Todd Lyons

Today the ISR Task Force partnered with WTOP News, the Federal News Network, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, United States Space Force, and Planet Federal to discuss the critical topic of Broad Area Management and its impact on the safety and security of our nation. In the round table discussion, we touched on the imperative of #teamwork in Integrated Deterrence while also discussing some of the more tangible ways the services are investing in solutions to deliver enhanced situational understanding around the world. The US Army Intelligence enterprise, under the direction of Lieutenant General Tony Hale, is working hard to deliver horizontally integrated capabilities at a pace and scale that matches the tempo of the modern operational environment. To optimize these systems, we’ve been directed to develop strategies for wide-adoption and implementation of Artificial Intelligence capabilities into human-centric workflows. Soon the world currency will be measured in TPUs and GPUs. #Data centricity is a thing, and embracing it is what separates visionary leaders from everyone else. We wrap up this week with a conversation with Congressman Ken Calvert (R-CA) - a partner on Capitol Hill who is “all in” on AI investments.

105

1 Comment

Check out this Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) article by Mark F. Cancian and Chris H. Park. It proposes critical questions to understand the reasoning and impacts of North Korean troops deployed in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The arrival of these troops in Russia is a reminder of the shifting global alliances that have implications far beyond the Russia-Ukraine conflict. As authoritarian governments like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran grow closer, we’re seeing a challenge to the international rules-based order that has helped maintain peace and prosperity across multiple regions, including the Indo-Pacific. Russia’s decision to bring in North Korean support highlights the lengths it’s willing to go to maintain its position despite internal struggles and manpower shortages. This partnership adds another layer of complexity, hinting at a growing alliance between regimes prioritizing strength over transparency and cooperation. We can better prepare for the impacts on security and stability worldwide by understanding these shifts. #geopolitics #alliesandpartners #freeandopenindopacific

10

"Beyond strategies, policy, and investment, the US military needs to create a command to develop national contingency plans to mobilize and sustain the materiel required by the joint force and, in the event of conflict, interdict adversary supply chains through partnerships across the government." Thanks to the Modern War Institute at West Point for running 𝑰𝒇 𝑯𝒆𝒑𝒉𝒂𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒖𝒔 𝑫𝒐𝒆𝒔𝒏'𝒕 𝑨𝒏𝒔𝒘𝒆𝒓, my personal take on the need for a more active approach to defense supply chains. This article and the ideas within have been years in the making. There are many who walked alongside me and I'm grateful! Special thanks to Greg Boschert, Matt Evers, CLTD, Joseph Whittington, David Sanford, David Martin, Sean W., John Barrett, Cody Retherford, Lyle Drew, Jason Okumura, Jon Millard, Peter Guinto, Margaret Sankey, and Chip Litchfield for their thoughtful inputs. As always, these views and any weaknesses related are mine alone! #weaponizedinterdependence #supplychains #warfare #logistics

36

20 Comments

Superb article in CIMSEC by R. Robinson Harris, containing the following quote by Dmitry Filipoff, “…no other service needs to be more invested in tactical superiority and solid warfighting doctrine than navies. If a carrier strike group falls prey to a single missile salvo, that’s about seven thousand lives and $20 billion dollars that is lost in a matter of minutes. By comparison, those numbers would get you about 2,000 tanks, but there is no plausible combat scenario where two thousand tanks are destroyed in a couple minutes. Modern naval warfare is an absolutely brutal form of combat, and because of that, nobody stands to lose so much so quickly from their tactical shortfalls than navies. In naval warfare especially, tactical shortfalls can rapidly escalate into strategic liabilities…” Solid thinking (very unusual in naval circles), cogently argued and well evidenced. Instead of regurgitating 19th and 20th Century naval fallacies, perhaps naval leaders should take heed and spend a little more time on their warfighting doctrine.

29

4 Comments

Check out this compelling article on the critical need for the United States to maintain the capability to engage in multiple conflicts at once. In the past few decades the U.S. defense strategy has shifted towards a single-war focus, a stance that appears increasingly out of touch with current global realities. The assumption that the U.S. will only need to fight one war at a time is not just optimistic—it’s unrealistic given the present circumstances. Today, the U.S. is entangled in two significant conflicts—in Ukraine and the Middle East—with the potential for a third in East Asia over Taiwan or South Korea. Each of these theaters is crucial for American interests and interconnected, highlighting the need for a robust and flexible military strategy. Our adversaries are not isolated; they collaborate in ways that undermine global stability. From Iran selling oil to China, to North Korea supplying weapons to Russia, the U.S. faces a formidable authoritarian alliance. To safeguard an international rules-based order and ensure global stability, it is imperative for the U.S. to be prepared to address multiple threats simultaneously. This article is a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the complexities and necessities of the modern international security dilemma. #DefenseStrategy #USMilitary #GlobalSecurity #InternationalRelations #InternationalSecurity #NationalSecurity #Geopolitics

22

3 Comments

Brookings is a little late with this but at least they are addressing "resistance warfare." The authors (rightly I think) argue that helping our friends, partners, and allies develop a resistance capability should be part of our National Defense Strategy. Bob Jones, calls this unconventional deterrence and resilience. QUOTES: Excerpts: But the United States needs to double down on a little known but very effective irregular approach: resistance warfare. America should do this with Ukraine, enabling them to ramp up resistance activities, as well as broaden these efforts to other friendly frontline partners and allies. ... Ukraine is teaching the world a masterclass in resistance warfare, an asymmetric approach to self-defense. The Defense Department defines resistance as "a nation's organized, whole-of-society effort," both violent and non-violent, to "reestablish independence and autonomy within its sovereign territory that has been wholly or partially occupied by a foreign power." ... In July 2021, the Ukrainian Parliament passed a national resistance law. It provided the legal framework of the dispersed resistance movements—led by Ukrainian special forces, reformed the country's territorial defense forces, and helped prepare regular citizens. The National Resistance Center, created in February 2022, teaches nonviolent resistance and has established underground communication channels. The center leads hands-on workshops, online courses, and produces training manuals. More than 100,000 people have downloaded the manuals. ... Ukrainians clearly have the will to fight and have admirably led their resistance, both military and civilian. While Ukrainian bravery and skill should take much of the credit, a little-known U.S. effort to help build Ukrainian resilience and resistance capabilities over the 2014-2022 period was also key. U.S. support—led by U.S. special operations forces—prioritized long-term relationships, the building and strengthening of defense institutions geared to support resistance warfare operations, and assisted Ukrainian-led preparations in other relevant areas, including information operations. This small footprint support appears to have paid off. Richard Clarke, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, said in April 2022 that U.S. efforts "directly contributed to the success on the battlefield." ... Invasions are back. Supporters of the rules-based international order must act like it and step up efforts to counter them. END QUOTES https://lnkd.in/d6dQRXPu

5

Interesting analysis on the potential expansion of USCG Ops in the Indo-Pacific. https://lnkd.in/gD6zhA7V

2

1 Comment

After thinking, "Hey! That's my idea for an article!" (...that I failed to write), I saw that Dan Hough wrote it better than I ever could! Too often US planners either assume that #AccessBasingAndOverflight (#ABO) in #Japan is assured, either because US forces have been based in Japan since the end of WWII or because Japan is closely aligned with the US in its perception of the threat posed by the #PRC across the #TaiwanStrait. While both of these things are true, ABO in Japan is one of the major operational challenges to the US #JointForce in any #TaiwanContingency. While ABO impacts all parts of the Joint Force, it is often felt most acutely by land forces, like #IIIMEF. Whether in exercises during competition or in delivering combat power during conflict, air and sea forces can adjust their operating locations outside of Japan if ABO is late-to-need. Not so with land forces. Land forces like the #Marines face two ABO-based challenges in operating from Japan, dispersing off of concentrated and fixed locations like US and #JSDF bases, and the #PriorConsultation required between the US and Japan before any combat operations are conducted from (or through or terminating in) Japanese airspace and territory. While access to private land in competition is understandably difficult (who wants a bunch of Marines and their equipment traipsing through their fields, after all!), the US and Japan too infrequently rehearse the crisis procedures to grant such access in a conflict. Such rehearsals are essential to identify #policy gaps (and solutions) to procedures that are too slow for a fast-moving crisis and also crucial opportunities for #diplomats, #policymakers, and other #alliance managers to see exactly what the ABO needs are and what the risks and opportunities are of granting such ABO in a timely fashion (or failing to do so). Policymakers are not the only beneficiaries. Tactical and operational commands can use such rehearsals to (in)validate their assumptions about authorities, develop branch plans if such authorities are limited or granted later than expected, and to gain critical insights into national decision-making processes that help tactical commands, like III MEF, ensure their requests for authorities are realistic, timely, and supported with sufficiently detailed justifications and identified risks. Dan provides an excellent summary of such matters and explores what can be done to strengthen the alliance and, in so doing, strengthen #deterrence.

15

1 Comment

https://lnkd.in/e_R62ax4 "A legislative proposal presented by the U.S. Navy could pave the way for the acquisition of foreign, used vessels to enhance sealift capabilities, offering a cost-effective solution to bolster readiness, according to the Inside Defense. The proposal, discussed by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti during a recent House Armed Services Committee Navy budget hearing, seeks to increase the Secretary of Defense’s authority to acquire such vessels to recapitalize the Ready Reserve Force. “The proposal increases the Secretary of Defense’s authority to acquire foreign-built, used vessels, to support effort to cost-effectively recapitalize the Ready Reserve Force,” a Navy spokesperson told Inside Defense. The potential acquisition of foreign, used cargo ships represents a pragmatic approach to swiftly augmenting the military’s sealift capacity at a fraction of the cost of constructing new vessels. With the current age of ships in the fleet averaging around 45 years, well beyond their expected lifespan, the need for modernization is evident. A key consideration in favor of purchasing used ships is their affordability compared to new builds. A Roll-on/Roll-off (RO/RO) ship with 15 years of service, roughly halfway through its expected lifespan, can be acquired for approximately $60 million, significantly less than the $500 million cost per hull for a new vessel. While new ships offer longer service life, the budgetary constraints faced by the Navy necessitate exploring alternative options to maintain readiness. The Navy’s Fiscal Year 2025 budget underscores the prioritization of readiness over modernization, reflecting fiscal realities and the imperative to sustain operational capabilities amid constrained resources. This strategic shift emphasizes the importance of cost-effective solutions to meet operational requirements and ensure the Navy’s ability to fulfill its mission in an evolving security landscape."

54

40 Comments

I recently attended the 6th RedQueenEvent in California, https://lnkd.in/egwKzmah, co-organized by Steve Blank, co-founder of the Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation, and Peter Newell, CEO of the innovation company BMNT. This event focused on sharing experiences among innovators, defence experts, and the tech world, specifically addressing the challenges of implementing and accelerating innovation. The key takeaways from this session are as follows: - Military innovation is undergoing a rapid transformation, driven in large part by the arms race in Asia, which is taking place both in traditional and cutting-edge domains (AI, space, cognitive tools, robotics, etc.). The speed of adaptation is crucial for Western militaries to maintain or regain superiority. Their ability to deter and defend depends on it. Europe has a significant opportunity but must act quickly to avoid being left behind in this race. - Massive investments by US venture capital funds are profoundly disrupting the balance of power between "legacy" industry and "new tech" which, as Elon Musk style, is bringing new and economically viable solutions to military problems. This is particularly evident in the worlds of drones and AI. The US financial world is anticipating the long-term effects on the defence business of the growing global disorder. Europe urgently needs to implement similar methods to leverage its excellent researchers and start-up creators and remain competitive. Its sovereignty and prosperity depend on it. - Digital technology is central to this race as it enables the understanding, design, and production of adaptable and incremental hardware and software tools. The shift to cloud computing for militaries is as essential as it is for large companies as it accelerates decision-making processes and streamlines resources. This is the precondition for the implementation of AI products. - The challenges to be overcome to stay in the race are numerous. They primarily relate to cultural issues within organizations: * Understanding the stakes of technology and therefore knowing it better (the level of knowledge on these subjects is generally insufficient in administrations). * Understanding how products and services are built using different methods, not based on specifications but on user interaction. The role of staff in this approach is profoundly modified. * Finding ways, within systems that are very rich in norms (particularly legal and financial) and risk-averse, to embark on agile and dynamic projects. Speed is key. The moment is decisive. We must "rediscover the spirit of pioneers to stay in the big leagues." It's possible!

50

1 Comment

SUPPLY CHAIN RISKS - TROJAN HORSE - Exploding Pagers Deliver a Supply Chain Warning - The lethal detonation of hand-held pagers and walkie-talkies used by Hezbollah militants this week in Lebanon demonstrated powerful spycraft, but it also raised questions about a gaping vulnerability in the global supply chain. - That chain is astonishingly complex, even the most sophisticated participants are often unclear on who they are relying on for critical parts and raw materials, or where the risks lie. - "Every movement along the way, and every additional company brought into the manufacturing process represents an opportunity for those pursuing violent agendas to insinuate themselves into the works and weaponize the product." - The Lebanon attacks will most likely accelerate supply chain changes. In recent years, a growing group of labor activists, politicians and critics of liberalized trade has urged American companies to move production back home, or at least closer to the domestic market. Reshoring and nearshoring have been advanced as a means of limiting reliance on faraway factories — especially those in China — while insuring against the perils of international shipping. - The reality that international supply chains are susceptible to being penetrated by those waging war is bound to boost it further. Concerns over national security risks have in recent years been focused on specific high-risk situations: ■ Much of the world is dependent on factories in China for critical items like face masks, ingredients for critical medicines and parts for ventilators and other medical devices. ■ China might attack Taiwan, menacing the stocks of advanced computer chips concentrated on the self-governing island. ■ Faced with international sanctions following its attacks on Ukraine, Russia has cut shipments of energy to Europe. ■ In the United States, those who view China as a threat to national security have warned that Chinese-made telecommunications and electrical gear could be a Trojan Horse for crippling attacks on basic American infrastructure. - But the recent attacks reveal how even less strategic and lower-profile areas of commercial life entail grave security risks. At ports around the globe, the volume of goods being moved in shipping containers is so vast that no authority can possibly inspect more than a fraction. - In the wake of the Lebanon attacks, politicians are likely to face pressure to extend the push for reshoring and nearshoring beyond the most strategically vital goods like computer chips and electric vehicles. New policies may broaden the drive to concentrate industry in the United States and in friendly countries that can offer assurances of armoring supply chains against outside intervention. - https://lnkd.in/e5ZZe6BU

1

I hope you might read this short historical case study published at The National Interest of how President Eisenhower changed out his entire Joint Chiefs of Staff at the beginning of his administration to pursue a new National Military Strategy (The New Look) while cutting the Pentagon's budget and bureaucracy. The case study is derived from primary source documents reviewed at The National Archives, the Eisenhower Library, and the Wilson Papers at Anderson University, Anderson, IN. https://lnkd.in/ewPKdKC9

56

9 Comments

Appreciate the great collaboration between PEO IEW&S , Army Futures Command (ACM-IS), Mass Virtual and the ISR Task Force to discuss virtualized training options that will enhance human performance in an affordable and scalable way. The Intelligence enterprise is faced with a unique challenge in support of the US Army. We employ low density systems, we maintain them with low density military specialties, and we are expected to integrate cutting edge technology faster than our institutional training processes can keep pace. So how do we conduct relevant training quickly, effectively and affordably in the 21st century? We virtualize the training. Yesterday I asked the team to get a little uncomfortable and find a way to demonstrate this capability during our flagship intelligence experiment in September. I want our senior leaders to immerse themselves in a virtual world to see how a 35-series Soldier will interact with component-level parts without ever touching the system. Imagine the possibilities we create if we can certify our back-shop support without ever pulling capital assets out of the fight.

123

3 Comments

Navy Needs $$$ and Leadership Congress has complicated budgeting, but the White House and the Secretary of Defense have been less than supportive either in growing the Navy. The call for 3-5% above inflation growth in Navy’s budget is not a new call and a minimum to consider. Clearer goals are needed beyond a fleet of 381 warships sometime next decade. What is realistic before 2027? What will it take? Who is responsible for achieving that goal? The recent Chief of Naval Operations Navigation Plan is good, but without more forceful leadership little will change, and Navy’s fleet will continue the decades running slow slip into irrelevance. https://lnkd.in/eaEBW_FE

74

24 Comments

I unpacked with Courtney Albon and Mark Kitz how initiatives, like Project Overmatch and Project Convergence, are adapting to serve the US military's needs. Watch more on C4ISRNET: https://lnkd.in/e2fuErDD

34

3 Comments

A wonderful primer to think about future State Department reform. ... ... ... I think the #1 problem faced by the State Dept. is insufficient resourcing. As global strategic problems grow in size and complexity, the budget for State gets cut. The budget for State is less than a tenth of Defense. No wonder we find the military stepping in to fill the void, particularly in narrative competition. Sure, State has the Global Engagement Center (GEC), but most of what the military does--whether through public affairs, engagements, psychological operations, civil affairs--does not get formally deconflicted. Controversial thought, maybe some of that money that DOD uses for "operations in the informaiton environment" needs to get sliced back to State, so they can actually do what we ask of them. But before that can happen, State needs to fix the way they lead, train, and synchronize their people. In DOD, we call this doctrine. As the author adroitly points out: "Whereas the intelligence community has tradecraft, and the Department of Defense has doctrine, there is no comparable body of knowledge and practice for diplomacy. The methods that policymakers use today to craft and execute foreign policy are ad hoc and subjective; “the art of diplomacy,” it is called. … Doctrine is vital for high-quality training; doctrine is, according to the Army, “the approved body of knowledge that is taught.” Doctrine for decision-making would also help harmonize the knowledge management, analysis, and strategy processes across the State Department’s many bureaus and offices, which are currently conducted in idiosyncratic and ad hoc ways." I am hoping the new commission is willing to entertain some of the significant changes needed to breathe life back into American diplomacy. https://lnkd.in/gs85PtRt #narrativewarfare #strategiccompetiion #statedeparment #defensedepartment #DOD #military #diplomacy #statedepartmentreform #statedepartmentcommission

1

There is a strong necessity to further implement Cyberspace and Electromagnetic Spectrum in Multidomain Operations! What does that mean for NATO? My vision: 1. The Alliance is able to defend itself within cyberspace as effectively as it does in the air, on land, at sea and in space in order to maintain freedom of action and manoeuvre at all times. 2. The Alliance is able to gain access to, and maintain advantage within the electromagnetic spectrum against adversarial sub-threshold activities; and to create & maintain superiority within the electromagnetic environment throughout the transition from peace to crisis and conflict. 3. The Alliance has integrated cyber and electromagnetic operations into its cross domain approach. 4. Static- and deployable CIS will ensure Command & Control at all times. The implementation of this vision is very important: - It strengthens NATOs credibility - It assures our citizens and - It deters our adversaries You can count on me. Let’s do it together - unity is key‼️ #WeAreNATO #WeAreStrongerTogether

47

2 Comments