Tag Archives: foreign policy

Some Needed Firings

Posted on by
Reply

They haven’t happened, yet, but they need to.

The US Air Force this month launched an effort to hire a handful of senior-level diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) managers and is hoping to place these officials in posts across the country, from Washington, DC, to Alaska.

And

The Air Force is looking for a “supervisory diversity equity inclusion and accessibility officer for Air Force headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, which will pay anywhere from $155,700 to $183,500 per year.” The person who fills this position will serve as a “first-level supervisor” who will direct employees assigned to the Air Force’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion.

And

The goal of the managerial slot is to ensure that “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility education and training….

This is nothing but the combat dumbing down of our Air Force: USAF management is putting the divisiveness and bigotry of DEI ahead of training for actual combat against our nation’s enemies.

The staff officers who thought this was a good idea and wasted government time and money developing it and selling to up the chain need to be reassigned to operational billets, not staff billets, in the Combatant Commands, in theater and not safely home in the US. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendell needs to be fired, and Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Brown needs to be dismissed, for allowing this destructive move to occur.

The firings must extend to the Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, and JCS Chairman General Mark Milley, also; these wonders are responsible for fostering this destructive culture throughout our defense establishment.

“Dumb Rule”

Posted on by
1

Now the Army management corps has struck again, this time doing away with a long- (and I mean long) standing tradition of letting tank crews name their tanks. Unless they perform on the gunnery range (under the range’s necessarily artificial—peacetime safety constraints, and all that—conditions) well enough to suit those in the management corps.

One former Army officer said [brackets in the original],

Sounds like a dumb rule that has [command sergeant major] written all over it[.]

Indeed. The alleged motivation for the change is to allow only those crews performing at the top on the gunnery range to name their tanks as motivation for being allowed to name their tanks. Never mind that there’s already a natural competition among tank crews, and not only on the gunnery range. Never mind that another—better—way to improve tank gunnery is to increase maintenance and training rates, including the frequency of live fire exercises. (‘Course that would take more money than the real dollar cut in defense spending President Joe Biden (D) wants.)

No, this is a rule for the sake of having a rule. As an ex-Air Force officer, the change sounds to me like a new kid on the block, whether CSM or Commanding General, was desperate to find material for his upcoming Performance or Efficiency Report.

New Kid Material is widespread and long-standing enough already, but this is the sort of nonsense that woke-ism in the SecDef’s and JCS’ offices is producing.

Bye Bye

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China’s Foreign Minister, Qin Gang, seems to be dismayed with us. The Wall Street Journal‘s headline says it:

China’s Foreign Minister Says Ties With US Risk Going Off the Rails

According to the WSJ, Qin said that

the Biden administration was insincere in saying it wanted to preserve relations and warned the US against engaging in what he called new McCarthyism.

And his boss, PRC President Xi Jinping

criticized what he termed a US policy of “all-round containment, encirclement and suppression” of [the PRC].

Never mind that the PRC badly wants not just encirclement and containment, but a rollback from its seizure and occupation of the South China Sea and other nations’ islands therein, along with a pushback from its overt threats against the Republic of China.

Not to be outdone by his boss, Qin went further:

If the United States does not hit the brakes but continues to speed down the wrong path, no amount of guardrails can prevent derailing, and there will surely be conflict and confrontation.

It’s long past time to disconnect economic and technological ties with the PRC altogether, to rapidly plus up the RoC’s ability to defend itself, and to increase our defense assistance to the other nations rimming the South China Sea.

Streamlining

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the People’s Republic of China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law that requires all PRC-domiciled businesses, and by extension, the companies which those businesses control that are domiciled in non-PRC nations, to provide, even to actively seek out, any and all information that the PRC’s intelligence community wants those businesses to produce.

Now the PRC is moving to streamline that process.

China is set to create a new government agency to centralize the management of the country’s vast stores of data, as Beijing seeks to address data-security practices by businesses and streamline its regulatory structure.
The new national data bureau is set to become the top Chinese regulator on various data-related issues, people familiar with the matter said, in a shift from the current structure in which multiple ministries share oversight.

And this:

If established, the agency…[would] set and enforce data-collection and sharing rules for businesses, or vet the data that domestic companies plan to share with foreign business partners to check for potential national-security breaches….

Carefully omitted is that tie-back to the intelligence collection law. In addition to streamlining control of domestic data collection and dissemination, this centralized agency would streamline the intelligence community’s use of PRC businesses for espionage.

Rules for Investing in the People’s Republic of China

Posted on by
Reply

The Biden administration is starting to pay lip service to setting rules for American businesses’ investing in the People’s Republic of China. It’s

preparing a new program that could prohibit US investment in certain sectors in China, a new step to guard US technology advantages during a growing competition between the world’s two largest economies.

And, of course, the effort will need new taxpayer money.

Treasury and Commerce departments said they expected to finalize their policy on the issue in the near future. Both agencies said they expected to seek additional resources for the investment program in the White House budget, which will be released next week.

Naturally, the administration isn’t prepared to specify which sectors would be included, or how these departments propose to enforce their rules. Just give them money.

Since the Federal government is in the business of regulating American business’ investing in enemy nations, I have my own proposal for a rule for investing in the PRC: No. No investments in the PRC, and those businesses with investments there have two years in which to wind down those investments and withdraw from the PRC.

That won’t cost nearly as much. Just require public companies to report their investments in their quarterly SEC filings, and private companies to report same in their Federal tax filings—which would easily fall within the requirement, with only the smallest adjustment, to report on accounts held in foreign nations. Require those particular reporting subjects to be available to the public via FOIA requests. These requirements would come close to paying for themselves in the early years by assessing fines equal to the size of the investments not reported or inaccurately reported.

I have an alternative rule proposal: for every dollar an American business wishes to invest in the PRC, it must invest three dollars in the Republic of China. If the RoC can’t absorb all of the investment, then the business cannot invest at all in the PRC. This alternative would carry the same reporting requirements and penalties as my first proposal.

A final alternative: spread those three dollars among any number, greater than one, of the nations rimming the South China Sea in addition to the RoC. Again, with the same reporting requirements and penalties.