Author: admin

One thing President Biden is finding very difficult to do is to get through a prepared speech or an answer to a reporter’s question without blaming someone or something other than himself or his administration.  I recall the Clintons doing it in the 1990s; they called it “spin” and they took it to a new level.  Call it what you want, it is disgusting, distasteful, and an egregious failure of leadership.  It is inevitably a failing leader’s last resort; blame, blame, blame.

He has blamed the Afghanistan debacle on, “the generals”, blamed tangled supply chains on “inflation”, blamed the over-all economic nose-dive on “COVID and Putin” blamed surging lawlessness on “COVID and guns”, blamed out-of-control fuel prices on “Putin and the Ukraine invasion”, blamed gas prices on “fuel company CEOs”, Blamed increasing meat prices on “CEOs” and on and on and on. 

TRUTH: Truth just doesn’t seem to matter to President Biden; he will say whatever it takes to get past the moment. “The border is not open.” The truth: Every statistic associated with illegal immigration tells us just the opposite.  Biden June, 2022: “We have the fastest growing economy in the world.”  The truth: More than 50 countries are growing faster. Biden: “People have record savings.”  The truth: Wealth losses in the U.S. have exceeded $10 trillion so far in 2022, the most significant catastrophic vaporizations of wealth and savings in U.S. history.  Biden’s spokesperson recently explained that, “The economy is in a better place than it has been historically.”  The truth:  During the Trump presidency, before COVID-19, median household income rose by $6,446, the largest three-year gains in income for middle-class families in history. Under Biden, median income lost $5-6,000 in average wages and salaries when adjusted for inflation over the last year. Biden: “America is in a position to tackle a worldwide problem (inflation) that’s worse everywhere but here.” The truth: Inflation is higher in Japan, France, Germany, Britain, Italy and Canada.

Why is he doing this?  Here is one theory.

Politicians have a reputation for conveniently playing loose with the truth; yet they keep getting reelected. I’m no psychologist but it seems to me that if that behavior (routinely lying) is repeatedly rewarded (reelected) they just may begin to believe lying doesn’t matter; it’s not a big deal.  

Our president spent his entire adult life as a professional politician.  Until 2021 he had never led an organization, built anything, met a payroll, balanced an organization’s budget, been responsible for a dozen or so “senior executives” or had a staff of hundreds or thousands of subordinates. 

Does congressional experience provide an individual with the building blocks to be president of the United States?  Well, here is what we-the-people have been saying about that. For about 50 years Gallop has been conducting an annual poll to gather findings on a couple of   pertinent questions. 

The first has to do with confidence in a long list of American institutions.  The 2021 poll tells us that Congress as an institution is very near the bottom of the list with 12% saying they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the U.S Congress.  By contrast the U.S. Military has consistently been at or near the top with (in 2021) military at 69%.    

A similar Gallop poll deals with Honesty and Ethics:  That poll, 2021, Members of Congress were rated “high/very high” by only 9% of the public and low/very low by 62%.   By contrast Members of the Military were rated 81% high/very high and 1% low/very low.

One obvious conclusion from these two Gallop poles is that if the members of an organization are getting an “F” in honesty and ethics, the overall organization will get an “F” in confidence from we-the-people.

ACCOUNTABILITY:  There is another very serious issue associated with blame and lying.  It is his abrogation of one of the foundational elements of leadership, accountability.  He talks to us about “the buck stops with me” but his level of hypocrisy on the issue of accountability is palpable.  Saying and doing are two very different actions.

This is not a “blame game”, it is much too serious to be referred to as anything as trite as a game.  This is about having a leader who is lying about two of the most important issues in this country that is negatively impacting every single person every day; inflation and gas prices. There is no factual data to back up his assertions and everyone knows it.  For example, in 2020 the national average gas price dropped below $2.00 per gallon. It was $2.25 when Biden took office, $3.32 one year later and a month BEFORE Putin invaded Ukraine.  Today, the national average gas price is $4.90 per gallon.  Americans can rightly conclude if he will look at us through his teleprompter and lie about the big issues, he will likely lie about anything else to cover his tracks. 

We all know what blame means, an attempt to deflect responsibility from one’s self. Another way to look at it is to define the exact opposite of blame which is accountability

The seriousness of the absence of accountability goes further.  Very high up on the line-up of desirable leader character traits are trust and respect.  Without accountability, neither trust nor respect will become part of the leadership equation. We cannot trust someone who lacks the moral courage to tell us the truth about the most important issues facing America.  Without trust and accountability how are we going to respect that person as our leader?  The president’s pathetic pole numbers prove this point.

 If you are looking for a single word that sums up the attributes of accountability, trust and respect it would be integrity. A person of integrity will consistently display moral commitment, selflessness and confidence to speak out and act out with honesty and honor. A mid-1900s radio personality, Edward R. Murrow summed it up accurately with this, “To be persuasive you must be believable; to be believable you must be credible; to be credible you must be truthful.”  Amen.

CULTURE:  Having discussed the president’s character, or lack thereof, we also must consider the larger issue; it is about the organization, i.e., the collective U.S.A.

Culture is a powerful and pervasive force in every organization and every organization, no matter how large or small, has a culture. Culture is an organization’s personality; caring, hateful, fast, honest, energetic, visionary, risk-taking, vengeful.  Culture will change over time for better or worse.  Too many times senior leaders pay little or no attention to the culture of their organization until they wake up one day and figure out that it is a disaster and is dragging the entire organization down. The point being, culture needs attention all the time.  A leader does not build an organizational culture by sending out an email or memo.  The leader defines what the culture currently is, decides what he/she wants it to be and then sets in motion all the initiatives necessary to institutionalize it. It’s a lot of work; a leader must get every subordinate leader on board, make them actively participate and sell it, talk about it openly and frequently.  Everyone in the organization should be able to define the culture and its impact on the environment in which they work. 

Here is the key question facing us on the subject of culture; what is happening right now, today at the leader level (the president), at the headquarters level (i.e., the entire Executive Branch) and the organization as a whole (the U.S.A)?  There is no reason to rehash what the president is doing; he is consistently using blame as a leadership tool and it is a disaster. 

Blame is spreading.  It has become obvious that the secretaries of the departments, State, Defense, Transportation, Energy, Homeland Security, etc.  have, by choice or otherwise, bought in to blame as a leadership mechanism.  A perfect example is Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas during a recent congressional hearing on the disaster on the southern border singing directly from the Biden sheet of music about no such thing as an “open border, we are doing everything we can to contain illegal immigration.”  Or to listen to Energy Secretary Granholm explaining that energy CEOs are the problem and if we-the-people would all buy an electric vehicle our energy problems would go away.

Finally, throughout the organization, the political left picks up on the blame culture, it spreads, it is deemed an acceptable course of action by our liberal media and liberal institutions of higher learning. We become capable of creating a next-generation of leaders who believe blame is an acceptable leadership tool.

But there are others in the organization who see culture for what it really is, corrosive behavior that eats away at the foundation of leadership and of the organization.  Morale suffers and pride in workmanship declines by those who realize they are supporting a lie. 

With two schools of thought on a culture of blame, ultimately the nation becomes more divided.  Our president, the “great unifier” is failing the American people and the foundation of the republic.

CONCLUSIONS:

Why are great leaders great?  Some people will refer to a successful leader as a, “born leader.” No such thing.  First is desire.  If a leader does not want to lead or is uncomfortable in the seat, they will likely fail.  Secondly, is preparation.  Great leaders have years of experience at the first-line leader level, the operational level and finally at the strategic level. They are good at what they do as a result of a combination of formal leader development training, self-initiated study, having been properly mentored and by having experienced many successes and failures along the way. 

I believe we can all agree that being president of the United States may be the most difficult, the most demanding leadership position in the world.  A best-case scenario would be for the president to have experienced at least years if not hopefully decades of leader development at tactical through strategic levels, experienced near-term and long-range planning successes and failures, learned how and when to deal with direct-report subordinates as well as dozens, then hundreds or perhaps thousands of worker-bees at the lower levels, experienced how to deemphasize self-interests by always seeking the greater good for the organization as a whole and keeping that thought in the forefront of every action and reaction.

President Biden has none of this training and he is, therefore, failing the American people on so many fronts. His natural reaction is to turn to what 50 years of politics taught him; play loose with the truth and resort to blame, blame and more blame.

Almost nothing damages the reputation of a leader faster than attempting to dodge an issue rather than deal with it.  Blame is a dodge.  Nothing positive will ever come of it.

BOTTOM LINE:

Our lives are defined by how we deal with adversity.  When failure manifests its ugly head, the last course of action should be to abandon accountability because doing so ensures there also will be no trust or respect going forward.

A thought from an unknown author, “The only thing that happens when you throw dirt is that you lose ground.”  Blame doesn’t inspire, it breeds malcontent, discord, disarray, frustration and ultimately failure for we-the-people.

All leaders are held accountable for the welfare of their people, some leaders are additionally held accountable for the welfare of the organization.

Marvin L. Covault, Lt Gen US Army, retired, is the author of VISION TO EXECUTION, a book for leaders, and a new book May 2022, FIX THE SYSTEMS, TRANSFORM AMERICA as well as the author of a blog WeThePeopleSpeaking.com

It is not very encouraging when an article begins with a disclaimer, but for this one it is necessary.  This article contains a lot of numbers associated with the Green Movement and many of them conflict from source to source.  My intent is to use the numbers to paint a picture of what is going on in the world with regard to carbon emissions.  Some of the numbers may be exactly wrong but also about right.  About right means more than one source had the same or similar number so I used it.

THE WORLD WE LIVE IN: 

Humans: What human population can our earth support?  Guestimates abound but there are some very convincing arguments that the maximum could be 9-10 billion.  With the population closing in on 8 billion, we may already be on borrowed time. What immediately comes to mind is that a little over 100 days ago Russia invaded Ukraine.  While there are already about 47 million people in 81 countries on the edge of famine, The World Food Program warns that the Russia/Ukraine conflict could result in 276 million facing “acute food insecurity.”   Not a comforting thought. 

One final thought to keep in mind about the human race today; 17% are illiterate and probably poor, 26% live less than 14 years, 66% die between ages 15 and 64 due primarily to malnutrition and/or lack of adequate medical care because they are poor.  These poor people live in poor countries.

Minerals: None of earth’s minerals are renewable.  Already, 17 of the 78 minerals contained in the earth’s crust are classified as, ‘rare earth metals,” some of which are essential to manufacturing almost anything electric. And, you guessed it, China controls about 80% of the world’s supply.  Controlling the supply, provides opportunity to control processing which leads to controlling price and also who gets what share.  Not a comforting thought.

Electricity: World-wide requirement for electricity has been steadily increasing since Alexander Graham Bell lit up the first light bulb in 1879. Throughout the last century central heating and air conditioning became commonplace in the hundreds of millions of structures, including an ever-increasing demand for electric power.  But since the turn of this century, demand for electricity has been increasing at an increasing rate. An estimated 900,000 people are going online for the first time every day.  Access to the internet increased by 54% in 2021.  Consider that about 84% of the world’s population, over 6.6 billion people, recharge smart phones and laptops every day? Now we are talking about charging hundreds of millions of car batteries that weigh in at about 1000 pounds.

CREATING ELECTRIC POWER FROM RENEWABLE WIND AND SOLAR:  Building one wind turbine requires 45 tons of plastic (processed from petroleum), 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 2 tons of rare-earth elements. To produce the 900 tons of steel needed for one turbine requires about 150 tons of coking coal and about 300 tons of iron ore. 

More bad news. Cement is the number one carbon contributor in the world.  The production of one pound of cement also produces one pound of CO2.

More bad news, the 45 tons of plastic is nonrecyclable.

If we want to produce half the world’s electricity from wind, we will need to build about 3 million more turbines.  Back to the 900 tons of steel required for one turbine, 3 million turbines would require 2.7 billion tons of earth materials. 

Yes, one more bad news point; after a turbine life-cycle of about 20 years, start all over.

Finally, the worse news of all: After we dig out of the earth billions of tons of raw materials, transport it, process it into a usable product, again transport it and finally construct a turbine, we will have unavoidably created an enormous carbon emissions footprint. Some researchers believe the actual CO2 reduction is so insignificant that one large windfarm saves less in a year than is given off over the same period by a single jumbo jet flying daily between the U.S. and England.

Wind turbine cost:  The average is about $3 million.  Again, if we need 3 million of them, the total is in the neighborhood of $9 trillion.  Add to that an annual maintenance cost of $45,000 each ($1.35 billion for the world) and you will likely conclude that most of the countries in the world cannot afford to be part of the program.  That fact takes us back to the Paris Accords; good ideas but probably not within the art of the possible. 

Electricity from solar panels: The discussion of cement/steel requirement for energy from wind are sobering.  I’m sorry to report that energy from solar power requires even more cement and steel than wind turbines to produce the same amount of electricity.  Additionally, production of solar panels requires large amounts of silver and indium.  Mining of these metals is expected to increase by 250% and 1200% respectively over the next twenty years and some day we will likely run out of both. Solar panels require other rare-earth elements which are not currently mined in the US.  Demand for these elements is expected to rise 250-1000% by 2050.  Access to these metals is questionable.  For example, the Republic of the Congo produces 70% of the world’s raw cobalt and China controls 90% of cobalt mining and refining

More facts bearing on the Green Revolution:

BIDEN’S FOLLY:  The afternoon of 20 January, 2021, our new president took a sharp left turn, signed away our short-lived energy independence thereby setting in motion an economic disaster, all to make a point about moving the world away from fossil fueled vehicles.  All this without consultation with Congress, let alone the American people who he had just a few hours earlier pledged to support and defend. His action was not a bold move for mankind, a world-leader move, it was plain and simple gotcha-Trump move.  How much research had he and his staff done on the viability of a world full of electronic vehicles, EVs? 

Fact:  The world has a greenhouse gas emissions problem and passenger vehicles account for about 15% of the carbon.

THE PARIS ACCORDS, fact:  the Accords entered into force on November 4, 2016, and has been signed by 195 countries and ratified by 190 as of January 2021.  The objective is to limit greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030 and ultimately to levels that would prevent global temperatures from increasing more than 3.6 °F before the end of this century. 

Each signatory to the Paris Climate Agreement was asked to submit a plan.  The “plan” was to specify their year-by-year program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So, what happens if a nation does not submit a plan or does not achieve their objectives?  Nothing, absolutely nothing. The plans are not enforceable and there are no penalties for failure. The Paris Climate Agreement is a glorified global PR effort.  No teeth. No funding.  No sanctions for failure.  But the story gets worse.

Under the Paris agreement, “developed countries” such as the United States pledged to provide funding and technical support to “developing countries”, such as India to assist with emissions reductions; wherein India promptly estimated that is would need “at least U.S. $2.5 trillion” in aid by 2030 to achieve their emissions reduction targets. the World Bank officially categorizes 139 nations as “developing.” How many of the 139 will want a handout from the U.S. taxpayers to achieve their unenforceable environmental goals?

To date, almost 75% of the nations’ pledges are insufficient to achieve the 2030 target. And then there is China’s “pledge”. They will continue to increase emissions of carbon dioxide at least until 2030′ i.e., zero reduction planning.

COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS, Fact:  Coal-fired power plants account for about 26% of global greenhouse emissions.  The world has about 10,000 coal-fired power plants; the US has less than 250. China and India combined have over 35% of the world’s population and about 50% (5,100) coal-fired power plants.  That’s the bad news; the worse news is that between the two of them China and India are in the process of building 634 new coal-fired power plants by 2030. China is also building and financing hundreds of other coal-fired power plants in countries such as Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, Egypt, and Bangladesh. 

Fact: How much leverage does President Biden have to get the likes of China and India on board with greenhouse gas reductions?  About zero.? 

With that background information, let’s get to the heart off the EV issue, the battery.

BATTERY POWERED VEHICLES:  The Green New Deal seeks to replace gas guzzling vehicles with battery power to reduce hydro carbon buildup.  This is not a simple matter. Some factors impacting on this green issue:

All world transportation (cars, trucks, planes, boats, trains) account for about 23% of greenhouse gas emissions while vehicles alone contribute about 15%.  There are over 1.45 billion vehicles in the world and less than half of one per cent are electric. There are about 291 million vehicles in the U.S., 20% of the world total, also with only about half of one percent electric.  Point being, we have a long way to go to reach the Paris Agreement goal of, “limiting greenhouse gas emissions by 50 % by 2030”. 

Fact:  Increasing the number of EVs is not just a U.S. issue, it is a world issue: 80% of vehicles are outside the U.S. 

One electric car battery, weighs in at about 1000 pounds.  To produce one battery requires digging up and processing about 500,000 pounds of raw materials such as cadmium, cobalt, lead, lithium, and nickel. For example, for some of these type materials, the end product is about one half of one percent of the weight of the material dug out of the ground.

Here is the magnitude of the problem: To power 50% of the world’s vehicles by batteries, we would have to dig up, transport and process about 175 billion tons of earth’s materials. Currently, electric car battery life is about ten years and then we need to dig another 175 billion tons, and again and again and that is just to power half the cars.

A new favorite sound-bite by the Green folks is “net zero.”  Well, Green folks, try this one on for size:  Producing an electric vehicle contributes, on average, twice as much to global warming and uses double the amount of energy than producing a combustion engine car. This is mainly because of its lithium-ion battery. Given all that, it takes about nine years for an electric car to be “greener” than a gas/diesel car, assuming an annual average mileage of 8100 miles.  With average lithium battery life of about ten years, what is the net gain?  Not much.

BTW, another fact the Green environmentalists won’t tell you about is (with half the world’s vehicles EV) every 10 years we will have about 350 million tons of  spent, very toxic, lithium-ion batteries. Well, they might say, “let’s just recycling them.”  Without major advances in battery technology, recycling lithium is currently cost prohibitive.

Finally, we get to the title question, LITHIUM, HOW MUCH FOR HOW LONG?

Any discussion of lithium will make reference to the amount of lithium in terms of “resources” and/or “reserves.”  Resources is an estimate of the amounts believed to be physically contained in the earth’s crust while reserves refer to an estimate of the amount that can technically and economically be expected to be produced from a geological formation.

LITHIUM AND THE CHINA FACTOR:

China is the best long-range strategic planner in the world and they have used their expertise to control the supply of lithium.  China has been quietly buying lithium producers and deposits around the world for years.

Australia:  China owns a 51% stake in Australia’s Greenbushes mine, currently the world’s largest.

Chile: May, 2022 China acquired a stake in Chile’s lithium mining operations for $4.1 billion. Chile is currently the largest producer of lithium in the world.

Congo: China is gaining control over lithium deposits in the Congo which are being hailed as, “the world’s largest undrilled lithium resource.”

UK: China has a controlling 73% stake in the lithium mines in south-western England.

Afghanistan:  Since the U.S. fall in Afghanistan, the Taliban rewarded China for its support by granting it effective control of the lithium mines in Afghanistan.

Canada: January, 2022, China bought Canada’s Lithium mining company for $919 million.

Chinese chemical companies account for about 80% of the world’s total output of raw materials for EVs, smart phones and laptop computers. China controls the processing of most of the critical minerals in lithium-ion batteries; rare earth minerals, lithium, cobalt and graphite.

 Additionally, of the 136 lithium-ion plants expected to be operational by 2029, 101 will be based in China.

Whoever controls lithium mining and processing will control the price of lithium and by extension the price of electronic vehicle batteries.

When looking for an answer to the question, how long will the earth’s supply of lithium last, there are many variables to consider. For example, what are the current lithium reserves (mineable and available) and resources (exist but may not be currently mineable), can we find more, which size battery (small, medium, large) do we use in the computations, what will the total world-wide demand be, can new technology expand battery life, etc.?  Some studies conclude that demand will exceed supply by 2050, others say we should be OK on supply until 2100.  I could not find a study that was optimistic about lithium supply beyond 2100. Stanford University has published some good work on the subject; here is one:

Eric Eason, Stanford University has done some interesting research on lithium supply as it relates to EV batteries.  Keep in mind that over a billion mobile phones are produced globally every year so there is great demand outside EV needs. Having said that Mr. Eason concludes that if we could use the entire world’s lithium reserves, we can make 4.1 billion medium-sized EV batteries.  That means, with half the world’s vehicles electric (700 million and increasing) and with a battery life of about 10 years, the known lithium reserves will be gone by 2080.

Mr. Eason’s concluding remark is, “It is certainly possible to build millions of electric vehicles with lithium-ion batteries, but it may not be possible to make billions of them.”  We will need billions and billions.  And keep in mind that carbon emissions from vehicles represents only 15% of the total of the world’s green-house gas problem.

Supply and demand.  Every time a truckload of lithium ore departs the mining area, world supply goes down as demand is increasing exponentially. Lithium carbonate prices have increased 413% since the start of 2021.  What does that portent for the price of EVs?

Let me be clear, lithium is not the overriding issue in the green revolution.  But, I do believe it is emblematic of what is going on.  President Biden and Department of Energy Secretary Granholm seem fixated on EVs in America as if that is THE overriding solution to carbon emissions. We ae engaged in a soundbite planning regime. Have we heard anyone in the current administration talk about any of the issues in the above paragraphs?  No.  No details, just a soundbite end state. No accounting for the massive number of assumptions they have made and the absence of factual content.  Where is the expert testimony from Congressional committee hearings? Where is the long-range strategic plan from the Energy Department?

Should we consider ALTERNATIVES TO ELECTRIC VEHICLES?

Liquefied and compressed natural gas; both are fuel-efficient for vehicles. They are not expensive to build and reduce carbon monoxide emissions by over 90% compared to gas-power.  The U.S. has about 500 trillion cubic feet of known reserves of recoverable natural gas.  It is estimated that there is at least 800 trillion cubic feet of natural gas under the African continent. Over 100 countries have known, recoverable reserves of natural gas.

Is natural gas a viable alternative to gas/diesel powered vehicles?  Here is a statement from Waste Management Inc.  “Transitioning our fleet (4000 of 16,000 trucks) from diesel to natural gas yields a range of environmental benefits, including saving over 350 million gallons of fuel and reducing about 3.5 million metric tons of CO₂ emissions. Our vehicles powered by compressed natural gas (CNG) have nearly zero particulate emissions, cut greenhouse gas emissions by over 20 percent, and are far quieter than their diesel counterparts.”

What have we heard from the Biden administration about natural gas-powered vehicles as a supplement or alternative?  Nothing, because their tunnel vision on electric vehicles is an unfailing 20-20. 

Should we consider ALTERNATIVES TO POWER FROM WIND AND SOLAR? 

Electricity generation emits more carbon dioxide in the United States than does transportation or industry, and nuclear power is the largest source of carbon-free electricity in the country. Nuclear power generation is also relatively cheap. Here is the problem; due to government regulations, environmentalists’ concerns and law suits, it takes anywhere from 20 to 30 years from inception to bringing a nuclear power plant on line in the U.S.  Nuclear power plants are safe, clean and produce the cheapest power; a reliable source of clean energy

China has 27 nuclear power reactors in operation, 24 under construction and is planning to construct seven new nuclear power plants annually between now and 2030. By 2050, nuclear power should exceed 400 new nuclear reactors; a trillion-dollar investment.

There are 93 nuclear reactors operating in the U.S. at 55 locations in 28 states.  Eight new licenses have been issued and two nuclear sites are under construction.  

However, the face of nuclear energy is changing.  Oklo, a 22-person Silicon Valley start-up company has a plan to build mini-nuclear reactors, powered by the waste from conventional nuclear reactors.

Their concept is to build a micro-reactor in a year or less to power, for example, utility companies, industrial sites, large companies, medium-sized communities and university campuses. 

Are small reactors a viable option?  The U.S. Navy commissioned its first nuclear powered ship in 1961.  There are currently 80 nuclear powered ships in the U.S. Navy with over 5,700 reactor-years of safe operations. Yes, small reactors, brought on line quickly can provide the U.S. with cheap, clean, safe power.

What have we heard from the Biden Administration or Congress about fast-tracking construction of hundreds of cheap, safe, efficient, power generation facilities with mini-nuclear reactors? Nothing, because it conflicts with their tunnel vision on wind and solar. How do we recharge our car, iPhone, laptop, lawn mower, hand tools, etc. etc. etc. if the sun doesn’t shine and/or the wind doesn’t blow?

CONCLUSIONS:

Every element in the earth’s crust is finite with some minerals already in short supply. The potential massive demand for lithium may well place this mineral on the list of “rare earth metals.”

While the supply and demand for lithium is presently balanced, many of the on-going studies have concluded that sustainability of the long-term supply of lithium is at risk. Therefore, we should consider developing alternate options for reducing carbon buildup from the transportation sector; e.g., natural gas-powered vehicles.  

Vehicles contribute about 15% of the world-wide carbon build-up.  If half the vehicles become electric, we may end up transforming world-wide transportation for a nominal 7% saving.  

By the turn of the next century, it is conceivable that we will have a world with literally billions of junked EVs with no batteries.

Lithium battery technology has been evolving for over 50 years. Economically feasible recycling of batteries must take center stage now.

China’s control of the world’s lithium reserves as well as the production of lithium carbonate can become a game-change.  While the cost of an EV is already out of reach for most of the world’s population, the future cost of the battery alone could put the price of most electric vehicles too high for billions more people. 

Carbon build-up is a world problem.  Analysis of the Paris Accords indicates that only a few of the 195 countries can afford to play a meaningful role in the green revolution. Wind, solar and moving water are the only renewable sources of power. Moving towards production of a large percentage of power from wind turbines and solar farms is too expensive for most countries to implement.  Power supplies from both wind and solar have to be backed up with some alternative source for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.

Mining, transporting and processing leading to the construction of wind turbines and solar farms requires such massive amounts of earth materials and power that the net carbon reduction is drastically reduced; a factor not discussed by green advocates.

Power demand and consumption will continue to rise as, many experts predict, the world population grows to 11 billion in the next few decades. We should consider rapid development of reliable, clean power production alternatives; e.g., nuclear.

BOTTOM LINE:

We are at the front end of a dramatic transition for mother earth. For eons humans have been removing unrenewable substances from the earth.  But there has always been so much of “it” that we didn’t notice and neither our lives nor decision making were negatively impacted by shortages.  But now we are in the process of determining remaining reserves of that which has become essential to the everyday lives of 8 billion people.  We are counting the billions of barrels of oil remaining, the trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, the billions of tons of iron ore and copper, sources of clean water and we already have a working-list of earth’s rare metals.

About 6.6 billion people have a smartphone.  The magic in the glass is due to a dash of the rare metal indium which serves as the transparent conductor between the phone and your finger. A little europium and terbium provide red and green hues on the screen, a speck of tantalum regulates power and lithium stores the power.  These and other rare earth metals are essential to most of our communications gadgets, cars, etc.  Someday all of these earth materials will be used up. The same assumption applies to crude oil, natural gas, uranium, trees, iron ore, clean water, etc.

While the degradation of natural resources has been going on for centuries, we are now, for the first time, face to face with the reality that we cannot do something that needs to be done because we will run out of some essential resource, for example lithium.  From now on, if we are provided with a new technology that will make our lives better, we will have to pause and ask, is there enough mineral reserves available to sustain the capability? Will one nation be able to control the outcome?  Will this further divide the world’s nations into the “haves” and “have-nots”?  This is a new revelation for the world but unfortunately, we see our nation’s leaders single-mindedly plowing ahead, the facts be damned, believing other nations will follow when it is obvious they will not because they can not.

Mother earth is in an unstoppable retrograde.  At some point in the future, be it two or three hundred years, what remains of the human race will in all likelihood live in a rural sixteen-hundreds type of self-sustaining environment.

Marvin L. Covault, Lt Gen US Army, retired, is the author of VISION TO EXECUTION, a book for leaders, and a new book May 2022, FIX THE SYSTEMS, TRANSFORM AMERICA as well as the author of a blog WeThePeopleSpeaking.com.

The Columbine High School massacre occurred April 20, 1999.  Seems like yesterday.  How many similar school shooting since then?  Too many.

Let’s begin with an abbreviated after-action review of the shooting in Texas this week; the Good, Better, How process.

First question, what did they do good?  Law enforcement was on the scene ASAP. The shooter was taken down ASAP.

Second, what could they have done better?  In this case about everything.

Third, how do we go about institutionalizing what needs to be done to, the maximum extent possible, prevent this ever happening again?  That is the intent of what follows.

Old saying, “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.”  Absolutely true.  That is why every planning action must begin with a statement of the problem. 

PROBLEMS:

Current solutions revolve around the rapid arrival of law enforcement personnel.  They arrive in minutes.  We need to counter the attack in seconds.

Multiple law enforcement agencies will arrive on the scene simultaneously.  No one is in charge.

It is unlikely there will be any pre-planned immediate first responder counter actions.

Law enforcement arrivals, generally speaking, will not be intimately familiar with the terrain; “parking lot #3” or “in the west wing” or “room 18” will likely be meaningless information. 

Where will the first responders go for an initial briefing by someone on the scene?

If there are in-school individuals countering the shooter, who are they, where are they?

In the last two decades of school shootings has there ever been any in-place 24/7 deterrent actions? Not that I have heard of.

A current culture of hate and blame in America is reinforcement for a potential shooter.

WHO ARE THE SHOOTERS?  Here is a scenario that I believe is not too far-fetched. In most of the school massacres the shooter, after the fact, has been tagged as a “loner.”  Perhaps the young man is not a loner by choice.  Let’s say he is perceived by his fellow students as socially awkward, or not handsome, or has a handicap, bad hair, bad clothes, bad hygiene, whatever.  He can easily become a victim of social bullying that is so prevalent today.  He develops a hatred for schools in general, for his former school, for his current school and the people that are there every day. His absence from external socializing drives him to video games to occupy his time.  His parents feel relieved that he has some interest to turn to.  At the end of the day, he “wins” his video game because he has killed the most people.  In his demented mind killing is a game.  Etc. etc.

Given the above problems, here is a CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS TO DETER AND, IF DETERRENCE FAILS, COUNTER AN IN-SCHOOL SHOOTER.

DETERRENT ACTIONS:

Because of the timeline associated with a school shooting (the arrival of first responders will always be outside the window of vulnerability), there must be a school Security Force in-place every second of every school day.  More on this in a few minutes. If the shooter has given any thought to where his target is, he may well be aware he could be walking into a Security Force death trap. Institutionalized deterrence.

Because of the need for multiple fire exits from a school, all exit-only doors become potential breach points.  Have a camera on the door at all times and live feed to the “security rooms”.  When that door is breached from the outside, flashing lights and a unique audio alarm will immediately alert the Security Force. Physical and technical deterrence.

Every school has multiple fire alarm mechanisms on the wall in the hallways that can be activated by anyone sensing a fire.  Add a second alarm for anyone seeing a gun or sensing there is a shooter in the school. Every person in the building is authorized to pull the alarm if necessary. Every student becomes a player in security. Have a camera observing the alarm to preclude pranksters from activating it.  The shooter alarm must have a very distinctive sound and be frequently tested. When that alarm goes off it will initiate a number of actions.  Every classroom will get locked down from the inside. The Security Force will react immediately and initiate pre-planned actions. A deterrent action providing peace of mind to everyone on campus.

THE SECURITY FORCE:

In today’s school systems, typically about half the total number of employees are not in the classrooms; janitors, school bus maintenance personnel, counselors, nurses, the principal, etc. Also, typically there will be a position for an Assistant (or Vice) Principal to perform admin duties, scheduling, oversee testing, supervise lunch, hallways, special events, etc. 

In this concept of operations, the Assistant Principal becomes, as his/her first priority, the leader of the Security Force. That leader will designate someone to be second in command in order that 100% of the time school is in session, one of them will be in the school and ready to react.

The Security Force can be put together from, in my concept, the non-teaching employees.  Depending on the size of the school, perhaps anywhere from four to ten individuals will be needed. Four to ten is a good span of control for one tactical leader.  If a school system has hired a full-time security person, they will also be a full-time member of the force but not necessarily the leader. Members or the force will respond better to directions from the second most senior person in the school than from a fellow-employee (It’s a human nature thing).

No school employee should be forced to be in a position to use a gun.  Therefore, filling the Security Force with volunteers will be a priority.

The Security Force will of course undergo extensive and recurring training in marksmanship.  But just as important will be situational tactical training.  Throughout the U.S. local law enforcement will avail themselves of live-fire facilities that teach how to take down a room and how to react to a hostile situation in that room. That type training is aways filmed so that it can be critiqued and prepare someone to react instantly to varying situations.

Training to neutralize a shooter is all about tasks, conditions and standards. The training regimen must define all the tasks required under every varying condition and to a specified standard. Security Force members who cannot meet the standards must be replaced.  Over time skills deteriorate.  Training is not a once-and-done drill.  Repeat it whenever it is necessary.

Somewhere in the school there will be “security rooms.”  In those rooms there will be a monitor for all the cameras that look at the exit-only doors.  The doors will be wired so that when a door is breached from the outside the monitor will immediately provide a flashing red light and an audio alarm.  A monitor will necessarily be in the Security Force leader’s office, in that of his second in command and probably in the full-time security person’s office. 

DAY-TO-DAY SECURITY FORCE:  Every member will carry a small radio that is active every minute of the school day.  There will be no chatter or admin communications; it will be used only when there is a shooter alarm of any kind.  Additionally, every member will have at their immediate disposal a red body armor vest; red to distinguish them as an armed Security Force member when the first responders arrive. Don’t shoot the good guys.

In each member’s place of duty, mounted on the wall next to their red vest, will be a metal box with a key pad.  Inside the box will be three things, 1) a loaded/round chambered hand gun, 2) a lanyard with one master key to open every classroom and 3) a lanyard configured to carry additional magazines for the hand gun (because most often, lady’s apparel does not have pockets).

What are we describing here?  Doing all of the above will solve the most serious part of the present-day problem.  First responders will arrive ASAP but that is some number of minutes.  We must have a response in seconds. First responders will arrive ASAP at the shooter’s location in some number of minutes.  “ASAP” must be defined as some minimum number of seconds or kids will die.

For example, the monitor alarm in one of the security rooms goes off indicating a breach of exit-only door three.  Through prior planning and many training rehearsals here is what happens:

Within a specified standard number of seconds every Security Force member must be out of their office door with a vest, two lanyards, a weapon and their radio.  Through prior detailed planning and training, Security Force members Tom and Sara are closest to the breach; they will go directly there in a specified, rehearsed number of seconds reporting all their actions over the radio for every member to hear. Continuous situational awareness.  All other member will report in “X” seconds with their gear to a designated assembly area in that building. 

An astute student believes they can see the butt of a pistol sticking out of the jacket pocket of someone moving down the hallway.  They know they are empowered to pull the shooter alarm hanging on the wall.  The monitor in the security rooms will indicate the location of the alarm mechanism.  The first order over the security force radio will be “west wing, third floor”. Through countless trial runs during training, the Security Force leader knows he should have at least one member arriving at that location within “X” seconds with everyone who is present for duty within “Y” seconds.

Shots fired.  One immediate radio call to the entire Security Force from whomever hears the shot; “shots fired in building one.”  There is nothing else required at that time. Everyone goes to a pre-designated assemble point in that building.  The Security Force leader or his/her assistant would call 911 because they can provide the greatest clarity at that point without the emotion most people would have.

TRAINING:

If I was a county superintendent of schools, I would set this program in motion, explain it in detail to the County Sheriff and local Chiefs of Police, ask for their assistance in providing training areas (ranges and shooting houses) and provide training assistance throughout the year.  Include them in unannounced response training sessions for the Security Force.

There is one critical element in the training regimen that must be considered.  A member of the Security Force may be the best marksman, may get exceptional scores in the shooting house but the leader also has to be comfortable with that person’s mental status.  Are they comfortable with executing the concept of “taking a life to save a life”?  Can they be relied on to pull the trigger if and when it becomes necessary?   

CONCLUSIONS:

Accountability: This program does not need permission from the president or the U.S. Congress; although they should applaud it. It does not require state law or the Governors’ approval; but they could fund the security person for each school. County Boards of Education, superintendents and principals are accountable for the existence and professionalism of such a program.  This is all about decentralized planning and execution.

The deterrent Security Force will be available every school day. There are no conflicts with personnel being on vacation. Everyone involved is expected to be at work every day.  No requirement nights, weekends and only for half the year; 180 school days, 185 non-school days per year.

Reaction timing, seconds vs minutes, solves the problems articulated above.

Deterrence: Someone, however deranged may think twice about knowing he is walking into a potential death trap against the on-campus Security Force. Future attempts to shoot up a school are likely to be unsuccessful and get national attention; deterrence in action.

BOTTOM LINE:

Security Force mission statement:  Sustain the actions necessary to deter future shooters from acting out against schools and if deterrence fails be capable every minute of every school day to take out the shooter(s) in seconds.

If security is not internal to the school, help will be too little and too late.  More kids will die. 

This program is not hard, not expensive and clearly within the art of the possible. It is far better than what we have now which is nothing but hope.  Hope is not a process. 

Marvin L. Covault, Lt Gen US Army, retired, is the author of VISION TO EXECUTION, a book for leaders, and a new book May 2022, FIX THE SYSTEMS, TRANSFORM AMERICA.

DO WE NEED A STRONG MILITARY IN PEACETIME?

The short answer to the question, do we need a strong military in peacetime is, yes, we do.  The problem is, the Democrat Party DNA says, no we don’t. For example:

During the Carter administration,1977-1981, America’s military went “hollow.” That is, the services lacked the manpower, training, readiness and equipment to protect U.S. interests worldwide.  It was a very dangerous move because we were in the midst of the Cold War when the Soviet Union and nuclear annihilation was a daily concern.

Although President Reagan did the best he could to rebuild the military in the 1980s, President Clinton accentuated the post-Cold War so called “peace dividend” and defense spending cuts took readiness to a low not seen for decades.

Between 1993 and 2001, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. The Army lost four active divisions and two reserve divisions. The number of total active personnel in the Air Force decreased by nearly 30 percent. The total number of Navy ships decreased by 20%, from 393 to 316. The Marine Corps end-strength dropped 22,000 personnel. Beyond the force cuts, acquisition of new equipment and modernization dropped to near zero.  The tactical force; tanks, helicopters, Bradley fighting vehicles, surface ships, submarines, bombers, and tactical aircraft, was worn out when President Bush took office.

After President Bush rebuilt the military to the extent he could in order to take on the global war on terrorism, the Obama/Biden administration took the military to new lows in readiness. When Obama left office, the Army had one, only ONE, combat brigade that was fully combat ready and half our Airforce and Naval airplanes could not get off the ground. Studies in 2017 suggested, “it will take an estimated eight to ten years for readiness in the services to recover.”

The mission of the U.S. military is two-fold.  One, the obvious, fight and win the nation’s wars.   The second, less obvious, in times of peace, deter war. Without being ready to win we risk everything.  Without deterrence we live our daily lives hoping our enemies will not attack.  But hope is not a process.   Without a ready, powerful, known quantity force, without the will and judgement of civilian leaders to use that strength properly, we are increasingly vulnerable every day. 

DETERRENT FORCE DEFINED:

A strong deterrent force is peace of mind.  Our enemies, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and the world-wide terrorist networks have to know and believe that if they strike the U.S. there will be hell to pay; immediately.  Fear of being defeated must be a leading factor in our enemys’ decision processes. 

The U.S. military has two main purposes; to deter our enemies from engaging us in warfare, and if that fails, to defeat them in combat. Deterrence is only possible if the opposing force believes it will be defeated. Respect is not good enough; fear and certainty are required.

A point of clarification; often, we refer to a positive deterrent posture as a “strong defense.”  That is a misnomer, actually it is better defined as a strong, overwhelming offensive capability. Deterrence is our enemies knowing we are prepared to take our forces anywhere, anytime and defeat them. 

THE THREAT IS REAL AND EMIMENT:

In the early days of our Revolutionary War 4,000 British troops were sent to occupy Boston and put down the rebellion.  Total defeat of the American independence movement was a possibility.  During our Civil War, there were times of great doubt that the United States could ever again be a “united” states.  But not since those two historic events has our nation been as vulnerable as it is today.

We are vulnerable to “attack” in various ways by one or more of the following enemies; China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and terrorist organizations.

IRAN: The Supreme Leader has repeatedly declared that it is Iran’s duty to destroy America and Israel. Recent reports indicate Iran is “close” to having a nuclear weapon. Biden’s reduced sanctions is leading to a more aggressive Iran, increased support for global terrorism, a more destabilized Middle East and a greater threat to the U.S.

TERRORISTS: Iran will use the fall of Afghanistan to provide direction and support of a safe haven for terrorist training in Afghanistan thereby ratcheting up the global war on terror with a particular focus on taking down the United States. 

NORTH KOREA: On 4 May 2021, after Trump was no longer on overwatch, NK resumed missile testing.  Biden, “We will respond if North Korea escalates.”  Mr. President, renewed missile testing is escalation!  January 2022, NK conducted seven test missile launches.

RUSSIA:  Since the end of the cold war, the strength of NATO has served as the deterrent to Putin’s expansionist plans. Obviously, those days are over.

The pipeline cyberattack on the U.S. oil pipeline, May, 2021 was a Russian proof of concept trial balloon with zero ramification. Should anyone believe Putin is above using that list to take down our country?

CHINA:  They are already several years into executing a long-range strategic plan to rule the world and reduce U.S. global influence. Part of that plan is to take over Taiwan and control everything in the South China Sea. U.S. policy continues to be, “assist Taiwan in maintaining it defensive capability.” Most China experts believe the threat of invasion of Taiwan is, “unabated, if not heightened.” 

WHAT CAN DESTROY US?

Cyberattack: Unlike the Cold war when we and NATO allies protected against a nuclear and/or ground attack in Europe by the Soviets, cyberattack is the most likely threat to the U.S. today. For example:  There are thirty substations in our nation’s electric grid operations. A Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report says, “Destroy nine interconnection substations and the entire US grid could be down for at least 18 months, probably longer.”  Within weeks tens of millions would perish; the U.S., as we know it today, would not survive. Nations capable of cyberattack; China, Russia, North Korea and Iran.

EMP:  An electromagnetic pulse, a huge burst of electromagnetic energy from a nuclear explosion high in the atmosphere, would instantly shutdown all transportation, computers, networks, electronic equipment, medical and communication systems.  We could not survive an EMP strike.  Nations capable of doing this; China, Russia, North Korea and (soon?), Iran.

HOW TO BUILD AND SUSTAIN AN EFFECTIVE DETERRENT FORCE:

Deterrence is both a state of mind and actual capability. Deterrence is developed and sustained by simultaneously working four initiatives:  1) Deterrent actions directly from our leaders, 2) By demonstrating capability, 3) Long-range strategic top-down planning and 4) From the bottom-up.

DETERRENCE DIRECTLY FROM OUR LEADERS, two examples:

During his tenure as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, 1989-1993, General Colin Powell played a key deterrence card by inviting his Soviet counterpart, General Akhromeyev, Chief of the General staff of the Soviet Union’s armed forces, to visit the U.S.  First stop was an aircraft carrier. On the deck of the carrier were Navy enlisted sailors orchestrating a virtual ballet as aircraft were positioned, launched, recovered, clearing the deck for a continuous flow of aircraft; (I can testify that it is a remarkable thing to observe). When General Akhromeyev asked the carrier commander, a Naval captain, the average age of the those working the deck and making split-second decisions, the reply was, “probably about 21”, Akhromeyev turned to Gen Powell and said, “We cannot win.”

The final stop on the tour was the U.S. Army National Training Center in the California desert where they observed an ongoing battle between a Soviet tank regiment with actual Soviet equipment manned with U.S. soldiers and commanders using Soviet tactics, techniques and procedures against a U.S. armored brigade.  General Powell explained that all of our heavy forces regularly rotate to the National Training Center to train.  He further explained the when this type of training was initiated some years earlier the Soviet force always won; but no more, now we never lose. Deterrence in action.

Second example: Speaking before the UN General Assembly, September 2017, the North Korean foreign minister warned that a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland is “inevitable.” North Korea, with an estimated 20-40 nuclear weapons, was actively engaged in testing nuclear weapons, long-range missiles and submarine-launched missiles.  Are they capable of attacking the US?  Yes. Did President Trump send representatives to a meeting of officials from both sides to some off-site location to discuss NK aggressive talk?  No, President Trump personally traveled to Asia three times to meet one-on-one with Kim Jong-Un.  There are no official releases of their private conversations but here is one possible scenario.  We have seen pictures of Kim at his sea-side retreat riding his big white stallion.  President Trump might have passed an eight-by-ten, close-up photo with a recent date/time stamp of Kim out riding.  Trump may have added verbally, Kim, we know where you are 24/7 and can reach out to you in many ways with a moment’s notice. The nuclear and long-range missile testing stopped. Deterrence, up close and personal.

DETERRENCE BY DEMONSTRATING CAPABILITY:

The U.S. has the greatest capability for world-wide force-projection.  For example, the world watched in awe in 1990 as the U.S. deployed an overwhelming heavy force to the Gulf War and, in two days of fighting, defeated Iraqi forces which had invaded Kuwait.  That remarkable action did not go unnoticed by our friends and potential enemys.

DETERRENCE RESULTING FROM LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC TOP-DOWN PLANNING:

The Executive and Legislative branches of government need to constantly encourage and task the private sector to lead the world in development of the most lethal and effective offensive and defensive warfighting systems.  Hypersonic missiles and the defense thereof represent the latest high-tech military systems. 

Hypersonic weapons fly at speeds of at least Mach 5 and are highly maneuverable and able to change course during flight; capabilities that gives any country a considerable advantage, because such weapons can evade just about any defense system currently in use.

The U.S. posture on Hypersonic weapons, as explained by General John Hyden, former vice chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff in 2020, “It doesn’t matter what the threat is; if you can’t see it, you can’t defend against it. We don’t have any defense that could deny the deployment of such a weapon against us. Our defense is deterrent capability.”  U.S. defense officials call hypersonic weapons, “A game changer.”

The U.S. does not currently have a defense against Chinese and Russian hypersonic weapons. 

CREATE AND SUSTAIN A CREDIBLE DETERRENT FORCE FROM THE BOTTOM-UP:

The Army always has been and always will be a product of America.  Those entering come from every background, every community and even some with questionable alliances with radical groups such as white supremacists; but they all have one thing in common, they volunteered and, like it or not, they are going to be brain-washed and indoctrinated.

Day one: At the end of that first day in the Army they all have the same hair style, that is, no hair, and they all are dressed alike; there is a reason what soldiers wear is called a “uniform.”

Many will arrive with a chip on their shoulder based on their upbringing, education, talent, physical prowess etc.  But that chip gets knocked off very quickly by a drill instructor who has been especially selected and trained based on his or her abilities to read people and indoctrinate/train them.  It’s not a complex formula, just “tear them down and build them all over again.”

Day two: they begin to understand that their life in the Army will revolve around two concepts.  One is the mission and secondly, above all else, you are responsible for the person on your right and left.  Soon it begins to sink in that if I am responsible for those on my right and left, that means they are also responsible for me.  One day it’s a white guy, perhaps the next day it’s a black gal.  Hmmm, “interesting concept”, they say to themselves, “someone always has my back, I’m not alone, this is my team.”

From day-three on until their enlistment is completed or they are retiring from service as a professional soldier, they will understand that they are expected to stand out.  They are expected to be all they can be.  They will not be judged, positively or negatively by the color of their skin.  They will understand that the best and the brightest will move up the ranks and become their leaders. They understand that personal and professional accountability, trust and respect are the underpinnings of everything, everyone, every day; understand it, live it, expect it, respect it. Meritocracy is the norm, it’s their new life. 

Yes, the U.S. military has always believed in President Biden’s consistent assertion that Americans should be guided by, “equity, diversity and inclusion.”  But, and this is a big but, to soldiers, “equity” is everyone believing they can be all they can be. “Diversity” is the freedom to improvise and innovate at the point of execution.  “Inclusion” is being part of a team so steeped in trust and respect that they believe they cannot and will not fail.  

National deterrence begins with these individual service members believing in themselves, believing in their teammates, believing in their leaders and believing they can kick-ass anywhere in the world. 

 There is only one overriding standard for military capability: lethality.

CONCLUSIONS:

We are more vulnerable than ever in our history and much more today than just two years ago.  What causes a nation to become vulnerable?  In a word, weakness; either real or perceived and sometimes perception is more dangerous than reality.

August 14-16, 2021 has already become one of the “defining moments” in the history of this great country.  While Afghanistan provincial capitals were falling to the Taliban, on average two per day, President Biden flew away to begin his vacation.  As the situation deteriorated, we were repeatedly told by White House staff that the president was in “constant contact with his principals.” Not true. In this context, “contact” would be in the situation room with the president and senior subordinates interchanging ideas, making decisions and issuing orders.

With thousands of American civilians in the grip of Taliban soldiers, Biden returned to the White House to deliver a prepared script telling us that his decisions have been correct.  Following his speech, having generated more questions than answers, he literally and figuratively turned his back on America and the media and exited stage left returning to his helicopter to resume his vacation.  An “F” in leadership 101 observed around the world.

By August, 2021, our deterrence, built up over decades, was fading.  Trust and respect by our allies were in question.  Fear and respect by our enemies was in short supply.  The Afghanistan debacle viewed live around the world and described by Biden as an “extraordinary success” was the final nail in our deterrence coffin. 

The American people and our allies want to know who is pulling the strings on our marionette Commander in Chief; Obama, Valerie Jerrett, Susan Rice, Chief of Staff Ron Klain, national Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, VP Harris or all of the above?  When everyone is in charge, no one is in charge. Our enemies see America in free-fall and they will likely test us while we are most vulnerable.

BOTTOM LINE:

What goes on in the U.S. is carefully watched around the world. Our allies and enemies, look at our Commander in Chief and assess his leadership, judgment, cooperation.  What have they observed in the last 16 months?

The U.S. became the envy of the world when we became energy independent.  They saw the new president destroy that with the stroke of a pen four hours after being inaugurated with zero explanation or consultation.  

They saw him, again with the stroke of a pen, shut down ongoing efforts to secure our southern border from massive illegal immigration, drugs, criminals, sex traffickers, gang members and terrorists and thereby creating an open border situation and threatening national security.

They listened to him take a simple opposing campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again” MAGA, and label 70 million adult Americans who voted against him, “The MAGA crowd is the most extreme political organization that’s existed in recent American history.” Are our friends wondering about his judgement and rationale?  Yes, they are.

Our enemies watched North Korea challenge the new president immediately after taking office by resuming missile and nuclear testing. Biden’s reaction? Zero. Game on, its now open season against the U.S. by those who openly express a desire to see our complete collapse.

Our closest allies carefully observed how Biden would interact with our strongest long-time ally in the Middle East, Israel. Biden’s ignoring Israel is not setting well. 

Our allies and enemies have watched in awe as Biden has lifted sanctions from Iran thus creating their emboldened support for world terrorism and disruption in the fragile Middle East.  Our former allies are asking, “When will I get thrown under the preverbal bus?”

For the first time in my memory, important leaders in the world, such as Saudi Arabia, U.A.E and Russia, have refused to take Biden’s phone calls. Is that lost on the remainder of the world?  Not for a second. Respect or lack thereof.

Our friends watched in horror as Biden, again without consultation, lifted the “international terrorist organization” label from the Houthis in Yemen as they continue, with Iran’s backing and support, to attack our long-time friend and ally, Saudi Arabia.  

Just three months in office, Biden was tested by Putin when Russia conducted a limited (proof of concept) cyber attack on the U.S. by shutting down a fuel pipeline servicing much of the mid-east coast. The U.S. responded a month later when Biden and Putin met briefly at a G7 conference in Switzerland. Biden’s response was to provide Putin a list of 16 critical infrastructure targets that, “should be off-limits to attack, period, by cyber or any other means.”  Can you just imagine Putin telling that story to his senior staff back in the Kremlin?

To be “the leader of the free world” Biden must earn the respect and trust of the American people and our allies while also being respected, if not feared, by our enemies. Respect and trust must be earned by actions and deeds. That is phase 1 of deterrence, not some cheap sound-bite like, “America is back.”

FINAL THOUGHT:

We are vulnerable because our deterrent posture has been shattered.  Our friends no longer respect or trust us and our enemies no longer fear us; aka, “The perfect storm.”

 Marvin L. Covault, Lt Gen US Army, retired, is the author of VISION TO EXECUTION, a book for leaders, and a new book, May 2022, FIX THE SYSTEMS, TRANSFORM AMERICA and a columnist for THE PILOT, a national award-winning local newspaper in Southern Pines, NC as well as the author of a blog, WeThePeopleSpeaking.com.

Author’s note:  30 years ago right now Los Angeles was on fire and 10,000 rioters and looters were systematically destroying the city.  What follows is a first-hand account of that event, never before published until today.  It is a sad story in our history that many of you may not be aware of. 

Background:  March, 1991 the nation saw, on film, five white LA police officers brutally beat a black gentleman, Rodney King.

While all of us had viewed the taped beating over and over in great close-up detail, a year later those five police officers were found not guilty by an all-white jury.  That verdict was announced at 3:15 pm 29 April, 1992. At that time I was commanding the 7^th Infantry Division at Fort Ord, California.  The 7^th ID was an especially designed light division capable of rapid deployment to anywhere in the world.

Three hours later, by 6 pm, riots were breaking out all over Los Angles, but primarily in South-Central LA. It escalated like a wild fire and the final tally was as follows: 55 killed, over 2000 injured, about $1 Billion dollars in damages, over 10,000 rioters were directly involved in looting and destruction, over 1000 buildings seriously damaged or destroyed, the fire department responded to more than 4000 fires. This was not taking place at 5^th and Main, it covered an area of about 100 square miles of built-up urban terrain; by far the most difficult terrain in which to perform a military operation.  Largest riot in US history.

President George H.W. Bush dispatched 1000 Federal riot-trained law enforcement officials, FBI SWAT teams, special riot control units of the US Marshals Service, Border Patrol, Bureau of Prisons personnel and other Federal law enforcement agencies.  Governor Pete Wilson was on the scene full-time with a small staff.  The California National Guard began rolling towards LA.  On scene was the LA Chief of Police Daryl Gates and the LA County Sherriff, Sherman Block.  Gathered in outlying areas was most of the California Highway Patrol.  A brigade of Marines from Camp Pendleton had been alerted.  But there was no plan.

At about the 36-hour point, May 1^st at about 2 a.m. we, 7^th Infantry Division, Fort Ord California, received a call from our military higher headquarters in Atlanta, and were told, “a military force may be needed in LA but don’t do anything yet.”  Dumb order; we immediately began to plan for a rapid deployment.  Six hours later at about 0800 we received a second call, “there will be a military deployment but it will not be the 7^th ID.”  CNN was following everything related to the riots live and continuously.  Thirty minutes later we watched President Bush, live on TV, walk into the White House Briefing Room and announce, “I have decided to deploy elements of the 7^th ID to LA.”  Game on. 

Rapid deployment, in general, is very difficult with lots of moving parts.  We trained to it continuously.  We just happened to have two C-141 Air Force transport aircraft on the ground for training at nearby Monterey airport.  The “ready brigade” began immediately to move and the airlift to LAX began. 

By noon I was on the ground in LA with a skeleton planning staff.  What became immediately apparent was that no ONE was in charge of the multitude of federal, state or local agencies involved. All I could see and sense was chaos. And most concerning was that the California National Guard continued to stream into the city with no deployment plan in play.

No one in my chain of command up to and including General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, knew President Bush was going to make that deployment announcement.  I had no guidance and never did get any. Old saying, when in charge, take charge.

I had a dozen of the Division’s best majors (I called them my iron majors) flown in the first afternoon and I assigned them as my personal liaison to the Governor, Mayor, Chief Gates, Sherriff Block, Highway Patrol, all the Federal Agencies, the CA National Guard and the Marines. Before dispatching them, I looked them in the eye and told them exactly what they were to do. “You stay about 3 feet from your principal at all times and tell me everything they do, everything they say and who they communicate with. There can be only one boss of this mess and it’s me.  You understand?”  Their first mission was to get their principal on a conference call with me that evening at which time I gave the participants my first deployment briefing and told them to thereafter be on a conference call with me at 8 a.m. every day wherein I would give them an overall assessment of the night’s activities and what was to be accomplished in the next 24 hours.  Principals only on the conference call. The Governor was not amused about the “principals only” part and it got a little ugly but it worked. 

The day we arrived on the scene the city was shut down, 24-hour curfew.  There was no public transportation.  All stores were closed.  People were running out of food.  No one told me what our mission was.  I knew the public needed to know.  Was this Marshall Law?  Were we going to be patrolling with tanks in the streets? So, in a press conference the first afternoon, I tried to make it as clear as possible that we were there to create a safe and secure environment so the city could systematically resume all operations.  It worked.  Community support was outstanding. 

As if President Bush’s surprise deployment announcement at 0830 that morning wasn’t enough; he saved another one for later in the day.  At 6 pm CA time, 9 pm at the White House, President Bush presented an update briefing to the nation.  First topic of the speech was, “I have decided to Federalize the California National Guard.”  At that moment, with those words, I became the Commander of the CA National Guard and they all became federal US Army soldiers.  That was actually a blessing because we immediately took charge of their rally points, established training stations (particularly to train rules of engagement) and integrated them into the overall deployment plan. 

The overall plan was simple; a soldier on every street corner to establish a “presence”.  Sustainment was not simple.  How do you feed 12,000 soldiers and Marines scattered over 100 square miles of urban terrain?  How do you communicate with them?  Where do they sleep and shower?  How many Quick Reaction Forces do we need? 

Since we only deployed communications trucks, how did we transport 12,000 soldiers and Marines around the city?  Simple, we had the mayor recall all the city bus drivers and got them rolling. 

We trained hard every day and night at Ft Ord to be able to rapidly close with and destroy the enemy.  No enemy in LA.  My first task was to solve that problem. How do you tell each individual soldier what he can and cannot do?  I wrote the rules of engagement while in plane on the way down, called them back to my chief of staff who had printing people standing by.  Thousands of 3×5 cards printed with the ROE were soon available.  One for every soldier and marine to have in his or her breast pocket.  

Soldiers flew into LAX, were loaded onto city buses and transported to an abandoned air strip in the middle of Central/South LA.  Every squad leader and his or her soldiers began at the head of the strip and moved from station to station observing scenarios that were being briefed and played out to illustrate the rules of engagement.  First rule: everyone has the inherent right of self-defense.  At the end of the air strip, they were issued ammunition, got back on a bus and were deployed.  By the middle of the first night, we had all 12,000 trained and deployed. 

Communications in flat urban terrain is very difficult with line-of-site FM ratios.  Cell phones were in their infancy.  We cut a deal to provide security to the folks who owned the cell towers in exchange for 100 cell phones.  We quickly published a phone directory and got the cell phones into the hands of battalion and company commanders. 

We politely raided every tourist shop and book store we could find and “procured” all their city maps.  One to every squad leader. 

I published and signed a letter making every battalion commander an authorized “government purchasing agent”.  I should still be in jail for that one but we knew the answer if we had asked permission to do that.  Why?  Food distribution was difficult and not always timely.  A company commander would find a vehicle, drive outside the curfew area, stop at a McDonalds and order 250 big macs, 125 fries and 125 drinks to go.  He would say, “my battalion commander will be by shortly to pay for them”.  It worked.  My Division Finance Officer showed up on day two with $500,000 in cash and paid the bills.  I never asked how she got the money. 

LA Police Department:  Daryl Gates was more of an LA celebrity than an adequate Chief of Police.  If he and his ego were occupying a room there was hardly any space for another person.  LA police had long ago lost contact with the general populous and merchants.  They occupied cars and their standard operating procedure when called to the scene of an accident or crime scene was to first drive by and determine if it was safe to stop.  I vividly recall one night about 0200 seeing a parking lot full of police cars.  This was when the 100% curfew was still in effect.  I told my driver to pull in and see what was going on.  I found my soldiers on the roof and at the front door guarding the police precinct building with the police officers hunkered down inside. 

My first encounter with Gates was about 10 p.m. the first night when I went to visit him and LA County Sherriff Sherman Block at their joint emergency center.  Gates and Block were seated at a conference table and my Command Sergeant Major (affectionately known throughout most of the Army as “Mad Dog”) and I were asked to take a seat across the table from them.  Gates’ opening comment was, “General, we don’t need you and we don’t want you.”  What came out of my mouth is not fit for mixed company but it was short and to the point.  The greater LA community knew that Gates was a bigger part of the problem than the solution.  

The gangs, Bloods and Crips, were a potential serious problem. They completely ignored the curfew and the LA police never lifted a finger to enforce it.  The problem was that most gang cars had someone riding shotgun.  Literally.  Guns in plain sight.  The message they were sending was, “we own these streets at night, just watch me.”  I told the senior National Guard officer I needed an immediate seminar with a room full of gang guys, the more senior the better.  He made it happen.  My message to them was, in a few days or weeks we will be gone and you will again own the streets.  In the meantime it is not in your best interest to pick a fight with the US Army. You will lose.  Discretion is the better part of valor.  It was a calculated guess but it worked. They took the message to whomever and like magic, the streets cleared.

As pointed out, the media was everywhere all the time. I could use them to my advantage when necessary but I did not want my upward chain of command to get their information from CNN or the LA Times.  So, every night, while cruising the city, I would stop at midnight and write a couple-page SitRep, situation report.  I would try to capture the last 24 hours in words, the status as of that moment and the plan for the next 24 hours.  By the time the sun came up on the East Coast, every commander had access to the SitRep.  When I later briefed President Bush, he told me the SitRep was the first thing he read every morning during the crisis. 

I am proud to have been a senior commander in your Army but never so much so as I was when the events of the LA riots unfolded.  If I had been screwing things up, the story might have been different but here is what did NOT happen.  This was an international story.  The nation was riveted on LA at the time.  The media was committed 24/7 to what unfolded.  My immediate boss was a 3-star Corps Commander.  I never heard from him; perfect.  My second boss was a 4-star US Forces Commander (commander of all Army forces inside the US).  He never called or sent anyone to see me; perfect.  The Chief of Staff of the Army is by law the Executive Agent for the US Government on civil unrest. Therefore, he was almost compelled to weigh in somehow.  He called once and I will never forget every word of that phone call, “Marv, it’s Gordon, if you need anything, call me.”  Click.  General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was at one time our next-door neighbor.  I knew him very well.  He never called.  Why not? 

The big difference between deliberate planning and execution and crisis planning and execution is, in a word, time.  Time is the enemy during a crisis because there is never enough of it.  The farthest we could see ahead was 24 hours.  We were planning and executing in 6-hour cycles.  Often times it was only minutes between decision and execution.  Our objective was to maintain near total situational awareness in the 100 square mile area of operations.  My senior chain of command understood all that.  They knew there was no time for a “mother-may-I?” communication.  They also knew the absolute last thing we needed was a team of outsiders to come to LA to “help” us.  They were a team of the strongest leaders I have ever known and they did exactly the right thing; “if you need anything, call me.” Perfect.

The people of Los Angeles literally and figuratively embraced your soldiers.  What they saw in each and every one of them was focus, compassion, steadfastness, commitment to their mission.  I was taking a briefing from a battalion commander in one of the city parks when a woman drove up.  She said she had heard the soldiers weren’t getting enough to eat.  She had a car full of groceries.  We were there over Mothers’ Day.  A few days before a truck from a large drug store chain pulled up to our headquarters with 10,000 Mothers’ Day cards for distribution to the troops.  An elderly couple coming out of a grocery store stopped me and expressed their gratitude for the safety we had brought to the city.  They said they normally had to take a taxi both ways from their house to buy groceries because it is unsafe to be on the streets.  I inquired how far away they lived.  “Three blocks.”  The hundreds of strip malls were easy targets for looters and arsonists.  We provided security for them all.  The store owners who sold any type of consumable (candy, ice cream, soft drinks, etc.) would routinely leave the front door unlocked and tell the soldiers to go in and help themselves throughout the night.  There were thousands of those stories.  You should be understandably proud of your soldiers.

The only visitor in my chain of command showed up about two weeks later to thank the troops; President Bush. By arrangement “Mad Dog” and I were waiting on a side street within a block of where the troops, police etc. were assembled to hear the President. He pulled up in his limo and got out, my Command Sergeant Major and I saluted, he returned the salute and I moved forward to introduce myself.  Just as I began, the President interrupted saying, “General, I already know all there is to know about you” and smiled.  He was thrilled that Mad Dog was with me and they chatted for a while. I had a 3-ring binder with a few briefing charts in it and delivered the brief on the hood of his vehicle.  I told him that’s the way we do in-the-field briefings in the Army.  I think he liked it. He asked if we were finished in LA and I told him we had accomplished all we came to do but we would leave behind a very troubled city with deep-seated problems that have existed for a very long time.  He completely understood.  The next day we began redeployment and mustered the California National Guard out of the regular Army.  I was back to commanding only one Division and glad of it.

From the arrival of the first 7^th Infantry Division soldiers until our redeployment, no one died from riot-relations actions.

Marvin L. Covault, Lt Gen US Army, retired, is the author of VISION TO EXECUTION, a book for leaders, a columnist for THE PILOT, a national award-winning local newspaper in Southern Pines, NC and the author of a blog, WeThePeopleSpeaking.com

Russia invades the sovereign nation of Ukraine, February, 2022.  The world watches, in real-time, levels of destruction not seen since World War II news reels that would, after the fact, be shown in movie theaters.

Ninety-eight per cent of the world’s current population of 7.5 billion have no personal recollection of the WWII destruction in Europe. Therefore, this ongoing invasion is a game changer invoking questions like, “How could this possibly happen today?  Why have we not stopped it?  What can we do?  How can they deliberately target women and children?  Who can help?  Should some collective group of countries join forces and counter attack Russian forces?  What should NATO do?  Should the EU put together a counter offensive force?  Who would/should lead such a force?  Can Ukrainians ever rebuild the tens of thousands of destroyed structures?  If the invasion ended tomorrow, where would the returning refugees live?  Who could/should finance rebuilding Ukraine? Where will they find food and clean water?  Where will they work?   Will there be electricity?” etc. etc. etc.  The questions are almost endless because it is an understatement to say, “This is unprecedented.” Good questions. We need answers and actions.

The daily media dose of reality has touched nearly everyone’s heart and mind with feelings of disbelief, distrust, disgust and anger towards Putin and his forces; empathy, sorrow and compassion for the millions of in-country displaced Ukrainians, out of country refugees, those mourning killed or missing family members and what the Ukrainian people face in the foreseeable future. 

When “it” is “over” an international after-action-review must be initiated.  It must not be a thousand-page bureaucratic “study” published in a couple of years which would be worse than worthless. What it must be is a succinct accounting of three simple, but essential, questions:

First, what, collectively, did we, the world do well?

Second, what should we, could we, the world, have done better?

Finally, and most importantly, how can we institutionalize a faster, better, more organized, more aggressive and all-inclusive plan for preemptive actions that would preclude this ever happening again? That question leads us to a discussion of RUSSIA, UKRAINE, THE UNITED NATIONS, WORLD PEACE AND THE UPRISING.

BACKGROUND leading to a proposed solution:

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS: 

With technically advanced machine guns, tanks and chemical warfare, World War I was optimistically referred to as “The war to end all wars.”  January, 1918, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson outlined an idea for an organization that would be charged with resolving conflicts before they exploded into bloodshed.  In 1919 the structure of The League of Nations was laid out in Paris and the Treaty of Versailles went into effect January, 1920 with 48 member countries. The U.S. Congress failed to ratify our membership in the League.  Between 1920 and World War II there were numerous opportunities to act, but it never did.  The League of Nations was abandoned during World War II.  The League was not necessarily a bad idea, but numerous times, when actions were required, European countries found it too difficult to put together an effective united front against an aggressor to include the rise of Germany.

THE UNITED NATIONS:

June, 1941 representatives from thirteen nations (the U.S. was not included) met in London and signed the Declaration of St. James’s Palace expressing a vision for a postwar world order.  The next step was the Atlantic Conference August, 1941, at which President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill laid out a more detailed form of the alliance called The Atlantic Charter. The final step was the Yalta Conference, February, 1945 when Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin agreed on the establishment of the United Nations as well as the structure of the Security Council.   

Despite having endured for 77 years, generally speaking, the UN is a weak-intentioned bureaucratic mass that is involved in everything and accomplishes very little.  Case in point, has the UN responded to the Russian invasion?  Yes, March 3^rd they voted overwhelmingly for a resolution deploring Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and called for the immediate withdrawal of its forces.  Wow, that must have shaken Putin to his core.

The UN is an established international organization perfectly positioned to be a greater force for the greater good for the collective world.  But in its current condition it is incapable of deterring or bringing to a close a conflict such as exists in Ukraine today. We need to completely rethink this issue, right now.

THE UN TODAY: 

In order to understand what must be fixed, here is a short-hand view of what is wrong. The UN consists of “Six Principle Organs:

-General Assembly

-Security Council

-Economic and Social Council

-Secretariat

-International Court of Justice

-Trusteeship Council (currently inactive)

THE SECURITY COUNCIL:

The Security Council consists of five permanent members, the U.S., China, Russia, France and the UK (allies during WW II) and ten elected members.  The presidency of the Council rotates among the fifteen members, each serving for one month.  Is anyone surprised that Russia was president in February 2022 when they attacked Ukraine?

Under the United Nations Charter, the principle function of the Security Council is to “Ensure international peace and security.” Additionally, the subset authority allows the Council to:  

-Investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction.

-Recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement.

-Formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments.

-Determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to    recommend what action should be taken.

-Call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression. 

-Take military action against an aggressor.

Given these clearly articulated responsibilities and authority, we can conclude that the UN in general and the Security Council in particular have been abject failures for seven decades.  First of all, can you imagine a large international company CEO having fifteen Executive Vice Presidents, each given the opportunity to lead for a month every fifteen months; thereby allowing each to bring his or her biases and priorities to the forefront?  It’s insane.

A UN INITIATIVE FOR WORLD PEACE:

How is world peace possible? In a word, deterrence.  That is, fear, in the mind of any potential aggressor, of rapid retaliation by a superior force.  It is possible for the United Nations to establish and sustain a world military force to deter and, if necessary, bring to bear on the battlefield the collective military might of the other 194 member nations?  Here is an outline:

Every member nation would agree to contribute to a world-wide deterrent force that can be deployed anywhere in the world within a seven-day period.  Every nation will contribute according to its capabilities.  Some examples

The U.S. has the greatest capability in the world for world-wide force projection.  For example, the world watched in awe in 1990 as the U.S. deployed an overwhelming force to the Gulf War and, in two days of fighting, defeated Iraqi forces which had invaded Kuwait.  One U.S. contribution to the UN force could be our entire air-cargo fleet to fly directly to various countries and transport their force contribution directly to the targeted area.   Another critical U.S. contribution could be our fleet of about 650 aerial refueling tankers; by comparison, the remaining countries have about 250. 

Countries with few military resources (36 nations do not have a defense budget) could provide field hospitals, portable field surgical units with doctors and nurses, air craft maintenance capabilities, truck drivers, border patrol personnel, etc. Nations with only small maneuver organizations could provide, for example, man portable air defense and anti-tank teams and snipers.  There would be a very long list of non-combatant rear-area support requirements.  Countries with established combat forces could provide special operations personnel, armored units, light infantry, artillery, helicopters, tactical aircraft, naval vessels, air defense, combat engineers, all the elements for a military theater of operations. Selected nations in several regions would be responsible for providing an airport that can be quickly transformed into a full-up military operation with multiple runways, an expanded tarmac, maintenance facilities and housing for the military contingent.  

The force could be called the International Deterrence Force, IDF.  The “D” in IDF definitely does not stand for Defense.  The IDF will not be designed for defense. It will send an undeniable message to any nation that is contemplating an offensive action that within seven days an overwhelming force can be in-place for a counter offensive.  That is the real-world definition of deterrence.  The UN/IDF could borrow NATO’s Article 5 concept, “An attack on one member is an attack against all members.”

Who pulls this all together?  A 4-star military leader with senior command experience would be nominated by the UN Secretary General.  After being thoroughly vetted, he/she will be voted on by the General Assembly by secret ballot. A majority vote will secure a two-year assignment which can be extended to four years.  The IDF Commander will select a deputy and the two of them will put together a lean-and-mean, full-time, rapidly deployable international staff.  The commander’s headquarters will be in Europe while the deputy will be in Asia.  For the sake of continuity, upon completion of the IDF Commander’s tour, the deputy will get first consideration as the replacement. The IDF staff will consist of subordinate commanders for ground forces, air, naval, theater logistics and humanitarian issues. 

Every six months the Commander will personally brief the UN General Assembly on IDF readiness.  For every nation, their IDF contribution will be subject to inspection by the IDF Commander/Deputy Commander and their staffs. Every nation must regularly inform the IDF when their force will be engaged in military exercises so that they can be observed.  The IDF Commander will establish and publish standards for every contributed element.  Every nation will provide a very detailed quarterly readiness report on the trained-to-standard and deployability status of their IDF contribution. 

The IDF headquarters will maintain a robust intel-processing element linked to the intel gathering capabilities of all 195 countries.  

International Deterrence Force Condition, IDFCON: All contributing nations will exist in a state of one of four different readiness IDFCON’s.

IDFCON 1:  Normal peacetime condition.  A completed plan will be in-place in every member nation.  Readiness standards will be in force for every IDF element.

IDFCON 2:  The Secretary General and IDF Commander having identified a potential threat to a member nation, will tailor a force for deployment and place them on 24-hour alert.

IDFCON 3:  All personnel and equipment for the designated units will move to assembly areas.  Deployment aircraft will move to their first pick-up airfield. 

IDFCON 4:  Deployment of all designated deterrence elements to the target area and prepare to initiate an overwhelming counter offensive. 

FUNDING:  

The UN will budget for the two IDF headquarters.  The participating nations will budget for and fund their participating units and sustain them at trained-and-ready IDF combat-ready standards.  

The IDF Operations Plan will first and foremost be designed with the intent for every element to rapidly deploy to an area of operation where they can represent an overwhelming deterrent force from all 194-member nations.  But the total force may not, in all cases, be necessary.  Therefore, the next planning step is to have the capability to rapidly tailor a force for scenarios that require a lesser, but still overwhelming (as the saying goes, “always take a gun to a knife fight”), force sufficient to deter, and if necessary, counter attack.  Two  examples:

An attack on small-country “A” in Africa appears imminent by a larger neighboring country “B”.  The IDF Commander determines that inserting a couple infantry battalions on the ground could sufficiently deter the attack. Using the concept of intent to always have an overwhelming advantage, the commander will in fact deploy a full infantry brigade along with combat supporting forces and tactical air support. Result, Country “B” packs up and goes home. Deterrence, a powerful force for world peace. 

A more serious and far-ranging scenario might look like this:  China continues to threaten Taiwan with aggressive air and naval operations.  It is determined that the demonstrations are a rehearsal for an actual attack.   The Secretary General and IDF Commander agree to go to IDFCON 3.  China’s achilles heel is imported gas and oil.  Inform China that a combined naval force from member nations is enroute to the South China Sea to create an impenetrable blockade to all incoming gas and oil tankers.  Additionally, missiles and aircraft capable of taking out the gas and oil pipelines from Russia will be immediately forward deployed.  This scenario could shut down China in a few weeks and result in half billion unemployed workers.  The Secretary General will request China publicly sign a pledge to acknowledge that forevermore Taiwan will be considered an independent nation free of all ties to China and provocative military actions against Taiwan is forbidden. Deterrence in action in support of world peace. 

BOTTOM LINE ON THE UN:

Having laid out a concept of operations for an International Deterrence Force capable of achieving world peace, it is time to admit that, given today’s reality, it cannot happen inside the existing UN.

The UN has been a failed institution since its inception in 1945 for one reason, “the veto”.  At the Yalta Conference in 1945 President Roosevelt, General Secretary Stalin and Prime Minister Churchill agreed that each of the permanent members of the Security Council was to be granted veto power over any resolution under consideration.  The UN Secretary General is a powerless position, the power resides in the Security Council.  More specifically, the power resides with the five permanent members, U.S., UK, France, China and Russia.

Every significant resolution to be considered by the General Assembly must first be voted out of the Security Council.  Each of the fifteen members (five permanent and ten elected for a temporary term) have one vote.  But here is the problem, the Charter says, “Affirmative decisions shall be made by a vote of nine members, including the concurring votes of all five of the permanent members.”  One veto by a permanent member and the resolution is dead. Most would agree that Communist China and Communist Russia will never agree to changes to the UN Charter that would stand-up the IDF. 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the unprecedented civilian casualties and wanton destruction of civilian property has become a wake-up call for the world.  Now is the time, and it may never be more relevant, to strike with a plan that will, to the greatest extent possible, guarantee world peace.  There are two courses of action, one internal to the UN and the second external:

COURSE OF ACTION 1, INTERNAL UN UPRISING: 

The Secretary General could work to garner support from, let’s say, about 150 member nations for a change to the UN Charter.  The changes, none of which are currently authorized, could be as follows:

-Do away with the Security Council.

-Move the mission statement, that for seven decades has been the unfulfilled responsibility of the Security Council, to the Secretariat; “Ensure international peace and security.”

-Replace the appointment process for a new Secretary General with a system whereby anyone from a member nation can campaign for the position.  A new Secretary General will be elected for a 6-year term by a majority vote of the General Assembly. 

-Proceed to establish the International Deterrence Force.

COURSE OF ACTION TWO, UPRISING EXTERNAL TO THE UN:

The U.S. could initiate actions to seek support from most of the 195 current UN member nations to join a new organization called United for World Peace. The organization would look like this:

-A small headquarters anywhere in the world.

-An elected president for one six-year term.

-A fully operational International Deterrence Force as described above.

-The United for World Peace mission statement could be pulled directly from the UN Charter:

“Ensure international peace and security” by executing the following:

-Investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction.

-Recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement.

-Formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments.

-Determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken.

-Call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression. 

-Take military action against an aggressor.

The U.S. could lead this initiative and it should be done now while the Russian invasion of Ukraine is fresh in everyone’s mind.  The selling points are obvious:

-The UN Charter, with its “one veto” policy cannot be fixed and renders the UN helpless. 

-We must prevent a repeat of a Ukrainian-like disaster.

-We must be proactive with an overwhelming deterrence force continuously in place.

-NATO, in being since 1949, is a perfect example of deterrence in action.

-For all United for World Peace member nations, an attack against one would be an attack against all.

-Every member nation would commit some resource to an International Deterrence Force operations plan in accordance with their capability.

Why would countries sign up to be a member? Here is a starter list of answers as to why a United for World Peace organization is needed now and why it would be an easy sell at this point in time. 

Middle East countries and Israel are fearful of the hegemony intentions of a nuclear-equipped Iran but powerless individually to stop it. South Korea and Japan are very nervous about North Korea’s aggressive offensive missile and nuclear programs.  Taiwan is fearful of a China invasion.  Europe is fearful of Russian aggression.  Former Soviet Republics are fearful that they may be next on Putin’s list. The Baltic countries and Finland are fearful of Russia, India is in a constant state of unrest over China’s border incursions. Who knows what the next move may be by dictators in Latin America?  African border disputes are a recurring concern.  Nations’ support for terrorist activities threatens the world. Aggressors who would use cyberattacks to inflict humanitarian and economic disaster on another nation is a growing threat. 

It is not difficult to believe the United for World Peace organization could quickly become a 150-nation force for peace.

CONCLUSIOINS for both courses of action:

-A successful United for World Peace organization (Course of action 2) could be subsumed by the UN if they can find a way to revise the existing Charter (course of action 1). 

-With an International Deterrence Force in place there is no longer a requirement for NATO.  

-With the IDF in place, defense funding could probably be reduced around the world by about $1 trillion. For example, right now NATO members (Germany in particular) are ramping up their defense spending for forces that may, in fact, be redundant beyond IDF requirements.  

-There will no longer be a need for nations’ bilateral treaties for mutual defense.  

-Since 2016 the European Union has been talking about the need for an EU armed force.  Cancel that nonsense. 

-With world peace assurances in place, the next step could be a world without nuclear weapons, chemical weapons or biological weapons.

-The UN “peacekeeping force” budget for 2021 was $6.38 billion.  With active world-wide deterrence and an overwhelming rapidly-deployable counter-offensive force, peace will be the standard day-to-day condition.

-The next step could be for the IDF Commander to visit North Korea to discuss ICBM and nuclear testing.  Then on to Iran to discuss Iran’s role as the world’s leading supporter of terrorist organizations.  Etc. etc. etc.

-With a proactive International Deterrence Force in place, no nation would ever need to feel alone or stand alone.

-There is currently a lot of discussion about the New World Order. Well, here is a new twist on The New World Order, call it World Peace.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

-Mr. President, you are currently, “the leader of the free world” in name only.  Here is an opportunity to lead the world towards sustained world peace.  Make it your number one, non-political priority. 

-From Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “There is a tide in the affairs of men, when taken at the flood leads one to fortune.” There will never be a more appropriate time than now to pursue a solution for future world peace.

Author’s note:  I would not expect all of you reading this to agree with all of the details. But if you at least agree with the concept, please forward it to your Senators and Representative in Washington.  Perhaps someone with a national voice will take up the challenge.

Marvin L. Covault, Lt Gen US Army, retired, is the author of VISION TO EXECUTION, a book for leaders and the author of a blog, WeThePeopleSpeaking.com

“Win: To achieve victory or finish first”

The Ukraine invasion is more than a month old.  According to the “experts” and war gamers, it was to have been “over” weeks ago with the near immediate takedown of the capital city, Kiev.  I have enjoyed reading the stories and listening to commentary by the Monday-morning-quarterbacks prognosticating about why Russia isn’t winning.  I don’t believe anyone has gotten it right yet.  Here is my two cents worth along with some recent history of your U.S. Army. 

The generally agreed thesis is that Russia has spent the last few years “modernizing” its forces, concluding, therefore they must be at least “good” or perhaps invincible. Not so fast. 

Here is my thesis:  Weapons systems, vehicles, aircraft, etc. are tools of the trade for soldiers to kill folks, blowing stuff up and “win” wars while operating from a plan. By the same token hammers, saws, etc. along with an architectural drawing are the basic necessities to build a house.  But what if the carpenters, masons, plumbers and electricians are not well trained, motivated or adequately led?  The end result will likely be a disaster.  You get the picture of where I am going with this argument. It’s all about the people.

Background:  1977-1979 I commanded a nuclear-capable artillery battalion as part of the great 3^rd Infantry Division (mechanized).  It was the height of the Cold War.   We were stationed near the Czechoslovakian border faced off against four Soviet tank divisions. Four to one.  But there was never a belief that, if the balloon-went-up, we would be overpowered by their superior numbers of sophisticated “tools.”  Why were we so confident?

 In simplest terms, there are a couple ways to look at military planning and engagement; one is with a philosophy of maximum centralized planning, maximum centralized control, the Soviet’s solution.  Contrast that with the U.S. Army belief in a concept of maximum centralized planning, maximum DEcentralized execution.  Decentralized execution works but you cannot just say it and forget it; you have to proactively make it possible for that concept to be successful. 

I recall our intelligence and study of the Soviet forces told us that officers, noncommissioned officers and soldiers below the rank of lieutenant colonel were completely out of the picture when it came to decision-making on the battlefield. There is nothing that can hamstring an operating force, at the point of execution, more than a mother-may-I requirement before moving forward or engaging the opposing force. 

A corollary to the concept of max centralized planning and control is that the Russians were then, and obviously still are, all about mass.  The operational concept is for overwhelming numbers of armored vehicles, soldiers, fire support and air superiority to just roll over their enemy, irrespective of collateral damage or casualties on both sides.

Now let’s get to the bottom line.  The reason why the Soviets felt they had to operate via centralized control was because they did not have a professional noncommissioned officer corp.  That is, highly trained Sergeants leading squads, Sergeants as second in command at the platoon level, company First Sergeants, battalion Command Sergeants Major and more senior Command Sergeants Major assisting and advising their commanders at the brigade, division and corps levels. We had that, a very professional noncommissioned officer chain of leadership, we believed in that type of organization and we were confident no one could beat us, no matter how many tanks they had.

As we watch the Russian Ukrainian invasion, almost in real time, some of the video demonstrates their lack of small unit decision-making at the point of execution.  For example, we have seen a tank column moving down a highway with their perfect 50-foot intervals moving towards an obvious potential ambush site as if they were in a parade. 

By contrast, a U.S. tank company commander would have been given the mission to move his unit from point A to B, today. He would use imagery to do a pre-reconnaissance of all the terrain between A and B.  He would have access to direct-support field artillery to conduct recon-by-fire (i.e., blow up) potential ambush sites that could not be otherwise avoided, he would spread the formation giving each tank sergeant the option to assess terrain and make decisions about how to work his lane.  Tanks would team up to leap-frog each other with one tank always on overwatch as the tank company moved forward. It’s not rocket science, it’s maximum decentralized execution on the ground in real time at the pointy end of the spear.

Well, you say, that doesn’t sound difficult, why don’t the Russians do that?  Good question.  My answer is, it is all about the culture of the organization.  Culture is a powerful and pervasive force in every organization.  The Russian government, socialism, communism is all about control of everything.  That culture seeps down into and consumes everything below the centralized control government.  For the military to be able to operate any other way is not easy and perhaps impossible.  Culture, a powerful and pervasive force.

Our way of operating is not a new concept.  During our revolution, General Washington painted the big picture and then, by necessity, turned the tactics, techniques and procedures over to subordinate commanders to make it happen.  A culture of decentralized execution was born out of necessity to defeat the larger better equipped British force.  Decentralized execution has been a base-line philosophy as American ingenuity and innovation in every aspect of life led us to become a respected world leader.

I don’t want to leave you with the impression that we were the best we could be standing toe-to-toe with the Soviets in 1977; far from it.  We were still slightly hungover from having unfinished business in Vietnam, going through growing pains with an all-volunteer military and recreational drug use was rampant in the 1970’s which leaked into the military to an unacceptable level.  Also, there was an air of disrespect left over from Viet Nam towards military leaders in particular and throughout society in general.

The take-away from this article is the differences between your U.S. Army and the Russian Ukrainian invasion force.  To do that I am going to give you a tutorial about how we transitioned from an OK force to a great one and why it took a generation to get there.  To some of you the next few paragraphs may be a little boring but it is your Army filled with your sons and daughters so I urge you to read on. 

In the mid 1980’s three brilliant forward-looking Army generals, Max Thurman, Colon Powell and Carl Vuono (my boss for three consecutive assignments as a colonel) decided the Army needed a re-look and if necessary, a re-do of organization, training and culture.

I led a 12-person team to redesign and reorganize the force where necessary; every tactical element of the combat, combat support, and combat service organizations.  All of that lead to a force that was more agile, more deployable with instant and continuous interaction among direct combat units (e.g. infantry, armor) combat support (e.g. field artillery, air defense, combat engineers, air elements, intelligence) and all service support, all logistical elements and medical.

Simultaneously we initiated a complete overhaul of training doctrine; more specifically how to get every single uniformed person involved in a culture of accountability.  The formula was task-condition-standard; that is, identify every task to be performed work them against varying conditions and create a standard for every task recognizing that an organization without standards is a failed organization. 

COMMON TASKS:  Every soldier had to be, at all times, proficient in common tasks to a prescribed standard of excellence; for example, individual weapons proficiency, how to function in a chemical environment, escape and evasion, land navigation and physical fitness.  No one got a “C”, it was pass-or-fail and failure was unacceptable and had to be rectified quickly.

SPECIFIED TASKS:  There are 190 MOS, military occupational specialties in the totality of the Army; infantry, field artillery, aviation mechanic, medic, intel specialist, etc. etc.  So, the Army published a task list for every MOS.  Every person had to be trained to standard for every task under every condition (e.g., night ops vs daylight).  In training it is not a matter of once and done; for many of the tasks, proficiency is perishable and training time must be allocated to refresh tasks to be able to consistently meet standards; the simplest example is physical training, which is scheduled five days a week.

Common task training begins when a soldier enters basic training. Following that, each soldier is given an MOS and sent off to receive training in their specified task list followed by assignment to a unit where they gain experience and expertise training every day with their peers under the tutelage of a squad leader.

Here is the linkage between training and culture.  A culture of individual accountability grows out of this training concept of task-condition-standard. Every soldier accepts that they are accountable for sustained proficiency in their MOS.

COLLECTIVE TASKS: That’s the basics of common and specified tasks.  Now all of this has to fit together to form a cohesive highly trained unit. Enter collective tasks; the transition from individual accountability to leader accountability.  Every leader, Staff Sergeant, E-6 squad leader through corps commander is held accountable for the performance of his/her command element. The collective task list naturally gets more extensive and complex moving up through the chain of command to platoon, company, battalion, brigade, division, corps, Army levels of command. 

This begs the question, how do leaders (officers and sergeants) become proficient in their collective tasks?  Short answer, schooling followed by unit assignments.  Every 2^nd lieutenant begins their career in a six-week basic course studying specified and collective tasks before going off to their first unit assignment.  Those officers who choose to remain on active duty go back to school for nine months of advanced study before taking command of a company.  Battalion commanders will all have attended a one-year course studying combat at the operational level.  Brigade commanders will have attended the one-year long Army War College studying warfare at the strategic and combined level. All of this in-house training is followed by command and staff positions commensurate with that training level.

The Army has similar stepping-stone schools for the noncommissioned officers, Staff Sergeants E-6 through Sergeant Major, E-9. 

The Army is a results-oriented organization. The objective of all the school-house time and unit training described above is to end up with the following:

One: A deeply rooted, institutionalized culture of accountability, trust and respect; a formula for success in any organization military or civilian. Accountability and respect grow out of the training regime described above.

Creating a culture of trust began on day-one of basic training.  Recruits are a product of America; they arrive at boot camp with biases based on their upbringing, education, talent, physical prowess, etc. where drill sergeants begin the indoctrination process.  Every recruit has the same hair style, short, and will all dress the same; there is a reason it is called a “uniform”.  Day two, they begin to understand their Army life will revolve around two concepts.  One is the mission and secondly, above all else, you are responsible for the person on your right and left. Soon it begins to sink in that if I am responsible for those on my right and left, that means that they are also responsible for me.  Soldiers begin to understand, “someone always has my back, I’m not alone, this is my team and I trust them” Trust, a powerful cultural force.

Two: Every person and every unit is trained to a consistent high standard.

Three: Every person understands the Army is a meritocracy-driven organization where you can be all you can be. Not everyone will achieve the same results.  Creating an environment of equality of opportunity allows the cream-of-the-crop to rise to the top and be recognized.

Four: Your Army is the most and best integrated organization in the world.  On 26 July, 1948, President Truman issued Executive Order 9981, which declared “There shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.”  That was the end of racial segregation in the military.  Is it perfect, of course not, nothing is; but every day the organization strives to be as good as it can possibly be.

Five: Ferocity with morality. Indoctrination is not a dirty word if used properly and that is exactly what happens with every soldier.  How else are we to take volunteers from across the spectrum of America and convince them it is OK to kill the enemy and blow things up? Having done that, a high moral coefficient is to be applied to every combat action by every soldier regardless of rank.  For example, U.S. Army planning, from the squad leader to Unified Command levels, will always include an assessment of the risk associated with two factors; the potential for civilian casualties and/or unacceptable collateral damage.  If either exist, the planning process moves on to plan B. 

As previously pointed out, this refinement of how the Army trains and operates began in the mid 1980’s.  In August of 1990 Iraq’s brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein, invaded its southern neighbor, Kuwait, with the “mother of all armies” Republican Guard armored divisions in what became known as the First Gulf War. Saddam Hussein’s objectives were to cancel a debt of US$14 billion with Kuwait and to control their oil production.  Additionally, it was believed the invasion was the first step towards Middle East hegemony with invasion of Saudi Arabia next on the list.

On 24 February, 1991, a U.S. led coalition, Operation Desert Storm, began a massive offensive against Iraq’s Republican Guard armored divisions.  They were rapidly overwhelmed and after just two days of fighting Iraq’s Army folded, with 10,000 of its troop’s prisoners and most of its equipment destroyed.

A long-time friend, who commanded a U.S. division in Desert Storm, later told me, “It didn’t take us two days to defeat Iraq, it took a generation.”  His point, the Army of Excellence training and culture shift from 1985-1990 had culminated in perhaps the best trained, best equipped and best led military force ever fielded on a battlefield. 

Back to the question, why is Russia not winning? An Army cannot be all is can/should be while operating with unyielding centralized control, without a professional noncommissioned officer corps and without a morality code of conduct. When it becomes obvious to the casual observer that killing women and children and specifically targeting where they reside has become a key objective of a military operation, one cannot expect that organization to “win”.

Accountability, trust, respect, high standards, meritocracy driven, morality; do we detect any of those attributes in the Russian forces we see on TV every day?  I believe the answer to the lead question, WHY RUSSIA ISN’T WINNING has become obvious.   Russia my ultimately “succeed” in securing some or all Ukrainian territory, but they will never “win.”

Marvin L. Covault, Lt Gen US Army, retired, is the author of VISION TO EXECUTION, a book for leaders, a columnist for THE PILOT, a national award-winning local newspaper in Southern Pines, NC and the author of a blog, WeThePeopleSpeaking.com.

September, 2017, the North Korea foreign minister, speaking, for Kim Jong-un before the United Nations, declared to the world that a North Korean nuclear strike against a U.S. city is “inevitable.” Should we believe him?  Is it even possible?

Who should lead the investigation? If the issue is one of paramount national security and the safety of all Americans should the President be personally involved?  Of course, he should and that is exactly what President Trump did; he got up-close-and-personal with Kim.   

Nine months after the North Korean declaration at the UN, President Trump was able to set up the first one-on-one meeting in Singapore with Kim Jong-un June, 2018.  They met again in Hanoi Viet Nam, February, 2019. and a brief third meeting at the North/South Korea DMZ in June 2019.

Were the meetings the standard large conference table setting with the leaders faced off across the table and aides flanking each leader and all with an agenda sheet in front of them?  No, for the most part they met one-on-one for secret unrecorded talks. 

What would have been President Trump’s objective?  In a word, deterrence; respect for our capabilities and a belief that we would never initiate military action against North Korea but if they initiated military force we would immediately and totally destroy him and his country. It’s not called negotiation, it called MAD mutually assured destruction. It works. We survived decades of the Cold War faced off against the Soviet Union with each side believing in MAD.

For the most part, the Trump/Kim meetings were secret but one scenario might have gone something like this:  President Trump could have casually showed Kim a glossy 8×10 close-up color photo of Kim riding his big white horse at his vacation retreat at which time Trump would have looked him in the eye and said, we know where you are and how to reach out to you 24/7, now let’s chat about all of your missile and weapons testing and your plan to nuke one of my cities.  Deterrence is not bragging; it has to be real and the delivery has to be from someone the recipient believes and/or fears.  

2021: Predictably, with Trump on the way out, Kim needed to test the resolve of Biden with a full-court-press on missile testing. Various headlines and commentary over the past 12 months:

MISSILE TESTING:  What follows is a sampling of the headlines and commentary over the past year.

January 2021, just before President Biden took office: “North Korea unveiled a new submarine-launched ballistic missile at a military parade, calling it the world’s most powerful weapon”.

March 2021: “North Korea unveiled a new submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM).”

March 2021: “North Korea carried out a launch of a new-type tactical guided projectile which it said was able to carry a payload of 2.5 tons; in theory, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.”

May, 2021: “North Korea tests missile.”

September, 2021: “North Korea carried out tests of a new long-range cruise missile according to South Korea.  The missiles are meant for a “strategic role.”   

September 30, 2021, “North Korea fired a newly developed anti-aircraft missile.”

“The hypersonic missile tested September,2021, can travel at much faster speeds, and avoid radar detection for longer than ballistic missiles.”

January, 2022: “North Korea conducted more missile tests this month than all of 2021, an unprecedented pace of weapons testing.”

A senior Biden administration official: “North Korea tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile system in launches February 26 and March 4^th, 2022, a serious escalation.” 

March 8^th,2022: “North Korea says it conducted another important test of a spy satellite.” 

Kim has made it known that he is interested in developing satellite technology and experts believe he is using this as a guise in order to develop more advanced ICBM capability. 

“North Korea’s ICBM focus is the Hwasong-17, their biggest missile which could potentially fly 15,000 KM (9,320 miles), far enough to strike anywhere in the U.S.”  “It could carry a larger payload, potentially including multiple warheads.”

NUCLEAR TESTS:

June 20, 2021: “North Korea has been restoring demolished tunnels at its only known nuclear test site in the country’s northeast, South Korea’s military announced on Friday, in the latest indication that Pyongyang may be preparing for a future underground nuclear weapons test.”

The UN reported in 2021: “On the basis of satellite imagery, it appeared North Korea had restarted the Yongbyon reactor, thought to be its main source of weapons-grade plutonium.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency: “The nuclear program is going full steam ahead with work on plutonium separation, uranium enrichment and other activities.”

Wikipedia: “North Korea has a military nuclear weapons program and, as of early 2020, is estimated to have an arsenal of approximately 30 to 40 nuclear weapons and sufficient production of fissile material for six to seven nuclear weapons per year.  North Korea has also stockpiled a significant quantity of chemical and biological weapons.  In 2003, North Korea withdrew from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons.”

U.S. RESPONSE TO ALL OF THIS:

“The U.S. Pacific Command in a statement condemned the launch and called on North Korea to refrain from further destabilizing acts.” 

When asked if President Biden would sit down with Mr. Kim, the White House response was, “That is not his intention.” 

BACKGROUND:

Everything about North Korea’s history that is relevant today has happened since 1948 under the Kim dynasty:  In 1948 the Korean Peninsula was divided between a Soviet-backed government in the North and an American-backed government in the South. War broke out along the 38th parallel on June 25, 1950. Two days later, the United States officially entered the Korean War and U.S. forces have been stationed in the Republic of Korea for the past 72 years.

The Kim dynasty:  Kim Il-sung, 1912-1994, came to power in the North in 1948 after the end of the Japanese rule in 1945.  Kim Il-sung started the Korean War in 1950 in a failed attempt to reunify the Korean Peninsula. 

Kim Il-sung ruled with a Stalinist hard-fisted manner until his death in 1994.  His son Kim Jong-Il, 1941-2011, continued the torturous Kim-regime until his death in 2011 wherein more authoritarian rule by Kim Jong-un, born 1984, began.

The first take-away from the above three background paragraphs is that North Korea, with the Kim dynasty, has for 72 years viewed the United States as its enemy.

Secondly, the background begs the following questions:  Did Kim Il-sung create North Korea’s nuclear program as a way to reach out to his long-time enemy, the United States?  Has Kim Jong-un picked up the baton and created methods for delivery of nuclear weapons to the United States via ICBMs and/or Submarine-launched missiles?

What does Kim Jong-un have to fear?  Will his big neighbors China and Russia invade?  No, neither need a small, starving, strategically insignificant nation to take care of. Will Japan again invade the Korean Peninsula? No.  Will the U.S. invade North Korea without provocation?  No.

Understandably, North Korea feels the need for a strong defense against South Korea who admittedly would like to reunify Korea. To that end, does North Korea need to starve millions of their people in order to join the list of the world’s nuclear powers? No. 

So, what motivates Kim Jong-un?  Is he simply dutifully completing the scenario envisioned by his grandfather and father to finally defeat the United States? It is important to remember that the Korean War is not “over.”

In 1953 there was a cease fire followed by a signed armistice separating North and South Korea by a Demilitarized Zone which has resulted in the absence of armed conflict on the peninsula for the past 69 years.  In retrospect, there are those who would say the U.S. should have taken the fight to the North, defeated them and ended up with a unified Korea.  On the other hand, Communist China entered the war on behalf of Kim Il-sung in late 1951 with hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops augmenting the North Korean army, there-by changing the dynamic of the fight in two ways.  First, the Chinese had an almost unlimited number of soldiers they could commit to the ground combat and secondly, the Chinese entry into the conflict created an open border with North Korea that the U.S. was unwilling or perhaps unable to close without starting World War III.  The Korean “War” is not over; does Kim Jong-un simply see this as unfinished business?

Is Kim Jong-un crazy?  Dr. S.D. Norrholm, Wayne State University, sees Kim Jong-un aligned psychologically with the likes of Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot.  He writes, “Kim sees himself as a very special person, deserving of admiration and, consequently, has difficulty empathizing with the feelings and needs of others.  He tends to show a pervasive pattern of grandiosity and is likely to behave with a vindictiveness observed in narcissistic personality disorder.”

Would this disorder account for the fact that Kim Jong-un is believed to have orchestrated the assassination, in 2017, of his half-brother, Kim Jong-nam; the eldest son of their father, Kim Jong-il?  Additionally, it is widely reported, but unconfirmed, that in 2014, Kim Jong–un executed his uncle, Jang Song Thaek, the number two official in North Korea, and five of his closest aides by throwing them into a cage with 120 starving dogs. 

Kim Jong-un’s leadership style is vindictive and void of empathy, some examples: 

Of the five and one half million children, ages 1-14, an estimated 80%, 4.4 million, will be stunted due to malnutrition and lack of adequate health care.  Plus, the U.S. State Department reported in 2020 that North Korea forces minors to perform, “the worst forms of child labor. Many aged 16 and 17 are enrolled in military-style youth construction brigades for 10-year periods suffering physical and psychological injuries, malnutrition, and exhaustion.

The North Korean deputy ambassador to London, who defected to South Korea in 2016 testified that, “North Korea is a huge slave society ruled by the Kim family.”

Just like the concentration camps during WW II, Kim Jong-un continuously sends political prisoners to the six camps around the country with an estimated 200,000 imprisoned, never to be released, inmates.  All are subjected to 14-hour work days under horrible conditions and a starvation diet. It is believed that over 400,000 have died in these gulags.  

Kim Il-song’s dictatorship, 1948-1994 is noteworthy by his hatred for the U.S. and the belief that the U.S. would attack North Korea and force reunification.  By the early 1990’s experts say North Korea believed nuclear weapons would be the only way to one-up the U.S. Is it that conclusion that is driving Kim Jong-un’s development of nuclear delivery systems?

During a news conference, in response to a question concerning North Korea’s unprecedented missile testing schedule, Biden said, “We are consulting with our allies and partners and there will be responses if they choose to escalate, we will respond accordingly.” Well, Mr. President, if what they have been doing the past 12 months is not escalation, what is?  Do they have to nuke one of our cities to get your attention?

Kim is the leader of a small, poor, relatively insignificant country but he wants to be viewed as a player on the world stage.  He probably has Putin and Xi Jinping on his speed dial.  President Trump traveled across the Pacific three times to meet with Kim. No matter the sobering news that President Trump delivered, in his mind Kim probably saw it as a major achievement. He became headline news around the world; what better way to feed his ego.

By the way, if the missile and nuclear testing are not enough of a threat, UN experts have reported that, “North Korea has developed increasingly sophisticated hacking capabilities.”

CONCLUSIONS:

Kim’s accelerated testing of weapons of mass destruction is alarming.  We have already been warned in a most dramatic way when the North Korean foreign minister declared to the world that a nuclear strike against a U.S. city is “inevitable.” What is it about the word “inevitable” that the Biden administration does not understand when it is backed up with aggressive North Korean missile and nuclear activities over the past year? 

Kim does not have to run for reelection, time is on his side; the Trump deterrent actions were just a temporary speed bump.  Kim is moving forward with intent to do something. We better figure out what he sees as the end-state, now!

Biden is unable or at least unwilling to talk about our existing critical and difficult national security issues; an open border, record deaths from massive illegal drugs smuggled into the U.S., rampant lawlessness, forfeiture of energy independence. Given the potential outcome of a North Korean strike on the U.S., dealing with Kim Jong-un should be a priority national security issue.  

The vulnerability meter has about pegged out for the U.S. over the last year.  Our enemies, China, Russia, Iran, global terrorism and North Korea were all watching carefully as the Biden Administration stumbled through the pathetic Afghanistan withdrawal debacle.  They have concluded that Biden, and by extension the U.S. as a whole, is weak.  China has conducted threatening air and naval demonstrations towards Taiwan, Putin invades Ukraine, within the past month Iran fires rockets into the U.S. Army base in Erbil and our embassy in Iraq, our country may be loaded with terrorist cells who walked across our open border.  Our deterrence is gone, our enemies no longer respect or fear us and are all acting out recklessly.

Kim’s legacy will never be about becoming an economic powerhouse like South Korea, a voice of reason in international affairs, a valued ally, a benevolent nation, intellectual accomplishments or inventions.  He has one shot at making history and that is to finish what his father and grandfather envisioned, destruction of their arch enemy, the United States.

If Biden does act, it will begin with his standard statements about diplomacy this and diplomacy that and in the process accomplish nothing.  There comes a time when “diplomacy” is an in-your-face meeting between two leaders. But because of Biden’s perceived weakness, the Wall Street Journal reports, “The Biden administration has attempted to conduct talks with North Korea but those efforts have been rebuffed.” Kim is in charge.

The title of this article, BIDEN’S NEXT CRISIS, does not have to come true.  When faced with a serious problem there is always a choice, be proactive or do nothing. Ultimately, without taking proactive steps a leader will end up being reactive.  In that state you are starting out behind the power-curve, trying to push the noodle up hill.  While reacting you have forfeited any advantages you might have otherwise had.

Biden has clearly demonstrated that he and his administration are incapable of recognizing looming national security issues while being singularly focused on COVID and masking policy. For example, last summer dismissing inflation as just a temporary economic bump in the road, having no concept of the geopolitical and strategic importance of giving away our energy independence, claiming the Afghanistan withdrawal was an “extraordinary success,” alienating our Middle East allies with a knee-jerk decision to take Yemen’s Houthi terrorists off the terrorist list and cancel military sales to Saudi Arabia, impowering Iran economically enabling them to better support world terrorism, ignoring our long-time Middle East ally, Israel, embarrassing the U.S. by begging the Middle East to increase oil production, and ending up buying from the likes of Russia and Venezuela.   It is an unprecedented list of failures in one year, with long-tern national security ramifications.  This summary of failures only serves to demonstrate the potential ramifications of also not focusing on North Korea as they ramp up their strategic offensive capabilities.     

RECOMMENDATION: Take these three actions,

ONE: Make sure this message is delivered to Kim Jong-un.

Date:  April xx, 2022

To:  Kim Jong-un

Subject:  Proposed Meeting

September, 2017, your foreign minister, Ri Yong Ho, speaking before the United Nations, declared to the world that a North Korean nuclear strike against a U.S. city is “inevitable.”  Given your accelerated missile, submarine and nuclear testing schedule over the past 12 months, we have no alternative but to conclude that your foreign minister’s statement clearly articulates your intensions.

I will arrive in South Korea on April xx, 2022, and intend to meet with you the following day at the North/South Korea Demilitarized Zone facility to discuss the relationship between our two nations from that day forward. 

I you decline to attend, we are prepared to immediately implement a sanction that will completely shut down your economy.  At that time, I will inform you of a second opportunity for the two of us to meet. Your failure to comply a second time will have left us with only one alternative and that will be a massive preemptive strike to destroy all of your strategic offensive capabilities; missiles, launch facilities and naval forces. 

President Biden.

Mr. President, your intent at that meeting is to depart with an assurance that the two of you have reached a clear understanding of MAD, mutual assured destruction.  MAD is a proven concept that got the free world safely through the decades of the Cold War with the Soviet Union).

TWO: Tell Commander in Chief, Pacific Region, to begin planning for a naval blockade of all shipping in and out of North Korean ports and be prepared to keep it in-force until all North Korean missiles, submarines and launch facilities have been shut down and disassembled.  Shipping is the life-blood for North Korea and they could be severely crippled in a few weeks time. Additionally, begin planning for the preemptive strike.

THREE:  Address the American people on this subject using the above narrative as an outline for the speechwriters. Why?  I suspect 99.99% of Americans do not know about the “inevitable nuclear strike” threat and 90% have not tuned in to North Korea’s strategic-strike buildup over the past year.  Declassify and release to the media satellite imagery of Kim’s preparations. 

Final thought:  North Korea will be BIDENS NEXT CRISIS if the president does not get proactive and act.  But, unlike all the other critical issues and self-inflicted wounds he has imposed on to the American people, this one could be a complete game-changer if he fails to get ahead of the crisis.  

Marvin L. Covault, Lt Gen US Army, retired, is the author of VISION TO EXECUTION, a book for leaders, a columnist for THE PILOT, a national award-winning local newspaper in Southern Pines, NC and the author of a blog, WeThePeopleSpeaking.com.

Suppression: “The act of curtailing or prohibiting an activity”, in this case the act of voting.

1. Sanctity of lawful, free elections is a corner stone of this nation.  It is one of the principal elements that separates us from the likes of corrupt banana republics.

Surveys tell us that over half of all Americans have lost confidence in our election system and rightfully so. We can easily fix it.

2. “Republican voter suppression” has become a central theme of the Democrat Party platform. It is one of those lies that if used often enough by enough people day-in-and-day-out over a prolonged period of time, many will conclude, well it must be true. Voter suppression accusations are sad, frustrating, unintelligent outright disgusting and harmful to the nation.

The election is only about eight months away.  The Republican National Committee needs to issue a powerful counter argument to the Democrat lies about voter suppression

3. Background:  Take off your rose collared glasses; election fraud does exist. The whole system needs an overhaul.  Here are the top ten reasons why.

a. Voter registration:  Across America the states’ voter registration rolls are terribly maintained and highly inaccurate. For example, Judicial Watch brought suit (and won) against Los Angeles County forcing them in 2019 to begin cleaning up the 1.5 million ineligible voters on their rolls. 

b. Voter registration fraud: This involves filling out and submitting a voter registration card for a fictional person, or filling out a voter registration card with the name of a real person but without that person’s consent and forging his or her signature on the card.

c. Ballot stuffing: A means of casting illegal votes or submitting more than one ballot per voter.

d. Voter impersonation:  This occurs when a person claims to be someone else when casting a vote.

e. Fraud by election officials:  This happens when ballots are manipulated by officials administering the election, such as tossing out ballots.

f. Chain of custody:  In so many ways voters lose control of their ballot; ballot harvesting being a prime example.

g. Chaotic behind-the-scenes ballot counting.  During every election we see videos of counting rooms with large numbers of election workers milling around and tables stacked with hundreds or thousands of ballots.

h. Voter apathy: A disgusting reality is that voter apathy is rampant.  In the 2016 election an estimated 100 million eligible voters did not vote; in the 2020 election a record number of Americans voted but still an estimated 80 million did not.

i. Elections in one day?  Why are we so stupid as to believe one of the most important functions of our cherished republic has to be a hurry-up affair during one work-day?  

j. Celebrate voter rite-of-passage:  When a high school senior celebrates their 18^th birthday, the celebration should include more than a birthday cake.

There is one easy fix for all of this, back to that in a moment.

4. What the Democrats want is to follow the lead of the New York City Council which passed an ordinance allowing over 800,000 noncitizens to vote in city elections, declaring, “New York City must be seen as a shining example for other progressive cities to follow.”  On a larger scale, what the Democrats won’t say but what they want is blanket amnesty for tens of millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S. and thereby giving them the right to vote. In this session of Congress, the House passed HR1 election reform which will allow same-day voter registration without Voter ID and expands mail-in voting in a massive 800-page law.  Fortunately, the Senate did not take up this legislation.  What the Democrats do not want is Voter ID.

5. Precedent for personal IDs:  In 2005 Congress passed the Real ID Act establishing minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards.  Implantation was to have been October, 2020 but has been Covid-extended to 2023. Under the law applicants applying for a Real ID must prove their birth date, birthplace, citizenship, legal status, Social Security number and residence documentation.  Without a Real ID, we will be denied access to TSA at any airport. The point to be made here is this; is there a movement by the Democrats to oppose the Real ID law?  Have you heard one single dissenting voice in the Democrat-supported main-stream media concerning the Real ID requirement?  No, you haven’t because there is no opposition.

Stop reading for just a moment and ask yourself this question; do I know any adult U.S. citizen who does not have a valid ID……..  I thought so, you can’t think of one, neither can I.  So, when Voter ID becomes an actual Republican proposal, Voter ID becomes part of the Democrats’ description of racist voter suppression. It makes absolutely no sense but, as previously pointed out, Republican voter suppression, no matter how illogical the argument, will become an important part of the Democrat 2022/2024 campaigns. 

6. President Biden has been asking, in a sneering way, “What are Republicans for?”  Easy answer, Republicans are for Voter ID and the Democrats are against it.  Republicans are more interested in free and lawful elections while Democrats see advantages in the current chaotic system.

A Voter ID Card system will solve the ten election problems outlined above in para 3a-j and it will be self-policing.

7. A proposed Voter ID law:

a.The intent of a Voter ID Card law is to positively identify a voter at a voting site with a current photo, a valid state Voter ID number, current address and a history of voter activity. Under this federal law everyone who is eligible to vote must have a Voter ID Card in order to perform in-person voting or to apply for an absentee ballot, the only two voting methods that would be authorized. 

b. The Voter ID Card will be obtained from a state Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) facility and it will expire simultaneously with the expiration of a driver’s license. Both can be renewed at the same time. 

The Voter ID Card will be the same size and quality as today’s Real ID. the Voter ID Card will present a photo, full name, date of birth, address, sex, eye color, height, hair color, expiration date and, most importantly, an individual Voter ID 10-digit number beginning with the two-letter state abbreviation such as NC-456-789-3322. 

In order to obtain a Voter ID Card, you must be 18 years of age and present the following documents: a valid passport or birth certificate proving identity and date of birth.  One document confirming full name and social security number. Two documents with a current physical address proving state residency. Those who are physically unable to travel to a DMV processing site may sign a sworn affidavit requesting that another person assist in obtaining a Voter ID Card for that person.

The state DMV will immediately provide the state election headquarters with all Voter ID Card data.  Important point here:  that list will become the states’ voter registration roll. This prevents voter registration fraud (para 3b).

c. When a voter presents their Voter ID Card at the voting site, the administrative assistant will swipe the Voter ID Card and ascertain if that particular Voter ID Card number has already been used during the current election period.  if not, the assistant will print out an individual ballot which has the voter’s full name, address and Voter ID Card number printed on the ballot.  In the presence of the voting assistant, the voter will sign the ballot acknowledging that the data is correct.  Fraudulently signing a ballot will be a federal offense. With Voter ID Cards, every ballot instantly becomes individualized with the voter’s name and number.  This prevents ballot stuffing (para 3c), voter impersonation (para 3d) and fraud by election officials (para 3e). 

Once the voter has filled out the ballot and it has been “read” by the vote-tabulating machine, any subsequent ballots presented with that Voter ID number will be automatically rejected.  Additionally, any ballot presented without or with a fraudulent ID number will be rejected.

d. Across America the states’ voter registration rolls are terribly maintained and highly inaccurate. the Voter ID Card system will solve those problems and be self-policing.  That is, when a Voter ID Card hits the expiration date the software will automatically delete that Voter ID name and number from the system.  Furthermore, when a voter gets a new card or renews an expired one, the system will automatically add the voter to the registration rolls.  The result will be that we will no longer have dead people “voting” or 1.5 million ineligible voters registered to vote in LA County. Another method of voter fraud struck down. 

e. Voter apathy is rampant.  in the 2016 election an estimated 100 million eligible voters did not vote.  in the 2020 election a record number of Americans voted but still an estimated 80 million did not.  There are two simple actions that can assist in solving this problem. 

Rite-of-passage.  When a teen turns 16, in most states this authorizes them to get a driver’s license.  This is an important milestone; more freedom, more flexibility, more responsibility and being viewed as a young adult.  We can and should do more to celebrate the rite-of-passage at age 18, to become an active participant in one of America’s foundational rights, the right to vote. Since most teens reach age 18 while in their senior high school year, schools could and should do more to recognize this.

Secondly, election day is on a work day.  Many citizens just cannot get away from work to vote or use that as an excuse to stay away.  To exacerbate this, election day is only one day with long waiting lines or perhaps bad weather.  There is an easy fix, make the election a weekend happening.  The Constitution gives the States and Congress the authority to set the time and place of elections.  Begin voting on the first Saturday in November, 8-5 o’clock? Continue on Sunday, 11-5.  The majority of votes do not work on weekends. Top this off with a national election-day holiday every even numbered year. Give everyone ample opportunity to participate, eliminate long waiting lines, and take away most apathetic folk’s lame excuse for not voting. 

8. The Democrat view of elections:  Having passed H.R.1, The Peoples Act, in the House, January, 2021, the Democrats in the Senate pushed hard, but fortunately failed, to pass S.1, to federalize elections. That 800-page bill would, in fact, have enhanced the possibilities of election fraud. For example, states would have been forced to allow ballot harvesting, it would have gutted commonsense state voter ID laws in 36 states and would have mandated automatic voter registration on short notice, thus allowing some illegal immigrants to vote.

Here is a snapshot of Democrat’s vision of election reform.  In preparation for the 2020 election, California election officials mailed a blank ballot to every registered voter.  Keep in mind that the previous year LA County alone had been ordered by a federal judge to clean up 1.5 million ineligible voters on their voter registration rolls.  No wonder they prefer the status quo.  Chain of custody??

9. Democrats are completely off track on election reform.  This was confirmed by a July, 2021 poll conducted by the Republican National Committee with 800 registered voters (31% Democrats, 29% Republicans, 31% Independents). 

-80% agree Voter ID is a key security measure.

-87% were against ballot harvesting.

-77% rejected the Democrat claim that Voter ID is racist.

-78% agreed with voter signature verification and chain of custody controls.

– 89% agreed that voter rolls need to be cleaned up.

-88% believe states should not send mail-in ballots to the general public and non-citizens.

10. Don’t lose sight of the larger issue here; while this simple fix, Voter ID Cards, solves all of the current election fraud issues and more importantly renews confidence in the voting system with the American public, Voter ID is what the Democrats call racist voter suppression. 

Republican voter suppression is the big Democrat lie for the 2022/2024 elections. But, in the absence of anything positive to run on they will spend time, effort and tens of millions of dollars to convince voters the current system is without fault and need not be fixed.

11. Every Republican candidate at the local, state and federal level needs a short list of positive talking points explaining why the election process needs an overhaul and why Voter ID Cards are an easy and comprehensive fix. We should not be in a position of questioning, every two years, the integrity of one of our most basic rights.  The Democrats are completely out of step on this issue to the extent that they appear to want the current compromised election processes to continue.  They need to be exposed on voter suppression right now. The RNC needs to lead the way by providing talking points to every county Republican Chairperson with instructions to get them into the hands of every local, state and federal Republican candidate immediately.

Marvin L. Covault, Lt Gen US Army, retired, is the author of VISION TO EXECUTION, a book for leaders, a columnist for THE PILOT, a national award-winning local newspaper in Southern Pines, NC and the author of a blog, WeThePeopleSpeaking.com

Background:  In 1956, the leader of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev said of the U.S., “We will bury you.”  It was not an idol comment as the USSR was gaining strength and successfully spreading socialism and communism around the world.

The intensity of the rhetoric built until 1962 when Khrushchev threatened to station nuclear weapons in Cuba, 90 miles from our shores, thereby bringing the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust. It was a tense standoff as the threat of nuclear war was on everyone’s mind until Khrushchev backed away.  

In 1965, as the U.S. and USSR continued building arsenals of thousands of nuclear weapons, Secretary of Defense McNamara proposed that the guarantee of mutual annihilation could serve as an effective deterrent to both parties and that the goal of maintaining destructive parity should guide U.S. defense decisions.  From that, the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction took hold.  MAD is the notion that a nuclear attack by one superpower would be met with an overwhelming nuclear counterattack such that both attacker and defender would be annihilated.  Deterrence for the next 25 years worked and the USSR dissolved in 1991.

There is great wisdom in the MAD concept. Could it work today in a different setting?

This week Putin gave the order for massive Russian forces to invade Ukraine.  While doing so he also issued a warning to the world that interference in his, “Special military operation” would be met with, “Consequences never encountered in your history.” Make no mistake, he was figuratively pointing a finger directly at the U.S. and our proposed sanctions.  

In May of 2021 it is believed the Russians conducted a proof-of-concept limited cyber-attack on the U.S. when they shut down the Colonial Pipeline and caused gas shortages for half the East Coast.   

When President Biden met with Putin a month later, Biden brought up the cyberattack issue and presented Putin with a list of 16 critical infrastructure “entities” that must be “off-limits”

Fast forward to today and ask the question, are debilitating economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. considered “interference” in Putin’s invasion?  Given Putin’s warning, “Consequences never encountered in your history,’ what should President Biden do? Given the gravity of the situation, doing nothing does not appear to be a viable option.

President Biden should pick up the phone, call Putin today and tell him the following: 

President Putin, as I explained in our meeting last June, we are certain beyond a doubt that your people conducted the cyberattack on our pipeline the previous month.  At that time, I provided you with a list of critical entities that are off-limits to cyber warfare.  I am calling today to expand that list and inform you that any cyberattack on any entity is absolutely unacceptable. 

My intelligence people have given me a clear picture of your offensive cyberwarfare capabilities and I want to assure you that our capabilities, in the event of a necessary counter attack, are significantly more sophisticated and can be delivered on a massive scale. 

The leaders of the world believe your invasion of Ukraine is gross violation of international law and we collectively, are imposing sanctions as a penalty for your actions and to encourage you to cease operations immediately.  Your warning to the world that, ‘Interference would be met with Consequences never encountered in your history’ is highly threatening rhetoric. 

If a cyberattack occurs against the U.S. you are hereby informed that, unless another country or group takes credit for the actions, we will assume the attack came from you and our immediate and massive counter-attack will bring down your country.

Additionally, there are other countries that have publicly stated their desire to destroy us, namely Iraq and North Korea.  If you have contact with those countries, I would advise you to make sure they do not conduct a cyberattack on the U.S. causing us, in the absence of knowing otherwise, to blame you for the incursion and launch our counterattack.

President Putin, make no mistake, this is not a threat; this is a promise.  My number one priority as president of the Unites States is the safety and security of our people and I will take any actions against an aggressor to successfully fulfill my responsibilities in that regard.  This subject is neither up for further discussion nor negotiation, consider yourself fully informed of my position and intent on this subject.  End of phone conversation.

Why should President Biden have that discussion with Putin today?  Because to just hope (hope is not a process) a cyberattack by this psycho won’t happen places the U.S. in an unacceptably high-risk status.   

Does our military have a counter offensive cyber warfare capability?  I assume so.  If so, is it as sophisticated and massive as asserted above?  I don’t know the answer and it doesn’t matter.  Granted, creating a false narrative about our capability won’t make it real but it may instantaneously create a Cyber MAD scenario, which is the bottom line and critical at this point in time.

President Biden said in his Thursday address to the nation that we will “wait and see what happens” before considering additional sanctions.  Mr. President, waiting and doing nothing at this juncture could be catastrophic.

Putin believes he has nothing to lose by attacking us as he is already viewed by the world as pariah and this will fulfill his life-long desire to punish his nemesis, the United States. Mr. President, making that phone call does not need consensus with our allies nor does it need Congressional wrangling. Executing the the phone call should be highly classified, limited access, need-to-know only for the VP, National Security Advisor, Sec Def and Sec State.  You have everything to gain (save the nation) or everything to lose (the potential for a nation destroyed).  It is a no-to-low-risk phone call, just make it happen. 

Mr. president, here is one good reason to make the call.  There are thirty substations in the U.S. that play a critical role in the nation’s electric grid operations. A Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report says, “Destroy nine interconnection substations and the entire United States grid could be down for at least 18 months, probably longer,” Experts say such an attack would be “irrecoverable.”  How do we pump water to 330 million people every day without electricity?  Tens of millions would die.

Mr. President, Mutually Assured Destruction is a proven concept.  Implementation costs are five minutes of you time on the phone.  MAD is a deterrent and deterrence is nothing more than creating fear in the mind of an adversary that a first strike option has unacceptable risk.

Note to readers:  Some of you are probably capable of communicating directly with the president or VP or National Security Advisor or Sec Def or Sec State.  If so, please advise them of this recommendation immediately. We have too much to lose.

Marvin L. Covault, Lt Gen US Army, retired, is the author of VISION TO EXECUTION, a book for leaders, a columnist for THE PILOT, a national award-winning local newspaper in Southern Pines, NC and the author of a blog, WeThePeopleSpeaking.com.