Here’s a rule that can save you a lot of time: Nine out of every ten essays written about America’s role in the world aren’t worth reading. Make that nineteen out of twenty. Endlessly reciting the same clichés about the imperative of American global leadership while drawing on the same historical “lessons” – appeasement bad, assertiveness good -- they argue for perpetuating a world that no longer exists.
Writing in the Financial Times, Katrina Manson offers readers that one in twenty – maybe one in a hundred. The title of her essay is “Has America Had Enough of War?” The body of her piece provides an abundance of evidence to answer that question in the affirmative. Crucially, much of that evidence comes in the form of testimony offered by those who have fought our recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Manson calls attention to a “new wave” of critics daring to “question the militarization of U.S. foreign policy” and by extension the “moral underpinnings and claims that the world requires America as its leader.” She correctly identifies the real culprit as American Exceptionalism — or at least the perversion of American Exceptionalism that came to prevail in post-Cold War Washington when members of the establishment became infatuated with the nation of the U.S. as “indispensable nation.”
Manson identifies the Quincy Institute as the vanguard of a movement offering restraint as a relevant principle for organizing U.S. policy going forward. Thanks for the hat-tip, Ms. Manson. We are doing our best to avert further needless wars.
Andrew Bacevich is board chair and co-founder of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He is also Professor Emeritus of International Relations and History at Boston University.
Rhetoric from the Pentagon and the arms industry suggests that integrating artificial intelligence, or AI, into U.S. weapons, communications, and surveillance systems will improve efficiency, innovation, and national security.
The Pentagon is beginning to back its rhetoric on emerging technology with resources. The department’s Office of Strategic Capital now has the authority to grant executive loans and loan guarantees to invest in firms researching and developing 14 “critical technologies,” including hypersonics, quantum computing, microelectronics, autonomous systems, and artificial intelligence.
Meanwhile, the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act authorizes the Advanced Defense Capabilities Pilot, which contains a mandate to establish public-private partnerships with the goal of “leverag[ing] private equity capital to accelerate domestic defense scaling, production, and manufacturing.”
Proponents argue that the rapid development and deployment of autonomous systems, pilotless vehicles, and hypersonic weapons will shorten the time between recognizing a potential threat and destroying it — a process analysts and military leaders often refer to as shortening the "kill chain." This shift is portrayed as a positive development, when in fact it could easily enable deadly escalations by accident or design.
A case in point is Israel’s use of targeting systems incorporating AI to generate targets for military strikes in its brutal seige on Gaza. A recent investigation revealed the use of “Lavender,” an AI-based program developed by the Israeli army designed to identify all suspected operatives in the military wings of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as potential bombing targets. Rather than using this capability to focus on discrete targets and spare civilians, the Israeli Defense Forces are using Lavender to multiply the number of targets to attack in a given time frame, increasing the pace of attack and the number of casualties, which now stand at over 33,000 deaths and tens of thousands injured.
The investigation revealed that the Israeli army preferred to only use unguided missiles, commonly known as “dumb” bombs (in contrast to “smart” precision bombs) to target alleged junior militants marked by Lavender. These bombs can indiscriminately destroy entire buildings and cause significant casualties.
“You don’t want to waste expensive bombs on unimportant people — it’s very expensive for the country and there’s a shortage [of those bombs],” said C., one of the intelligence officers speaking to +972 Magazine, which broke the story on Lavender.
The Lavender machine is not the first time the Israeli military has used AI. “The Gospel,” another system largely built on AI, is said to generate targets at a fast pace. As noted by +972 Magazine, “A fundamental difference between the two systems is in the definition of the target: whereas The Gospel marks buildings and structures that the army claims militants operate from, Lavender marks people — and puts them on a kill list.” Far from enabling more precise strikes that reduce civilian harm, the AI-targeted attacks increased impunity in the bombing of Gaza. As a member of the Israeli military posted to Gaza put it, “I don’t know how many people I killed as collateral damage … the focus was on creating as many targets as quickly as possible.”
The U.S. Congress has demonstrated its commitment to spurring on “collaborative defense projects between the United States and Israel in emerging technologies” through bills such as the United States-Israel Future of Warfare Act, which is just one avenue through which the United States continues to fund and support Israeli military operations. In February, the Senate approved an additional $14.1 billion for Israeli military operations via a supplemental funding package, but the fate of that aid package awaits action by the House.
But some members of Congress have pushed back against the risks of emerging technologies by introducing legislation to establish governance and regulations of AI. The Federal AI Governance and Transparency Act, for example, aims to ensure that “the design, development, acquisition, use, management, and oversight of artificial intelligence in the Federal Government… [is] consistent with the Constitution and any other applicable law and policy, including those addressing freedom of speech, privacy, civil rights, civil liberties, and an open and transparent Government.”
Accidents in the use of AI systems have their own potentially dire consequences, as pointed out by Michael Klare in a report for the Arms Control Association: “many analysts have cautioned against proceeding with such haste until more is known about the inadvertent and hazardous consequences of doing so. Analysts worry, for example, that AI-enabled systems may fail in unpredictable ways, causing unintended human slaughter or uncontrolled escalation.”
The Pentagon has given lip service to the potential dangers posed by widespread weaponization of AI, but its calls for responsible use of these systems ring hollow in the face of its public commitments to deploy advanced technology as quickly as possible. Last August, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks unveiled her department’s “Replicator Initiative” in front of an audience of arms-producing companies, pledging to deploy large numbers of new systems by late 2025, possibly including “swarms of drones” designed to overwhelm Chinese defenses in a potential U.S-China conflict.
Meanwhile, venture capital firms like Andreesen-Horowitz and the Founders Fund are pouring billions of dollars into emerging military tech startups, hoping to cash in when some of them become major Pentagon contractors. In addition, these firms have been rushing to increase their lobbying clout by hiring dozens of ex-military officers as advisers and advocates for higher Pentagon spending on AI-driven systems.
The promoters of these new battlefield technologies are marketing them with evangelical fervor, suggesting that not only are they central to being able to “beat” China in a conflict, but that they are the key to restoring U.S. global military dominance. At a time when cooperation between Washington and Beijing is essential for addressing urgent threats like climate change, pandemics, and global poverty, cheerleading for a new high-tech arms race with China is both dangerous and counterproductive.
So what is to be done? First, there needs to be greater transparency about new weapons systems in development, how they might be used, and whether the technology is being shared with other nations. Also, the revolving door between the military, the Pentagon, and the emerging tech sector needs to be carefully regulated, including prohibitions on direct lobbying of former colleagues still in government.
In addition, Washington should consider the calls of scientists and advocates for a ban on robotic weapons and in the meantime, increase transparency, regulation, and oversight of these technologies. And all this needs to be coupled with a rethinking of U.S. global strategy that reduces reliance on military intervention and prioritizes diplomacy in U.S. interactions with governments, organizations, and individuals.
Developing a new generation of military technology will not solve our world’s most pressing problems, and there is a strong chance that it will make them worse. The time to push back against the illusions promoted by the people who will profit from taking AI to war is now.
keep readingShow less
Refugees from Sudan wait to be transported to the transit camp in the town of Renk near the border after crossing the border into South Sudan, April 4, 2024 via Reuters
On the morning of April 15, 2023 in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan,the country’s de facto national army, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) took up arms against one another. Through temporary ceasefires and multiple attempts by foreign countries and international bodies to mediate an end to the war, the fighting persists.
Over the past year, the civil war has created one of the world’s most severe humanitarian crises. Thousands have been killed and over eight million have been displaced. With over 6.5 million people internally displaced, Sudan is home to the highest number of internally displaced people in the world. Relentless fighting has forced many to leave Sudan entirely, with 1.5 million having fled to neighboring states as refugees.
The regionalization of this conflict is risking further destabilizing the wider Horn of Africa and Gulf regions, with regional powers now becoming involved. The UAE has reportedly provided military weapons to the RSF while Egypt has reportedly supported the SAF. A recent report suggests Iran is providing drones to SAF forces, which has helped them regain lost territory in and around Khartoum.
As more players become implicated in the military outcome of the war and as the humanitarian crisis deepens, the war is becoming increasingly complex and layered. Yet, at its most basic level, this conflict is of a genre as old as war itself. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, who heads the SAF, and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (commonly called “Hemedti”), who leads the paramilitary RSF, are vying for power. Each is hoping to be the sole leader of Sudan.
Though now rivals engaged in a vicious war, Al-Burhan and Hemedti were once allied military leaders. In 2019, the two worked jointly to overthrow the country’s long-time dictator, Omar al-Bashir, who had led the country since 1989. Following the successful coup, street protests erupted calling for a rapid transition of power to a civilian-led government. On June 3, 2019, the SAF and RSF responded violently, killing over 100 people in Khartoum. During the massacre, over 70 men and women were raped by RSF personnel.
Following international pressure, in August 2019 the military leaders agreed to allow for the formation of a transitional military-civilian government — the Transitional Sovereign Council — with elections scheduled to be held in 2023. But in October 2021, just over two years after the formation of the transitional government, the two military leaders again worked together to overthrow the government and regained full control over Sudan.
As the two sought to establish a governing structure in the months after this second coup, differences emerged between the two leaders’ visions for the future of Sudan’s government.
Al-Burhan sought to allow many of the political elites formerly allied with al-Bashir to reenter government. Hemedti, a Darfuri Arab, opposed such a plan, concerned that reinstating the old political guard would eventually return Sudan to a governing structure too similar to that which they overthrew, and erode his standing in the face of political elites who look down on those, like him, who are from Darfur.
Another essential point of disagreement was in the plan to unify the two armed forces into a single national force. Al-Burhan, whose SAF serves as the de facto military of the country, demanded that Hemedti’s RSF force integrate into the SAF within two years. Hemedti, however, wanted the integration period to be spread out over a decade, giving his paramilitary more autonomy in case conflict resumed.
Following months of rising tensions, Hemedti deployed RSF forces to strategic locations throughout the country, including Khartoum, in anticipation of armed conflict. In the early hours of April 15, 2023, the RSF attacked SAF bases across the capital, including at the city’s airport, signaling the start of what would turn out to be the region’s most devastating conflict in many years.
Despite having fewer fighters, in the year since the civil war began, the RSF has successfully gained control over much of the capital and large portions of the country’s western provinces in the Darfur region.
As conflict has spread, civilian suffering has reached levels unprecedented even for a region well acquainted with war, displacement, and humanitarian disaster.
The humanitarian toll is hitting children the heaviest. UNICEF estimates that 24 million children are at risk of “generational catastrophe.” Of these, 14 million are in dire need of humanitarian support and 3.7 million are acutely malnourished. With 19 million children out of school, the long-term effects on the mental development of children will continue long after the war has ended.
Despite the massive humanitarian challenges facing the Sudanese people, international humanitarian support has fallen far short of what is needed. OCHA — the U.N.’s humanitarian agency — estimates that out of the $2.5 billion needed to fund a sufficient humanitarian response in 2024, only $155.2 million has been received thus far, amounting to just 6% of the needed support for this calendar year. The U.S. has provided 10% of that humanitarian aid. For 2023, OCHA says that 51% of the total funding needed for humanitarian relief was received.
The humanitarian crisis has been augmented by both armed groups committing widespread and severe human rights abuses across the country. Both forces have summarily killed civilians and ransacked cities, looting and then destroying unwanted property, including homes. The RSF and SAF have also both forcibly enlisted men and boys, threatening to kill them if they refuse to fight.
A U.N. report determined that between May and November of last year, the RSF committed at least 10 attacks against civilians in El-Geneina, the capital of West Darfur province, killing thousands, most of whom were part of the African Masalit ethnic group. The report also reveals that by mid-December, at least 118 people — including 19 children — had suffered from sexual violence, including being raped and gang raped by members of the military and paramilitary forces.
Throughout Darfur, the RSF has demanded that women leave their homes, forcing many to flee west to bordering Chad. The paramilitary also singles out men, and sometimes boys, systematically killing them one-by-one as they try to escape. Attacks specifically perpetrated against the Masalit community have spurred conversations about whether Darfur is again the site of a genocide.
Despite the remarkable levels of devastation and widespread displacement, the international community has been slow to respond. Relative to other conflicts, many far less devastating than the war in Sudan, this war has received limited media attention and has not been prioritized by countries outside the region. Yet, as the crisis worsens and as the effects spread beyond Sudan’s borders, foreign governments have increased their attention over the past few months.
On February 26, over 10 months into the war, the Biden administration announced the appointment of former congressman Tom Perriello as Special Envoy for Sudan. Tasked with leading the U.S. government’s efforts to resolve the conflict, Perriello — who previously served as U.S. envoy to the Great Lakes region during the Obama administration — has traveled on multiple occasions to the region where he has engaged civil society groups and regional governments in a dialogue with the hope of restarting peace negotiations.
As the war enters its second year of heavy fighting, Perriello will find it difficult to tie the conflict’s many threads together and mediate an end to the war. But with a growing chorus of Sudanese civilians and many throughout the region pleading for an end to the conflict, the Biden administration has done well to increase its focus on ending the war through diplomatic engagement — a sign to those in East Africa that the U.S. is committed to rolling up its sleeves and leading the effort to achieve long-term peace in the region.
keep readingShow less
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (lev radin./Shutterstock); Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (shutterstock/lev radin) ;Sen. John Fetterman (shutterstock/OogImages)
Members of Congress who have said little to nothing about the over
33,000 Palestinians dead amid Israeli bombs and artillery — two-thirds deemed innocent civilians — in retaliation for the Oct. 7 Hamas attack that resulted in the deaths of 1,200 Israelis, are swiftly calling the Iranian drone and missile attacks Saturday night a “disproportionate” response by Iran.
Iran was responding to the killing of seven of its officials in what has been deemed to be by many (except most pro-Israel Western countries)
an illegal Israeli strike on the Iranian consultate in Syria on April 1. Saturday’s response by Iran has been called highly choreographed to send a message, even limited, and it was. After the missiles and drones started to fly, the Iranians literally broadcast that their message to Israel had “concluded.”
On Sunday morning, the Israelis and the U.S. reported that 99 percent of the more than 300 projectiles had been shot down by U.S. and Israeli defense systems. There were no deaths, but a
seven-year-old girl remains in hospital with life threatening injuries. Her home in the Negev Desert was hit with falling shrapnel from an intercepted missile.
That hasn’t
stopped howls from both Democratic and Republican members, many of whom have sat on the sidelines as tens of thousands of Gazans have been punished for Hamas’s attacks — killed, maimed, starved, displaced, or left unfound under the rubble. The Palestine Red Crescent Society said this week that some 1,000 children in Gaza have lost one or both of their legs. There were an estimated 17,000 children left unaccompanied and alone, as of February.
By all accounts on the ground,
there is very little for Gazans to go back to if and when the attacks there ever stop. But Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), wants you to know that what Iran did on Saturday night was “terrorism” and “disproportionate” and a threat to "the free world."
Suddenly, it is as if dozens of
AIPAC-funded members of Congress from both sides of the aisle were liberated to unleash self-righteous indignation at Iran, rushing to X and dutiful cable television cameras to outdo even themselves.
Here’s Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn (top AIPAC recipient) calling on President Biden to launch our own strikes against Iran:
Here’s New York Democrat Rep. Ritche Torres (another tippity-top AIPAC recipient):
GOP Sen. Roger Wicker (another top beneficiary of AIPAC and highest ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee) had this to say
in a statement Saturday: “this is the moment for the United States to show we stand together with our allies. Our shared enemies, including Iran and their proxies, need to know our commitment is unwavering. We must join with Israel to ensure that Iran’s aggression is met with resolute action and resounding strength."
It is no question that Iran funds Hamas and works closely with its leadership. But after months of debate and discussion we still do not know definitively whether Iran directly helped to orchestrate the Oct. 7 attacks. More importantly we know now that Tehran has kept open communication with Washington to ensure that the war in Gaza does not spill out via its proxies in the Middle East. They have even kept pro-Iranian militias in check when it comes to attacks on U.S. military bases in Iraq and Syria (which may be rescinded if certain lawmakers have their way and Washington gets directly involved in Israel's fight).
Lastly, one should highly consider the opposite view when John Bolton is out there calling for the U.S. to literally fight Iran alongside Israel: Remember, he has been a key supporter if not planner behind every foreign policy/national security failure since 9/11.
If he didn’t have such a
public beef with Donald Trump we could very well see Bolton on the other side of the White House or Pentagon fences again. But does it really matter, with the amount of agitation for confrontation among Democrats and Republicans today? Best grab your gas masks and food supply — this is your War Party, in high gear.