Friday News Roundup — July 31, 2020
Big Tech Blues; SIS Turnover; American Empire; An Unmanned Future; America’s Pastime Peril; Plus News You May Have Missed
It’s another hot and humid Friday morning in Washington, D.C., and we hope that this note finds you well in the ongoing adventure that is 2020. Following a record recline in GDP, negotiations continue about continued relief measures, as many Americans look on with nervousness as measures like continued unemployment relief, further direct payments, and others are hotly debated. From baseball locker rooms to the halls of Congress, the challenges with the COVID pandemic and responsible reopening remain. Looming over this all is the heated contest for 2020, which many Members of Congress helpfully reminded us will go forward, as scheduled, in November.
The nation continued to remember the legacy of Rep. John Lewis, as his journey to his final resting place had him again cross a bridge that will hopefully soon bear his name, lay in rest under the Capitol Rotunda, and bring together three former presidents of both parties to eulogize his memory.
From CSPC’s respective home offices this week, we hosted renowned scholar Graham Allison for a discussion on the looming contest between the U.S. and China. A video of the webinar will be available on our YouTube page later today. In The Hill this week, Joshua analyzed covert Russian election interference and the need for U.S. action; in the Diplomatic Courier, Joshua also reviewed David Shimer’s latest work, “Rigged: America, Russia, and 100 Years of Electoral Interference, while Ethan further analyzed the role of special forces in great power competition.
In this week’s roundup, Dan breaks down the tech titans’ time in the WebEx barrel before Congress and its only part of a much broader conversation. Joshua looks at new leadership atop the spy hierarchy across the pond. Chris counters earlier takes in the roundup to applaud announced troop redeployments, and Ethan covers the Air Force’s research into the next steps for unmanned wingmen. Finally, Michael looks at baseball’s difficulties and what it means for planning for things more important than pastimes. As always, we wrap with news you may have missed.
Big Tech “before” Congress
Dan Mahaffee
On Wednesday, the realities of the pandemic thwarted much of the drama as the CEOs of four technology giants testified before Congress via WebEx. Alphabet/Google’s Sundar Pichai, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Apple’s Tim Cook, and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg each defended their companies — combined market cap of $5 trillion and revenue “roughly the GDP of Saudi Arabia” — against a range of grievances across the political spectrum in the long-anticipated hearing. That said, much of what we saw at the hearing was theatrics, and poor ones at that with any dramatic punch undone by the awkwardness of remote testimony; digital hiccoughs and buffering delays preventing the a-ha moment that big tech’s critics seek. If anything, the only consolation was that the Members of Congress seemed far more pointed, with better-researched questions, including quotes from executives’ emails, than those that have been previously posed to tech leaders. Thus, if Congress seemed better informed, one hearing can hardly address the scope of this challenge.
Myriad questions are under consideration when it comes to the impact of big tech and its role in society. The critiques of these companies diverge along partisan lines, and the concerns about each firm are hardly uniform. Rather than meaningful oversight and attention to the challenges before us, this dynamic begets further political sturm und drang. Such a conversation fails to address the importance of these companies for technology and innovation leadership — as well as stock market engines — nor covers hard questions we must ask about antitrust, regulation, and governance in a global digital economy.
Many of the critiques from the left centered around issues of market power and anti-competitive behaviors, as well as how social media has served as a conduit for radicalism and election interference. From the right, the tech titans pushed back about allegations of bias against conservatives and close ties to China. Still, what are the concerns about the firms? For the companies under the Alphabet umbrella — Google, YouTube, Android — the concerns range from control over advertising and users’ data to “YouTube radicalization” to employees vetoing business with the Pentagon while the firm sought to expand its operations in China. Facebook continues to come under scrutiny for its handling of hate content, drawing a boycott from advertisers, while also remaining in the crossfire of continued partisanship about election interference in 2016 and 2020. Apple’s policies for its App Store are called out — and under EU investigation — as profiteering from a “walled garden,” while its strong stances on privacy and encryption continue to draw the ire of law enforcement, including Attorney General Bill Barr. Finally, Amazon faces allegations that it has used the data from third-party sellers to research product and pricing strategy for its own in-house brands, also under EU investigation — on top of its expansion into seemingly every industry.
The size of these firms and the sway they hold all fuel these controversies. They are also reflections of these firms’ successes. From e-commerce to social media to web search to the smartphone ecosystem, these firms have largely defined the paradigm. As the CEOs argued before Congress, consumer preferences have largely dictated the circumstances at which we arrive. Their revenue and resources allow them to be global leaders in cutting edge technologies — vital for U.S. economic prosperity and national security.
That is one paradox that does not lend itself to the easy soundbite. What is the balance between ensuring that there is competition in the U.S. domestic marketplace while also understanding that talk of future global economic competition revolves around supporting “national champions” and courting favored multinationals. Nor does the discussion address the tectonic shift that digital innovation prompted, reshaping life’s rhythms from communication to commerce to courtship. That broad of a conversation is beyond the scope of the single Congressional hearing, nor is it a question that has a wholly political answer — especially when we cannot wait on the sclerotic pace of partisan legislating.
That Congress seemed better informed during this hearing is a step forward, for sure, but the debate also needs to move forward. Policymaking must better recognize how that impact of technology — that aforementioned tectonic shift — changes the dynamics of what constitutes economic prosperity and innovation leadership. Many of the services offered by these tech giants are in fact, free for consumers, and it is the users’ data that is the true value unlocked.
In many ways, the proverbial genie cannot go into the bottle, nor do we want to stifle the dynamism of the American economy. While government may need to ask hard questions about the tech industry, there must also be vigilance as regulatory capture can also serve as a barrier to entrepreneurialism and innovation. The conversation must also include a reshaping of how we educate ourselves about technology, its role in our lives, and our roles as “digital citizens.” As technology changes the nature of work; the value of labor and nature of employment; the goods and services that comprise the American economy, 20th century policies are analog tools in a digital world. Congress has at least begun to ask some of the right questions, but the policy conversation about innovation still needs to be more…innovative.
Richard Moore Appointed as “C” of the Secret Intelligence Service
Joshua C. Huminski
This week the Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, announced that Richard Moore was appointed as Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), replacing Sir Alex Younger, who will step down in the Autumn. Commenting on the appointment, Moore said “I am pleased and honoured to be asked to return to lead my Service. SIS plays a vital role — with MI5 and GCHQ — in keeping the British people safe and promoting UK interests overseas. I look forward to continuing that work alongside the brave and dedicated team at SIS.”
Moore won an apparently close-race with an internal SIS candidate for the role traditionally known as “C”. Gordon Corera, the BBC’s security correspondent argues that his CV, which includes SIS-operational experience, an ambassadorship, and navigating the corridors of power, led to his victory in the race for the C post. He is also one of the latest new appointments within the UK’s intelligence services. Ken McCallum took over the director-generalship of MI5 three months ago and Lindy Cameron was named head of the National Cyber Security Center, part of GCHQ, this week, as well.
Moore is currently the Political Director at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO), and previously served as Ambassador to Turkey and has been Deputy National Security Adviser in the Cabinet Office. He served as a junior diplomat in Turkey in the 1990s, and held postings in Vietnam, Malaysia, and Pakistan. Before joining the FCO, Moore joined SIS in 1987 serving in the UK and overseas. He also held director-level roles within SIS.
Moore will be the third Turkish speaker to lead a major intelligence service, something Turkish press and social media were quick to note. Gina Haspel, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency served as Deputy Chief of Station in Turkey in 2000 and Bernard Émié, the chief of France’s DGSE served as Ambassador to Turkey from 2007–2011.
Born in Libya, Moore studied at Oxford and Harvard, lists his interests “as golf, hiking, scuba-diving, Turkish carpets and porcelain, and visiting historical sites”. His wife, Maggie, is blind and is responsible for the establishment of a charity for the training of seeing-eye dogs as she found out that hers, Star (a very good girl), was one of the only ones in the country. They have two children.
Moore is assuming the leadership of SIS at a dynamic and challenging time. His predecessor, Sir Alex Younger, stayed on longer than the typical five-year terms to ensure stability during the Brexit negotiations. Indeed, the appointment of Moore and McCallum were staggered to avoid too much disruption within the security services. Younger oversaw the beginnings of the intelligence service’s shift from a heavy focus on Salafi-Jihadist terrorism toward nation-state threats such as Russia, China, and Iran, and cybersecurity.
The security and intelligence services came under heavy fire from the Intelligence & Security Committee in its Russia Report, released last week. The services, which had warned of Russian interference in the Scottish referendum, the Brexit vote, and the 2019 General Election, were wary of interfering in the electoral process, which led a political “hot potato” where no one service was charged with defending the elections. While the report was long on criticism, it was short on recommendations beyond updating the Official Secrets Act (OSA) or introducing more robust espionage legislation to replace the OSA.
Perhaps more than anything, the services need more resources to tackle the Russian and Chinese threat — considerably harder targets than the Islamic State or other Salafi-Jihadists. The Single Intelligence Account (which is the budget for MI5, MI6, and GCHQ) is roughly one-twentieth of what the U.S. officially spends on intelligence. Here, Moore may be well placed to argue for increased resources and expanded authorities for the intelligence service within Whitehall and Parliament, given his current post and background. He will, however, run into conflict with Dominic Cummings who appears to be keen on cutting budgets across the board, to include the security and intelligence services.
Moore will also need to navigate the “Special Relationship” with Washington and the broader Five Eyes community. Given the current intelligence state of affairs at the Cabinet level in Washington, this may prove harder than it has in years past. At a macro level, the tensions between President Trump and the broader Intelligence Community, his reluctance to acknowledge Russian interference or malfeasance, and a history of passing on sensitive information may make bilateral intelligence relationships more challenging than need be. Of course, this could well be a short-term issue depending on how the November election plays out.
That being said, the working/operational-level relationship between the UK and US services is, perhaps, stronger than it ever has been, and this is cause for confidence. Should President Trump be re-elected or a Biden administration take the Oval Office, the working intelligence relationship between London and Washington is unlikely to change, and will remain strong.
Old World Arrogance
Chris Condon
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper announced this Wednesday that the Department of Defense would implement President Trump’s desire to reduce the number of American military personnel in Germany. In a rare display of bipartisanship and alacrity, members of Congress from both parties cried out in opposition to the decision. In the statement Secretary Esper delivered accompanying the announcement, he provided details of what the plan would entail in the coming months. Out of 36,000 American troops currently stationed on German soil, the proposed plan would remove approximately 12,000. Only roughly half of this group will temporarily return to the United States (eventually to be redeployed to Europe), while the other half will be redistributed among other European allies immediately. Senator Mitt Romney, a notable critic of the president, called these troop movements “a grave error” and “a gift to Russia.”
In his farewell address to the nation, George Washington urged neutrality in European conflicts. For centuries, Europe had repeatedly embroiled entire continents in their squabbles, the most recent example being the very Revolution that Washington had just participated in. Our first commander-in-chief understood both the horrors of war and the proclivity of centralized European states to engage in them, and feared that domestic passions may embroil the fledgling American nation in a large-scale conflict that we could not afford and that would not advance American interests. Alongside this warning, Washington also urged amicable diplomatic relations and frequent economic trade with all nations, preserving peaceful international engagement without the threat of military force.
Although many of the policy prescriptions Washington put forth fell by the wayside rather quickly following the end of his tenure, reluctance to intervene in global conflicts persevered for over a century. It was not until the First World War that the United States engaged in a European war, and even then only with great reluctance and on a relatively small scale. Domestic opposition to intervention in the Second World War was also considerable, and although America’s commitment after 1941 was larger than that in 1917, it paled in comparison to the titanic war machines that European powers had assembled. Regardless, the first half of the twentieth century saw the first instance of American abandonment of neutrality in European conflicts. Even so, only the threat of global domination by authoritarian empires could coax us across the Atlantic.
American posture in foreign affairs has changed since we opened pandora’s box in 1917. The faction in American politics calling for a Rooseveltian role as “constable of the world” grew gradually more powerful, and gained even more legitimacy as the Cold War began. By 1950, these forces stood at the helm of American government, and have not relinquished control ever since. It is the perversion of American foreign policy by this group that we see creating a caricature of American jingoism that would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. Whereas Washington’s vision of America’s role in the world was driven by hope and a penchant for peace, a never ending push for American empire is driven by fear and has infected the minds of most figures in the foreign policy establishment.
Surely the United States faces challenges greater than those George Washington could have ever imagined. In a world where our nation could be annihilated by a foreign power in a matter of minutes, it is not outlandish to assert that America must be more engaged in world affairs than in 1797. The assertion that moving troops out of a country that we have not been at war with in 75 years endangers American national security, however, is pure fantasy.
Germany is currently perhaps the most prosperous European nation in human history. Their gross domestic product is the fifth highest of all nations in the world. This number (approximately $4.16 trillion in 2020) is comparable to the GDP of Russia, which occupies a land area the size of Pluto and holds almost double the population of Germany. It is interesting to compare the German economy to that of Russia, because it is this very pairing that opponents of any changes in American personnel numbers in Europe wave about as evidence supporting contant military engagement. Members of the foreign policy establishment assert that withdrawing even one American infantryman from Germany will make all Europe vulnerable to Russian aggression in the coming years and spits in the face of our European allies.
Multiple questions must be asked of this group. First, what evidence is there that Russia intends to invade western Europe? While Russia has made small territorial claims to areas such as Crimea, the Russian government makes millions upon millions of dollars in revenue from German purchases of natural gas alone. Asserting that Russia would be willing to invade a nation that is one of their most valuable trading partners is similar to an assertion that China is willing to invade the United States — both are antiquated fiction. Then comes the question of Vladimir Putin. While the Russian president may be lustful for power and has authoritarian tendencies, are we really to believe he is stupid enough to mount any type of military campaign against a NATO ally? Perhaps Kim Jong-Un would be willing to risk such an operation to hold onto power, but Vladimir Putin is hardly that naive.
President Donald Trump is not known for his deep understanding of foreign policy or his broad strategic mind. However, we must be willing to admit when the president has a point. NATO was formed after the Second World War to preserve an alliance of democratic nations in the face of Soviet aggression in Europe. These allies agreed that each would spend a certain proportion of their national budget on defense, and that each would come to the aid of another if attacked. It is difficult to see how Germany is honoring these terms, or how the majority of our NATO allies are doing so. Germany’s military is skeletal, and they spend far less than the 2% of their GDP on defense required under their NATO obligations. Instead, they rely on the eternal willingness of a country 4,000 miles away to provide men and materiel for their defense. This is a preposterous arrangement, and is extremely unusual in world history.
The national debt of the United States is over $26 trillion. We are in the middle of one of the most dire pandemics in American history, and the government twiddles their thumbs while squabbling over the semantics of relief bills. The parties cannot agree on what type of napkins to use in the congressional cafeteria, but somehow they can conspire to ensure that hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops are stationed in countries that do not need them and often do not want them. We spend $700 billion per year on the Department of Defense in the name of “national security” just to occupy the wealthiest nations in the world which refuse to commit adequate resources to their own defense. All the while, these very same countries insult us as naive and warmongering, and decry us for our domineering posture around the globe.
Perhaps they are right. Perhaps it is time for us to commit our resources to our own actual national defense, and to return to Washington’s vision of a nation committed to peace and commerce abroad rather than global military domination. Perhaps an alliance means two nations committed to peaceful coexistence and mutual defense, not one nation using their military as a mercenary force to “defend” another in peacetime. Perhaps it is time to abandon our hubris and admit that we cannot afford to patrol the entire world in perpetuity.
Skyborg: The Unmanned, AI-Driven, JADC2 pivot
Ethan Brown
A low-cost, “attritable” drone
Among the variety of modernization and future warfare inventory additions which the US Air Force has pursued over this past year, but perhaps none are as ambitious as the Skyborg unmanned aerial vehicle. The US Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) has been pressing to kickstart the Skyborg program as rapidly as possible, narrowing the demo team to four contractors- Boeing, Northrup, General Atomics, and Kratos. This week, the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), who partners with the AFRL on awarding contracts for such new systems, announced that it will settle on a vendor before the summer is out. For the purpose of intrigue, there is the possibility of a split contract between multiple vendors. The Skyborg project is the AFRL’s top priority within its Vanguard program- which is the ultra-fantastical but very real innovation and experimentation initiative for identifying, funding, and implementing futuristic warfighting tools and systems for the U.S. Air Force.
Like many of the DoD inventory modernization items this space has discussed in 2020 (such as the Army’s Future Vertical Lift, Long-Range Artillery, and the new F-15EX), the Skyborg is funded under the Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) model. While this particular line item has a ceiling of ‘only’ $400 million, split between the AFRL and the AFLCMC, there is also an ‘unfunded’ line of accounting, courtesy of IndoPacom, providing an additional $25 million ±, as that particular combatant command is keenly interested in accelerating and fielding a strategic unmanned capability.
While a great gnashing of teeth can be heard echoing from the hill regarding the bizarre inclusion of F-35 purchasing funds in the COVID-19 relief bill, you might be wondering what exactly “Skyborg” is, and why does this iterative contract for a new unmanned vehicle matter?
Taking the ‘man’ out of ‘wingman’
Most simply, this Skyborg system replaces the number two man in a sortie of combat aircraft. What that wingman (always the more junior pilot) provides when a multi-ship formation of fighters is on mission includes telemetry, weather data, flight plans and other subsidiary mission components- enabling the flight lead to direct the flight’s reactions to mission events and other inputs. In theory, making these unmanned, AI-driven drones enables many more ‘manned’ flight leads, which simply increases the number of sorties available for deterrence across the spectrum of flying missions.
It’s like that awful 2005 movie “Stealth”, but without the droll, human-mimicking autonomous drone, and no Jamie Foxx or Jessica Biel to ease tensions via wisecracks or moral dilemmas. Presumably, Skyborg will also not have a story arch that endears it to the readers of national security publications. Rather, what the AFRL is trying to achieve is a realistically strategized, system-bound semi-autonomous machine capable of greatly enhancing human pilots on real missions, while dramatically increasing the inventory scope and multiplicity. As Skyborg is seemingly a fully unmanned vehicle -meaning its guidance and control systems operate via the Golden Horde- it cannot truly be called a Remote Piloted Aircraft like its MQ-1 and MQ-9 forebears, who still require humans at the flight controls, albeit remotely.
To date, only one of the manufacturers competing for the ID/IQ contract (Kratos) has successfully integrated the Skyborg system into an actual flying machine, via its XQ-58A Valkyrie drone. The challenge faced by these vendors is creating a flying vehicle capable of keeping pace with advanced, high speed fighter jets like the F-35 and F-22, in combat. Obviously, existing RPA’s like the propeller-driven systems mentioned previously are incapable of such aeronautical feats, and thus requires these vendors to not only make this AI-driven system function well enough to stay linked with a manned flight-lead under rigorous conditions, they are obligated to make a platform to carry the system into combat with highly sophisticated surface to air and enemy interceptors.
The vendors are not without some experience in developing unmanned needs for the defense customer. General Atomics already has the MQ-1/9 family under its belt, and Boeing has already been working with the Australian Air Force to develop a similar ‘wingman’ style drone. Finally, Northrup Gruman is the creator of the RQ-4 Global Hawk- infamous for having been shot down by Iran last year. Of course, none of those systems of previous engineering will achieve what the Skyborg solicitation sets out to do, so the designs yet to emerge from the AFRL/AFLCMC contract will bear close monitoring in the coming months.
The do-it-all ‘drone’
But the AFRL isn’t stopping at the ‘flying wingman’ concept for Skyborg (or Valkyrie, or whatever awful 80’s action movie moniker they throw out next). A $400 million contract needs to do more than just update a human pilot on wind speeds over the target (AFRL makes a staunch distinction that Skyborg is a low cost option which provides commanders with disposable combat resources valued < human lives). The Skyborg may well be the evolution of current RPA technology. The Predator/Reaper platforms have proliferated throughout the full spectrum of combat operations, from intelligence collection and surveillance to close air support and kinetic strikes. Thus, Skyborg’s list of requirements are awash with modularity and mission-flex, which includes considerations for counter-terror while pivoting the defense industry against great power competitors.
Of course, readers of this space are familiar with this author’s borderline-obsessive coverage of Joint All-domain Command & Control, so this next section is the obligatory Advanced Battle Management System connection to this particular DoD modernization initiative.
As I analyzed earlier in the year when this space began unpacking what ABMS is/does, I highlighted the accomplishment of fusing the machine languages between the F-35 and the F-22 radios. To date, those two aircraft had been unable to communicate point to point with one another until the early ABMS on-ramp exercise. That event utilized an RPA to act as a bridge with the cloudONE radio. It is precisely this radio which Skyborg may be built around. At the very least, Dr. Will Roper, the Air Force’s Acquisitions & Tech czar, expects a Skyborg prototype for the next ABMS on-ramp exercise to test platform connectivity, essentially (hopefully) running the gatewayONE across the various nodes. In short, if Valkyrie (or whatever ‘cheap’ drone platform these vendors conjure) is able to host the ABMS gateway, fly semi-autonomously in tandem with a manned 5th-generation fighter (or a bridge asset like the F-15EX) while achieving modularity for traditional UAV/RPA type roles of weapons/effects delivery, then AFRL just changed airpower projection for the United States in future conflict.
Not bad for a “Gravy Fortress”.
I Like Ike for Baseball Commissioner (or Your Local School District’s Commissioner)
Michael Stecher
Baseball has always been a big deal in the Stecher household. Please do not tell my middle school teachers, but, on more than a couple occasions, my father would pull me out of class to attend Opening Day and we had a running joke that, if the World Series fell on Yom Kippur, we should ask the rabbi to please record the service for our consumption the next day. We were very excited when Major League Baseball announced the beginning of its pandemic-shortened season and we all watched our hometown heroes in pinstripes take on the world champion Washington Nationals last week in our adopted city — at least until it started to rain in the sixth inning.
This good feeling lasted around 48 hours before the messy reality of the COVID-19 pandemic reentered the scene. On Friday, the first member of the Miami Marlins tested positive. Less than a week later, 17 players — more than half the team — and two coaches have the disease. Now a coach and a member of the clubhouse staff for the Philadelphia Phillies, where the Marlins were playing over the weekend, have tested positive as well. Multiple teams have shut down until the outbreaks are under control and the season is at risk of being cancelled.
As a fan who waited through a long offseason and months of labor acrimony to get to a place where I could watch baseball, I am saddened by this, but the MLB COVID outbreak has a valuable lesson to teach about the importance of centralized guidance and contingency planning. We will all need to take these lessons to heart if we hope to minimize the impact of coronavirus this fall.
Now that the season is underway, Major League Baseball wants it to proceed as seamlessly as possible. With no fans coming to the ballpark buying peanuts and Cracker Jack, the league will make the lion’s share of its money from the broadcast rights to the playoffs in October, so that is what they are focused on. The players, however, had a long fight with the owners over how they would be compensated for the shortened season; the formula they came up with was that players would earn 37% of their contracted salaries for playing 60 games, relative to the 162 they would play in a normal season. If more games were cancelled, the players would take steeper haircuts on their earnings.
The players on the Marlins are already among the lowest-paid in baseball and they were apparently not interested in losing out on paychecks and surrendering their chivalric commitment to competition. Over a team group chat, they decided that they still wanted to travel to Philadelphia and play: they agreed to fly together on the team jet, ride together on the team bus, dress together in the clubhouse, and sit together in the dugout after a member of their team who had been traveling with them was diagnosed with an infectious disease. The team also informed the Phillies that they had complied with league policy about testing and contact tracing, so the Phillies also agreed to play because the Marlins had “followed protocol.” Armed with different incentives and information, disparate actors made a series of bad decisions that allowed an infection to become an outbreak.
This same unfortunate combination of causes was also on display in tony Southampton, New York, last weekend. In this case, it was a charity concert featuring the EDM group The Chainsmokers and sponsored by a tequila brand co-owned by the members of The Chainsmokers and a notorious Instagram celebrity/plagiarist whose name is not suitable for a family roundup. Photos and videos show concertgoers violating the social distancing guidelines and New York State authorities have promised an investigation.
Here again we have groups with very different interests in the same event. New York State wants to keep COVID-19 caseloads down. The Town of Southampton, feeling the democratic pressure of its citizens, wants to have something resembling a normal summer. Everyone else wanted to listen to The Chainsmokers and either sell or consume tequila. In both of these cases, the initial plan went off the rails pretty quickly, leaving leaders and officials scrambling. They appear to have drawn up how they wanted things to go and trusted that everyone would do everything right so that it would all go off without a hitch. Now they are dealing with the fallout.
Schools and the oversight bodies that manage them should pay heed to this mix of incentives as they contemplate how to host classes this fall. Parents will want to maximize the amount of time their children are looked after so that they can return to work. Administrators will want to make sure that the students learn so they do not fall behind state expectations. Teachers and other school workers will want to do their jobs in a safe environment. Inevitably, these misaligned incentives will result in something going wrong. Someone will come to school with COVID-19 and things could spiral out of control.
Before that happens, leaders in these organizations need to start wargaming. It is implausible to think that anyone will be able to fully prepare for such a complex, chaotic situation. The process of contingency planning, however, is designed to teach leaders about how to operate in uncertain environments. Failing to do this will produce a scenario where leaders have to make difficult, high-stakes decisions with imperfect information and no useful guidelines.
At CSPC, we are proud of our history with President Dwight Eisenhower and integrating Eisenhowerian wisdom into our writing is on the Policy Team Bingo Card. In addition to being an avid baseball fan — and, according to a conspiracy theory, having played minor league baseball in Kansas in his youth under an assumed name — Eisenhower famously said that “plans are worthless, but planning is everything.” This is what he was talking about. It is not yet too late for mayors, governors, and school board chairs to “steep themselves in the character of the problem they will soon be called upon to solve.” That is what will separate schools and districts where students can study; parents, teachers, and staff can work; and education can proceed as much as possible from ones where it all runs off the rails.
News You May Have Missed
Hong Kong Government Postpones Elections and Blames Coronavirus
By Maria Hatzisavvas Damsgaard
This Friday July 31st, the Hong Kong government said it will postpone September’s legislative election by a year due to the coronavirus pandemic. The decision comes a day after twelve pro-democracy candidates were formally disqualified from standing in the upcoming elections, including prominent Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong, who calls the decision “…the largest election fraud in #HK’s history” on Twitter. The postponed election would have been the first election since the passing of the new national security law, from which pro-democracy politicians were eyeing electoral momentum. Hong Kong’s chief executive Carrie Lam, backed by China’s central government, ensures that the decision is not politically motivated but based purely on ”protecting the health and safety of the Hong Kong people and to ensure that the elections are held in a fair and open manner.”
President Trump revokes fair housing mandate
By Maria Hatzisavvas Damsgaard
On Wednesday July 29th, President Donald Trump revoked the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing mandate established under the Obama administration in 2015. The regulation was intended to combat discriminatory housing practices and segregation by requiring communities that receive grants and housing aid to assess racial segregation and offering plans to correct it. The revoking of the mandate is Trump’s latest re-election bid, following the push to open suburban schools in the fall. Both actions are part of a greater re-election strategy meant to boost the otherwise flagging suburban support, which played a key role in the 2016 Republican electoral victory. Senator Elizabeth Warren calls it a “dismantle [of] civil rights in search of a political advantage,” while Senator Chuck Schumer promises Democrats will “fight this.”
Anti-Kremlin Protests Become More Popular in Russia
By Nick Schroeder
Recently, there has been a surge of anti-Kremlin protests in the east of Russia. These protests are largely due to Putin controversially adding a constitutional amendment that allows him to stay in power until 2036. Levada conducted a survey on July 24th and 25th in Russia to judge the public sentiment about the protests. Significantly, of the 1,617 Russians surveyed, only 17% view the protests negatively. 45% of citizens view the protests positively and 26% said they view them neutrally. The protests could continue for longer than expected since 29% of respondents said they would be willing to participate in protests themselves.
Australia warns ‘virtual kidnappings’ on the rise, primarily targeting Chinese students
By Emily Stone
As technology continues to transform society, it has also ushered in a new form of extortion for scam artists: virtual kidnappings, which Australian authorities have warned are on the rise. These virtual kidnappings have primarily affected Chinese students studying in Australia, with eight recorded cases happening in 2020. Rather than physically kidnapping a victim, the scammers call the victim and trick them into thinking they’re in trouble with the Chinese government, then make them check into a hotel and turn off their phone. The scammers then use photos and information they have of the victim to contact their family in China and demand ransom, ranging from a few thousand dollars to $200,000 — one family even paid $1.4 million USD. In response to this bizarre pattern, both Australian and Chinese officials have released statements warning people about fishy phone calls, and encouraging them to share the information with their family abroad.
The views of authors are their own and not that of CSPC.