July 30, 2026

World

From Narco Subs to Military Tech

From Narco Subs to Military Tech

Michael Cessna October 4, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

In the murky world of drug trafficking, narco submarines have long been a thorn in the side of law enforcement. These stealthy vessels, often homemade and barely submerged, have smuggled tons of illicit cargo past watchful eyes. Now, in an ironic twist, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps are taking cues from these ingenious, if nefarious, designs to develop a new generation of military craft: low-profile submersibles for resupply and covert operations. The implications do not bode well.

 

Learning from the Underworld

Narco submarines, or “narco subs,” are semi-submersible vessels designed to evade detection while transporting large quantities of drugs. They are typically long, slender craft that cruise just below the water’s surface, with only a small conning tower visible above the waves. This design makes them incredibly difficult to spot visually or on radar. The other aspect is that narco subs do not “sound” like military vessels, or true submarines; this is due to them primarily using non-military marine diesel engines common to many civilian pleasure craft.

 

Two Narco subs (LPVs) interdicted by USCG personnel aboard USS Preble (5 June 2020) and USS Pinckney (15 May 2020). Sources: HI Sutton, US Navy, US Coast Guard, Small Wars Journal.

 

The military has taken note of these vessels’ effectiveness in evading detection. While the goals are vastly different, the need for stealth and the ability to operate in shallow coastal waters are shared requirements that make the design of narco sub an intriguing proposition for military applications.

 

The Military’s New Toy

The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps are now developing their own versions of these low-profile vessels. Unlike their illegal counterparts, these military craft are being designed with cutting-edge technology, robust construction, and specific military objectives in mind…Meaning, if the US Army’s Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV) is any indication, will not work the way they think it will.

The primary focus is on using these submersibles for discrete resupply missions. In scenarios where traditional supply lines might be compromised or under threat, these stealthy craft could slip in undetected to deliver crucial supplies to troops in remote, isolated locations. This is patches a critical hole in the US Marine Corps’ “Force Design 2030“, by allowing covert resupply to widely dispersed monitoring and anti-ship and -air missile units on atolls, islands and continental regions with long coastlines or navigable river systems.

Obviously, there are implications of this for use in intelligence operations, to supply covert operatives in coastal areas. For the same reasons that drug cartels use semi-submersibles to smuggle illicit drugs into the United States by the ton-weight, these low-profile vessels are able to ferry in weapons and munitions without the need to dangerously expose aircraft crews to drop the supplies by parachute. Moreover, these craft can be remotely piloted, making for a truly “deniable” operation.

But resupply is just the beginning. The potential applications for these vessels in low-intensity conflicts are vast and varied.

 

Game-Changers in Low-Intensity Conflicts

Low-intensity conflicts, characterized by guerrilla warfare, counterinsurgency, and special operations, could all see a significant shift in tactics with the introduction of these submersibles. The low profile of these vessels makes them particularly suited for operations in contested waters, where larger, more visible craft might provoke unwanted attention or escalation. A brief look at these enhancements include:

  1. Covert Insertion: Special operations teams could be deployed silently and swiftly into hostile territory, with minimal risk of detection.
  2. Intelligence Gathering: Equipped with advanced sensors, these vessels could patrol coastlines, gathering crucial intelligence without alerting the enemy.
  3. Humanitarian Aid: In disaster zones where ports are damaged or inaccessible, these craft could deliver vital supplies to coastal communities.
  4. Counter-Narcotics Operations: Ironically, these military vessels, inspired by narco subs, could be used to combat drug trafficking, using the smugglers’ own tactics against them, via covertly inserting teams to raid drug-producing factories.
  5. Mine Warfare: Low-profile submersibles could be ideal for deploying or detecting underwater mines in shallow waters.

 

Marines with 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force, prepare diver propulsion devices for training, Okinawa, Japan, 2011. Source: DVIDS. Public Domain.

 

Obviously, any group that can build and deploy such craft – including terror groups, can use them to conduct these sorts of operations. The Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) team that attacked Mumbai in 2008 had to capture a fishing trawler, force its captain to sail to a point off Mumbai (a coastal port city), then infiltrated the team at night using Zodiac-style rubber boats. Several of the steps the LeT required could have been eliminated with semi-submersible craft.

 

Technical Challenges and Innovations

Developing these submersibles isn’t without its challenges. The military versions need to be far more sophisticated than their narco counterparts. Engineers are grappling with issues like:

  •  Propulsion systems that are both powerful and quiet
  •  Advanced navigation systems for precise underwater maneuvering
  •  Life support systems for extended underwater operations
  •  Modular designs to support various mission profiles
  •  Materials that can withstand the pressures of submersion while maintaining a low profile

 

These challenges are driving innovations in naval engineering, with potential spin-off benefits for civilian maritime technology.

 

The Future of Naval Warfare?

As these low-profile submersibles move from concept to reality, they have the potential to reshape naval strategy, particularly in littoral and coastal operations. They represent a shift towards more agile, adaptable naval forces capable of operating in the gray zones of modern conflict. But the true game-changer may lie in their potential as stealthy missile platforms.

 

The Game-Changing Potential of Missile-Armed Submersibles

Recent developments have shown that these vessels could be more than just transport and reconnaissance platforms. The U.S. Navy has been exploring the possibility of arming these low-profile submersibles with anti-ship missiles, specifically the Naval Strike Missile (NSM).

 

Naval Strike Missile (NSM). Hemus Exhibition , 2010, International Fair in Plovdiv, Bulgaria. Photo by Peterdx. Public Domain.

 

The NSM is a sea-skimming, high-subsonic speed missile with a range of over 100 nautical miles. It’s designed to evade enemy defenses and can strike both land and sea targets. Now, this potent weapon system could be mounted on a vessel that is nearly invisible to radar, confusing to sonar (if using non-military engines) and difficult to detect visually.

This combination creates a formidable and unpredictable threat. A group pf small, stealthy vessels lurking just offshore, capable of launching precision strikes against much larger ships or land targets, could fundamentally alter the balance of power in coastal areas.

 

Tactical Advantages

The tactical advantages of this setup are numerous:

  1. Surprise Factor: These submersibles could approach high-value targets undetected, launching missiles from unexpected locations.
  2. Cost-Effective Sea Denial: A relatively inexpensive platform could threaten or neutralize much larger, more expensive naval assets…not least, because of the potential for the platform’s use as a remotely piloted vessel.
  3. Distributed Lethality: By spreading offensive capabilities across numerous small platforms, naval forces become more resilient and harder to neutralize.
  4. Rapid Response: These vessels could quickly deploy to hot-spots, providing a swift and stealthy strike capability where needed.

 

Strategic Implications

The strategic implications of missile-armed low-profile submersibles are profound:

  1. Asymmetric Warfare: Smaller nations or non-state actors could potentially leverage this technology to challenge larger naval powers, which – despite their strength on paper – cannot have ships deployed everywhere, continuously.
  2. Area Denial: The mere threat of these vessels could deter enemy forces from operating in certain areas, effectively expanding a nation’s defensive perimeter.
  3. Escalation Management: Their small size and low profile could make them less provocative than deploying larger warships, allowing for a measured response in tense situations.
  4. Changed Calculus: Naval planners would need to reconsider strategies for littoral operations, knowing that potent threats could be hiding in plain sight.

 

Challenges and Considerations

However, arming these vessels with missiles isn’t without challenges:

  1. Stability: Ensuring accurate missile launches from a small, semi-submerged platform presents engineering challenges.
  2. Limited Payload: The size of these vessels restricts the number of missiles they can carry.
  3. Ethical Concerns: The covert nature of these platforms could raise questions about transparency in military operations.
  4. Proliferation Risks: As with any advanced military technology, there’s a risk of these capabilities spreading to potential adversaries.

 

A New Era of Naval Warfare?

The combination of low-profile submersibles and advanced anti-ship missiles like the NSM could herald a new era in naval warfare. It blends the stealth of submarines with the striking power of surface combatants in a compact, versatile package.

As these technologies mature and potentially enter service, they may well rewrite the rules of engagement in coastal waters. The ability to strike from hidden positions with precision and power could make these small vessels a cornerstone of future naval strategy.

However, like any military technology, their true impact will only be understood once they’re deployed in real-world scenarios. Will they prove to be the game-changers some predict, or will unforeseen limitations curb their effectiveness?

One thing is certain: as these stealthy, missile-armed craft prepare to slip beneath the waves and into military service, they may well be ushering in a new era of naval operations—one where the lines between submersible and surface vessel, between defensive and offensive capabilities, become increasingly blurred. The future of naval warfare may very well belong to those who master the art of hiding in plain sight while packing a powerful punch.

As these low-profile submersibles move from concept to reality, they have the potential to reshape naval strategy, particularly in littoral and coastal operations. They represent a shift towards more agile, adaptable naval forces capable of operating in the gray zones of modern conflict…However, like any military technology, their true impact will only be understood once they’re deployed in real-world scenarios. Will they prove to be the game-changers some predict, or will unforeseen limitations curb their effectiveness?

One thing is certain: the development of these vessels showcases the military’s ability to innovate and adapt, even drawing inspiration from unexpected sources. From the shadowy world of drug smuggling to the cutting edge of naval warfare, the journey of the low-profile submersible is a testament to the old adage that necessity — whether in crime or in war — is indeed the mother of invention.

At the same time, serious thought needs to given to ask the uncomfortable question: Are state military design bureau’s around the world so bereft of ideas, that they have to adapt the ad hoc tactics and tools of criminals and terrorists to “big war” theory? After all, the US Army’s ISV program exists for the sole reason to emulate the widespread use of “technicals” in combat around the world – and does so poorly. Will the US Navy and Marine Corps’ semi-submersible program make the same mistakes?

As these stealthy craft prepare to slip beneath the waves and into military service, they may well be ushering in a new era of naval operations—one where the ability to remain unseen is just as important as the power to strike.

 

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

  1. Wayne P Hughes Jr. USN (Ret.), Robert P. Girrier (2018), Fleet Tactics and Naval Operations, Third Edition
  2. Julian Thompson (1994), Lifeblood of War: Logistics in Armed Conflict
  3. Thomas Ricks (2012), The Generals
  4. James F. Dunnigan (2003), How To Make War, 4th Edition
  5. James F. Dunnigan (1991), Shooting Blanks

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
The Rise of Civilian Satellite Intelligence

The Rise of Civilian Satellite Intelligence

Michael Cessna September 27, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

Not too long ago, access to satellite imagery was firmly relegated to the realm of spy movies and top-secret government agencies. Times have certainly changed. Today, anyone with an internet connection can access detailed satellite images of almost anywhere on Earth. This democratization of satellite intelligence is reshaping how we understand global events, conduct business, and even wage war.

 

From Military Secrets to Public Domain

Before roughly 2000, good- to high-quality satellite imagery was the exclusive domain of superpowers. The United States and the Soviet Union spent billions during the Cold War to launch spy satellites, gaining a bird’s-eye view of each other’s military activities. This open access to the ultimate “high ground” forced every national government that wanted to try and keep their secrets out of public view to become highly creative in hiding facilities. As advanced sensors developed, so too did methods of concealment. Fast-forward to the 21st Century, and companies like Planet Labs and Maxar Technologies are providing high-resolution satellite imagery to paying customers – be they governments, corporations, or even individuals. Not only that, but many of these high-quality are now finding their way into free-access platforms, such as Google and Bing Maps, but even such unlikely sites as NatureFocused – offer very high-quality maps featuring regular, street-type maps, but also very recent satellite imagery and highly detailed terrain maps.

This shift has profound implications. Suddenly, small countries, NGOs, citizen journalists – even terrorists – now have access to intelligence that was once the privilege of only the most powerful nations. It’s like giving everyone a seat at the geopolitical poker table and letting them peek at each other’s cards.

 

Changing the Game in Global Politics

So, how exactly is this changing the political landscape? For starters, it’s making it a lot harder for governments to hide their activities. Take the recent conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. Civilian satellites routinely capture troop movements, missile launches, and the aftermath of strikes, often before official sources confirm them. This frequently happens in real-time, with independent verification changing (and often confusing) how we understand and respond to global crises.

But it’s not just about conflict zones. Environmental groups are using satellite imagery to track deforestation, oil spills, and illegal fishing. Human rights organizations can now monitor refugee movements and verify claims of atrocities. While it may seem like having a “global watchdog” that never sleeps, there are issues of misinterpretation – both accidental and deliberate – that can and do muddy the waters, giving false impressions through outdated images, failures of interpretation, or any number of other issues, technical or human.

 

The Double-Edged Sword of Warfare

In the realm of warfare, easy and (mostly) free access to recent, high-grade satellite intelligence is a “game-changer”. Military strategists now have to assume that their movements are being watched not just by enemy governments, but also potentially by anyone with an internet connection. This transparency can act as a deterrent to aggression, but it also means that the element of surprise in military operations is becoming a thing of the past.

In the hoary old days of 1983, the Reagan administration launched “Operation Urgent Fury“, to invade the Caribbean island nation of Grenada, which had collapsed into chaos as different factions of the ruling party wrestled for control. This placed the safety of some 400-odd American medical students in question, and the Reagan administration – which had come to power at least partly as a result of the previous administration’s failure in dealing with the Iranian Hostage crisis – was not about to risk a repeat performance on its doorstep.

While there was never any doubt that the United States military would win a conflict in Grenada, it was discovered – much to the consternation of all planners – that there were no detailed maps of Grenada inside the US cartographic system. US Army planners were forced to purchase tourist maps of Grenada just outside the gates of their bases, hand-draw grid reference lines and the estimated locations of targets on those rudimentary maps, then photocopy those maps and hand those out to troop leaders.

The issue was that there were very few “recon birds” – the colloquial term for reconnaissance satellites – in orbit at the time, and those satellites were not easy to “re-task”. Grenada was so “off-the-radar” in the United States, some intelligence officers wondered why they were being ordered to plan an invasion of the city of “Granada” in Spain.

Humor aside, this was clearly a serious problem…and one that would not be replicated today, in any army in the world worthy of the name. Today, anyone with an internet connection can utilize free tools (often coming as “stock” programs with many computers) that the battle planners of “Urgent Fury” – or, for that matter, “Desert Storm” – could have dreamed of.

Unfortunately, that also includes terrorists.

 

 

The 2008 attack on Mumbai, India, by the terror group “Lashkar-e-Taiba“, were planned and directed in real-time using stock personal computers, an internet connection and tools like Google, to verify targets, observe news reports on the fighting in real-time, and to generate maps that were used for plotting the progress of their operations on target.

Likewise, there are now commercially available tools, like “ATAK“, that approach military and national intelligence agency tool-sets in quality. These free, or at least low-cost, programs are well within the reach of private individuals, to say nothing of terror groups and small governments and their military forces.

These realities have proven the wisdom of the United States Marine Corps’ “Small Wars Manual“, published in 1940, which warned that what the West now calls “Third World” forces were improving their abilities and acquiring more modern weapons and equipment, and that the result would be that “First World” forces would have to be willing and able to adapt and evolve faster than those forces could.

 

 

The Road Ahead

As we look to the future, it’s clear that easy access to satellite intelligence will continue to play an increasingly important role in shaping our world. We’re likely to see even more detailed imagery, combined with AI and machine learning to provide real-time analysis of global events.

This technology has the potential to increase transparency, hold powerful actors accountable, and provide crucial information in times of crisis. But it also risks further eroding both personal and start privacy, and potentially destabilizing delicate geopolitical situations in unforeseen ways.

One thing is certain: the “view from above” is here to stay, and it’s changing how we see our world, literally. As this technology continues to evolve, it will be up to all of us – governments, businesses, and citizens alike – to figure out how to use it responsibly and effectively.

In a world where everyone can be a satellite superpower, the challenge will be learning how to use this newfound vision wisely.

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Cryptocurrency and Conflict Financing – Reshaping the Economics of Modern Warfare

Cryptocurrency and Conflict Financing – Reshaping the Economics of Modern Warfare

Michael Cessna September 6, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

In the shadowy world of conflict financing, a new player has emerged: cryptocurrency. As digital currencies like Bitcoin – once derided by many as useless money pits – increasingly gain mainstream acceptance, they are also becoming a tool for those operating outside the law, including insurgent groups, terrorist organizations, and sanctioned states. This technological shift is reshaping the economics of modern warfare and challenging traditional methods of tracking and interdicting illicit funds. Money makes serious violent conflicts and wars possible, and cryptocurrencies are increasingly the preferred go-to for all non-state actors in conflicts…and major nations are not far behind.

The Rise of Crypto in Conflict Zones

Cryptocurrency’s key features – decentralization, anonymity, and borderless transactions – make it an attractive option for groups operating in conflict zones. Unlike traditional banking systems, which can be easily monitored and controlled by governments, cryptocurrencies offer a degree of financial autonomy that’s unprecedented in the digital age. It also holds the potential to radically expand the democratization of warfare, a subject we touched on last week.

In recent years, there have been several high-profile cases of cryptocurrency being used in conflict zones. In 2019, Hamas – the militant group controlling Gaza, responsible for the October 7, 2023 assault into Israel – turned to Bitcoin to solicit donations, bypassing international restrictions on its financing. Similarly, in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, both sides have leveraged cryptocurrencies: volunteers supporting Ukrainian forces have raised over $200 million in crypto donations, while some Russian-backed separatist groups have also turned to digital currencies to evade sanctions.

Terrorism Financing Goes Digital

The shift from traditional financing methods to cryptocurrency is particularly evident in terrorism financing. Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist groups have increasingly turned to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to fund their operations. These groups often use social media platforms to solicit donations, providing Bitcoin addresses where supporters can send funds anonymously.

The ease of creating online fundraising campaigns with cryptocurrency has led to a new phenomenon: the crowdfunding of terror. In 2019, a website linked to Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups in Syria raised Bitcoin donations for weapons and training. The campaign, which ran on the dark web, promised donors anonymity and the ability to support jihad from anywhere in the world.

This has extended into Asia, as well, as extensive NFT networks have been employed to both raise and transfer cryptocurrencies into fungible cash. Part of this fallout comes in the form of Afghanistan coming to the fore as a clearinghouse for crypto transfers to terror groups, as the lax controls of the ruling Taliban – who returned to power after the bungled and disastrous withdrawal of United States forces from the country in 2021 by the Biden-Harris administration – effectively closing off surveillance and enforcement efforts within the pariah state.

Challenges for Law Enforcement

This new landscape of crypto-enabled conflict financing poses significant challenges for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Tracking and intercepting cryptocurrency transactions is a complex task, requiring specialized skills and technologies that many agencies are still developing. A major part of this is the reality of the “dark web“, and its associated “darknet markets“. Outside of cryptocurrency transfers, these markets allow all manner of criminal activity, including human trafficking and child pornography, as well as illicit drug trades, all of which terror groups have no issue leveraging such tools.

The catch for law enforcement and intelligence agencies in tracking terrorists and other criminals through the “dark web” lays in the fact that although the core operating principle of the ‘dark web’ – so-called “onion routing” – was developed and patented by the US Navy in 1998, the very nature of the system developed to secure US military and government communications networks means that forcing access remotely is virtually impossible. In fact, the arrest by the FBI of the founder and main operator of the notorious “Silk Road” darknet market in 2013 (which led to his life sentence in 2015) did not involve traditional methods of hacking, but involved an agent infiltrating the “Silk Road” site as an administrator, and using “social engineering” techniques to narrow down Ulbricht’s location, and using his personal security mistakes to finally locate him…”Hacking” really had nothing to do with the takedown of the “Silk Road“, because it cannot be taken down by conventional methods of “hack-attack“.

The pseudonymous nature of most blockchain transactions using the “non-fungible token” protocol that makes cryptocurrencies viable, provides a veneer of anonymity, though it’s not impenetrable. Agencies like the FBI have had some success in tracing Bitcoin transactions related to ransomware attacks and other cybercrimes. However, newer “privacy coins” like Monero offer even greater anonymity, making them increasingly popular among those seeking to avoid detection.

Legal and jurisdictional issues further complicate matters. As cryptocurrency transactions usually cross international borders, questions are raised concerning which agencies have authority to investigate and prosecute any “criminal activity” based on a computer physically located in their countries, not least because a specific instance of criminal activity in one country is not necessarily such in another country, as was demonstrated in 2012, when Hungarian scam artists attempted to run an insurance fraud scheme in the wake of the Costa Concordia disaster. The lack of consistent regulations across countries creates loopholes that bad actors can exploit.

The Humanitarian Dilemma

Interestingly, the same features that make cryptocurrencies attractive for illicit financing also make them valuable for delivering humanitarian aid to conflict zones. In areas where traditional banking systems have broken down, or where governments restrict the flow of funds, cryptocurrencies can provide a lifeline for aid organizations.

For example, during Venezuela’s economic crisis, some aid groups turned to cryptocurrency to deliver assistance, bypassing the country’s dysfunctional financial system and strict currency controls. Similarly, in Afghanistan, some NGOs have explored using cryptocurrencies to continue operations after the Taliban takeover restricted traditional financial channels.

However, this humanitarian use of cryptocurrencies presents its own risks. The same channels used to deliver aid could potentially be exploited by militant groups to divert funds. This creates a complex balancing act for aid organizations and regulators alike, not least as crypto-financing is increasingly being seen as a negative, since it is a “hidden” method of finance.

Looking to the Future

As cryptocurrencies continue to evolve, so too will their impact on conflict financing. The development of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and the increasing sophistication of decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms will likely create new opportunities and challenges in this space.

Regulators and international bodies are scrambling to keep up. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a global money laundering and terrorist financing watchdog, has issued guidelines for regulating virtual assets. However, the effectiveness of these measures remains to be seen, especially given the rapid pace of technological change in the crypto world.

The impact of cryptocurrencies on global power dynamics is also worth considering. As digital currencies potentially weaken the effectiveness of economic sanctions, traditional forms of financial warfare may become less potent. This could lead to a shift in how nations project power and influence on the global stage.

Conclusion

The rise of cryptocurrency in conflict financing represents a significant shift in the landscape of modern warfare. While it offers new opportunities for bad actors to fund their activities, it also presents potential benefits in terms of delivering aid and fostering financial inclusion in unstable regions.

As we move forward, the challenge will be to develop adaptive policies and technologies that can mitigate the risks of crypto-enabled conflict financing while preserving the innovative potential of blockchain technology. This will require unprecedented cooperation between governments, financial institutions, and the tech sector.

The genie of cryptocurrency is out of the bottle, and its impact on conflict financing is here to stay. The responses to this challenge will shape the future of global security in the digital age.

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
The Carrier Battle Group: America’s “Big Stick” Of Power Projection

The Carrier Battle Group: America’s “Big Stick” Of Power Projection

Michael Cessna August 16, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

Earlier this week, the United States accelerated the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) and its carrier battle group to the Middle East – an operation which was already in progress to relieve the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) and its own battle group of escorting warships, who have been on station in the region for months – in response to signs that the increasingly unstable regime in Iran may attempt to significantly widen its proxy war against the state of Israel which began on October 7 of last year.

 

The Good Ol’ Days

The origin of the aircraft carrier battle group takes its origins from the world-spanning naval warfare of World War II, primarily from its operations in the Pacific Ocean. The devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, on December 7th, 1941, demonstrated the power of carrier-based aviation and the vulnerability of battleships, marking a fundamental shift in naval strategy, as the Imperial Japanese Navy destroyed the United States Navy’s main battle force in the attack. The United States Navy – stripped of its battleship fleet by the sneak attack on its Hawaiian base, and whose Asiatic Fleet was functionally neutralized in the opening stages of the war by staggeringly unbelievable levels of incompetence and mismanagement – was forced to continue the fight with only three aircraft carriers, something it had never seriously considered as a possibility.

 

Photograph taken from a Japanese plane during the torpedo attack on ships moored on both sides of Ford Island shortly after the beginning of the Pearl Harbor attack. IJN photo, via the US Navy. Public Domain.

 

As the war raged on, the U.S. Navy quickly adapted, forming diverse, multi-ship task forces centered on its massive aircraft carriers. The battles of the Coral Sea and Midway in 1942 proved the effectiveness of this approach, with American carriers dealing a decisive blow to the Japanese fleet, while remaining largely protected by much smaller destroyers and destroyer-escorts, which both shot down attacking Japanese aircraft, and sometimes absorbed bombs and torpedoes meant for the carriers. As the war progressed, these carrier task forces became increasingly sophisticated, with hard-learned doctrine and techniques using destroyers primarily for anti-submarine warfare and cruisers studded with heavy automatic cannons for air defense, even at close range.

 

Bofors 40 mm anti-aircraft guns on a Mk 12 quadruple mount firing on board USS Hornet (CV-12), circa February 1945, probably during gunnery practice. Photo credit: Lt. Cmdr. Charles Kerlee, USN. Public Domain.

 

 

Into the Cold

In the post-war era, the advent of jet aircraft and guided missiles led to further refinements to both aircraft carriers themselves, but also in their organization and tactics. The introduction of the angled flight deck and steam catapults (these are now being replaced with electromagnetic catapults on the new Gerald R. Ford-class carriers) in the 1950s enhanced carrier operations, while the development of guided missile destroyers and cruisers improved the group’s air defense capabilities, at least in theory. Modern navies, however, would get a severe reality check in 1982, as the very modern British Royal Navy was badly hammered by the second-tier air force of Argentina in the savage (especially allowing for its relatively small size) Battle of San Carlos, causing a sobering reassessment by all navies of their own capabilities and tactics. (On a historical side note, the Falklands War also saw the destruction of the ARA General Belgrano, the former USS Phoenix (CL-46), a Brooklyn-class cruiser from World War 2, which had survived the Pearl Harbor attack, to be sunk by a British attack submarine some forty years later.)

 

A Standard Missile-3 is launched from the Japanese Aegis Destroyer JS Kongo (DDG 173), 2007. US Navy photo. Public Domain.

 

The Cold War saw the carrier battle group evolve into one of – if not the primary – key instruments of power projection. The nuclear-powered USS Enterprise (CVN-65), commissioned in 1961, heralded a new era of endurance for carrier operations. However, this would be tempered with the realization that while the range of the carrier itself was now measured in decades, instead of miles, it was still restricted by the ranges of its gas-turbine engined escort vessels, and the constant need for resupply of everything from food to bombs, spare parts and fuel for its aircraft wing. The development of the Aegis combat system in the 1980s (and its associated ballistic missile defense component) would significantly enhance the group’s air defense capabilities, while continuous development of anti-submarine and anti-mine technologies further protected the carrier and its escorts. These capabilities did not come without cost, however: hard lessons were learned from the attacks on the USS Stark, the USS Samuel B. Roberts, and the bombing of the USS Cole. These lessons continue to be learned, but the takeaway is that naval warfare – like all warfare – is not a video game, despite breathlessly giddy news stories to the contrary.

In the realm of anti-submarine warfare, the US Navy pioneered the modern use of armed combat drones in warfare, when it deployed the QH-50 DASH (Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter), built by Gyrodyne, in 1959.

 

In the Persian Gulf, a port quarter view of the guided missile frigate USS STARK (FFG-31) listing to port after being hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles, 18 May 1987. Public Domain.

 

The Dawn of the Millennium and the GWOT

The post-Cold War period has seen carrier battle groups involved in numerous conflicts, from the 1990-91 Gulf War to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The groups have also played crucial roles in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions. Today’s carrier battle groups, while retaining their core structure developed over some fifty years, continue to evolve to meet new challenges. The integration of stealth aircraft, more advanced unmanned systems, and advanced, internet-based networking and cyberwar capabilities ensures that the carrier battle group will remain a fundamental cornerstone of naval power projection for the rest of the 21st Century.

Laying at the heart of the United States Navy’s global power projection capabilities, the carrier battle group (CVBG), also known as a carrier strike group (CSG) is a formidable assembly of warships and aircraft, centered around a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, representing one of the most potent concentrations of military might ever to sail the world’s oceans. Usually comprising an aircraft carrier, a single guided missile cruiser for air defense, at least two LAMPS-capable warships (focusing on anti-submarine and surface warfare), and one or two anti-submarine destroyers or frigates, such battle groups frequently deploy more combat power than that possessed by most individual nations in the world.

The cornerstone of any carrier battle group is the aircraft carrier itself. As of 2024, the US Navy operates eleven nuclear-powered carriers, primarily of the Nimitz class, with the newer Gerald R. Ford class gradually being introduced into service. These floating airfields, crewed by between 4,000 and 5,000 sailors, displace approximately 100,000 tons and can carry an air wing of 60-75 aircraft.

The air wing of a 21st Century US aircraft carrier typically consists of:

  1. F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets: Multirole fighters capable of air superiority and strike missions.
  2. EA-18G Growlers: Electronic warfare aircraft for jamming enemy radar and communications.
  3. E-2D Hawkeyes: Airborne early warning and control aircraft.
  4. MH-60R/S Seahawk helicopters: For anti-submarine warfare, search and rescue, and utility missions.
  5. F-35C Lightning II: The Navy’s newest stealth multirole fighter, gradually being integrated into carrier air wings.

 

E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft conduct a test flight near St. Augustine, FL, 2009. US Navy photo. Public Domain.

 

Surrounding the carrier are several Aegis-equipped guided missile cruisers and destroyers. These ships form a protective screen around the carrier and provide a wide range of capabilities:

  1. Ticonderoga class cruisers: Usually one or two per battle group, these ships specialize in air defense but are also capable of land attack and anti-ship warfare.
  2. Arleigh Burke class destroyers: Typically three to four per group, these versatile warships can perform anti-air, anti-surface, and anti-submarine warfare missions.

 

Both classes of ships are equipped with the Aegis combat system, which integrates powerful radars with various close-in and long-range weapon systems, allowing for sophisticated air and missile defense capabilities.

Although not always visible, one or two nuclear-powered attack submarines often operate in conjunction with a carrier battle group. These could be Los Angeles-, Virginia-, or Seawolf-class nuclear-powered submarines. Their primary roles include:

  1. Gathering intelligence
  2. Providing an unseen protective screen against enemy submarines
  3. Potential land-attack capabilities with Tomahawk cruise missiles

 

A carrier battle group also includes several support ships crucial for sustained operations:

  1. Supply ships: Usually one or two fast combat support ships (T-AOE) or a combination of fleet oilers (T-AO) and dry cargo ships (T-AKE) to replenish fuel, ammunition, and supplies.
  2. Hospital ships: While not typically part of the regular battle group, these can be attached for humanitarian missions or in anticipation of major combat operations.

 

Royal Australian Navy ship HMAS Sirius (OR-266) and amphibious transport dock USS Juneau (LPD-10) conducts a replenishment at sea (RAS), 2007. US Navy photo. Public Domain.

 

An entire battle group, such as that outlined above, is under the command of a Rear Admiral (lower half), who typically serves as the Commander, Carrier Strike Group (CCSG). The CCSG and their staff coordinate the activities of all ships and aircraft in the group, ensuring they work together as a cohesive fighting unit.

A fully equipped US carrier battle group is ideally positioned to:

  1. Project power far from American shores, with the ability to strike targets hundreds of miles inland.
  2. Establish air superiority over a wide area.
  3. Conduct sustained air operations, launching over 100 sorties per day.
  4. Provide a visible deterrent to potential adversaries.
  5. Respond rapidly to crises anywhere in the world.
  6. Conduct humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations.

 

The versatility of the carrier battle group allows it to transition quickly from peacetime presence to crisis response to full-scale war fighting. This is no more true than in its mission of supporting assault landings by combat units (MAGTF’s) of the United States Marine Corps, which remains a part of the Department of the Navy. The US Navy’s ten Amphibious Ready Groups are able to quickly insert up to 6,000 US Marines quickly, at multiple points along a hostile shoreline, ranging well inland, if necessary…as long as the naval squadron can get to the area quickly enough – hence, the acceleration of the USS Abraham Lincoln and her CVBG to the Levant.

As of 2024, the US Navy continues to adapt its carrier battle groups to meet evolving threats:

  1. Anti-ship ballistic missiles: The development of these weapons, particularly by China, has led to increased emphasis on integrated air and missile defense capabilities.
  2. Unmanned systems: The Navy continues to explore the integration of unmanned aerial, surface, and undersea vehicles to extend the reach and capabilities of the battle group.
  3. Cyber warfare: Increased focus on protecting the battle group’s networks and exploiting adversary vulnerabilities in the digital domain.
  4. Distributed lethality: Spreading offensive capabilities across more platforms in the battle group to complicate enemy targeting.

 

Conclusion

The Navy is continuously evolving the concept of the carrier battle group. Some areas of focus include:

  1. The integration of directed energy weapons for close-in defense.
  2. Development of long-range anti-ship missiles to counter peer competitors.
  3. Exploration of smaller, more numerous carriers to distribute capabilities.
  4. Enhanced networking capabilities to better integrate with joint and allied forces.

 

The US carrier battle group remains a cornerstone of American military power projection, and will continue to do so well into the 21st Century, and likely beyond. Its ability to bring a flexible, sustained, and potent military presence to any region of the world makes it a unique and invaluable strategic asset. As geopolitical tensions and technological advancements continue to shape the global security landscape, and as unrest continues to disrupt the trade vital to the modern world, the carrier battle group will continue to evolve, maintaining its role as a key instrument of US national security policy, as well as protecting the civilized world at large.

 

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

  1. Estate of Wayne P Hughes Jr. USN (Ret.) & Robert P. Girrier (2018), Fleet Tactics and Naval Operations, 3rd Ed
  2. Patrick Degan (2003), Flattop Fighting in World War II
  3. Paul S. Dull (2007), A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1941-1945
  4. Thomas Ricks (2012), The Generals
  5. James F. Dunnigan (2003), How To Make War, 4th Edition
  6. James F. Dunnigan (1991), Shooting Blanks

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran: Fiddling In The Fire

Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran: Fiddling In The Fire

Michael Cessna August 9, 2024 0

 

 

 

The period from 2020 onward has seen a significant escalation in tensions between Israel and its regional adversaries, primarily Iran and its proxy forces, Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as the more distant Houthi’s of Yemen. This complex web of conflicts and alliances has continued to shape the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, and has significantly escalated tensions, to the point of a realistic chance for a much-expanded war.

The long-standing animosity between Israel and Islamic revolutionary Iran began to intensify in the early 2020’s. Iran’s nuclear program remained a central point of contention, with Israel consistently opposing any deal that would allow Iran to continue its nuclear development; this attempt at preventing nuclear proliferation, however integral to Israel’s security as it may be, is also highly unrealistic; the assassination of top Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in November 2020, widely attributed to Israel, marked a significant escalation, as this differed from the Israeli Mossad’s previous assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in Dubai, as the killing of Fakhrizadeh happened within Iran itself.

In this context, Israel is now accused of the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’ political head, who was killed in his hotel room on July 31st, in an apparent drone attack. This, too, occurred in Iran, but in the capital of Tehran itself. While Israel is unarguably at war, following the Hamas offensive of Oct. 7, 2023, an assassination such as this – known as a “decapitation strike” in military parlance – happening in a technically-neutral country (even given the events of April of 2024), is doing Israel no favors internationally.

 

 

The Biden administration has proven itself ineffectual with its diplomatic efforts, demonstrating both weakness and incoherence, to the point of encouraging the ambition of the Iranian ruling mullahs.

The election of hardliner Ebrahim Raisi (who was killed on May 19th, 2024 in a helicopter crash while returning from neighboring Azerbaijian) as Iran’s president in 2021 further complicated diplomatic efforts. Raisi’s administration took a more confrontational stance towards both Israel and the West, leading to increased concerns about regional stability.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah – the Iran-backed militant group that has controlled Lebanon’s southeastern Bekaa Valley since the mid-1980’s, remained a significant threat to Israel’s northern border. In 2020 and 2021, there were several minor skirmishes along the Israel-Lebanon border, though both sides managed to avoid a full-scale conflict.

Israel continued to conduct airstrikes in Syria, targeting what it claimed were Iranian weapons shipments to Hezbollah. These operations aimed to prevent the group from obtaining advanced missile systems that could threaten Israeli cities.

In 2022, tensions further escalated when Israel and Lebanon engaged in U.S.-mediated negotiations over their maritime border, which involved disputed gas fields. Hezbollah threatened to attack Israeli gas installations if an agreement wasn’t reached, leading to a tense standoff that was eventually resolved through diplomacy. Now, following a rocket attack on the Israeli Druze community of Majdal Shams on 27 July that killed a number of Druze children, Israel is at the point of invading southern Lebanon to try and attrit Hezbollah’s ability to strike into Israel, much as it attempted in 2006. In this, the ineffectual Lebanese government can offer no resistance against an invasion, or even an “incursion”, and calling on Muslim countries for aid could easily trigger a new civil war in the unstable and bankrupt nation.

In the south, the situation in Gaza remained volatile, with periodic flare-ups of violence between Israel and Hamas, which has retained power in Gaza since 2006, when Hamas won Gaza’s first election – then made sure that no other elections occurred to challenge its grip on power. In May 2021, a significant escalation occurred when Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza fired thousands of rockets at Israel. Israel responded with extensive airstrikes on Gaza, resulting in a 11-day conflict that caused substantial casualties and damage. The aftermath of this short conflict saw increased international pressure for a long-term solution to the Gaza situation. However, progress remained elusive, with Hamas maintaining its control over Gaza and continuing to clash with Israeli forces, which would escalate dramatically on October 7th of 2023.

In 2022 and 2023, there were several smaller-scale exchanges of fire between Gaza militants and Israel. These incidents, while not escalating to the level of the 2021 conflict, served to maintain a state of tension and uncertainty in the region.

The ongoing civil war in Syria that began in 2011, and the unstable situation in Lebanon have provided fertile ground for proxy conflicts involving Israel, Iran, and their respective allies. Israel continued its policy of preventing Iranian entrenchment in Syria through targeted airstrikes, while Iran sought to maintain and expand its influence in the region.

The Abraham Accords, negotiated by US President Donald Trump and signed in 2020, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, altered the regional dynamics. This realignment put additional pressure on Iran and its allies, as Israel’s diplomatic and strategic position in the Middle East was greatly strengthened.

The conflict between these actors is increasingly playing out in the cyber domain. Both Israel and Iran have engaged in sophisticated cyber attacks against each other’s infrastructure, including attempts to disrupt nuclear facilities, water supplies, and electrical grids. For its own part, rumors persist that Israel was at least partly behind the deployment of the highly destructive STUXNET virus in 2010.

 

 

Covert operations, including assassinations and sabotage, have become more frequent – as with the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh noted above – as the conflict has evolved. These actions, carried out with only the thinnest veneer of “plausible deniability“, have served to maintain tension without triggering open warfare; that situation, however, may be coming to an end.

The United States remains heavily involved in the region – building on its rocky, 20 years “War on Terror” – by supporting Israel while also attempting to prevent a widening conflict. The Biden administration’s efforts to re-engage with Iran on the nuclear issue met with – being charitable – mixed success, complicated by regional tensions and domestic politics in both the U.S. and Iran, as well as its own failings in the disastrous end to United States adventurism in Afghanistan. The Biden-Harris administration has consistently demonstrated that it cannot make any sort of definitive decision, one way or another, on the diplomatic front.

Russia and China also play significant roles in the Levantine conflict, with Russia maintaining its presence in Syria and with China increasing its economic and diplomatic engagement with Iran. In both cases, Moscow and Beijing figuratively smell blood in the water, as they sense the weakness in NATO [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO] as a whole, but also in the United States in particular, as the Biden-Harris team continues to flounder internationally.

 

 

The ongoing conflicts and tensions have had severe humanitarian consequences, particularly in Gaza and parts of Lebanon. International organizations repeatedly called for increased access to provide aid and for all parties to respect international humanitarian law. The ongoing war in Gaza following the October 7 massacre, as well as the Houthi strikes against Red Sea shipping, has only made the situation far worse, with Israel now resolved to end the Gaza question once and for all, leading to worsening violence and rhetoric directed against them in the West, with criticism coming from all sides, driving the Israeli mindset further into an “Us Alone Against The World” outlook.

As of early 2024, the situation remained tense and unpredictable. While full-scale war has been avoided so far, the risk of escalation into a much wider war – a war with the potential to draw in larger powers is increasingly possible. The interplay between Israel, Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas continues to be a major driving factor in regional instability, with implications extending far beyond the Middle East. The international community is attempting to remain engaged, seeking ways to reduce tensions and prevent a larger conflict, but face significant challenges due to systemic internal problems facing Western nations, crushing demographic issues with Communist China, and Russia’s seemingly interminable war in Ukraine.

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
The Militarization of the Poles: Future Warfare On The Frozen Frontier

The Militarization of the Poles: Future Warfare On The Frozen Frontier

Michael Cessna August 2, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

Amid the ongoing chaos of in the world of 2024, other areas of military research and development continue apace. Despite nearly thirty years of warfare in the arid climates of the Middle east, as climate change reshapes the Arctic and Antarctic landscapes, these once-forbidding regions are being strenuously studied as new arenas for potential conflict. Polar warfare, long considered a niche aspect of military strategy, is now gaining prominence as nations vie for resources and strategic advantages in these harsh environments.

Arctic region (orthographic projection) with national borders and land highlighted. 2023. Credit: Heraldry, Isochrone. CCA/3.0.

The Arctic, in particular, has become a focal point of international interest. With an estimated 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil reserves and 30% of its undiscovered natural gas, the region is attracting attention from both Arctic and non-Arctic nations. As ice coverage over the poles recedes, new shipping routes are opening up, promising shorter transit times between Europe and Asia. These developments have spurred a renewed focus on developing and improving military capabilities suited to polar conditions.

The Antarctic Continent, 1928 map. Credit: New York Times. Public Domain.

The challenges of warfare in polar regions are numerous and unique. Extreme cold, unpredictable weather, and long periods of darkness or constant daylight create a hostile environment for both personnel and equipment. Standard military gear often fails in these conditions, necessitating specialized cold-weather equipment and extensive training for troops.

One of the primary concerns in polar warfare is cold-weather logistics. The vast, often empty expanses of the Arctic and Antarctic make supply lines long and vulnerable. Fuel consumption increases dramatically in cold weather, and equipment requires constant maintenance to prevent freezing and malfunction. These factors make theater sustainment a critical aspect of polar military operations.

Naval operations in polar regions present their own set of challenges. Ice-covered waters require specially designed ships with reinforced hulls. Icebreaker ships become crucial assets, not just for clearing paths but also for projecting power and maintaining presence in these regions. Submarines, long seen as the ideal platform for under-ice operations, are gaining renewed importance in polar strategy.

The USCG Healy (WAGB-20) breaks ice around the Russian-flagged tanker Renda 250 miles south of Nome, Alaska, Jan. 6, 2012. DoD photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Sara Francis, U.S. Coast Guard. Public Domain.

Air power in polar regions is complicated by the lack of established airfields and the effects of cold on aircraft systems. However, long-range patrol aircraft and drones are becoming increasingly important for surveillance and maintaining situational awareness over vast Arctic expanses. While the US Navy has only recently resumed carrier operations north of the Actic Circle after a near-thirty year absence, there has a been a steady, if quiet, push to improve operational capabilities for ship-based aviation going on for the last decade or so.

Ground operations in polar environments also require specialized training and equipment. Troops require specialized – and thus, very expensive – training in cold-weather survival techniques and must be able to operate vehicles and weapons in the extreme environments they will encounter. White-out conditions, crevasses, and unstable ice make movement treacherous, requiring expert navigation skills and fast reactions. These aspects of arctic warfare were brought into sharp focus during the Falklands/Malvinas War of 1982, when an attempt to insert a Special Air Service (SAS) team onto Fortuna Glacier on the island of South Georgia, went disastrously wrong, although fortunately without fatalities.

The role of technology in polar warfare cannot be overstated. Satellite communications, crucial for modern military operations, can be unreliable at extreme latitudes. GPS systems also face challenges, necessitating the development of alternative navigation methods. Advanced sensors capable of operating in harsh conditions are becoming increasingly important for detection and targeting in the polar environment.

Several nations are actively developing their polar warfare capabilities. Russia, with the world’s longest Arctic coastline, has been particularly active in militarizing its northern regions. The country has reopened Soviet-era Arctic bases and is developing new icebreakers, including nuclear-powered vessels, as well as hypersonic missiles adapted to the Arctic environment. The United States, Canada, and Nordic countries are also enhancing their Arctic capabilities, conducting regular exercises in the region.

In the Antarctic, while the Antarctic Treaty System prohibits military activity, nations maintain a presence through scientific research stations. However, the potential for future conflict cannot be ignored, particularly as the treaty comes up for potential revision in 2048. The Islamic Republic of Iran, however, is attempting to establish its own presence on the continent, claiming both “property rights” on the continent, as well as stating that the terms of the 1959 treaty system do not apply to them, as they were never signatories to that treaty. It remains to be seen what, if anything, may come of this apparent (hopefully) chest-thumping.

Remaining in the forefront of the Treaty System’s signatories is “Operation Highjump“, now remembered in popular media mostly for various conspiracy theories. In fact, the United States sent a massive force, Task Force 68, totaling some seventy ships, including the aircraft carrier USS Philippine Sea (CV-47), acting as the flagship. Whatever the actual reasons for the expedition, the ability of the United States to operate in the extremes of the Antarctic was one of the factors that ultimately lead to the establishment of the Treaty System a decade later.

A U.S. Navy personnel use a bulldozer to clear a path to facilitate transport of supplies from ships during Operation Highjump in Antarctica. Note the supply ships USS Yancey (AKA-93), right, and USS Merrick (AKA-97) in the background. US Navy photo, c.1947. Public Domain.

The geopolitical implications of increased military activity in polar regions are significant. There are concerns that the Arctic could become a new theater of great power competition, potentially destabilizing the current international order. The Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum for Arctic nations, has so far managed to maintain cooperation on issues like search and rescue and environmental protection. However, military matters are explicitly excluded from its mandate.

Environmental concerns add another layer of complexity to polar warfare. The fragile ecosystems of the Arctic and Antarctic are particularly vulnerable to pollution and disturbance. Military activities, from exercises to potential conflicts, could have severe and long-lasting impacts on these environments.

As nations develop their polar warfare capabilities, there is a growing need for international dialogue and agreements to prevent militarization from spiraling into conflict. Transparency in military activities, joint exercises focused on common challenges like search and rescue, and agreements on resource exploitation could help maintain stability in these regions. These needs for dialog and agreement, however, will only be effective if strengthened by realistic enforcement protocols, something that has been studiously avoided since 1959.

The future of polar warfare will certainly be shaped by technological advancements: autonomous systems capable of operating in extreme conditions to reduce the risks to human personnel; advanced materials science to provide better cold-weather gear and more resilient equipment; improved satellite and communication technologies could enhance command and control capabilities in these remote regions. These form only the tip of research that can be applied to the issue at hand.

Climate change – from whatever source – will continue to play a crucial role in shaping the polar battlespace. As ice coverage decreases, new areas will become accessible for military operations. However, this also means that the environment will be in constant flux, requiring adaptable strategies and equipment.

As the polar regions become more accessible and strategically important, military planners worldwide are grappling with the unique challenges of potential conflicts in these extreme environments. The combination of harsh conditions, valuable resources, and geopolitical tensions makes the Arctic and Antarctic potential flash-points for future conflicts. As technology advances and climate change reshapes these landscapes, the nature of polar warfare will continue to evolve, presenting both challenges and opportunities for nations with interests in these regions.

War happens everywhere. You either prepare for war in any environment, or you cede that environment to whoever gets there first.

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

  1. Kathleen H. Hicks (2016), Undersea Warfare in Northern Europe
  2. Klaus Dodds and Mark Nuttall (2015), The Scramble for the Poles: The Geopolitics of the Arctic and Antarctic
  3. James Kraska, Editor (2013), Arctic Security in an Age of Climate Change
  4. Shelagh D. Grant (2010), Polar Imperative: A History of Arctic Sovereignty in North America
  5. Brian Garfield (1995), Thousand-Mile War: World War II in Alaska and the Aleutians

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To

 

 

BREAKING: US Citizens Advised To Leave Lebanon

BREAKING: US Citizens Advised To Leave Lebanon

Michael Cessna July 30, 2024 0

 

 

 

BREAKING

Beirut, Lebanon — Rena Bitter, assistant secretary for consular affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, told Americans in Lebanon to “create a crisis plan of action and leave before the crisis begins” in a video on YouTube and X on Monday, July 29, out of fear of a possible Israeli incursion into the troubled Middle Eastern country, as the ongoing war in Gaza seems to be widening, spilling further outside the fighting areas..

On Saturday, July 29, the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah staged a rocket attack on the Druze village of Majdal Shams, located in the disputed Golan Heights region, just south of the Lebanese border, and next to the Syrian border, killing some 12 children on a soccer field, and wounding several more. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed “severe retaliation” in response to the attack.

Lebanon’s government, long unstable and virtually bankrupt, has no effective means of controlling Hezbollah’s pseudo-state, which has dominated the southeastern Bekaa Valley region of the country since 1982. The government in Beirut has pleaded for calm, but few people on any side are listening to them.

As of Tuesday, July 30, the airlines Lufthansa, Swiss International Air Lines, Air France, and Turkish Airlines have suspended flights to Beirut, citing the escalating danger of conflict.

This is developing story, and The Freedomist will maintain a watch on this as it develops.

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
World In Flames – The Guns of May Edition

World In Flames – The Guns of May Edition

Michael Cessna May 24, 2024 1

 

 

 

 

It’s been a busy week. That is not a good thing.

 

 

Opening Round 1 – Iran

 

The President of Iran, Ebrahim Raisi, as well as Iran’s Foreign Minister, Hossein Amirabdollahian,  was killed in a very “sketchy” sounding helicopter crash in the far northwest of the country, in mountainous terrain near Iran’s border with Azerbaijan, in bad weather on May 19th.

The death of Raisi, a dedicated revolutionary hard-line cleric – responsible for the 1988 massacre of Iranian political prisoners, resulting in his nickname of “The Butcher of Tehran” – potentially opens the way for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to gain dominant power within the country, as they wield significant influence in choosing Raisi’s successor. The reason for this opening is that under the Iranian Constitution, a committee whose appointments are largely approved by the IRGC is responsible for confirming the eligibility of candidates for the Presidency, but is also responsible for selecting the country’s next “Supreme Leader” – the position originally taken by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini in the late 1970’s – which is now a critical juncture, as the current Supreme Leader, Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei, is known to be in ill health, and could either die or retire at any time.

This is important, because the IRGC is now viewed as the main driver of the direct Iranian drone assault against Israel on April 13, in retaliation for Israel’s strike on the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria, on April 1st, which killed several senior IRGC officers.

Needless to say, the IRGC is also the driving force behind arming the Houthis in Yemen with advanced weapons, which that group has been using to both attack Israel, as well as sink, damage or pirate commercial shipping in the Red Sea, resulting in widespread disruption of the world’s vital shipping traffic, actions that directly impact you, the Reader.

 

 

Opening Round 2 – The DRC

 

Next up – Africa…but not the part of Africa you’re thinking.

Also on May 19th, there was an attempted coup d’état in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is neither “democratic” nor a “republic”. The coup was led by former DRC Army Captain Christian Malanga, who had been imprisoned for his opposition to the heavily disputed 2011 national elections; after his release, Malanga fled to the United States, and formed the “New Zaire Government in Exile” in 2017; it is unclear what course that movement will take, now that its leader is dead.

Also arrested in the coup’s aftermath were Malanga’s son, Marcel, and his friend, Benjamin Reuben Zalman-Polun, described as a “business associate”.

While this would-be comic opera revolution – which it would have been, had no one been killed or seriously injured – bears a striking resemblance to the attempted coup/kidnap “operation” Venezuela in 2020. More importantly, this marks an escalation in the ongoing instability in the DRC. The reason that this is important?

The computers and electronic devices you rely on in your daily life depend on a variety of “rare earth minerals”, many of which are only (barely) “commercially recoverable” in the DRC’s eastern regions. These metals, along with diamonds (both for industrial use, as well as in jewelry) are the source of both the continent’s wealth, but also one of the major drivers of war throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, which is also one of the driving factors of the region’s many recent coups d’état.

As a result, Western “developed” nations are as bound to the internal economics and politics of the region as the locals are, and neither has any reasonable option to counter the problems that have plagued Africa for over one hundred and fifty years.

 

 

Opening Round Three – West Taiwan Goes Full Patagonia

 

Rounding off the week – as of Friday the 24th – Communist China (a.k.a., “West Taiwan”) has upped its ante in saber rattling against the actual legitimate government of the ancient country, by staging a massive series of “punishment drills” around the island. In doing so, the Communist regime in Beijing has revealed both its “intentional arrogance” in dealing with the United States, but has also revealed its desperation.

Chinese Communist Party strongman Xi Jingpin – a person who makes Vladimir Putin look positively saintly in comparison – is increasingly becoming desperate. His regime is deeply unpopular in general, but especially because of the communists state’s flagging economy, seemingly unsolvable demographic crisis, and the fact that the world is quietly laughing at their comic-opera military. This is a dangerous combination.

In 1982, Leopoldo Galtieri, then the leader of the military junta ruling Argentina, was in a very similar position as Xi is now, and for many of the same reasons. With his nation’s economy falling apart – because military officers are not usually economic geniuses – Galtieri was desperate for an event that could distract his increasingly angry populace, and hopefully swing popular opinion in his junta’s favor…and what better way to do that, than to start a war that should be popular at home?

Right?

The result was the Falkland’s War, a war well worthy of study for every person reading this article, in which the armed forces of Great Britain showed that the British Lion still had some real fight left in it, smashed and humiliated the Argentinean military on a scale equivalent to what the US-led coalition would do to the Iraqi armed forces of Saddam Hussein some eight years later.

Now? It appears increasingly possible that Xi may be channeling Galtieri’s ghost, as the “battle calculus” in his head may be leading him to a decision that attacking – or at least trying to force a showdown with the “recalcitrant” province – Taiwan might be a good way to “kill multiple birds” with one stone.

As Freedomist/MIA has pointed out before, this would be tantamount to slaying the world’s economic goose, taking the Communist state with it.

 

 

What Is Happening?

 

There are many reasons behind why these scenarios are playing out the way they are at this moment in time, but the core reason is the same in all cases: the crippling weakness, on open display, of the United States under the regime around Joe Biden.

Now, I know that we tend to harp on this subject a lot, but it is absolutely true: nations and peoples around the world do not have to like us, but it is vital to the survival of the United States as a nation for those states to respect, if not fear us…and for more than thirty years, with the single four-year interregnum of Donald Trump’s administration, the world’s view of the United States as a powerful, even dominant, leading force in the world has steadily eroded. The reasons for this erosion are many, of course, but can be summed up as an increasingly incompetent and unreliable – if not incoherent – series of poor policy decisions has left the international reputation, image and impression of the United States in the gutter, far moreso than at any point between 1946 and 1990.

Xi feels free to threaten Taiwan at will, because of the induced weakness of the United States armed forces, who are so critically undermanned, it is becoming difficult to effectively crew sufficient warships (the ones that work, anyway), where the US Army had to admit defeat and reduce its official strength by some 24,000 troops, because it was consistently failing to meet its recruiting targets. Likewise, in both the Middle East and Africa, state actors increasingly recognize the United States as a non-consequential factor.

That is something you should very much be worried about, come November.

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Why Democrats Don’t Understand How To Do Colonialism

Why Democrats Don’t Understand How To Do Colonialism

Michael Cessna May 17, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

The rot inside Washington, D.C. has turned truly gangrenous.

Leaving aside the immediately abysmal series of disastrous decisions that have invalidated the Biden “administrations” actions that began with the June 2021 cancellation of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, costing the United States some 59,000 jobs and over $9 billion over a largely-finished system that would have sent an estimated 830,000 barrels of oil every day from the Canadian shale oil fields, to their handling of the COVID-19 crisis in releasing untested drugs on a desperate and unsuspecting public, to their limp-wristed “warnings” to Vladimir Putin’s Russia over invading Ukraine, displaying such a level of inability and incompetence, that not only has it confirmed the critical weaknesses in Western military structures that many suspected, it has also given Russia – and thus, Communist China – critical experience in learning how to deal with “cutting edge” western military technology, to the extent that Russia is now able to tweak the nose of the West, by staging a static display of captured western equipment in Moscow.

Now, as if to cap off what can only be described as a deliberate attempt to destroy the fundamental underpinnings of United States policy, worldwide, Biden’s “administration” continues to spew out pie-in-the-sky, “It’s Sunny In Philadelphia”© pronouncements about how fantastic it’s foreign policy initiatives are working, especially in Africa.

Really? Africa would disagree.

Doubling down on “Vice President” Kamala Harris’ “stunning and brave” – and utterly tone-deaf – finger wagging at as many African states as she could over a continent-wide rejection of pro-LGBTQ+ policies, the Biden “Teletubby” group in the District of Columbia struck Uganda from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which allows African countries to export selected products to the USA duty-free.

In doing so, the Biden group attempted to use open and naked “strong-arm” tactics to impose what amounts to colonial rule over African states that “behave all naughty-like”, believing that those states are too stupid, backward and crippled to do anything about it, and would thus be forced to “kowtow” to their demands.

Here’s the problem.

 

 

If you want to impose colonialist rule on a place, you have to be willing and able to impose it by military force. The reason for this simple dictum is that there are plenty of other countries in the world who have lots of money to invest in the countries you are trying to impose your will on…and the Biden group has failed so miserably at such a basic function of ‘realpolitik’, that even their nominal supporters are now referring to the elder abuse victim at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. as “Genocide Joe”.

Case in point: Niger.

On July 26, 2023, Nigerien General of the Presidential Guard Abdourahamane Tchiani deposed the government of his chief executive, President Mohamed Bazoum, in a coup d’état. The reasons behind the coup are lost in the nitpicking common to most coups. The point here, however, is the foreign response.

France, the former colonial power that ruled what would become Niger from 1900 to 1958, was immediately humiliated, as it openly threatened a direct military invasion of the country – the junta installed by the coup’s response?

Go for it.

France was exposed as a paper tiger, because despite getting Niger’s neighbors to wage an economic war against civilians – a war crime, by definition – it could not muster any meaningful support for military action, even getting Algeria – which is critical of the coup in Niger – to ban French military flights over its territory, at least for a time.

As a result, French influence on the continent is in full retreat.

Apparently seeking to emulate the French, the United States also charged at the Nigerien junta like a blind picador on a three-legged horse with heart trouble. Sending in what apparently passes for their “best and brightest”, in the person of Molly Phee, the State Department’s top official for African affairs, Foggy Bottom’s Finest “laid down the law according to Biden”, managing to threaten and insult the junta’s appointed Prime Minister, Ali Mahaman Lamine Zeine, a formally-trained economist, by dictating from on high that Niger was to refrain from engaging with Iran and Russia in ways objectionable to Washington if Niger wanted to continue its security relationship with the United States. Zeine also said Phee had further threatened sanctions if Niger pursued a deal to sell uranium to Iran.

Niger’s response to the United States? Get out, and take your useless drone base with you.

And other states in Africa’s “Coup Belt” are watching closely.

 

African countries that have had coups between 2020 and 2023. By WikiMedia User Discombobulates. CCA/4.0

 

The few sane people left in “Sodom on the Potomac” are desperately trying to patch the holes in the sinking diplomatic boat that the Biden group keeps shooting holes in with Grandpa Joe’s double-barreled shotgun, but it is unclear if they can hold the line until the 2024 election, and much-hoped for return of Donald Trump to the White House.

Meanwhile, as should be expected, Russia is the proverbial “Johnny on the Spot”, moving in to replace the United States and France with its own “Africa Corps” (really, the jokes, while bitter, write themselves), to the extent of occupying parts of the drone base known as “Niger Air Base 201” near the Nigerien city of Agadez, a base which was first occupied by the US in 2016, and which began operating in 2019. Once US troops are fully out of the base, the Russians will have unfettered access to one of the most strategically vital military installations on the African continent…courtesy, of course, of a c.$100 million “investment” by US taxpayers (that would be you, the Reader)…

Ultimately, what does all this mean, in the “grand scheme of things”?

Essentially, the Democrat Party knows that it is about to go down in an epic, flaming defeat in November of 2024, a defeat that they cannot undo with any amount of “trumped up” (pun intended) court cases, nor ballot-stuffing.

The only logical conclusion to be reached in observing the insanity of the Biden group’s operations since 2021, is that they intend to burn down as many bridges as the possibly can before their defeat, which would force a second Trump Presidency to spend all of its time trying to get the country back to at least the same level it was at in 2017.

Think about that carefully in six months.

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
WHO Agreement Appears to Put Future Pandemic Governance in Hands of World Body

WHO Agreement Appears to Put Future Pandemic Governance in Hands of World Body

Paul Collier May 13, 2024 0

A WHO agreement is in the works that would legally (even if unconstitutionally) bind the United States to defer to the WHO in future pandemics, making the WHO the de factor “emergency” ruler of our nation should another plandemic be executed.

One line from the agreement, which does not need ratified by congress to become legally binding (it only needs a Presidential signature), make it clear who is in charge in this country should another “emergency” strike: Recognizing that the World Health Organization is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

Go to Article
Excerpt from www.blacklistednews.com

An AGREEMENT only needs the President’s signature, and America is committed to go along with the document.

I’ve been communicating with a media person at the World Health Organization (WHO). It took several exchanges to clarify what’s going on here.

What we’ve been told is the WHO Pandemic Treaty is actually labeled an Agreement.

This is dire.

When Biden signs it, American sovereignty is suddenly placed under the WHO.

The WHO can declare a global health emergency whenever they want to, for any reason, and all the rules and restrictions they lay down can be invoked. Here in America.

 

You may have missed

Reading The School From Its Graduates

Reading The School From Its Graduates

Michael Cessna July 24, 2026 0
The Lion Roars To Life

The Lion Roars To Life

Michael Cessna July 17, 2026 0
God’s Battalions Revisited and the Potential “Church Militant”

God’s Battalions Revisited and the Potential “Church Militant”

Michael Cessna July 10, 2026 0
Why Gen-X Doesn’t Trust You

Why Gen-X Doesn’t Trust You

Michael Cessna July 3, 2026 0
Main

Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!

Are you enjoying our content? Help support our mission to reach every American with a message of freedom through virtue, liberty, and independence! Support our team of dedicated freedom builders for as little as $4.95/month! Back the Freedomist now! Click here