers have responded positively, though not all. In particular, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) has proposed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that purports to address the issue of Confederate names on military bases, but in truth creates an inadequate process for real change and even leaves room for the prospect of no change at all.

Given the historical significance of these events, any solution Congress or the executive branch adopts must be thoughtful but also decisive and pursued on a firm timeline. America’s political leaders must match this movement’s urgency while also acknowledging that the process of finally addressing America’s “original sin” cannot be completed overnight.

The path to meaningful change includes the removal of the legacy of the “Lost Cause” that has so long been intertwined with the U.S. military. Most notably, 10 Army bases and two Navy vessels currently honor the Confederacy, and various other forms of Confederate commemoration taint the military’s facilities and assets, such as Lee Barracks at West Point.

The Risks to the Military With the Status Quo

Commemorations of the Confederacy on military installations are inconsistent with American ideals, which is reason enough to change course. These homages embrace the legacy of slavery and white supremacy and thus constitute racist affronts to all service members of color. In addition, they lionize treasonous men who took up arms against the United States in an attempt to preserve the unconscionable system of slavery. In this sense, these men and their legacy stand in stark contrast to the oath sworn by the service members who train on these bases: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

There are pragmatic implications for the military as well, such as efforts to root out white supremacy within its ranks. These efforts include improved screening of new recruits, investigations, and administrative separations. At best, maintaining Confederate commemorations glaringly undercuts the credibility and weight of these efforts. At worst, the tributes serve as an affirmative signal to white supremacists that their cause is acceptable in the military.

In addition, Confederate commemorations risk undermining military recruitment, retention, and morale, which ultimately jeopardizes U.S. national security due to its impact on the strength of the armed forces. While three recent polls indicate that Americans overall are divided on the issue of base renaming, several specific findings from these polls are particularly germane to military personnel considerations. Two of the polls indicate that a majority of young Americans favor renaming the bases, and the other found that among Generation Z — the age group comprising the current and future recruitment pool — many more, 44 percent, favor renaming compared with 26 percent who oppose (30 percent didn’t know or had no opinion). What’s more, these polls show that a strong majority of Black Americans support renaming the bases, with one poll showing 77 percent in favor of such a move.

With these public opinion results in mind, the readiness risks become increasingly clear. Renamed bases and prohibitions on other forms of Confederate commemoration will put the military in a better position to recruit and retain young Americans, which is especially important at a time when the military’s current recruitment pool is already relatively small. And Black service members will not need to serve with the burden of seeing military-sanctioned symbols representing their enslavement and oppression. 

Hawley Amendment Avoids Serious Action

Despite these imperatives, legislation introduced by Senator Josh Hawley as an amendment to the NDAA woefully fails to meet the moment. Rather than prohibiting Confederate commemorations and requiring the renaming of installations and assets, it instead only creates a commission essentially to explore the possibility of such changes. The panel would be tasked with, among other responsibilities:

• Developing criteria for assessing whether any name, symbol, or other relic actually “valorizes” the Confederacy.
• Creating criteria to assess whether the “dominant meaning” of specific Confederate symbols has changed since first becoming associated with the Department of Defense.
• Holding public hearings with local and state stakeholders to solicit their input.
• Estimating the costs of renaming or removing Confederate commemorations.

The commission’s only deliverable is a congressional report by October 1, 2022.

Couched in language about fact-finding and local engagement, Hawley’s amendment is dangerous precisely because it seems, on its face, to be a reasoned, neutral approach to Confederate commemorations. Yet there is no room for neutrality on this issue, and beneath the amendment’s ostensibly benign text lies its reality: The amendment contains no concrete guarantee to abandon Confederate commemorations. Worse still, it creates space for Confederate symbols to again be deemed acceptable with a federal government stamp of approval.

Emphasizing local engagement, developing assessment criteria, and providing for other procedural measures are not inherently bad. But the Hawley amendment’s shortcomings are so gaping that it can only be interpreted as a deliberate way of avoiding real action, especially when assessments of the issue, and the mere potential for change, are no longer enough. In short, Hawley’s amendment focuses on whether to take action rather than asserting decisively that action must be taken.

In contrast, consider the different tack that some of his Republican colleagues have taken. Republican Representative Don Bacon (R-NE), a retired Air Force brigadier general, is helping to lead a bipartisan effort to rename the 10 Army bases named after Confederate figures, saying that “it is only right that our installations bear the names of military heroes who represent the best ideals of our Republic.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said that he is “okay” with changing the names of Army bases named after Confederate officers. John Thune, the second-ranking Republican senator, also has strongly intimated support of such name changes.

A multitude of retired military leaders and former national security officials also have expressed their support for these ideas. As laid out in a Human Rights First factsheet, the effort to remove Confederate commemorations from military installations has found broad support among national security figures including former Defense Secretary Robert Gates; retired Army General David Petraeus, who served as CIA director; retired Air Force General Michael Hayden, who served as CIA and NSA director; and Brett McGurk, former special presidential envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, special assistant to the president, and deputy assistant secretary of state.

This support from congressional Republicans and from the national security community mirrors broader societal opinion that has shifted in favor of removing Confederate commemorations from public spaces. According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, a majority of Americans now support removing Confederate statues from public spaces, a 19 point increase from 2017. There have also been widespread, bipartisan efforts by local and state officials to remove certain Confederate commemorations from public locations, including by the Republican mayor of Jacksonville, Florida and the Republican-led government of Mississippi.

 Legislative Alternatives

If lawmakers want to effectively align the military with the nation’s values, there are superior alternatives to Hawley’s proposed amendment, all of which expressly include a requirement to remove Confederate commemorations from military installations. These proposals include:

• Bipartisan House legislation led by Representative Anthony Brown (D-MD), a retired Army officer, and Bacon. This bill, which is supported by Republican Representative Adam Kinzinger and John Shimkus, both of Illinois, would create a commission charged with renaming military installations named after figures of the Confederacy within one year. It is likely to be included in the House version of the NDAA in some form.
• Bipartisan approval by the Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee for an NDAA provision put forth by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) that would establish a commission charged with renaming military assets commemorating the Confederacy within three years.
• A bill put forth by Representative Yvette Clarke (D-NY) requiring the renaming of all Defense Department property named after Confederate leaders within one year.
• A bill from Representative Adriano Espaillat (D-NY) prohibiting federal funds from being used to display Confederate symbols on federal land or property.
• A standalone bill from Warren and other Democratic senators with the same goal as her NDAA provision above, but with a one-year timeline and without a congressionally-established commission.

There is clear bipartisan momentum in favor of taking aggressive action on this issue. As such, any legislation enacted by Congress must at the very least require the renaming of all Army bases named after Confederate figures and removal of other Confederate commemorations. Merely setting up a procedure to consider potential changes is not enough. Certain exceptions may be in order — museum displays (provided that they are presented with the proper context and do not venerate or glorify the Confederacy, slavery, or racism) and gravestones, for example.

The rest is a question of procedure and implementation, and reasonable minds can differ on these points. For instance, an ideal timeline would be as short as possible, but Congress should ensure that any deadline beyond a year is not needlessly far in the future. A congressionally established commission may not be necessary, but any group charged with implementing the mandate, whether a congressionally established commission or a task force formed as a discretionary matter by the Pentagon, must have diverse membership.

Congress should also consider whether to proactively require the Army and the Air Force to follow the lead of the Marines and the Navy by prohibiting all service members from displaying any depiction of the Confederate flag. The Army recently considered doing so but declined to adopt such a ban at this moment. Codifying the measure in a statute for all military services would make it irreversible via executive action.

Hawley’s amendment, however, would simply provide cover for legislators who wish to keep commemorations of the Confederacy on U.S. military bases while creating the appearance of addressing the issue. And with so many alternatives for renaming these bases that would honor the types of heroism and diversity the military should celebrate, the choice for change should be even easier.

IMAGE: New entrance sign during the official opening ceremony of the Fort Bragg Air Assault School, Sept. 5, 2013 (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Paul A. Holston/XVIII Abn. Corps PAO, via Flickr)

The post Decoy Amendment Jeopardizes the Moment for Renaming Confederate-Dubbed Bases appeared first on Just Security.

Against this same backdrop, officials named 10 Army bases after Confederate figures during the first half of the 20th century. Now, as the country begins a much-needed and long-awaited discussion about seriously addressing issues of racial injustice and systemic racism, a growing chorus of voices has correctly called for these bases to be renamed. Notably, retired General David Petraeus penned a piece in The Atlantic stating, “We do not live in a country to which Braxton Bragg, Henry L. Benning, or Robert E. Lee can serve as an inspiration. Acknowledging this fact is imperative.”

The issue of renaming these bases appears to have caught President Donald Trump’s attention. On Wednesday, he tweeted his opposition: “These Monumental and very Powerful Bases have become part of a Great American Heritage, and a history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom. The United States of America trained and deployed our HEROES on these Hallowed Grounds, and won two World Wars. Therefore, my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations.”

Trump is trying to force a connection between Confederate figures who lost and the victories of units that have been stationed at the bases. He also overlooks the fact that changing base names neither renames the units residing at each base nor detracts from any winning traditions or history associated with those units or their members.

In any event, the Confederate legacy — inextricably linked with racism, slavery, and the decision to fight against the United States in an effort to preserve the enslavement of human beings — is one that the Army never should have been associated with, and the Army should now leave Confederate symbols and names for study and scrutiny in museums and other history resources.

To that end, the Army must rename bases that commemorate Confederate officers. On Monday, the Pentagon announced that “[t]he Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Army are open to a bi-partisan discussion on the topic.” It remains to be seen how Trump’s contradictory tweet will affect the situation. But we hope the statement from Pentagon leadership will prevail, and that it is not empty, face-saving talk meant to carry the department through the scrutiny accompanying this pivotal moment in modern history, but rather a serious step toward change. The deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Sean Reed, and countless other Black Americans who have been mourned as a part of the Black Lives Matter movement have launched public discourse on living the values we espouse. As society at large considers broad changes, the Army must also meet the moment.

In the spirit of advancing the discussion, the Pentagon should begin considering the types of inspiring figures whose names could grace — rather than dishonor — these bases instead. The bases should be named after accomplished figures who represent the diversity that makes the country and the Army strong. Doing so would not only commemorate significant contributions of the past but also send a strong signal to current and future service members about the values and ideals that the Army strives to promote. This short, preliminary list, in alphabetical order, presents a diverse group of service members worthy of consideration:

• Lieutenant Colonel Lee Archer was one of the first African-American pilots in the Army Air Corps and a founding member of the famed Tuskegee Airmen. Archer flew 169 missions during World War II, including bomber escort, reconnaissance, and ground attack.
• Master Sergeant Roy Benavidez was an Army Special Forces non-commissioned officer who received the Medal of Honor for his heroic actions in Loc Ninh, South Vietnam. Upon arriving at the scene, despite being immediately injured by rifle fire, Benavidez dragged several wounded soldiers to safety and orchestrated a six-hour defensive operation, engaging enemy combatants even as he also received near-fatal wounds.
• General Richard Cavazos was the first Hispanic officer in the Army to attain four-star rank. He served in the Korean War and the Vietnam War, and he was twice awarded the Distinguished Service Cross.
• General Benjamin O. Davis, Jr. commanded the Tuskegee Airmen in World War II. A graduate of West Point, he later became the first Black general in the U.S. Air Force. In recent years, West Point has named a new barracks facility after Davis, and the Air Force Academy has named its airfield in his honor.
• Sergeant William Carney, of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry, was the first African-American to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor. Carney was born into slavery in Norfolk, Virginia. His family was granted freedom and moved to Massachusetts, where Carney secretly learned to read and write despite laws forbidding Black Americans to do so. The action for which Carney was awarded his distinction came prior to all other Black soldiers, though his medal was one of the last to be awarded.
• Corporal Joseph H. De Castro was the first Hispanic service member to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor. A member of the Union Army during the Civil War, he served in the 19th Massachusetts Infantry and helped defend against Pickett’s Charge during the Battle of Gettysburg.
• Private Carl Gorman was a Native American Navajo Code Talker in World War II. Gorman was one of the first Navajos to volunteer for the Marine Corps program in 1942. Using the mostly unwritten and complex Navajo language, Gorman and his colleagues created a virtually unbreakable method of communication that became vital to the American war effort. He served in the Pacific theater and, following his honorable discharge from the military, became a successful artist, teacher, and President of the Code Talker Association. Although Gorman was a Marine, the Army embraced Code Talkers as well. It may be fitting to replace the name of Fort Gordon, the home of the Army Signal Corps, with a nod to the legacy of Code Talkers who sacrificed so much for our country by naming the base after Gorman or a Code Talker from the Army.
• President Ulysses S. Grant was the Commanding General of the Union Army as well as the 18th president of the United States. He led the Union Army to victory over the Confederacy. His historical standing as a president has increased recently, and West Point unveiled a new statue of him in 2019.
• Brigadier General Anna Mae Hays was the first woman to attain general officer rank in the U.S. armed forces. She was an Army nurse, and naming an Army base after her could also serve as a reminder of the important role that medical professionals have played in the coronavirus pandemic.
• Senator Daniel Inouye served in the Army during World War II and received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his bravery in a combat situation in Italy that led to the amputation of his right arm. Inouye served in the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, a unit composed of Japanese American volunteers, some of whom had been sent to internment camps in the United States. He became the first Japanese American elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, where he was the first chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and later chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee.
• Captain Jennifer Moreno died in Afghanistan due to a blast from an improvised explosive device while she was serving as a nurse on a special operations mission in 2013. Commemorating Moreno would be a constant reminder of the crucial part that women have long played in combat, even before the Pentagon in 2015 formally permitted them to serve in combat roles.
• General Roscoe Robinson Jr. was the first Black officer in the Army to attain four-star rank. He served in the Korean War and the Vietnam War, and his last assignment was U.S. representative to the NATO Military Committee.
• Colonel Robert Gould Shaw commanded the 54th Massachusetts Infantry during the Civil War. This was a unit of Black soldiers, and Shaw was born to a family of Boston abolitionists. He advocated for the fair treatment of all soldiers and encouraged his unit to refuse pay until it was equal to that of white soldiers. There is a neighborhood in Washington, D.C. that bears his name, and the actions of Shaw and the 54th Infantry Regiment are immortalized in the 1989 film “Glory.”
• Major Hugh Thompson was a helicopter pilot who intervened in the Vietnam War’s My Lai massacre, preventing American service members from killing more Vietnamese civilians. Honoring his memory—particularly by renaming Fort Rucker, the home of Army aviation—would send a clear message about the conduct in combat that the Army expects.
• Harriet Tubman served in a variety of roles within her lifetime. Most notably, Tubman, a former slave, risked her own life and freedom by making multiple trips between the north and her home state of Maryland, leading hundreds of slaves to safety. Later, Tubman would lead soldiers on vital missions behind enemy lines. She was also known to be a cunning spy and recruiter for the Union Army. Historians state that Tubman and other slaves were effective as spies, in part, because white Confederates undervalued their intelligence. Although Tubman was not formally a member of the Army, these contributions would certainly merit naming a base after her.

To be clear, this is not an exhaustive list; it’s meant mostly to generate discussion. The significant contributions of many others—including those from Jewish, Muslim, and LGBTQ+ communities—should also be given the utmost consideration. And other former Army officers also have offered renaming ideas. But the above are the types of inspiring figures that the Army should examine for the purposes of renaming bases that currently commemorate Confederate officers.

Unfortunately, society’s treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals and the military’s previous ban on serving openly made it more difficult to immediately and clearly identify such candidates for renaming bases. Leonard Matlovich, a southerner who earned a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart in Vietnam and became an LGBTQ+ icon when he challenged the ban on openly gay military service, comes to mind, but he was in the Air Force. Imagine the untold number of high-ranking, heroically-performing, or otherwise courageous service members who were LGBTQ+ but had to hide it.

It also bears noting that renaming these bases is not the only racism-related matter that the Army should address. It should also, among other efforts, follow the lead of the Marine Corps and the Navy by prohibiting displays of the Confederate flag; take strong action to rid the Army’s ranks of white supremacists; and seek ways to better recruit, retain, and promote minority service members.

Ironically, Robert E. Lee urged against statues celebrating the Confederacy: “I think it wiser . . . not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.” Despite the many warranted criticisms of Lee, including that he chose to fight against the United States for the preservation of slavery, he was right on this particular issue.

And indeed, history has provided a multitude of inspiring, non-Confederate leaders whose legacies should be memorialized in our culture. The prestigious distinction of naming bases in their honor is an opportunity to do just that.

It also simultaneously gives us the opportunity to finally, after generations, begin the hard work of addressing the egregious errors of our history and leave Confederate traitors exactly where they belong: the past. This moment should not be squandered but instead be embraced as a time for comprehensive change. It is an opportunity to challenge the country’s history — one that is embroiled with systemic racism and fraught with white supremacy — and its lingering effects today. Our nation needs support and leadership as it continues down a long path of uncertainty. The Army and the Department of Defense could be the source of stability and leadership, and as they have been at times in the past, on the frontier of social change.

IMAGE: U.S. Army

The post At Confederate-Named Army Bases, Highlight US Ideals By Renaming Them for Honorable Figures appeared first on Just Security.

One of the greatest strengths of the United States has long been its ability to work closely with allies to confront shared threats. And America is at its best when allies can trust it to support them through thick and thin. Yet the decision to abruptly withdraw U.S. forces from northeastern Syria with no responsible plan in place has opened the door for Turkish-backed forces to commit atrocities against our Kurdish allies and for hostilities against others who have supported the United States, violating the trust that took years to build and snubbing the sacrifices they made as part of the counter-ISIS effort.

We both have firsthand experience with the value provided by America’s friends in wartime—host-nation forces and local citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. They have fought alongside U.S. troops against groups such as the Afghan Taliban, al-Qaeda, and ISIS. They have acted as interpreters to help U.S. forces communicate with local populations. They have served as intelligence sources, often providing critical information to enable U.S. missions. They have provided logistical support, which may not be as glorious but is no less important. And without doubt, they have taken on these roles at great risk to themselves and their families. Indeed, a great number of them have been killed while supporting or fighting alongside American troops.

Similarly, our Kurdish allies and others in Syria trusted the United States and took an enormous risk to fight alongside and otherwise support American forces in the counter-ISIS effort. Their bravery made them a target. But they did this believing America offered them their best hope. And they made this choice at least in part because they believed in America’s credibility.

We should make no mistake—abandoning our allies has very real consequences, not just in Syria but also around the world with friends and foes alike. The U.S. government—including its diplomatic corps, military and intelligence community—cannot reasonably expect other nations or foreign citizens to trust us if we’re seen to be abandoning allies we promised to defend. And when the United States suddenly betrays vulnerable allies, it is a strategic boon for America’s enemies, as we can be more easily portrayed as unreliable partners. As Jon Finer, who was chief of staff and director of policy planning at the State Department during the Obama administration, and Brett McGurk, who was the special presidential envoy for the coalition to defeat ISIS during the Obama and Trump administrations, recently wrote, “America’s partners around the world are watching closely to see if we still stand by those who stood with us.”

Against this backdrop, Congress must act. To help mitigate the catastrophe in Syria, Congress can and should take meaningful action. It has done so before. In the midst of previous U.S. troop reductions in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress stepped up and passed the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act and the Afghan Allies Protection Act, creating legal pathways to safety in the United States for our threatened partners.

Now, Congress should pass comprehensive legislation mirroring the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act to provide these same options for our Kurdish partners and others in Syria who are in danger. To that end, several members of Congress have offered legislative proposals. Among these proposals is a bill co-sponsored by Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) and Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fl.), who both served in U.S. Army special operations. As Rep. Waltz stated, “The Syrian Kurds have stood side by side with the United States in the fight against ISIS . . . Our Kurdish allies put their lives and the lives of their families on the line, risking retaliation, to help us fight terrorism. They deserve our country’s gratitude.”

These legislative proposals, including a separate bipartisan proposal from Senators Jim Risch (R-Idaho) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), either collectively or in certain individual ways would help to protect our partners and restore some measure of trust in America. Congress must now unify in a bipartisan manner, like it has before, to ensure these allies have a way to seek safety and a better life in the United States.

Image: A coalition member hangs an 81-millimeter mortar prior to launching it at a known ISIS location near the Iraqi-Syrian border, May 13, 2018. The coalition provided fire support and airstrikes to assist the Syrian Democratic Forces as they continued Operation Roundup, the military offensive to destroy the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and liberate all land east of the Euphrates River. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Timothy R. Koster

The post Congress Must Act to Protect Those Who’ve Supported Us in Syria appeared first on Just Security.

Democratic and Republican leaders alike have increasingly realized the degree to which China poses a threat, not only in security terms but also economically and technologically. The energy field is a prime example. China has already set in motion an unparalleled financial investment in green technology. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, China is now the world’s largest producer, exporter, and installer of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and electric vehicles. Further, China maintains hundreds of thousands of patents on renewable energy technology, with approximately 29 percent of the world’s total patent registrations as of 2016. At the same time, China has invested heavily in African mining infrastructure in an effort to dominate mineral markets that are crucial for future technology manufacturing and development.

China also has exploited another component of the clean energy mix: nuclear power. Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China has hatched an ambitious plan to sell upwards of 30 nuclear reactors by 2030 — at the estimated sum of 1 trillion yuan ($145.52 billion). While the United States remains the global leader in nuclear energy technology and innovation, China’s nuclear ambitions clearly are resolute.

As China builds and extends its economic dominance, Congress is slowly coming around to the risk that climate change poses to national security. It’s a danger the scientific community first identified in the 1970s and that the Defense Department has long cited as a critical threat for its role in spurring conflicts over water, usable land, and other resources.

Many of the current Democratic field of candidates have presented plans and positions that identify climate change and renewable energy as top priorities, not only for the potential to deal with global warming, but also for the economic potential. For instance, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren articulated during the debate how her plan could rejuvenate manufacturing within the United States through investment in green technology. Warren told the audience, “There’s going to be a worldwide need for green technology — ways to clean up the air and clean up the water. And we can be the ones to provide that. We need to go 10-fold in our research and development in green energy going forward.”

Former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro also identified China and climate security during the debates as priority strategic challenges facing the nation, and other candidates are thinking critically about the future of climate and renewable energy policies.

But if these candidates view China as a major competitor and want to establish the United States as a leader in addressing global warming and developing green energy, it is time to bridge the partisan divide on these issues. The government needs to truly focus investment on this field and on the associated research and development necessary to surpass China’s efforts.Fortunately, Congress now is openly discussing global warming and its effects, in part because the Pentagon has raised the specter of the impact on military operations. That creates an opportunity for all the 2020 presidential candidates to address the climate crisis as both a national security and economic issue. In addition to advancing global security and addressing climate change, green technology research and development, not to mention manufacturing and services, could generate more jobs for Americans.

Some experts have indicated that nuclear energy could work in tandem with renewables, while also serving as a clean technology bridge allowing the United States to shrink its use of fossil fuel. Still, steadily decreasing public support for nuclear energy because of concerns about how to safely operate reactors and store the resulting waste has made it extremely challenging for Congress to even ensure a future for the existing array of reactors, which account for an estimated 19 percent of U.S. energy production. With a string of nuclear plant closures scheduled to take place before 2025, the U.S. will need a major injection from alternate sources to meet growing U.S. energy demand.

Democratic presidential candidates have expressed varied support of nuclear power, whether by maintaining existing plants or by expanding research and development of advanced nuclear technologies. Both Warren and U.S. Senator Cory Booker voted to include funding for the latter in the North American Energy and Security Infrastructure Act of 2016. Other candidates have adopted a tougher stance, leaning against nuclear technologies. Senator Bernie Sanders, for example, has called for a ban on new nuclear construction. Former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris are among those who have yet to publicly state their positions on building new nuclear power plants.

As the candidates continue to develop their 2020 platforms, they must come to grips with the need to compete with China militarily and economically for America’s long-term security. They should consider the clear nexus between those demands and the potential security and prosperity that green technology can deliver for the United States.

To be sure, U.S. political leaders will need to find ways of balancing the imperative of maintaining an edge over China with that country’s role as a crucial trading partner for the United States and its allies. China is the United States’ largest trading partner in goods, with 2018 imports from the Asian behemoth exceeding half a trillion dollars.

But the path to competing effectively with the Chinese juggernaut — and ensuring the United States is well-positioned to remain a geopolitical leader — runs directly through investment in green technology and clean and renewable energy. That carries the potential to address two major issues with a singular and focused offensive.

IMAGE: This aerial photo shows solar photovoltaic modules on a hillside in a village in Chuzhou, in eastern China’s Anhui province on April 13, 2017.
Solar panels, which convert sunlight into electricity, are a key player in the fast-growing renewable energy sector, which also includes water- and wind-generated electricity. Unlike energy from fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas, the generation of electricity by so-called photovoltaic (PV) panels does not release planet-harming carbon dioxide. (Photo by STR/AFP/Getty Images)

The post One Key Instrument to Confront China and Climate Change appeared first on Just Security.