Military & Security

Steven Pifer: “Yes, there are diverse threats out there. But one should keep perspective… None of these threats mandates a numerical increase in U.S. nuclear weapons.”

“Nuclear policymaking should not be conducted by Twitter. A close and careful look at the data shows that the United States currently has sufficient nuclear forces for deterrent requirements plus plans to maintain those forces in the future. There is no need to increase their number.”

Marcus Weisgerber: “Negotiations for the Pentagon’s next batch of 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters don’t technically resume until next month, but they’re clearly under way.”

“If the last few weeks serve as a precedent, a new, powerful player — the president of the United States — will replace Pentagon generals as the chief negotiator for multibillion arms deals.”

“Ask any Iraq War veteran about Jersey, Alaska, Texas, and Colorado and you will be surprised to get stories not about states, but about concrete barriers. Many soldiers deployed to Iraq became experts in concrete during their combat tours. Concrete is as symbolic to their deployments as the weapons they carried. No other weapon or technology has done more to contribute to achieving strategic goals of providing security, protecting populations, establishing stability, and eliminating terrorist threats,” Major John Spencer writes for the Modern War Institute.

“The problem with intelligence briefings is not so much that they cause boredom in the recipient as that they routinely induce terror,” John Mueller writes in a CNN Op-Ed.

“Central to the briefing is the ‘threat matrix,’ a compendium assembled by the CIA and the FBI that includes all the ‘threats’ — or more accurately ‘leads’ — needing to be followed up. Garrett Graff reports that it is ‘filled to the brim with whispers, rumors, and vacuous, unconfirmed information’ and that it can come off as ‘a catalogue of horrors’ and as the ‘daily looming prognoses of Armageddon.’ Philip Mudd notes the ‘voluminous and dominating’ threat information, much of which he points out is raw and ‘below threshold’ for top leaders, and notes that it contributes ‘to a pervasive sense that every day might bring a new attack.'”

“Part of the problem emerges from what Marc Sageman, after years of experience in the intelligence community, calls ‘a bias for alarming interpretations.’ Often, he says, ‘the worst interpretation’ is given full attention while potentially disconfirming evidence ‘is neglected.’ Robert Jervis agrees: probing for ‘alternative explanations of what was happening’ is, he finds, ‘very rare.'”

Center for Foreign Relations: “The Council on Foreign Relations’ (CFR) ninth annual Preventive Priorities Survey identified seven top potential flashpoints for the United States in the year ahead.”

“The survey, conducted by CFR’s Center for Preventive Action (CPA), asked foreign policy experts to rank conflicts based on their likelihood of occurring or escalating and their potential impact on U.S. national interests.”

Among those threats deemed moderately likely and highly impactful to U.S. interests are “a deliberate or unintended military confrontation between Russia and NATO members, stemming from assertive Russian behavior in Eastern Europe” and “a mass casualty terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland or a treaty ally by either a foreign or homegrown terrorist.”

On an optimistic note, “no scenario was deemed both highly likely and highly impactful to U.S. interests, a change from last year when an intensification of Syria’s civil war was considered the most urgent threat.”

American Interest: “Amid all the media hysteria over Russian propaganda and its effect on the U.S. presidential election, few have noted the quiet advance of legislation designed to counter such threats. Last week, a counter-propaganda bill sponsored by Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) passed the Senate as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. The bill is expected to be signed by President Obama before he leaves office.”

“Still, there is no reason to celebrate quite yet. For one, the effectiveness of the new legislation will depend on its implementation by the new administration. Given Trump’s outright dismissal of concerns about Russian hacking and propaganda, he is unlikely to make countering such efforts a priority. Moreover, some experts like Clint Watts have argued that the bill’s interagency approach to fighting propaganda will be inherently unfocused; throwing more money at a government bureaucracy is no guaranteed recipe for success.”

“Finally, there is the risk that empowering anti-propaganda efforts will only add to the unreasonable panic over Putin-planted ‘fake news’ that has engulfed public debate since the election. We have argued before that such hysteria is overwrought, and that overreacting will only play into Putin’s hands.”