Archive by Author

Manchin: 'Makes sense' to raise age for buying semi-automatic rifles

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said in an interview Monday that it “makes sense” to raise the age from 18 to 21 for buying semi-automatic rifles.

Speaking to CNN’s Manu Raju, Manchin said he supports raising the purchase age for such weapons following the elementary school massacre in Uvalde, Texas, carried out by an 18-year-old suspect who legally purchased two rifles.

“We know we can do something that would have prevented this. Raising the age, making sure that the age at least gives us a chance to work with that person, see and evaluate if they have a little maturity to them,” Manchin said Monday.

Manchin added he’s “open to doing something that makes sense” regarding age-based restrictions, adding he believes raising the minimum age to purchase semi-automatic weapons could potentially curb gun violence.

The moderate West Virginia senator also told CNN that while he “likes to shoot” he has never felt the need to own an AR-15 rifle.

“I never thought I had a need for that type of hyper-high-capacity automatic weapon. I like to shoot, I like to go out and hunt. I like to go out sport shooting. I do all that. But I’ve never felt I needed something of that magnitude,” he said. 

A bipartisan group of senators has been discussing a range of measures recently, including expanded background checks, following the shooting in Uvalde and other mass shootings.

The House is scheduled to vote on a bill that would nationalize so-called red flag laws, which are aimed at keeping firearms away from those who are a threat to themselves or others. However, there is skepticism that the legislation can get through the Senate.

Manchin said that red flag laws “do work as long as there is due process.”

Polls in the aftermath of the Uvalde shooting show broad public support for a ban on assault-style weapons, though such measures have faced overwhelming GOP opposition on Capitol Hill.

Source: TEST FEED1

Milo Yiannopoulos is an intern for Marjorie Taylor Greene

Right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos is working as an unpaid intern in the congressional office of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).

Yiannopoulos, 37, announced the job on his Telegram account Monday with a photo of his official intern congressional badge.

“I’ve finally been persuaded out of retirement. But my skills are a bit rusty, so the best role I could land was an unpaid internship with a friend. Pray for me!” Yiannopoulos said. 

“Mummy always said I’d end up in government!” the British commentator added.

Greene’s office confirmed to The Hill that Yiannopoulos is indeed their intern.

Yiannopoulos, who formerly worked at Breitbart, rose to prominence in the mid-2010s for his incendiary stances on feminism, Islam and other hot-button issues but fell out of public conversation after intense backlash.

He was disinvited from the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2017 after a video circulated in which Yiannopoulos appeared to defend pedophilia. He was banned from Twitter in 2016 and from Facebook in 2019. Australia banned Yiannopoulos from entering the country in 2019 following comments he made about the Christchurch mass shooting at a New Zealand mosque. Last year, he announced that he is “ex-gay.” 

Yiannopoulos has been spotted at some of Greene’s public appearances in recent months. 

In late April, he attended a press conference where Greene announced legislation to repeal and replace Section 230, the law that protects online platforms from liability. 

At that press conference, Greene said that she wanted to invite Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who is in the process of buying Twitter, to a roundtable of people “unjustly banned from Twitter.”

She said that she would want Yiannopoulos to be in that roundtable as well as Infowars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

In early May, Yiannopoulos was spotted backstage with Greene’s team at a GOP primary debate, the Washington Examiner reported.

Source: TEST FEED1

White House criticizes Louisiana abortion bill as 'radical'

The White House on Monday forcefully criticized a bill moving through the Louisiana state legislature that would ban most abortions and impose criminal penalties on doctors who perform the procedure if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.  

“The Louisiana legislature has taken the latest step in a growing attack against the fundamental freedoms of Americans,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.  

“The President is committed to protecting the constitutional rights of Americans afforded by Roe for nearly 50 years, and ensuring that women can make their own choices about their lives, bodies, and families,” she continued. “An overwhelming majority of the American people agree and reject these kinds of radical measures.” 

The Louisiana state Senate gave final approval to the bill on Sunday, sending to Gov. John Bel Edwards’ (D) desk. The Democratic governor, who opposes abortion, is expected to sign the bill into law.  

The bill strengthens the so-called trigger law already on the books in Louisiana that would go into effect if Roe, the landmark 1973 decision that said the right to have an abortion is constitutionally protected, is overturned.  

It would ban abortion in most cases without exceptions for rape or incest and would close the abortion clinics in the state. It does allow for abortions if a pregnancy threatens the mother’s life. Doctors who perform abortions would also be subject to criminal penalties.  

Louisiana is one of more than a dozen states in the U.S. that have trigger laws in place that will take effect if Roe is overturned, which is expected to happen sometime later this month. A leaked Supreme Court draft opinion suggested the conservative majority was poised to overturn the landmark ruling.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Palantir CEO travels to Ukraine for Zelensky meeting

Alex Carp, the CEO of American software company Palantir Technologies, traveled to Ukraine to meet with President Volodymyr Zelensky and other officials as Russia’s invasion of the country continues. 

Ukrainian Vice Prime Minister Mykhalio Fedorov shared the news of Carp’s visit with Zelensky, saying that both sides agreed on principles such as a Palantir office opening in Ukraine and digital support of the army. 

“Today me and President @ZelenskyyUa hosted Alex Karp CEO @PalantirTech. Alex is the first CEO, who came to Kyiv after the start of the full-scale war,” Fedorov wrote in a tweet on June 2. “Impressive support and faith in credibility of investments: agreed on office opening and digital support of Army.”

In a separate statement, the company confirmed the meeting between the two sides, noting that discussions were based on the invasion and how western security can play a pivotal role in the invasion as well. 

“We are honored to have met with @ZelenskyyUa, @FedorovMykhailo and other officials in Kyiv today to discuss the ongoing war in Ukraine, and the pivotal role of software to Western security,” the softward company Palantir said in a tweet.

Source: TEST FEED1

On the lawn: Biden attends Summit of the Americas

President Biden this week is bringing together leaders from North America, Central America and South America for the Summit of the Americas, held in Los Angeles.

Biden will travel to California on Wednesday for the summit, with leaders expected to discuss economic prosperity, climate change, the migration crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Also this week, Biden is taping an appearance on “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” and he’s traveling to Santa Fe on Saturday to receive a briefing on the New Mexico wildfires.

Watch the video below for more on Biden’s schedule this week.

Source: TEST FEED1

The Hill’s 12:30 Report — Chaotic June kicks off in DC

To view past editions of The Hill’s 12:30 Report, click here: https://bit.ly/30ARS1U 

To receive The Hill’s 12:30 Report in your inbox, please sign up here: https://bit.ly/3qmIoS9

–> A midday take on what’s happening in politics and how to have a sense of humor about it.* 

*Ha. Haha. Hahah. Sniff. Haha. Sniff. Ha–breaks down crying hysterically.

HAPPENING SOON 

Imagine if you could call votes of no confidence in our everyday lives?: 

Via The Associated Press’s Jill Lawless, “British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will face a no-confidence vote Monday that could oust him from power, as discontent with his rule finally threatens to topple a politician who has often seemed invincible despite many scandals.”  

Why: “The charismatic leader renowned for his ability to connect with voters has recently struggled to turn the page on revelations that he and his staff repeatedly held boozy parties that flouted the COVID-19 restrictions they imposed on others.”  

When is the vote happening?: Around 1–3 p.m. Eastern Time.  

The vote probably won’t succeed, but it’s still a big deal: “With no clear front-runner to succeed Johnson, most political observers think he will defeat the challenge and remain prime minister. But the fact that enough lawmakers are demanding a vote represents a watershed moment for him — and a narrow victory would leave him a hobbled leader whose days are likely numbered.” More on how Johnson got to this point 

Live updates from The New York Times 

IT’S MONDAY. I’m Cate Martel with a quick recap of the morning and what’s coming up. Did someone forward this newsletter to you? Sign up here.

🚨Happening on Thursday 

This may be triggering for some: 

The House committee that has been investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol is holding its first hearing this week to present its findings. 

When is the first hearing?: 8 p.m. EDT Thursday — yes, during prime time.

Who is testifying?: “The committee has not yet announced who will testify at the first hearing, but it has pledged to release never before seen footage from Jan. 6.”   

The committee’s biggest challenge: “The challenge is making a captivating case for a wide audience, particularly those who feel they already know what happened that day or who are ready to move on from the attack.”  

^ Why? Most people have an opinion already: “While 52 percent said it’s important to learn more about what happened, 48 percent said it was ‘time to move on,’ [according to a University of Massachusetts Amherst poll]. The divide is almost entirely partisan.” 

A strategy decision — from New York University School of Law’s Ryan Goodman: “I think the most important [thing] might be this is not perceived as a Trump versus Biden frame, which the first impeachment hearing pretty much was, but rather it imparts a Trump versus Pence framework. I think that there are many people that are concerned about the direct threat to Mike Pence that occurred on Jan. 6.”  

What else to expect, via The Hill’s Rebecca Beitsch 

➤ ‘HOW BIDEN PLANS TO HANDLE THE JAN. 6 HEARINGS’: 
Politico’s Laura Barrón-López writes, “The president will monitor but not react in real time. But the real audience is the public and … [Attorney General] Merrick Garland.” Why Biden is keeping his distance 

➤WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING IN CONGRESS THIS WEEK: 
“The House Rules Committee is scheduled to take up two pieces of gun legislation on Tuesday in response to the mass shootings in Buffalo, N.Y., and Uvalde, Texas.” 

Keep in mind: Any legislation that passes in the House will likely face major hurdles in the Senate. A bipartisan group of senators are currently negotiating potential gun legislation. Those negotiations are what to watch.  

More on what’s happening this week in Congress, via The Hill’s Mychael Schnell

🏛 The Supreme Court 

Expect a wild, wild month:

“As the most controversial Supreme Court term in recent memory winds down, the justices have yet to decide a whopping 33 cases.” 

When to expect the opinions on these major cases?: The court’s term usually ends by the end of June or early July. So, expect those major case opinions to be sprinkled in between now and then. 

Five major topics to expect: Abortion, guns, religion, immigration and climate change. Quick primers on each, via The Hill’sJohn Kruzel

🐒 News this morning 

Monkeypox may have reached DC: 

Via The Hill’s Joseph Choi, “The first possible monkeypox case in Washington, D.C., has been identified in a resident who recently traveled to Europe.”  

Keep in mind — the public health risk is low: “The infected resident is isolating, and close contacts are being identified and monitored. According to DC Health, no other cases have been identified as of Sunday, and the risk to the public still remains low.” What we know

🦠 Latest with COVID 

The third summer of the pandemic feels *much* different:

Via The Hill’s Nathaniel Weixel, “Even as infections rise to levels that are four to five times higher than the same point last year, the push for normalcy is winning out.” 

Because we can breathe a sigh of relief: “Experts say it’s not surprising; because of widespread vaccinations and treatments available, many people no longer see the virus as the threat it once was.” 

Why last year was different: “A year ago, there was widespread optimism as cases were so low that the virus seemed on the verge of being defeated. Yet mitigation measures, namely masks and vaccination requirements, remained in place.”  

Compared to now: “Now, almost all masks or vaccine requirements have been deliberately abandoned or overturned in court. The U.S. is averaging about 100,000 new cases every day, but movie studios are releasing summer blockbusters to packed theaters, families are celebrating weddings, and bars and restaurants are full.”  

How the U.S. has shifted to living with COVID-19 

➤ BY THE NUMBERS 

Cases to date: 84.5 million 

Death toll: 1,003,803 

Current hospitalizations: 19,873 

Shots administered: 589 million 

Fully vaccinated: 66.7 percent of Americans 

CDC data here.

🐥Notable tweets 

One of my favorite tweets: 

Comedian Rohita Kadambi posted a side-by-side comparison of Prince George and Princess Charlotte with David and Alexis Rose from “Schitt’s Creek.”

You can’t make this up:

Thomson Reuters Foundation’s Barry Malone posted a video, “So a hologram of the queen drove through London in a golden carriage today. And people waved at it. They waved at a hologram.” Watch — you can’t make this up 

NBC’s Ben Collins, who covers the dystopia beat, responded: “You’re making my job much harder, lady.”  

If you don’t believe it: Here is CNN’s explanation of the Queen’s hologram in the carriage.

⏱On tap 

The Senate is in. The House is out. President Biden is in Washington, D.C. Vice President Harris is in Los Angeles, Calif.

• 9:30 a.m.: Biden received his daily briefing. 
• 3 p.m.: The Senate returns. Today’s Senate agenda 
• 5:25 p.m.: Harris hosts a roundtable with faith leaders to discuss reproductive health care. 
• 5:30 p.m.: A Senate cloture vote on Alex Wagner’s nomination to be an assistant secretary of the Air Force. 
• 7 p.m.: Harris participates in a tour of the Summit of the Americas Civil Society Forum Initiatives Fair. 
• 1 p.m. Wednesday: The Hill is hosting a virtual event, “Closing the Gaps in Health Insurance.” Featured speakers: Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C) and Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.). Details and how to RSVP 

All times Eastern.

📺What to watch 

• 2 p.m.: State Department spokesperson Ned Price holds a press briefing. Livestream 
• 2:30 p.m.: White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre holds a press briefing. Livestream

🍎 In lighter news 

Today is National Applesauce Day.

And to further distract you from you work, here’s how one dog greets another.

Source: TEST FEED1

Buttigieg tests positive for COVID

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Monday said he had tested positive for COVID-19.

“I have tested positive for COVID-19 and am experiencing mild symptoms. I plan to work remotely while isolating according to CDC guidelines, and look forward to when I can safely return to the office and the road,” he tweeted.

The Transportation secretary has two infant children with his husband Chasten Buttigieg, with both children ineligible for COVID-19 vaccination due to their ages.

Buttigieg made a public appearance as recently as Sunday, when he spoke on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos.

Buttigieg quarantined for 14 days in February 2021 after a member of his security detail tested positive for the coronavirus.

His office said around the same time that he had been vaccinated, making his case a breakthrough infection.

The Department of Transportation told The Hill on Monday that Buttigieg had also received a booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and was following Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.

The department said he and President Biden have not been in close contact. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Fleet weak: Navy’s shipbuilding plan could lose a war in the Pacific

The Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan reveals a broader fight within the Defense Department. The issue is not simply strategic, but operational and force-structural — how to transform the Navy to ensure it can deter and defeat China in a large-scale Indo-Pacific war. As in World War II, a vital issue is the role of heavy amphibious assault ships in the Navy’s strategy. 

The Sea Services should grasp the role large amphibious warships will play in a Pacific war. The Navy’s shipbuilding plan should reflect this and include a significant amphibious element to ensure its ability to fight and win in the western Pacific. 

The Navy’s current plan is — to understate it — out of touch with strategic reality. 

At minimum, the battle force will shrink from its level of just under 300 ships to 280 ships by 2027. The Navy then presents three alternative force structures, each with a “transition” period that expands the fleet to slightly under 300 ships. Under the most ambitious plan, the Navy will then reach 355 ships by 2043; under the other two plans, it will cap out in the mid-320s. 

Numbers alone do not tell the whole story. The Navy’s current scheme, under all three of its plans, will include at least 31 amphibious warships by 2032. This nominally aligns with the requirements the Marine Corps has outlined — a force of at least 31 amphibious warships—versus the Navy’s desired 25 amphibious warships. 

Two facts must be grasped — the role of amphibious warships in Indo-Pacific strategy and operational planning, and the sort of warships the Sea Services require. 

Aircraft carriers and submarines receive the greatest attention in public discourse. This is reasonable: They are central pillars of U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy. The American supercarrier remains the world’s most flexible combat platform. A surface combatant like the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer — or the Arsenal Ship of the 1990s — may be packed with missiles and field air-defense systems. But a carrier’s air wing can be re-tasked to virtually any mission, the only limit being the air wing’s composition and armament. By contrast, submarines use their natural stealth to avoid the surface and air defenses that can threaten surface combatants and carriers, penetrating the anti-access network that China has constructed over the past two decades. 

These two systems alone, however, are insufficient to combat China’s strategy. China has constructed a comprehensive missile network that targets U.S. and allied warships, ports and military bases. Better missile defenses, and a more distributed basing system, would reduce the damage of a Chinese first strike, while the distribution of offensive systems across different platforms (known as “Distributed Maritime Operations,” in naval parlance) will prevent a knockout punch. 

Nevertheless, a war would not end simply because China failed to knock the U.S. and its allies out of the fight. And, given the number of missiles China fields, its diversity of delivery systems and the general inadequacy of U.S. and allied air defenses, some damage, albeit non-catastrophic damage, is likely. Conflict would, instead, shift to another phase. 

China has recognized U.S. superiority in undersea warfare; its likely counter is to flood the Taiwan Strait with surface combatants and push submarines out into the Philippine Sea. Similarly, it could harass U.S. warships with long-range missiles. Also probable are Chinese assaults against the Ryukyu Islands, seeking to establish an anti-submarine cordon around Taiwan and forward staging points for its missile bombardment. 

Here, amphibious forces are most relevant. The Marine Corps has begun to experiment with littoral maneuver, standing up the first Marine Littoral Regiment (MLR) in March. Marine doctrine emphasizes the rapid redeployment of light anti-ship forces from island to island; Light Amphibious Warships (LAWs) would support the MLRs. The LAW is designed to transport 75 Marines in one to two anti-ship missile platoons, deliver them to an island, and then pick them up and reposition them after a rapid engagement. LAWs will operate in seven- to nine-ship squadrons, ideally paired with a traditional amphibious assault ship for command and control. 

At around $100 million each, the LAW is far cheaper than a standard amphibious assault ship. It also is larger than a “connector,” the military term for a small amphibious ship like the Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) that transports Marines to the beach in an amphibious assault. The LAW, unlike an LCAC, is designed as an open-ocean warship.   

However, the LAW is slow, with a top speed of 14 to 15 knots. Increasing this will require major design modifications that raise the ship’s cost. Survivability is not its strong suit, either. The Navy’s current requirement is for a “Tier-2-Plus” ship, that is, a ship that can protect its crew despite heavy damage but that cannot continue fighting. The LAW has only one weapon, the 30mm Gun Weapons System previously used on the Littoral Combat Ship. But increasing the LAW’s defensive armament, or improving its armor and compartmentalization, will increase costs. 

The Navy plans to purchase 28 to 30 LAWs between 2023 and 2026, with delivery probable by the early to mid-2030s. But speed and maneuverability alone will not save the LAW, nor will numbers. If China invests in sufficient “loitering” munitions and drones, and improves its targeting, it can blanket the fortified positions in the First Island Chain that the U.S. is most likely to target. 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated the relevance of traditional combat power — mass, speed, decision and violence — particularly if traditional combat means are married to modern sensing and data-processing systems. The same is true of amphibious assault. The U.S. needs the heavy capabilities to punch through enemy defenses, which will be robust, and will require high levels of combat power to destroy. 

The San Antonio-class amphibious assault ship, termed a Landing Platform Dock (LPD) fills this heavy assault role. It is designed to deploy Marines using LCACs, helicopters, and tilt-rotor aircraft in large numbers during a violent, rapid amphibious operation — exactly what the U.S. should expect in a Sino-American confrontation. China, however, will not twiddle its thumbs while the U.S. takes up positions in the First Island Chain; it will contest them with missiles, aircraft, warships and possibly its own amphibious forces.

Amphibious assault ships like the San Antonio-class give the U.S. unmatched crisis response ability; they are a core of U.S. power. Yet the Navy appears poised to cut funding for the LPDs. As it stands, 11 of these ships are in the fleet, with one fitting out, one under sea trials, one under construction, and one more planned. The two newest LPDs, termed “Flight II,” have improved sensing capabilities, internal modifications and, potentially, the space to field their own missile defenses. 

Initially, each “flight” was to include 13 ships, with older ships being retired as newer ones reached the fleet. The Navy’s FY2023 budget proposal, however, would cut the LPD Flight II buy from 13 ships to only three, effectively killing the LPD production line by the late 2020s. This would leave the Navy short-handed in high-end amphibious engagements — precisely the sort of engagements it is likely to see in the Indo-Pacific.

Congress should understand the significant harm to the U.S. defense industrial base of ending support for the LPD and resist the Navy’s plan. The Sea Services require the funding and direction for a full class of Flight II San Antonio LPDs. 

A broader issue remains, regardless of the LPD question. 

The Sea Services — and the military more broadly — lack a concrete understanding of their roles in an Indo-Pacific war. The Navy cannot simply throw money at its issues; it must return to basics and think through the nature of the strategic problem. Only then it can match its capabilities to its needs. 

Seth Cropsey is founder and president of Yorktown Institute. He served as a naval officer and as deputy undersecretary of the Navy and is the author of “Mayday: The Decline of American Naval Supremacy” (2013) and “Seablindness: How Political Neglect Is Choking American Seapower and What to Do About It” (2017).

Source: TEST FEED1

Midway, Normandy and the importance of strategy over slogans

June 6 is a remarkable date in the annals of great American military battles and victories. Eighty years ago today, the Battle of Midway (June 4-6) ended. Two years later, the allies landed at Normandy, beginning the destruction of the Nazi war machine and the occupation of Germany.

What is remarkable about both battles is that to a large degree it was flawed Japanese and German strategies that contributed to U.S. success and enemy failure. The history of both battles is well known and the subject of several Hollywood movies and hundreds of books.

After the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan’s army made rapid advances, overrunning and conquering much of Asia. At the Battle of the Coral Sea in May 1942, the Japanese Navy was halted but not defeated. Concurrently, the Pacific Fleet’s cryptologists had broken enough of the Japanese naval code to conclude Midway was the next target.

Relying on this intelligence, Pacific Fleet Commander Admiral Chester Nimitz ordered his only three aircraft carriers to Point  Luck, 150 miles northwest of Midway, to lie in wait to bushwhack the Japanese fleet while reinforcing Midway’s complement of combat aircraft. On June 4, the U.S. struck first.

During the two-day battle, four Japanese aircraft carriers were sunk and irreplaceable pilots killed. One U.S. carrier, Yorktown, was lost. The Japanese striking force retreated in arguably America’s greatest naval victory.

Besides the advanced intelligence warning, skill, daring and luck of the American side, Japanese strategy was fatally flawed. The fleet commander, Admiral Isokuro Yamamoto, who designed the Pearl Harbor attack, had divided his vast fleet into three parts. The first element was Chuichi Nagumo’s four carrier strike force meant to destroy Midway’s air defenses.

The second was the invasion force trailing 100 miles astern. Further astern was Yamamoto’s powerful battleship force. The plan was to occupy Midway and draw out the U.S. fleet, which would be destroyed by Yamamoto’s battleships and aircraft.

Two Japanese carriers had been assigned to the Army invasion of two of Alaska’s Aleutian Islands in an ongoing operation. Had Yamamoto’s force not been divided and had additional carriers been assigned to Nagumo, the U.S. Navy almost certainly would have lost. Hence, this strategic planning failure would ensure Yamamoto’s defeat.

At Normandy, Hitler assumed that the allies would land at Pas-de-Calais, the closest point across the English Channel from Britain. Nazi defenses were based on that premise. To reinforce Hitler’s instincts, the Allied supreme commander, Army General Dwight D. Eisenhower, created the phantom First U.S. Army Group, FUSAG, under the command of General George S. Patton. FUSAG’s order of battle consisted of thousands of rubber mockups and dummy planes, tanks and artillery pieces deployed directly across from the Pas-de-Calais to fool Hitler.

The weather on June 6 was marginal at best for an invasion. Because of the foul weather at the French beaches, many Nazi generals left their posts for leave or to attend war games. Army Group B Commander Field Marshal Erwin Rommel was en route back to Germany when the allies struck.

Conforming to the fuhrer’s infallibility, the landings at Normandy were initially considered a diversion. Rommel immediately requested permission to unleash his Panzer reserves to drive the attacking force back into the English Channel. Hitler refused. He was wrong.

While the allies established a beachhead around Normandy, the advance inland bogged down because of the French bocage — the hedgerows and easily defended terrain. For six weeks, the Germans held.  But on July 25, Operation Cobra broke through, enabling the allied offensive to move east and eventually occupy Germany.

But suppose Hitler had chosen to trust his generals and not his instincts and ordered Rommel’s Panzers into battle at Normandy. Would that have reversed the invasion and altered the course of the war? 

One counter argument was Allied command of the air. With no Luftwaffe, Allied air power might have repelled the Panzers. Fortunately, Hitler’s superior wisdom prevailed, and the Panzers were withheld until it was too late.

These two battles reaffirm the crucial importance of a sound strategy, a conclusion that is timeless. Unfortunately, since World War II, the United States has too often failed to follow that basic principle. Vietnam, Afghanistan and the second Iraq War are tragic testimonies of flawed strategies.

Today, the main thrusts of the Pentagon’s defense strategy rest on “integrated deterrence, campaigning and maintaining an enduring advantage” over potential adversaries. Yet, those terms seem more like slogans than strategy. Another review of the history of strategy in war is sorely needed — now.

Dr.  Harlan K. Ullman is senior adviser at Washington, D.C.’s Atlantic Council and the prime author of “shock and awe.” His latest  book is “The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD: How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Danger to a Divided Nation and the World at Large.” Follow him on Twitter @harlankullman.

Source: TEST FEED1