Friday News Roundup — May 8, 2020
Politicizing Recovery Efforts; COVID in Russia; Electoral College Reform; Trump Tax Returns; Venezuelan Coup Attempt; Space Combat; Plus News You May Have Missed
Good Friday morning from Washington, D.C. This week in Washington was marked by the return of the Senate to Washington, while debate continued over how the House would operate. Yesterday’s heated reactions to the Department of Justice’s announcement that it would no longer seek the prosecution of Mike Flynn shows that the Russiagate scandal continues to inflame our politics — even as Americans are concerned about their physical and economic health. With this morning’s unemployment data spiking to the highest levels since the Great Depression, expect to see more heated debates about reopening, as well as whether the government is doing enough to address the twin public health and economic crises.
This week in The Hill, CSPC President & CEO Glenn Nye and Policy Analyst Chris Condon discussed the benefits of voting by mail, made especially evident by the COVID-19 pandemic. Senior Fellow Sherman Katz looks at the lost opportunity of the Trans Pacific Partnership, particularly in light of growing U.S.-China tensions.
Next Friday, May 15th, at 9:30 a.m., CSPC will be hosting a Zoom webinar with the Honorable Sue Gordon, former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, to discuss the return of Great Power Competition and the impact of the COVID pandemic. Click here to register, and take a moment to look at other upcoming events at the end of the newsletter.
This week, Dan covers how reopening America has become a false binary between public health and economic prosperity. Joshua covers how the pandemic is trying Putin’s social contract with Russians. Chris looks at reforming the electoral college, and perspicacious intern Aida Olivas ends her tenure with CSPC with a preview of the upcoming Trump tax cases before the Supreme Court. Michael covers the strange arrest of American mercenaries in Venezuela. Ethan covers how vulnerabilities in space are forcing adaptation for the U.S. military and intelligence community, while we wrap, as always, with news you may have missed.
Finally, we want to wish all of the mothers out there, along with our own moms, a very happy Mother’s Day weekend. Thanks moms!
The False Binary of Reopening
Dan Mahaffee
This week, as the COVID-19 case counts continued to grow in the national capital region, concerns about protective equipment and testing hit close to the halls of power. In Congress, leadership sought to avoid the appearance of special treatment when it came to rapid testing — though other high-ranking lawmakers voiced second thoughts — while masks became a partisan dividing line, seemingly everywhere. On Thursday, news also broke that one of the military valets working in the White House had tested positive for COVID, prompting questions about testing of President Trump, Vice President Pence, and his inner circle — as well as questions about distancing within the cramped confines of the West Wing.
Beyond the Beltway, as Americans have endured weeks of quarantine and a pandemic death toll that has climbed above 76,000, we remain simultaneously gripped by our fears of the disease and desires to return to normalcy. While the data has improved in New York City — with its higher number of cases affecting the shape of a national curve — infection rates continue to grow throughout the country. It may not be New York and other urban cores driving the numbers higher, as rural America will increasingly feel the impact of cases spiking around food processing, prisons, and other hot spots.
In a nation that is riven by political tribalism, the re-opening debate has become inevitably politicized. A media environment that has always required a red-versus-blue debate now pits economic concerns versus public health concerns, hair salon owners versus epidemiologists. However, as is often the case, this is a false binary.
The goals of the public health officials were never to reduce the death toll to zero, but rather to contain the virus such that public health capacity could match it. While we may not have seen the worst case scenarios where we’d need to use convention centers turned into morgues, it is because of the public health orders that were put into place. Now, as a nation, we’re debating whether we still need the parachute, even though we’re nowhere near touching the ground.
The economic impact of the virus is massive. No American wants to see spiking unemployment, families wondering whether they’ll get their next meal, or employees debating whether they feed their family or risk getting a deadly virus. That said, the economic recovery can only be determined by when the American people feel safe returning to places of work and commerce. Absent that, they’ll continue to stay at home while limiting shopping, work, and travel to the bare essentials. Look to where reopening is already taking place, and businesses find no customers waiting to rush back to bars, restaurants, and theaters.
As much as leaders want to send the message that it’s time to return to normal, returning to normal won’t happen for some time, if at all.
Much like the parable of King Canute, the virus is a natural phenomenon that cannot be conquered through the force of politics or leadership. Rather than the tale of hubris that most people associate with Canute and the tides, the original moral of the story was Canute demonstrating to his courtiers humility in the face of nature’s power. Today, a leader wouldn’t need to suggest to halt the tide. Thanks to science, he could consult a tide chart and understand that the gravity of the sun and moon determine the rise and fall of the water.
Similarly, the debate between re-opening and protecting public health is a false one that rules out a true effort to begin testing, contact tracing, and continuing to backstop public health capacity for disease surges. If we look to other countries that are re-opening, take Germany as an example, a strong testing and tracing regime is in place. Data, not rhetoric, is the only way to prevail over a pandemic.
On March 6, President Trump said during his visit to the CDC “anybody who needs a test, gets a test.” On May 6, when speaking with Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds, President Trump said “by doing all of this testing, we make ourselves look bad.” His new press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany said it was “nonsensical” to test every American. Perhaps, it should heed the advice of its 2020 campaign advisor Corey Lewandowski about how the administration is about to embark on a “huge gamble” on their current course. The economic bounceback will not come rapidly, and over-eager politicians will carry the blame for too rapid of a reopening. Perhaps that is why the decision to go back to work in the face of this virus is already being spun as heroic or warrior-like.
Debating public health and economic health is a false choice, because they will go hand-in-hand. Partisan media will continue to force the narrative of that choice. It is an easy path out. Ramping up testing and tracing will be an immense challenge that will require the government and the private sector to work together, marshaling resources and personnel in ways that we haven’t seen since wartime. Don’t let the debate over the economy versus health debate distract us from the real questions about what our government is doing to ensure that we have the tools we need to move truly out of this crisis.
Putin & Russia’s Social Contract: Straining Under COVID
Joshua Huminski
Putin’s position has, perhaps, never seemed more fragile. The government’s handling of the COVID response failed to take the crisis seriously, early enough, leading to the spread of the disease and a lack of preparedness nationwide. This, on top of an already beleaguered national infrastructure that was ill equipped at the best of times.
Added to this are the twin economic shocks of depressed economic activity and sharply lower oil prices. Russia’s national six-week lockdown sharply curtailed domestic industry, potentially leading to six percent drop in the country’s gross domestic product. Oil prices have nearly halved which, together with natural gas, constitute nearly 50% of the country’s budget revenues. Tax payments were down 31% year-on-year in April and economic activity was down 33% from before the lockdown. A staggering 78% of Russians outside of Moscow were not working.
There is a real possibility that the lockdown could be extended through mid-May and beyond. Anna Popova, the head of Rospotrebnadzor (Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing), a health watchdog, warned “Everything is possible…we can still sit for a long time, until June, at least.” She added, “The restrictions can be lifted by assessing the epidemic situation. If people start to violate them today, then by May 12 it will be obvious that we need to strengthen them.”
Putin, sensing the unease within the country resulting from the lockdown was not quick to embrace the possibility, hinting that some easing of restrictions may come. In a televised meeting with ministers and governors on Wednesday Putin said, “In some places, the tough, justified preventive measures need to stay in place and even be increased, and in some places, it is possible to plan a gradual softening.” He added “But I am saying this again: we cannot jump ahead of ourselves. Any carelessness or haste may cause a setback.”
For four days in a row, Russia recorded 10,000 new COVID cases, passing Germany on Wednesday with the sixth-highest number of infections. On Thursday, Russia recorded 11,000 new cases — a single day record. According to Russia’s health authorities, nearly 50% of those cases displayed no symptoms. The fatality rate in Russia has, however, remained lower than other countries with similar rates of infection. This is leading many to speculate that, as with the infection numbers themselves, the Russians are artificially depressing the death figures. This is likely the result of mis-categorization of the causes of death.
On Saturday, the mayor of Moscow, Sergei Sobyanin said that at least 2% of Muscovites were believed to have COVID, translating in 250,000 — over four times the number the government initially claimed were infected in the capital. According to Sobyanin, “It is obvious that the threat is still growing… Once again I appeal to you, dear Muscovites, with a request to treat self-isolation measures as responsibly as possible.”
In the first week of May, a third member of Putin’s cabinet was diagnosed with COVID: the culture minister, Olga Lyubimova, joined the minister of construction, Vladimir Yakushev (and one of his deputies) and Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin.
The cancelled Victory Day parade, which was due to host Xi Jinping and Emmanuel Macron, the presidents of China and France, respectively, will now consist only of a flyover of Russian aircraft. Putin will lay flowers at a Moscow war memorial and deliver a video address to the country on the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II. For Putin, the parade would have been a chance to stand before the country and the world, at the height of his power and authority. Indeed, had the referendum on extending his presidency not been postponed, he would have likely been sure of his leadership for the foreseeable future and beyond his 2024 term limit.
Putin’s public approval rating dipped to its lowest level since September 1999, falling to 59% in April, down from 63% the previous month. (It should be noted that the Levada-Center, which conducted the poll, shifted their in-person polling to polling by phone, which in their estimates could account for 1% to 2% error). Interestingly, however, those polled expressed increased support for the amendment to extend his presidency through 2036 — up from 40% in March to 47% in April.
Putin seems to be attempting to thread a needle as the social contract of Russia is under its greatest strain during his presidency. The curtailing of political liberties in exchange for security and economic growth is under significant pressure as the government seems to expect the former, but unable to provide either of the latter at the moment. His efforts to shield himself from the most unpopular decisions and devolving them to the governors does not appear to have been as successful as he would have hoped.
In the televised address, the distancing between him and responsibility was palpable. While acknowledging the gravity of the situation, he notably dodged the proverbial buck: “The price of the slightest mistake is the safety, life, and health of our people…therefore, the responsibility for each decision made, by colleagues from the government and the heads of regions, is extremely high.”
Even given the possible polling error, his approval rating is notably down, especially from the high of 89% following the annexation of Crimea. That the public still supports his efforts to extend his rule may indicate a split between the public’s immediate concern of the crisis, but balanced by an expectation that it will end and the overall domestic macro view of Putin’s Russia remains positive. Russians may be hoping that Putin, the strong leader, steps up and takes charge which, hitherto, he has yet to truly do.
Reforming the Electoral College
Chris Condon
In the United States, the president is not selected via a basic majority popular vote. Instead, Article II establishes the Electoral College, a body which assembles once every four years to choose the chief executive. While the Constitution allows each state legislature to decide how their state’s electoral votes are allocated, nearly every state awards all of its electors to the statewide winner of the popular vote. For instance, whichever candidate receives the most votes in California receives the entirety of that state’s 55 electoral vote delegation. In fact, only two states do not use this system; Nebraska and Maine award some of their electors based on statewide winner, and some based on which candidate wins each congressional district in the state. In recent years, some have called this system unjust and have sought to reform or eliminate it entirely.
The nationwide popular vote winner most often ascends to the presidency every four years. The Electoral College has chosen someone other than the popular vote winner only four times in American history. However, two of these instances have occurred within the past 20 years, much to the chagrin of those who have cast votes for the losing candidate in both elections. Many of these voters have urged those in power to modify the system in favor of the popular vote winner, most often taking the form of establishing the national popular vote as the deciding factor in choosing the commander-in-chief. Even now, a number of states are acting on this proposal independently as part of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a collection of states that agree to award their electors to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of who wins the popular vote statewide.
Those that argue in favor of this change assert that the evolving nature of American democracy necessitates modifications to the system established by the Founders. Many citizens were unable to vote in 1789, and it was a herculean task to transmit information across the nation in a timely manner, so the Framers of the Constitution created a small, centralized group of electors (which they intended to be a group of respected citizens representing each state) to efficiently choose the head of the executive branch. With advances in communication technologies and a more broadly-based democracy, opponents of the Electoral College find this system antiquated, unnecessary, and unrepresentative of the populace at large. Additionally, increasing numbers of Americans live in urban areas, meaning that small states have gained an advantage in the number of electoral votes conferred upon them relative to their population. Since electoral votes are granted in a winner-take-all fashion, candidates also often ignore states that reliably vote one way or another in favor of states that are less ideologically fixed.
Proponents of the Electoral College argue that the system may not be perfect, but it is preferable to a simple popular vote. Perhaps the centerpiece of the argument in favor of the current system is also the nation of representation, but of different groups. In their estimation, the electoral advantage gained by more sparsely populated states forces presidential candidates to consider the importance of constituencies that otherwise would not register on their campaign radar. Additionally, the geographical distribution of swing states allows arguably underserved regions of the country (the midwest, for instance) to act as a deciding factor in choosing the president. Many have also been wary of federalizing elections, which they argue leaves the results more vulnerable to tampering. In some ways, the same broad debate occurred among the political minds of the early Republic: small states and rural voters versus large states and urban voters.
While both perspectives offer valid justifications for their points of view, each often frames their solution as the only valid one. As with most points of debate, this is untrue. In fact, a solution exists which incorporates the most compelling aspects of each potential solution: top-two proportional allocation of electoral votes based on statewide popular vote. Although this proposal is in its fledgling stage, it has the potential to drastically change the conversation surrounding the Electoral College.
Proportional allocation is ingenious in its simplicity: rather than utilizing a winner-take-all system within each state, each of the top two candidates would receive a percentage of a state’s electoral votes proportional to the number of popular votes they earn in that state. In 2016 for instance, since Donald Trump won roughly one third of popular votes, he would have received 18.6 of the state’s 55 electoral votes. Conversely, Hillary Clinton would have received 17.2 of Texas’ 38 electoral votes based on her popular vote performance there. It is safe to conclude from this fact that such an allocation of electors would more accurately reflect the preferences of the voters of each state, and would not leave sizable minorities of voters without representation in the Electoral College.
Since larger cities have the ability to dominate the electoral tendency of states where they are present, candidates would likely be forced to campaign there unlike the current system. However, they would also be unable to ignore rural areas of these states, as voters here also contribute to the electoral allotment of their states and would likely punish candidates for neglecting rural issues. Such arithmetic also applies to the question of small states versus large states; while large states would also receive their fair share of campaigning under this system, small states would still warrant attention because they would maintain their numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In sum, top-two proportional allocation gives a voice to those currently unrepresented, does not marginalize the traditionally underserved constituencies that currently have an advantage, and allows states to maintain control over election administration.
Uniformly applying such a proposal would take a constitutional amendment, and is thus a long term solution that requires time and resources to enact. However, it incorporates the best aspects of a national popular vote and the current Electoral College system, preserving the essence of the system established by the Founders while modernizing it for use in a modern democratic republic. While the argument for a national popular vote is often reduced to moralizing and the opposite often takes the form of simple inertia, these do a great disservice to American voters, who deserve fair and effective representation in choosing our president.
Supreme Court to Examine Trump Tax Cases
Aida Olivas
With three cases currently pending against Donald Trump relating to his tax records (Trump vs. Mazars USA, LLP, et. al., Trump vs. Deutsche Bank, et. al., Trump v. Vance, Jr., et. al.), there are several questions concerning the constitutional validity of the investigation launched by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the House Financials Services Committee, and the House Intelligence Committee, as well as the limits of a state’s power to investigate federal officials. Though not all queries can be posed in this op-ed, a few that are noteworthy have been presented.
Although not explicitly mentioned, Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution implies that Congress has the power to investigate and enforce cooperation with investigations. The Supreme Court also declared these powers as necessary and essential to the functions of Congress in McGrain v. Daugherty (1927) and Watkins v. United States (1957). This power, however, is limited in the sense that it can only be used to consider and craft future legislation, and to investigate and oversee government officials and federal programs. This definition includes the president and their actions while in office and allows Congress to enforce the submission of documents and testimonies from the president and his subordinates if needed.
While there have been civil investigations into sitting presidents concerning their actions before they assumed office (such as Clinton v. Jones in 1997), there has not been a criminal investigation into the president’s life before taking office as is being done now with the cases of Trump v. Deutsche Bank, et. al. and Trump v. Vance, Jr. et. al. Trump’s brief is extremely interesting in many aspects; for starters, two major past cases his counsel cites work against the president in several ways. Clinton v. Jones (1997), for example, is cited: “a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation in federal court…for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office.” It is odd that the Trump team decided to invoke that line specifically since the president has been attempting to grant himself immunity from all congressional investigations and oversight, civil or not, and providing the above quote seems to only be a detriment to their own case. Although that past case relates to civil law, the manner in which it has been presented indicates that a president has no immunity from actions done before taking office, and if extended, even from past criminal acts.
However, in the case of Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, et. al., the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has declared that the purpose of their subpoena to Trump’s accounting firm is to receive Trump’s taxes from 2011, 2012, and 2013 to “amend or supplement its ethics in government laws.” Meanwhile, Trump’s team of lawyers have responded that using the current president’s tax records from so long ago do not provide a “legitimate legislative purpose.” Nixon v. United States (1974) is also cited in their brief and includes the Court’s opinion of that time that “executive privilege is not limitless.” This, however, poses a new question to both the Mazar and Deutsche Bank cases concerning the president’s privilege when it comes to his tax records; if there is an investigation underway for possible tax fraud, are the president’s tax documents protected by executive privilege, or are they not due to a technical loophole of claiming the documents are in aid of an investigation for legislative purposes as said by the three House committees of Oversight and Reform, Financial Services, and Intelligence? History buffs will remember that Nixon was eventually required to surrender the tapes that ultimately sealed his fate because the courts were not bound to honor any and all presidential claims of executive privilege, especially if the evidence in question was essential to the case.
The petitioner’s brief also “argues that the president is absolutely immune from criminal prosecutions while in office and so he may therefore seek to quash any and all subpoenas even when issued to third parties, so long as they arise out of criminal investigations that may implicate him.” Aside from the fact the cases in question are concerning investigations (from which the president is not immune), the topic of absolute immunity has already been settled by the previous presidential case of United States V. Nixon (1974) with the Supreme Court deciding the president’s immunity was not limitless. Taxes from 2011, 2012, and 2013 are not within the scope of time in which Donald Trump was president and since he was a private citizen at that time, executive privilege also does not apply because there is no clear public interest protected by withholding the financial information; there is only a private, personal interest involved.
While the original date for the oral arguments was March 31, 2020, the cases have been rescheduled for May 12, 2020, and will be heard over the phone as part of the Supreme Court’s live broadcast to the public. With the plethora of questions presented by the cases against the president, the oral arguments and decisions will be highly anticipated. The results of these cases will add new information to the exclusive area of constitutional law concerning the scope of presidential power and privilege.
Strange Things Are Afoot in Venezuela
Michael Stecher
According to news reports from Caracas, a small group of gunmen led by Yanqui mercenaries engaged in a gunfight with government forces off the Venezuelan coast. Several were killed and some captured, including two men with documents that identified them as veterans of the U.S. military and employees of a private military contractor called Silvercorp USA. The regime of disputed President Nicolas Maduro was quick to blame the governments of the United States and Colombia for attempting to overthrow him and drew comparisons to the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion in which CIA-backed expatriates attempted to oust Cuba’s Fidel Castro. Upon closer examination, the story looks far stranger, and many questions remain unanswered about this bizarre incident.
Venezuela is beset by multiple, overlapping crises. The country is facing a longstanding economic collapse fueled by decades of horrific economic mismanagement by its kleptocratic former President Hugo Chavez and the kakistocracy of his successor, Nicolas Maduro. Despite having the world’s largest proven oil reserves, the country’s economy has been in complete freefall for years and the basic capacity of the state has crumbled. Maduro’s re-election in December 2018 was a thoroughly corrupt enterprise and, in its aftermath, Juan Guaido, an opposition politician in the National Assembly claimed to be the legal interim president. More than 50 countries recognize Guaido as the legitimate representative of the Venezuelan people, including most of the European Union and the Americas. Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Nicaragua, Bolivia and a few others support Maduro. Notable fence-sitters include Mexico, Italy, and Norway.
The Trump administration has made opposition to Maduro a centerpiece of its Western Hemisphere strategy. Then-National Security Advisor John Bolton identified Venezuela as part of [no joke] the “Troika of Tyranny” along with Cuba and Nicaragua. Increasing pressure from the United States and international community threatened to make Maduro‘s position untenable and he nearly lost power in April 2019 — he reportedly had a plane waiting on the tarmac to take him to Havana when he was convinced to stay put and the incipient coup dissolved.
Then last summer members of the Venezuelan opposition held a pitch competition in Miami. They were looking for proposals for regime change. Alongside more traditional public affairs and advocacy options, this group was also potentially interested in hiring a private military company to “[kidnap] Maduro and his close associates.” Enter Jordan Goudreau, former Army special forces and CEO of Silvercorp USA. There is some evidence that Goudreau may have implied that he had connections to the Trump administration and offered to train a group of soldiers under the command of Major General Cliver Alcalá, a former Chavez loyalist who had defected.
For the low-low price of $212.9 million (competitors had apparently quoted the group $500 million or more), these forces would infiltrate Venezuela, prepare the ground for an armed uprising, and arrest Maduro. While Goudreau has provided a contract apparently signed by Guaido and senior members of the opposition, they dispute those details. A spokesperson for the expatriate group reported that, after Goudreau failed to make serious progress recruiting or training soldiers, they severed the relationship and considered the operation dead. Alcalá was even in custody for a federal indictment on charges including giving surface-to-air missiles to the Colombian terrorist group FARC and other, less spectacular forms of cocaine trafficking.
But, like North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un, the plot was apparently not dead. On May 1, the Associated Press published a long report about the forces that Goudreau and Alcalá had assembled in the Colombian jungle. The AP spoke to a former Navy SEAL who had trained them in combat first aid who described them as lacking basic supplies and running water and training with sawed off broomsticks instead of firearms like the German Army. The plot reportedly fell apart after one of the volunteers was arrested trying to sneak into Venezuela and senior leaders of the Venezuelan secret police claimed to have thoroughly infiltrated the operation.
But the plot was apparently still not dead. On May 3 — to be clear, two days after reports that described the plot in the past tense appeared in international media — tweets described military action taking place off the coast of Venezuela. That evening,Goudreau appeared in a video on Twitter saying that the operation to overthrow Maduro had begun. A few hours later, he tweeted about a “strikeforce incursion” with “60 Venezuelan[s] and 2 American ex Green Beret[s]” and tagging President Trump. Tweeting about your covert operation in progress would seem to violate the Stringer Bell Corollary to Robert’s Rules of Order [warning: language in link is NSFW], but now, it seems the plot was finally dead.
In the subsequent days, the U.S. and Colombian governments have disavowed all knowledge of the operation, while the Maduro regime has crowed to the media and showed off their battle trophies and mobilized 25,000 troops to track down fugitives. Asked why he planned a daring amphibious assault near the heavily fortified capital, Goudreau said, “Are you familiar with Alexander the Great? The Battle of Gaugamela. Completely outnumbered. He struck to the heart of the enemy, and he won,” a reference to the battle in which history’s greatest full-tilt gambler destroyed the Persian army. Also in general comparing oneself to Alexander is a bad sign.
When asked about this operation, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said something that raised my eyebrows, “There was no U.S. government direct involvement in this operation.” The word “direct” seems to be doing some unexpected work in that sentence. By contrast, General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “The U.S. government had nothing to do with what has happened in Venezuela in the last few days” — a less equivocal denial.
One other outstanding mystery involves the weapons allegedly confiscated by the Maduro regime. According to Bellingcat, the well respected open source investigation group, the “mercenaries” were carrying an Airsoft rifle — a BB gun. I cannot even begin to speculate what that means.
Space Combat
Ethan Brown
Conflict in space remains largely theoretical at this time, although rivals like China, Iran, and Russia have spent recent years actively pressing the edges of US dominance in the space domain and testing the heretofore undefined limits of behavior in the next frontier. The challenges have come via Ballistic Missile Defense, alternative geospatial navigation and communication systems, and a variety of super-heavy launch rocket designs for Low Earth (LEO) and Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO) delivery. But these emerging mechanisms only reflect the rise of the west’s adversaries into the domain that is space. It does not in essence define what the space fight 100+ miles above us might look like.
There is a valid discussion that should be had on the relationship between the hardware of the space enterprise (the chunks of expensive metal cruising at an orbital speed of 17,000 mph) and the consumer-driven ‘software’ [data, cyber, or the societal daily utilization of these systems], as vulnerabilities in the next conflict. But once again, just acknowledging these two components does not define what the fight is. Those two elements of the space enterprise more succinctly define the locales of the war, where the space domain and its code-carrying inhabitants form the proverbial front lines. The reality is that combat in space will be a new and abstract battlefield, once which this analysis will attempt to explore through the lens of recent work by the NRO and SDA.
As of yet, no doctrine-based strategy exists for this potential orbital theater of combat, though a variety of pop culture, entertainment and literary venues regularly inject imaginative and educated takes on the next frontier of conflict. These imaginations range from the chillingly possible and realistic to the satirical, which reflect the stark reality that few, if any members of this discussion can come to terms on what a space fight will look like.
Space requires a strategy for what the fight is, so that policy makers can decide what legal and ethical actions the Space Force can take (as it stands, the newest branch of service does not fully conform to the Title X entitlements of its sister services) as an actioning arm of the national defense infrastructure. It is no different than applying the Law of Armed Conflict to soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in our current theaters of combat- although the implications of space (and/or cyber) are much broader in scope, meaning the effects of this potential combat places at risk a grander scale of those affected. Rather than the notion that the war is ‘over there’, vulnerabilities in this hardware/software abstract could mean everything from your google maps™, to doordash deliveries, to the entire supply chain infrastructure is at risk- if we do poorly in this new battlespace.
Space is then, naturally, not only the next frontier, but has captured the imagination of the most exclusive and secretive elements within the National Security architecture. The National Reconnaissance Organization and US Space Command have begun a joint venture of wargaming, “to develop a shared ‘playbook’ of pre-agreed actions to defend military and spy satellites during a conflict”, NRO and SPACECOM officials reported earlier this week. While this is not a full-fledged doctrine or congressionally defined policy, it is an important step towards protecting what is unquestionably a critical cog in the ever-changing national security calculus.
Unfortunately, the NRO is one of the most exclusive clubs nestled somewhere between the DoD and the Intelligence Community, thus the specific details of these Concept of the Operation (CONOP) development exercises remain highly classified. A generic glimpse from NRO Deputy Director Maj. Gen. Michael Guetlein speaking in March referred to the need for determining “who has the responsibility for defending which elements of the space enterprise, and how?” In short, the NRO and its space partners are starting to assemble the answer to that question. What it lacks at this early phase is an offensive (reference the Title X comments above) definition of space power, but at least this means that some of the smartest minds are trying to trace the outlines of this oblong, science fiction-like box.
The security of the space collective affects everything the DoD and IC rely on in order to continue safeguarding our democracy, both existing integrated defense systems, as well as the GPC-driven systems of power projection and future-C2, covered extensively in this roundup in previous months. The NRO is a fickle beast, who’s manufacturing specifications and acquisitions model must meet (read: cater to) both DoD and IC security requirements- as NRO equipment supports communications and information exchange for both customers while achieving its own intelligence gathering aims. Therefore, whatever the NRO dictates as necessary in these CONOPs may well drive the still-developing Space Force acquisitions model- a topic our colleague Joshua Huminski identified early this year as a critical issue for the emergent Space Force.
Finally, Space Combat (or Orbital Contact, again there is not yet a set doctrine, so let’s not limit ourselves on labeling) is not yet an understood thing, as is the still-developing role of the Space Force. What we do know is that the fight will involve the satellite constellations and the lines of code transiting those antenna arrays conducted in bits and bursts across a multitude of spectrums. It won’t be like anything we’ve seen, and strangely enough it might actually be what some have imagined. But at least there are good people trying to crack that nut right now so that we have hope of retaining our supremacy in the Space domain.
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
“Like Petri Dishes for the Virus”: ICE Detention Centers Threaten the Rural South
Aida Olivas
There have been concerns about ICE detainees being transferred to and from detention centers that run through rural areas, especially in southern parts of the country. Several small town community members worry about Coronavirus spreading among the detained immigrants and guards, which could then potentially pass on to family members and neighbors. This fear is further exacerbated among several counties by the lack of nearby hospitals, available ICU beds, or other similar resources that would be needed in the case of an outbreak. Despite multiple county concerns, ICE has not stopped its daily transfers and has instead separated the detainees in different cohorts of those who are not infected, have tested positive, or have had possible contact with the virus. Doctors and other health experts have warned against this grouping measure stating it will increase infection probability rather than reduce it. Immigrant advocacy organizations such as ACLU, Amnesty International, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus recommend releasing the detainees, or at the very minimum, “those with medical conditions that make them particularly susceptible to the virus”. Among virus concerns and orders from federal judges, ICE has released around 700 people but have refrained from large-scale releases claiming it would “endanger ‘public safety’”.
What’s Behind South Korea’s COVID-19 Exceptionalism?
Aida Olivas
In mid-March, the United States and South Korea had similar numbers of deaths caused by the virus, however, while the American government struggled with its response and downplayed the dangers, the Korean government and health ministry took immediate actions to prevent further chaos. Some wrongly believe the different responses to be rooted in cultural and religious differences rather than legislative changes as a result of other public health crises that emerged in recent years, including outbreaks of SARS in 2002, H1N1 influenza in 2009, and MERS in 2015. During the 2015 MERS outbreak, many of the responses by the Korean government, especially early on, were highly damaging and counter-productive which resulted in the public’s loss of trust in their government. Afterward, the country implemented strong public health crisis reforms that led to the quick and efficient control of the virus, however, some of South Korea’s past actions were mirrored by the U.S. government in the recent pandemic of Coronavirus. With empty streets and a halted economy, many have wondered if the United States will also undergo drastic reforms to better control and isolate possible widespread illnesses in the future.
Bing Liu: Chinese Born Professor Dies in U.S. Murder-Suicide
Aida Olivas
Assistant professor at the University of Pittsburg School of Medicine, Bing Liu was found murdered in his home in Pittsburg last Saturday in what the local police have determined as a murder-suicide regarding an argument of an intimate partner. The researcher was close to making new, important discoveries concerning Coronavirus, including “understanding the cellular mechanisms of [the] COVID-19 infection” and his death has fueled much online speculation and conspiracy theories from both Chinese and American citizens. The most popular conspiracy theory being that Lui was close to discovering the origins of the Coronavirus which many of the baseless and unverified claims promoted by both countries have continued to be discussed among theorists.
The Return of the Cubicle? Companies Rethink Office Life Post Lockdown
Aida Olivas
As several countries begin to take steps to reopen their economies, many companies are beginning to take steps toward redesigning their workspace plans. New layouts and designs include removing open spaced desks in favor of cubicle type areas with plexiglass walls, separating desks to be six feet apart, changing carpeting or floors to show discrete visual markers six feet apart, removing cafeteria buffets, and much more. Despite many companies taking part in the renovations, others are hesitant to follow due to high costs associated with doing so, opting instead to continue using more remote work and minimizing the amount of people in the office at one time.
Upcoming CSPC Virtual Events
Former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Sue Gordon: Webinar on COVID, Intelligence, & Great Power Competition
Friday, May 15th, 2020–9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. ET
The Honorable Sue Gordon, former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, joins CSPC to discuss the future of the Intelligence Community in light of the return of Great Power Competition and the COVID-19 pandemic. Bringing with her over 30 years of experience across the IC, Ms. Gordon is well placed to provide novel insights into how the Community has changed and could change going forward in these uncertain times and when the United States is facing complex and dynamic trans-national and global issues.
General Martin Dempsey — “No Time for Spectators: The Lessons That Mattered Most from West Point to the West Wing”
Thursday, May 21st, 2020 –11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ET
CSPC is pleased and honored to welcome General Martin Dempsey, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss his new book “No Time for Spectators: The Lessons That Mattered Most from West Point to the West Wing”. Why are the best leaders the ones who are most adept at following? What should we expect of those who have the privilege of leading? And what may leaders expect of those who follow them? Drawing upon a military career spanning more than four decades, General Dempsey examines the limits of loyalty, the necessity of sensible skepticism, and the value of responsible rebelliousness, and explains why we actually should sweat the small stuff.
Thomas Rid — “Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation & Political Warfare”
Friday, May 22nd, 2020–10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ET
Johns Hopkins University professor, Dr. Thomas Rid, joins CSPC to discuss his latest book “Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare”. Brought into the public consciousness by the 2016 elections, active measures, as Dr. Rid shows, have a long and complex history that span the globe. In a conversation with Chairman Rogers and Rep. Nye, Dr. Rid will explore what active measures are, and are not, and how democratic society can be better prepared to address and more resilient to resist these adversarial campaigns.
Max Brooks — “Stranger than Fiction: Security, Survival & COVID.”
Tuesday, May 26th, 2020 from 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. EDT.
A global pandemic, domestic panic, food and material shortages, and a confused government response sounds like something out of fiction, may seem stranger than fiction, but it is very much the COVID-driven reality we face today (thankfully, thus far without zombies). Crafting scenarios and seeing how people and societies may react in these crises is the world of fiction, and it is a world from which policymakers can and indeed should learn. Bestselling author of World War Z and the author of the upcoming book Devolution, Max Brooks, joins CSPC to discuss the role fiction can play in crisis planning and response, and what lessons fiction can provide for security, survival, and pandemic preparedness.
August Cole — “Burn-In: A Novel of the Real Robotic Revolution”
Friday, May 29th, 2020–10:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. ET
Author August Cole joins CSPC to discuss his latest book, “Burn-In: A Novel of the Robotic Revolution”. A fictional work based on real world technologies and forecasted developments, this techno-thriller follows in the footsteps of the “Ghost Fleet”, written with P.W. Singer, which quickly became mandatory reading inside the Department of Defense as prescient about how a future conflict with China may playout. In “Burn-In” Cole and Singer explore a future America where AI, robotics, remote work, etc. are even more common than they are today, and explore the significant new security threats and implications they will bring as a FBI agent tracks down a terrorist amidst the new technological and industrial revolution.
Dr. Jung Pak — “Becoming Kim Jong Un: A Former CIA Officer’s Insights into North Korea’s Enigmatic Young Dictator”
Monday, June 1st, 2020 from 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. EDT.
North Korea is, perhaps, one of the most challenging national security and foreign policy challenges facing the United States today. The country, and its leadership, is the embodiment of Churchill’s dictum “It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.” As the quote continues, “but perhaps there is a key.” Dr. Jung Pak of the Brookings Institution is a former CIA officer and one of the foremost experts on the country and the regime, and will join CSPC to discuss her new book “Becoming Kim Jong Un” and what the United States should understand about the Dear Leader and his regime.
Dr. Mark Galeotti — “How Putin’s Russia understands war — and its struggle with the West”
Thursday, June 4th, 2020 from 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. EDT.
In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea — the first seizure of foreign territory in Europe by another country since the end of World War II. For many this signaled a notable escalation of the new Cold War between Russia and the West. Followed by Russian interference in the United States’ 2016 elections and Moscow’s deployment of forces to Syria, it appeared that Vladimir Putin was dramatically escalating his conflict with Washington. Author (Russian Political War, We Need to Talk about Putin, the Vory, and the upcoming Short History of Russia) Dr. Mark Galeotti joins CSPC to discuss Russia’s strategy and how it views and understands the concept of war and how Moscow views its conflict with NATO and the West.
The views of authors are their own, and not those of CSPC.