China just concluded its 19th Party Congress, and is ambitions to only be regional power. Rather than just planning for the next 5 years, Chinese President Xi Jinping has looked far to the future. The Chinese leader, who just locked down another 5 years in his current position, is looking far to the future. President Xi has set an ambitious 30 year goals on many fronts. With no heir apparent, it is clear that Xi is the new Mao. Having cemented power at home, it is clear that Xi will begin to look outward. For the United States, this means that China will move from being just a regional military power to being a global power; a power that will challenge U.S. hegemony.
Given the recent border crisis on India, coupled with the elevation of China's lead negotiator on the border issues to the Politburo, it seems that settling this issue will be China's first move. With Xi stating that he wants an army that can "win wars" and military commander from the region that borders India on the Central Committee, it appears that Xi has prioritized this issue. With the two countries having already fought a war over this issue in the past and having had minor disputes intermittently, how Xi solves this will be a great indication of China's future behavior.
The end goal of Xi's plans is to modernize its forces by 2035. Fifteen years later they plan to have a 'global presence.' It is clear, much like the United States in the aftermath of WW2, China plans to abandoned its traditional role in world affairs and move to be one that can influence the world through military and economic power. These developments, in addition to the One Belt One Road initiative, set China on a path to this. Whether this will put them in conflict with the United States remains to be seen.

Subpoena for Cyber Security Czar?

As was mentioned in the readings during our first week of class, national security is the protection of what Americans value. Currently, our cyber security is a value that has been threatened. Hacks of Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and Pokemon Go have all been reported in the past year. The 2016 election hacks are still shrouded with some amount of mystery, and a major concern is that this will become a recurring problem. The executive branch has clearly had issues with cyber security in the past, and they show no signs of stopping. Despite multiple requests for his testimony, White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Rob Joyce has still not testified on Capitol Hill. The White House has stated that he does not have to testify because of his “executive privilege.” Because he has not appeared before Congress, the Senate is considering subpoenaing him. Congressmen are calling for transparency in our government. While transparency in the cyber realm has not at all been evident during President Trump’s tenure so far, it is necessary that the American people and government know whatever truth Mr. Joyce may have to tell. The White House excused Mr. Joyce from Congress hearings twice now. Obviously, it is questionable that Mr. Joyce has not testified despite news of repeated hackings. The hearing’s topic was cyber security, begging the question of why the President’s advisor on the matter would be unable to attend. Other important American security institutions such as the FBI and Homeland Security were present at the hearing. “The committee is going to have to get together and decide whether we’re going to sit by and watch the person in charge not appear before this committee. That’s not constitutional,” Senator McCain said. As Americans should we allow our government to continue to ignore the cyber security issue?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/20/senate-panel-weighs-subpoena-white-house-cyber-cza/

Photo courtesy of scout.com

Healthcare as National Security

Building a consensus around US investments in research that leads to defense against bioterrorism as a national security imperative is not challenging. As such and as an extension, the argument for funding specific vaccine research, infectious disease monitoring and surveillance systems along with robust public health response capabilities and capacity comes under the reasoning of national security.  However, despite being vital to enduring national strength, resiliency, productivity, competitiveness and likewise linked to our ability to support our direct national security efforts and investments over the long-term, the idea of universal access to healthcare as a vital national security imperative is an argument less ventured or acknowledge.

Unfortunately, the discussion of America's health care system has, as with most vital issues currently facing America, degenerated into ideological battle lines without informed or objective debate found anywhere within the immense empty gulf between the warring factions. Nowhere is there a megaphone or platform for pragmatic non-ideological voices for universal healthcare centered on national interest in the form of enhanced U.S. competitiveness and sustainable national security objectives. Instead, we are in an endless and fruitless debate over health care as a declared right by one side versus the idea that any discussion of universal access to healthcare represents some slippery slope towards "socialism" on the other side.

Is Healthcare a "Right?” Are we asking the wrong question?

During Kentucky's 2015 Gubernatorial race I had the honor and privilege to be a member of a post-gubernatorial debate question and answer panel at Kentucky State University as a surrogate for the independent candidate.  The panel provided equal representation with two members for each of the three Kentucky Governor candidates -Independent Drew Curtis, Republican Matt Bevin, and Democrat Jack Conway.

Early in the panel discussion, the moderator asked: "Is Healthcare a right?"  The partisan responses were predictable and therefore offered no new insights, but rather rehashed the stock partisan responses that anyone with any political intuition would have known were coming.  The Democratic state senators on the panel instinctively argued yes, and the Republican state senators naturally argued no.

My Answer?  I said that the question fed into the partisanship that divides us and it was the wrong question to be asking.  Rather than ask “is healthcare a right” (Which I believe while morally right, is difficult to argue from a constitutional perspective) the question should be, is providing universal access to healthcare for all the right thing to do from an economic and national self-interest standpoint?  I approached my answer from three angles, all of which go to the core of American strength, competitiveness, and national security in the long-run. One: Support for a healthy ready and more productive workforce; Two: Increase American economic competitiveness/ reduced burden on American businesses; and Three: Our National Security -  not only as tied to the first two points, but related to our ability to provide necessary bodies for our standing military force.

(1) A Healthy Ready Work Force: I am an Occupational Health Physician Assistant.  I regularly see patients for "fit for duty" physical exams.  Too often I see patients with treatable medical issues – hypertension, obesity, diabetes, obesity, obstructive sleep apnea (usually secondary to obesity), old poorly treated injuries (now with chronic functional limitations) or other medical or physical issues that preclude them from passing a fit for duty medical exam or a physical demand screen (simulated work conditions).  For many, the underlying treatable condition has had minimal to no routine medical care and management for years because they either have no insurance, cannot afford the copays and annual deductibles, or cannot find a provider who is willing to provide care through their Medicaid or other base level insurance.  The result is either they are already unfit to work safely and productively without risk to self and others, or will eventually be in such a condition.  The cost to them and our society as a whole is tremendous.  The long-term eventual medical costs compounded with their continued deteriorating health and the comorbid conditions that will develop into costly emergency medical interventions or significantly shortened productive lives.

The United States ranks 26th among OECD nations in life expectancy and had a decline in life expectancy between 2014 and 2015 for the first time in greater than 20 years.

Most importantly for productivity, the decline was primarily secondary to increased mortality among middle-aged Americans, i.e., working aged.  Another way to look at it is in Potential Years Life Lost (PYLL) which measures years of potential life lost from premature deaths in the 0 to 69-year-old population. PYLL, in many ways, is a measure of lost potential productivity in that it measures lost life years primarily before traditional retirement age workforce exit. By this measure, the United States ranks 22nd among OECD nations at 4,611 years life lost per 100,000 population. (2) That figure is over 1000 life years per 100,000 population greater than the Czech Republic, roughly 1700 life years per 100,000 or 60% higher than Germany, and nearly twice the rate for the top five performing nations of the OECD.  Based on 2010 U.S. census numbers, we have approximately 263 million Americans age 0-69 years (309.3 million Americans as of 2010 census, minus around 15% who are 70-year-old and greater).  The total U.S. YPLL is about twelve million Potential Years Lost annually (263 million divided by 100,000 times the U.S. YPLL rate of 4,611 PYLL /100,000)

You want greater U.S. productivity, a faster growing U.S. economy, a higher labor participation rate and fewer folk’s dependent on our state and federal social safety net?  Then invest in a healthier America that will be “fit for duty” and have fuller more productive lives.

 (2) Reduced burden and greater U.S. business competitiveness: Our muddled and convoluted health care system puts U.S. businesses at a comparative disadvantage. This goes hand in hand with argument number one in that a healthier workforce is more reliable, will have fewer sick days or family leave days and be more productive for more years. But let's take this further. Why is our US Health Care system traditionally employer-based?  It is because of the legacy of a World War II loophole in wage and price controls. With most able-bodied men and many women off at war, and our nation's great industrial capacity geared up to supply the ships, aircraft, vehicles, weapons, ammunition and all other needs to support the fight, labor markets were stretched thin.  President Roosevelt implemented wage and price controls to stop the spiraling inflation of labor and production.  One avenue used to recruit and retain workers not constrained by wage and price controls was employer-provided health insurance.  Thus, the employer-based US Health insurance care system was created. (3) Now, rather than a single-payer universal healthcare system as is found in most other 1st world industrial nations, Americans are insured through a convoluted network of insurers and our US businesses are entangled in the endless complications, administrative hurdles, and expense of providing health insurance. Prior to the restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler (and I am sure the same is true for Ford Motor Company), before an ounce of material or a second of time was invested in a vehicle on the assembly line, there already existed a legacy medical cost for retirees of between $2000 and $2500 per car – a cost NOT borne by foreign assembled vehicles from nations with universal healthcare and manufacturers free of these obligations.  

The ACA represents a step forward in broadening access to care for many millions of Americans and offering protections for those with pre-existing conditions and by eliminating lifetime caps for care. Since the implementation of the significant aspects of ACA, 28 million fewer Americans are without some degree of health insurance, (4) secondary to expansion of Medicaid coverage (in states that adopted ACA Medicaid expansion) and by providing prorated subsidies to those in the individual insurance markets up to 400% of the poverty and federal support to these markets. The flip side is that the ACA has also created further burdens of administration and compliance for US employers which erodes our competitiveness, and the ACA is, for political and ideological reasons, under relentless attack and deliberate sabotage that have limited its successes and threaten to reverse the gains. (5) The now constant uncertainty brought about by the hyper-politicization of health care in America comes with a cost in reduced market competition and reduced market stability and rising premiums. (6) Furthermore, the ACA has only perpetuated a system in which individual and family eligibility for varied health insurance assistance and insurance eligibility continually changes as their fortunes, age, or the political whims of their state and federal legislatures change. We would be hard-pressed to produce a more tortuous and inefficient health insurance system.

Universal single payer health care could lessen, though not eliminate, the corporate and business administrative and compliance burden and associated expense of our current U.S. health care system, would allow American companies to focus their energy and time on the products and services they supply, not in meeting health insurance mandates, reporting, and compliance. If the examples of most of our competition are any indication, universal single-payer health care can deliver equal or better healthcare outcomes at a significantly reduced cost. The OECD norm is about 10% of GDP to provide healthcare for all versus the approximately 18% of GDP we currently spend while still leaving tens of million Americans uncovered and tens of millions of other Americans with marginal coverage, along with exorbitant co-pays, and debilitating annual deductible and with very limited access to care depending on their insurance carrier.

A good analysis of the American competitiveness deficit secondary to our current healthcare model is found in the following article from Council on Foreign Relations article - Healthcare Costs and U.S. Competitiveness (7)  The U.S. spends approximately $2 Trillion annually on health care, more than any other industrialized country in absolute dollars or as a percent of GDP, yet the outcomes place the U.S. 26th among OECD nations.

An additional consideration is that universal health care would be a boon to entrepreneurship. More Americans would be likely to take the leap and pursue their creative business dreams if the risk of losing healthcare or the volatile and rising cost of individual market insurance were removed from the calculations when considering striking out on their own. Likewise, small businesses would find it easier to attract and hire employees.  (8)

You want to give America a competitive advantage - or at least level the playing field? Then reduce the burden on US businesses, lessen the risk for an entrepreneurial enterprise, reduce the overall cost of America's health care system, and stop treating our healthcare system as a political piñata for short-term political advantage at the expense of and long-term detriment to our nation's health, competitiveness, and economic stability. Implement universal health care in America.

(2) National Security: What does the current state of the U.S. health care system have to do directly and immediately with our national security?  According to the organization Mission Readiness: Military Leaders for Kids in their report "Ready, Willing, and Unable to Serve," 75% of young adults in America cannot join the U.S. military. A fair percentage are secondary to failure to meet minimum education standards, having dropped out of high school, or having criminal records, but a staggering number are ineligible secondary to health issues. "Twenty-seven percent of young Americans are too overweight to join the military. Nearly a third (32 percent) of all young people have health problems – other than their weight – that will keep them from serving. Many are disqualified from serving for asthma, eyesight or hearing problems, mental health issues, or recent treatment for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. When weight problems are added in with the other health problems, over half of young adults cannot join because of health issues." Additional numbers are ineligible because of drug or alcohol problems, which is also a health issue/ illness. "Even when recruits qualify, health problems can cause significant deployment and expense problems later; for example, 20 percent of the Army's reservists arrived at mobilization sites with dental conditions that made them non-deployable." (9)

Lack of routine medical care, poor or sporadic disease and injury management, and a lack of prevention for many of our fellow Americans is a significant contributor to this current dismal state, exacerbated by 32.2 percent of American children living in poverty (the U.S. ranks 36th out of the 41 wealthy countries). (10)  With our current force drawdown (for my thoughts on military strength and the value of national service see (10)), our dwindling number of able-bodied potential recruits may not be an immediate insurmountable obstacle to meeting strength targets. However, the trends indicate we cannot stand up an able-bodied force of significantly greater numbers if and when the need arises.   Many factors contribute to the poor physical and medical conditions of too many of our young Americans.  Lack of consistent quality care, lack of preventive health service, and lack of continuity of care are factors we can address as a nation through universal healthcare.

The strict partisans and ideologues will continue to argue whether or not healthcare in America is a right guaranteed to all, but again, that is not the question we should be asking.  I will continue to argue that universally accessible quality health care is the right thing to do morally, as well as for our economic competitiveness, to maximize workforce participation and productivity, and for the nation's sustained strength and security.  Regardless of where you stand on the healthcare as a right debate, universal healthcare is the pragmatic sensible right thing to do for our nation's best interest and sustained national security.

 “The human and material resources that make a great society are produced at home, not abroad. An ambitious foreign policy built on a deteriorating domestic base is possible only for a limited time; like the light cast by an extinct star, it is predestined to come to an end.”

Senator J William Fulbright, 1966 The Arrogance of Power

Sources :

(1) Lenny Bernstein, U.S. life expectancy declines for first time since 1993, The Washington Post, December 8, 2016 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-life-expectancy-declines-for-the-first-time-since-1993/2016/12/07/7dcdc7b4-bc93-11e6-91ee-1adddfe36cbe_story.html?utm_term=.ebfdf34aa630)

(2) OECD (2017), Potential years of life lost (indicator). https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/potential-years-of-life-lost.htm

(3) Stephen Mihm - Bloomberg View, Employer-based health care was a wartime accident, Chicago Tribune, February 24, 2017
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-obamacare-health-care-employers-20170224-story.html

(4) Kaiser Family Found Key facts about uninsured population, September 19, 2017 https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/

(5) Center for Budgets and Priority: Sabotage Watch https://www.cbpp.org/sabotage-watch-tracking-efforts-to-undermine-the-aca)

(6) Erin Trish, Loren Adler, and Paul B. Ginsburg, To promote stability in health insurance exchanges, end the uncertainty around cost-sharing and other rules, Brookings Institute, April 20, 2017 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/04/20/to-promote-stability-in-health-insurance-exchanges-end-the-uncertainty-around-cost-sharing-and-other-rules/

(7) Toni Johnson, Healthcare Costs and U.S. Competitiveness, Council on Foreign Relations, March 26, 2012, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/healthcare-costs-and-us-competitiveness

(8) Alex Smith, Uncertainty Over Health Care Law's Future Hobbles Entrepreneurs, September 23, 2017, http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/09/23/550994054/uncertainty-over-health-care-laws-future-hobbles-entrepreneurs

(9) Mission: Readiness - Military Leaders for Kids, Ready, Willing, and Unable to Serve, www.MissionReadiness.org http://cdn.missionreadiness.org/NATEE1109.pdf

(10) Christopher Ingraham, Child poverty in the U.S. is among the worst in the developed world, The Washington Post, October 29, 2014 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/29/child-poverty-in-the-u-s-is-among-the-worst-in-the-developed-world/ 

(11) Ronald Leach, Thoughts on National Service, January 21, 2015 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByM18Zx3ojQPeHhtckJfZENGUjg/view?usp=sharing) and posted at https://ronleach4ky.com/blog/?viewDetailed=201501212249

kaspersky/uninstall.exe

One of the most common computer applications is some form of antivirus software.

Most computers are pre-installed with a antivirus protection subscription. Although the free subscription usually lasts only a month and typically seeks to entice a customer to purchase the program, antivirus protection is actually quite important. While scrolling through the comments on a controversial Facebook post, checking e-mail, and browsing “the Google” for memes, antivirus software actively protects against hundreds of attempted attacks or breaches against a system. Fortunately, a variety of free and capable antivirus software programs exist online (Microsoft Security Essentials, Avast, etc.), and customers are able to protect their systems without additional costs.

Antivirus software is structured to know everything about a computer. Once installed, it is granted access to every crevice of a computer’s registry. It is not often antivirus software is equated with security breaches. It is even less often that antivirus software is equated with cyber espionage

However, this has become the case for Kaspersky Labs, Inc. 

Kaspersky Labs is a Moscow-based computer security company. It boasts a wide variety of products and services, but is most known for its antivirus software. Kaspersky products are sold and disturbed throughout the United States and, until recently, was even used by the government. Kaspersky is widely considered to be at the forefront of cybersecurity technology. Despite its advanced mechanism for detecting threats, the Russian company is cloaked in a shroud of doubt. 

Why? It is speculated that Kaspersky has backdoor ties to Russian hackers. Its founder, Eugene Kaspersky, recevied his high school education at a cyrptology institution sponsored by the former KGB. Kaspersky had a stint creating software for the Soviet government. Don't be led to a conclusion, however, There's no definitive proof that Kaspersky's company colludes with Mother Russia. Instead, consider these cases:

1) Israeli intelligence actually tracked Russian hackers using vulnerabilities in Kaspersky antivirus software. The Russians were searching for U.S. secrets. Now, the initial intrusion was discovered nearly two years ago, but was brought to the discussion table when an NSA employee made a clumsy mistake. The employee, wanting to continue work at home, put sensitive information on his or her computer. The employee's computer was running software from Kaspersky Labs. Russian hackers were able to locate these improperly stored files on the contractor's computer and steal them. Kaspersky denies involvement. 

2) Legislation is swirling around Congress to essentially ban agencies and the military from using Kaspersky software. A trifecta of prominent U.S. intelligence officials all agreed that they would not be comfortable operating their organizations with Kaspersky on any system. Eugene Kaspersky vehemently opposes these opinions. He argues that U.S. policymakers and officials are letting politics cloud their judgement instead of simply using the best end-point security products on the market. But don't be fooled -- Kaspersky maintains a very high reputation among cybersecurity professionals. To reiterate, there is no solid evidence of Kaspersky-Russian collusion, and its quite easy to be swayed by the current political and social climate of U.S. politics.

3) Here is where things become shades of grey. Kaspersky Labs is physically based on Russia, so it is obviously obligated to follow Russian telecommunications law. And it is precisely those laws that are raising eyebrows. Kaspersky is required to aide the FSB in any operation, and the FSB can assign agents to work in or with Kaspersky. Telecommunications law also requires that Kaspersky must install interception equipment that would allow the FSB to monitor traffic. Now, because Kaspersky's data servers reside in Russia, that means U.S. data is flowing through these Russian laws. Alternatively, this relationship is not strikingly odd. It is not strange for communication companies to work with their respective governments. The U.S. has similar regulations on metadata. 

Ultimately, any software that serves as an apparatus for hacking shouldn't be used in the government. On the other hand, NSA employees shouldn't be taking work home. This Kaspersky-gate scare won't go away, and surely more information will surface regarding the true nature of the Kaspersky-Russian relationship. Until then, go update your antivirus software. I recommend Microsoft Security Essentials. If you have a mac, I am sorry. Avast is nice.

If you've read this far, I'd like to recommend another cyber hygiene action to take. CCleaner is an excellent tool for cleaning up your computer files and registry. Your computer voluntarily stores an incredible amount of unwanted files and data just by browsing the internet. CCleaner helps you remove this unnecessary information and free some space. It's free to download, and from what I know, isn't linked to the Russian government.

Russian Salami Tactics in Foreign Elections

Based on the Kremlin's recent activity, it is clear that Russia is attempting to make themselves larger and stronger (annexation of Crimea, neo-expansionism in Ukraine) while making other countries smaller and weaker.

To do this, Russia is using the following tactics to influence foreign governments: (1) validating separatist mentalities, (2) supporting opposition groups, and (3) deepening internal divisions. These tactics will undermine strength and unity in foreign nations, comparatively making Russia stronger.

Why these tactics? Because Russia has no chance of weakening US or NATO hegemonic power through conventional means. As Politico states, “The Kremlin’s overall strategy to dismantle the Western alliance is best encapsulated by a 2013 article in a Russian military journal, where what’s since become known as the “Gerasimov Doctrine” was laid down in writing. Adopting tactics of subterfuge traditionally associated with “non-linear” or “hybrid” war, the doctrine calls for the use of non-military over military measures by a four-to-one ratio, thus allowing a conventionally weaker power like Russia (whose military budget is one-tenth that of NATO’s) to fight asymmetrically by exploiting its adversaries’ weaknesses.”

Low-level subversion or meddling in one country is unacceptable, but affecting the internal makeup of dozens of western adversaries? Truly scary. If these actions go unaddressed (or worse: unnoticed), they will collectively add up to a destabilized NATO, EU, etc.  After all, “A West that is divided, inert and unsure of its own basic values is not one that will resist Russia’s revisionist agenda” (Politico). 

Validating separatist mentalities

Using “automated social-network accounts” (bots) to propagate “digital misinformation campaigns” (fake news), Russia has shown a determined desire to interfere in international separatist movements.

These potentially include: Catalonia, Kurdish homeland, Brexit, Venice, and more.

In August of 2016, Moscow hosted a conference (funded in part by the Russian government) that brought together leaders of foreign sucessionist movements. Italian, Catalan, Basque, Northern Ireland, Scottish, Californian, Texan, and Puerto Rican separatist groups met to discuss anti-globalism and separatist issues. It is important to note that Russia does not kindly entertain secessionist movements within its borders.

Supporting opposition and fringe groups

As is typical, the Kremlin is targeting leaders that would be particularly tough on Russia (Hillary Clinton) and opting to support those that may be more lenient towards Russia, and perhaps even lift sanctions (Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump).

More interesting, however, the Kremlin is supporting fringe and opposition groups, as well. This in order to diffuse the popular vote and thus weaken the chances of the best-qualified candidate winning. Russia does this both through financial and political support. This was evident when it was discovered Russia bought Facebook ads in support of Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump. The ad bought in support of Jill Stein read, “Choose peace and vote for Jill Stein. Trust me. It’s not a wasted vote. … The only way to take our country back is to stop voting for the corporations and banks that own us. #GrowaSpineVoteJillStein"

Looking to Europe, Russia is also supporting post-communist German Left party, the Italian Five Star movement, and many right-wing Euroskeptic groups that want to pull from the EU in favor of nationalism.

France’s far-right National Front Party admitted they received $12.2 million in loans from a Kremlin-affiliated bank in 2014, according to Bloomberg. And it asked for another loan of $27.7 million in February, the report added.

Deepening internal division

If this isn't enough, the Kremlin is also exploiting the existing polarization of domestic US politics and trying to deepen the divide.

Recent news has come out that Russia purchased several advertisements and authored posts that concerned current racial tension in the US. Facebook has agreed to turn over 3,000 Russian-purchased advertisements. Some of these ads are supportive of groups such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter, while other ads pose these groups as a threat.

Russia may be using similar division tactics in other countries.

These activities beg the questions:

How do we categorize this aggression?

How do we defend against similar acts?

What is the appropriate response?

Until then, we clearly need to work on identifying foreign-influence in domestic politics. This requires extensive cooperation and good faith from social media sites. Zuckerberg has responded, “We will do our part to defend against nation states attempting to spread misinformation and subvert elections. We’ll keep working to ensure the integrity of free and fair elections around the world, and to ensure our community is a platform for all ideas and force for good in democracy.”