Search

Begin New Search Topic National Security Publication Year within 5 Years

311. Bolstering Surveillance for a Pandemic

Author:
Jennifer Nuzzo
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the world’s vulnerabilities to pandemics, and the inadequacies of existing surveillance infrastructure and data to help us respond to them. At both the national and global level, insufficient abilities to rapidly identify and characterize the emergence of new pathogens; adequately diagnose and enumerate infected individuals; analyze trends in CO- VID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths; evaluate the impact of public health interventions; track essential supplies; and monitor COVID-19’s development have hindered global effectiveness in stopping its spread. Historically, the answers to these questions have been sought from human clinical and public health sources, such as patients’ diagnostic test results and demographic information. However, as COVID-19 has demonstrated, the human health data available are often insufficient, and the management and response to a complex pandemic also requires data from other sectors, such as businesses, news, and social media; animal health and environmental organizations; and defense, law enforcement, and intelligence. These challenges are not unique to the COVID-19 pandemic and will likely be encountered again in the future unless national governments and international agencies act to improve surveillance capabilities.
Topic:
National Security, Infrastructure, Surveillance, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

312. Factsheet: The Patriot Act

Author:
Bridge Initiative Team
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The Bridge Initiative, Georgetown University
Abstract:
The “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,” commonly known as the Patriot Act, was passed less than two months after September 11, 2001. The act greatly expanded the surveillance powers of the U.S. Government, allowing the National Security Agency to access phone metadata, authorize roving wiretaps, and detain individuals at the U.S. border. Congress has authorized the extension of certain portions of the act numerous times, however, as of December 2020, key provisions of the Patriot Act have expired.
Topic:
National Security, Surveillance, War on Terror, and Patriot Act
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

313. Time for a New National Innovation System for Security and Prosperity

Author:
Robert D. Atkinson
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
In his 1989 classic The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers Paul Kennedy wrote, “To be a Great Power—by definition, a state capable of holding its own against any other nation—demands a flourishing economic base.” Kennedy should have added, “an economic (and technology) base that is flourishing more than its competitors.” If that is the sine qua non of being a great power, the United States faces significant challenges and is at risk of losing its 75-year great power status. If the United States is to stay ahead of China militarily and technologically, it will need to essentially put in place a new national innovation (and production) system, because the current one suffers from serious shortcomings. After World War II, the United States created the world’s best innovation system (for example, the rules, incentives, funding, institutions, and relationships that support innovation and production). Once we won the cold war, U.S. leaders let it languish and shrink, while in turn embracing market fundamentalism (a belief that government should play a minimal role in supporting innovation) as the overarching economic policy doctrine that limits American freedom of movement to this day. Now facing a multi-decade great power conflict with China, it is time for the establishment of a revised and renewed U.S. national innovation system.1
Topic:
Security, National Security, Innovation, and Prosperity
Political Geography:
China, Global Focus, and United States of America

314. Natural Hazards and National Security: The COVID-19 Lessons

Author:
David Omand
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
Natural hazards can have serious implications for national security. The COVID-19 pandemic illustrates how first-order challenges are created for our national security planners, not least maintaining SSBN and SSN submarine crew and air crew rosters during quarantine restrictions, as well as keeping forces operationally effective while establishing social distancing in supply, repair and support facilities, gyms, and mess halls. We must also expect our adversaries to try to exploit the dislocation such events cause to further their own agendas. From our painful experience of COVID-19, we can draw general lessons for planning against the potential impact on national security of a range of natural hazards. In this article, I also want to address some of the less direct second- and third-order effects of COVID-19 that have wider implications for our future national security.1 Those indirect effects prompt the question of whether we have adequately defined the boundaries of what ought to be included within the rubric of planning for national security in the future. That in turn raises the question of where the balance of argument lies in moving in the direction of a Scandinavian-style “total defense” against both threats and natural hazards. That would likely involve some extension of the scope of the funded missions of the armed forces, and enlargement of the responsibilities of defense departments over an expanding national security space. There are important debates to be had drawing on the lessons from the COVID-19 experience, from how best to organize national resources for an all-of-nation response and identifying and analyzing potential natural hazards, to making informed choices as to where best to invest in precautionary measures that will meet with public support.
Topic:
Defense Policy, National Security, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

315. Countering Aggression in the Gray Zone

Author:
Elisabeth Braw
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
In recent years, much has been written and said about conflict in the so-called “gray zone,” often described as conflict below the threshold of combat. Gray zone aggression is an attractive option for Western rivals because it exploits the openness of Western societies. The fact that Western countries are characterized by small governments with limited powers to dictate the activities of their populations and businesses makes these countries even more attractive targets for nonkinetic aggression, ranging from hostile business activities, to cyber attacks, to kidnappings, assassinations, and even occupation by unofficial militias aligned with foreign powers. Resourceful adversaries use such actions to force wedges into the fault lines of open societies. With innovative thinking, however, liberal democracies can develop effective gray zone deterrence while staying within the norms of behavior they have set for themselves.
Topic:
National Security, Innovation, Deterrence, Gray Zone, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
Global Focus

316. Congress’s Hidden Strengths: Wielding Informal Tools of National Security Oversight

Author:
Richard Fontaine and Loren DeJonge Schulman
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
On matters of peace and war, virtually no one seems satisfied with Congress. Constitutionally coequal to the executive, the Congress often appears more an uneasy junior partner. During the past two decades, the executive branch has expanded its authority to launch, conduct, and conceal military activity. In response, Congress—despite its formal powers to declare war, appropriate funds, and organize the armed forces—has largely deferred, putting up more of a rhetorical fight than engaging in a deliberative effort to shape American wars. Congress, even lawmakers complain, postures more than it prescribes, overlooks more than it oversees, and passes time more than it passes laws. Conventional wisdom and political consultants offer congressmen good rationale: foreign policy does not typically drive elections, Americans are increasingly disconnected from both their military and the costs of war, and there are few political incentives to dig deeply into matters of war and peace. Today the “imperial presidency” is accepted as a given division of labor rather than seen as a counter-constitutional anomaly. And yet with the nation involved in military operations across multiple countries, and with debates about possible military interventions in Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela reaching the White House, congressional attention to the use of force should today be at a premium. The Founders were correct to vest national security decisionmaking in not only one branch of government, and history shows numerous examples of Congress positively influencing matters of war and peace. An inactive or indifferent legislature leaves power overconcentrated in the executive, while an engaged Congress may not just check presidential reach but can actively improve the conduct of American conflicts.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, National Security, and Armed Forces
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

317. United Kingdom Veteran Landscape

Author:
Emma Moore, Kayla M. Williams, and Zachary Jaynes
Publication Date:
08-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
Aclose history of collaboration in national security and diplomacy between the United States and United Kingdom leads to many similarities between military personnel of both countries, both during and following service. These similarities mean both countries have much to learn from one another regarding best practices for supporting the military community broadly, despite differences in political systems, governance, and cultural norms. The United Kingdom’s veteran support landscape is sometimes considered behind that of the United States, in part due to the sector’s smaller size; however, the robust nature of the U.K.’s welfare state, combined with renewed engagement from the government, have led to significant progress in recent years. U.K. charities fill gaps in areas the government does not serve, while corporations look to recognize veteran skill sets and challenge existing societal narratives of service. The unique role of the Royal Family and Royal Foundation adds a nationwide focus on mental well-being with a key focus on the armed forces community. This landscape analysis provides an overview of support for veterans in the United Kingdom to better understand how the United States’ closest ally supports veterans from a government, charity, and corporate perspective. In addition to examining the efforts of each sector’s support for veterans, this analysis examines the status of veterans across the United Kingdom’s devolved nations.
Topic:
Diplomacy, National Security, Military Affairs, and Veterans
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

318. Open Future: The Way Forward on 5G

Author:
Martijn Rasser and Ainikki Riikonen
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
Communication networks are the central nervous system of the 21st century economy. The fifth generation of wireless—5G—will be essential to and inseparable from all we do. In many ways, we are already there. What for most was an abstract concept became all too real during the COVID-19 crisis. The coronavirus pandemic has underscored the critical importance of communication networks: They are integral to our daily lives and our ability to function economically and as a society. Shutdowns of offices, schools, and stores have meant turning to apps to work, learn, and buy. Frontline medical workers and vaccine researchers have consulted colleagues via teleconference to get the latest insight and advice on combating the virus. Being connected means resilience, coping, surviving. Getting 5G right is all the more urgent. Next-generation 5G networks will enable telemedicine, self-driving cars, and a proliferation of Internet of Things devices to fuel the future digital economy. Secure, reliable 5G networks will be essential elements of national infrastructure. Policymakers in Australia, Japan, and Vietnam understood this early on and took decisive action to secure their 5G networks. U.S. officials, slower out of the gates, are now the loudest voice on the risks of having equipment from untrusted vendors in 5G networks. The spotlight is brightest on the risks that Huawei poses to national security, including the threat of espionage or disruption. Given the Chinese Communist Party’s ability to exercise control over Huawei, there is justifiable concern over data integrity on networks that deploy Huawei equipment. More serious is the potential to use 5G equipment as a vector to cripple critical infrastructure. Such risk is not only about communications—5G will be the backbone of controls needed for power grids, water supplies, and transportation infrastructure. Despite this, the United States has had only limited success convincing its allies to join it in banning Huawei. The United States has the opportunity to regain momentum by taking a fresh approach to 5G in the aftermath of the pandemic. In addition to the broader appreciation for the criticality of reliable communication networks, Beijing’s coronavirus cover-up and clunky attempts at soft power have hardened public opinion toward China around the world. The economic fallout of the pandemic will likely slow 5G deployments globally, curtailing the urgency with which many operators approached the issue. At the same time, the first commercial projects centered on technological alternatives to the predominant 5G approach are being deployed. This confluence of events presents the United States and like-minded countries an opening to promote an alternative approach that could lead to a paradigm shift in the industry: wireless infrastructure built on a modular architecture with open interfaces. A modular architecture allows an operator to choose multiple vendors for a range of offerings, rather than being locked in with a single large integrated vendor. Open interfaces—the ability of equipment from any vendor to work with that of another—make that possible. Such a shift means upending the industry status quo that is dominated by four telecommunications equipment providers: China’s Huawei, Finland’s Nokia, Sweden’s Ericsson, and South Korea’s Samsung. Whereas other proposed responses to the Huawei dilemma and the problematic current state of competition in the telecommunications industry fiddle at the margins, switching to an industry centered on open interfaces would change the game altogether. A restructured industry based on open interfaces would directly address the prevailing concerns over untrusted vendors such as Huawei and the broader inefficiencies of the industry. There are distinct advantages to be gained in security and interoperability, supply chain resiliency, probable cost savings, and the opportunity to stimulate much-needed competition in the sector. Taken together, these advantages do much to blunt Beijing’s industrial policies that have enabled Huawei’s predatory anti-competitive practices.
Topic:
National Security, Science and Technology, Communications, COVID-19, and 5G
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

319. Strengthening the Relationship Between Embassies and U.S. Special Operations Forces: Part 1, the Current Environment

Author:
Carter Wilbur
Publication Date:
02-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
The release of the National Security Strategy (NSS)[i] in 2017 and related National Defense Strategy (NDS)[ii] in 2018 shifted the United States’ strategic focus to what has become known as Great Power Competition (GPC). These strategies acknowledge that the almost 20-year long fight against violent extremist organizations (VEOs) will continue, but add the need to address emerging and enduring threats from near-peer competitors such as Russia and China, and those approaching that status, such as Iran and North Korea. To address these authoritarian competitors requires the seamless integration of all aspects of U.S. power. Specifically, this article seeks to examine the current status of the relationship between U.S. embassies and U.S. Special Operations Forces (USSOF), while Part 2 will propose some specific ways to improve that working relationship.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, National Security, Armed Forces, and Military Affairs
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

320. A New Direction: A Foreign Policy Playbook on Military Restraint for the Biden Team

Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
Two decades of endless war and a bloated Pentagon budget that has proven useless in preventing Covid–19 deaths, now 270,000 and counting, are a jarring reminder that America’s foreign policy is thoroughly broken: It actually makes America and Americans less safe. Successive administrations have deployed the military in a costly, counterproductive, and indiscriminate manner, normalizing war and treating armed dominance as an end in itself. In consequence, the foreign policies of the United States are detached from any defensible conception of U.S. interests and from a decent respect for the rights and dignity of humankind. Marginal adjustments to the current approach will prove insufficient. A deeper rethinking of American foreign policy is warranted. This must be an undertaking that puts the well-being of the American people ahead of ambitions to dominate the globe. President-elect Joe Biden appears to recognize the need for a serious reorientation. His just-named national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, recently said that Biden has tasked his foreign policy team with “reimagining our national security for the unprecedented combination of crises we face at home and abroad,” including pandemics and the climate crisis. Moreover, Sullivan said that American foreign policy has to be judged by a basic question: Does it “make life better, easier, and safer” for Americans at home? Our foreign policy, in Sullivan’s words, has to deliver for American families.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, National Security, Military Affairs, Grand Strategy, and Joe Biden
Political Geography:
Global Focus