For anyone who watched the House’s 2019 impeachment of Donald Trump over withholding military aid to Ukraine, it’s probably not a surprise that Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) wasn’t quite an unbiased investigator.
But a new book about Trump’s two impeachment trials details how Jordan worked to frame the Ukraine scandal as a nothing burger—even when he knew there was more damning information yet to come—and defended Trump’s stonewalling tactics, even when he disagreed and tried to convince the president to cooperate.
In Unchecked, Politico’s Rachael Bade and The Washington Post’s Karoun Demirjian lay out how Jordan made his way into Trump’s inner circle, became a key defender of the president, misled the media with strategic leaks, and defended Trump’s decisions to block key testimony.
Jordan’s staff did not reply to a request for comment.
In October 2019, Jordan knew Trump was considering a bombastic letter from White House counsel Pat Cipollone that would refuse to turn over documents and block testimony from certain administration officials, according to exclusive excerpts from the book that The Daily Beast obtained. But on the morning that the House’s impeachment panel was set to interview U.S. ambassador to the European Union Gordan Sondland, the Trump administration blocked Sondland’s appearance. And Jordan was just as surprised as everyone else.
“When Jordan walked into the SCIF with [Steve] Castor and [Mark] Meadows on Tuesday, October 8, the morning of Sondland’s scheduled testimony, they were shocked to discover that the ambassador wasn’t there. Just before seven a.m., Cipollone—on Trump’s orders—had instructed State Department officials to stop the interview from going forward. No one, however, had bothered to supply Trump’s top defenders on Capitol Hill a heads-up. And Jordan and Castor were not happy,” an excerpt from the book reads.
Jordan and Castor, the GOP lead counsel for Trump’s first impeachment, knew Sondland’s testimony would be damning, that he planned to say the president had indeed engaged in a quid pro quo. But their plan was to try to catch Sondland in a lie—and then argue that none of his testimony should be trusted because he had theoretically perjured himself.
“It was a brazen strategy that showed once again how House Republicans were more concerned about coming up with ways to protect their party leader than actually learning the truth of what occurred,” the book reads. “But Sondland’s no-show had robbed them of a chance to test their new playbook.”
“As Jordan exited the SCIF, reporters swarmed, demanding to know why the administration had blocked Sondland’s testimony. Perturbed as he was, Jordan swallowed his frustration and loyally defended the White House’s move as justified,” the book continues. “The administration ‘decided not to have Ambassador Sondland appear today’ because of an ‘unfair and partisan process that [Chairman Adam] Schiff has been running,’ Jordan argued. Democrats were just trying to smear Trump thirteen months before his reelection ‘based on an anonymous whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge who has a bias against the president,’ he continued. They should release [Kurt] Volker’s testimony and acknowledge there had been no quid pro quo.”
According to the book, Jordan lied and said Republicans were looking forward to Sondland testifying, that they thought he’d “reinforce exactly what Ambassador Volker told us last week.”
The reality was far different. They knew Sondland was planning to testify to a quid pro quo. And when Jordan was finished trying to spin the media about the decision, he and his staff “raced up the marble spiral staircase, out of the Capitol, and into their waiting cars to speed across town and stage an intervention with Trump.”
“On top of canceling Sondland’s testimony, the White House, they had heard through the grapevine, was about to release the dreaded Cipollone letter aimed at shutting the whole probe down—the one GOP lawmakers had been trying to hold back all weekend,” the book continues. “Though members usually met Trump in the Oval Office alone, Jordan insisted Castor accompany them, hoping he could convince the president to allow administration witnesses to come forward.”
The book presents a less than flattering portrait of Jordan, who would likely be the Judiciary Chairman if the GOP takes back the House. He is instead consistently shown to be far more interested in defending Trump than getting down to the truth.
The book includes scenes like Jordan heading to the White House to read a transcript of Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky before it was released to the public, only to receive a partial account that excluded more concrete evidence of a quid pro quo. Trump’s team, Bade and Demirjian say, wanted House Republicans to go on the record defending Trump before they knew all the facts.
The book also details the time Jordan and GOP staff went through 53 pages of Volker’s WhatsApp messages about the Ukraine scandal. Volker was extremely active in communicating with State Department officials about Trump’s desire to withhold aid until Ukrainian officials opened an investigation into Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. While there were plenty of damaging exchanges, there were also some bright spots.
“Jordan knew the texts were bad,” the book reads. “But he relished a good fight, and he had already identified a failsafe in the missives: In one of them, Sondland had flatly refuted [Bill] Taylor’s suggestion that U.S. tax dollars were being used to help Trump’s reelection efforts, writing: ‘the president has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.’ Jordan knew that was the point he and his team would have to hit home over and over to protect the president. That, after all, was exactly how he viewed his job.”
So, as Volker was testifying behind closed doors, GOP staff cherry-picked the most vindicating messages and leaked them to ABC and Fox News. (That prompted Schiff’s staff to release a fuller version of the texts to the media showing that there were, in fact, plenty of damning exchanges.)
Still, at the end of the day, Jordan was in good spirits, believing he and the Republicans had won that round over Volker’s messages. But not everyone was convinced, the book shows.
As he exited the Capitol, Jordan got a call from Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), the No. 3 House Republican at the time. She had read the new reports with a more complete account of Volker’s texts—and she suddenly was concerned that Jordan’s biased perspective had infected his judgment overall.
“‘You said Volker’s testimony was good for us!’ she said, demanding an explanation,” according to the book. “‘What is up with these texts?’”
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
People have looked to the military for lessons in productivity for a long time. When the stakes are life or death, the necessity for efficacy is as high as it can be. It's safe to assume that by now, the militaries of the world have figured out what works and what doesn't. As such, uniform clothing has been implemented in nearly every conceivable institution, and many of the internet's productivity gurus tout the importance of making your bed every morning. One lesson that has been wildly underemphasized, however, lies in the structural chain of command itself that is native to all militaries. I've found that an easy way to think about this lesson is through the metaphor "the soldier vs. the general."
In my early days of being an entrepreneur, I loved to tell people "I'm my own boss." I thought it was just a clever way of saying that I didn't have a boss. It turns out that I have indeed always had a boss, just not a good one. To be an entrepreneur is not simply to work without a boss, it is to function as both the employee and the boss. This is a distinction that I failed to fully grasp for years; I was a bad employee but a worse boss. I became much more productive and disciplined in my work life when I started thinking about my role in terms of military positions.
Soldiers follow orders, or people die. There is much more mutual discourse within a conventional employment relationship than within the military. When I was an employee, I could argue with my boss, ask them to assist me with a given task and even sometimes convince them to change directives entirely. Soldiers cannot do this. The power hierarchy within the military is absolute and distinctly segmented. Soldiers do not strategize, because they are too busy taking action on the orders that have been given to them, and action is what wins battles.
Generals are not the boots on the ground that get tangible results but they are indeed the reason why soldiers are so effective. The purpose of a general is to do all of the critical thinking for soldiers so that the soldiers can focus on action. Generals know that the time spent strategizing is time that cannot be spent executing, and vice versa, thus it is the duty of a general to relieve soldiers of the burden of strategizing. On the battlefield, latency and ambiguity cost lives. If a general fails to deliver well-thought-out orders, the lives of soldiers are wasted.
The biggest productivity hack that I learned from the military is that the roles of soldiers and generals (action and strategy) have always been very clearly segmented from one another. As an entrepreneur, I am often an army of one. Entrepreneurs don't always have teams of people to help with completing tasks, which means I must wear multiple hats, so to speak. I realized that at any given time during my work day, I function as either a soldier, a general or some murky combination of the two. It turns out that it is very easy to unknowingly start blending these two roles. Failing to definitively segment them was the biggest inhibitor to my productivity as a young entrepreneur.
Every time I started to reevaluate my plans while still in the midst of executing said plans, I failed to finish things promptly. Trying to take action while simultaneously trying to strategize is counterproductive, and it yields friction and latency. The most productive entrepreneurs are those who have clear boundaries set between the two roles. What this translates to in practice is having firm time blocks in place for each role. This is not to say that the secret to enhancing my productivity was simply to make a schedule (though that was definitely a prerequisite). It was more than that. The secret was to completely sever all executive decision-making from the portion of myself that was responsible for completing a given task. This is to say, the secret was actually to minimize the total amount of time that I was allowed to think.
I realized that if I could reduce the time spent thinking, I effectively created more time for action. What this primarily meant is that I needed to quit switching from the soldier to the general sporadically in the middle of the day; latency was killing me. I determined that routines and habitual schedules were key. Furthermore, I realized that as a soldier, I needed to start obeying the orders of the general in totality, without exception; if I started something I needed to finish it, without question.
I did this by only allowing myself to function as the general for one hour per day right before bed. During this hour I would map out all of the orders for myself the following day, along with priorities so that I knew exactly which task to switch to after I completed one. I started laying out my outfits for the next day and planned my meals. The goal was to eliminate any uncertainty; I needed to always know what was to come next.
The moment I started segmenting my responsibilities as definitively as military positions was the moment my whole career changed. I began achieving in a day what used to take almost a week. Things that felt difficult became the new standard. If ever I felt unproductive, I would first identify whether the soldier or the general was to blame, and that helped me resolve issues much faster than usual. The militaries of the world have shown us that the secret to being effective isn't to be a one-man army, it's to know your role.
In October 2008, the U.S. Special Operations Command published a request for proposal (RFP) seeking “rapid, on-order global dissemination of web-based influence products and tools in support of strategic and long-term U.S. Government goals and objectives.” The RFP listing, for something nondescript called a “Trans Regional Web Initiative” (TRWI), appeared at a time when the global war on terror—and the growing online presence of terrorists—was a particularly critical mission. The TRWI required a lead that could handle everything from the development of website architecture and content management systems, to the development of content “tailored to foreign audiences” in the battle for hearts and minds.
At the time, the announcement was viewed with some skepticism. Wired, for example, warned that U.S. efforts had largely been unsuccessful at “creating cultural and/or news content that appeals to foreign audiences” and speculated whether anyone would read the websites. But in September 2009, the contract, worth $10 million for the first year with four annual renewal options that would later exceed $20 million, was awarded to one of the largest government and military contractors, General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT).
Five years later, in 2014, the TRWI was shut down, as Congress, too, became skeptical about whether its impact justified its price tag. But a variant would rise again—with much more alongside it—as the online propaganda battleground expanded from counterterrorism to a messaging war of all-against-all as state adversaries like Russia entered the mix.
Nearly 14 years after TRWI was funded, researchers at the Stanford Internet Observatory and Graphika received and analyzed a unique data set from Meta and Twitter (as participants in the platforms’ researcher consortiums). Each of our teams had, over the prior four years, analyzed networks of assets attributed to many other state-linked actors—particularly China, Russia, and Iran, but also including India, Mexico, Nigeria, and many more—that had been suspended by social media platforms for “coordinated inauthentic behavior” and similar policy violations. This was the first data set we had observed for which Twitter listed the “presumptive countries of origin” as the United States and Great Britain, while Meta said the “country of origin” was the United States.
While most of the tactics were not novel, the data set was a complex mix of overt operations linked to the U.S. military—linked, in fact, to the old domains of the TRWI—and other activity that presented something of a puzzle. It was demonstrably pro-Western, pro-U.S., but there were few clues as to who or which actors were behind the masked activity. The Stanford Internet Observatory and Graphika wrote our joint report on only that part of the data set: the covert cluster of activity, which we described without assigning an attribution.
Subsequent reporting in the Washington Post by Ellen Nakashima, however, found that Facebook and Twitter had in fact previously reached out to the Pentagon about inauthentic accounts that they believed were linked to the military. She additionally noted that the analysis in our Aug. 24 report on the pro-Western covert aspects of the network had spurred a review of military information operations conducted on social media. The report cited two anonymous officials that said U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is among the military commands facing scrutiny after the report “elicited a flurry of news coverage and questions for the military.”
This data set, with its combination of distinct overt and covert operational dynamics, raises important questions about how democratic countries should operate in an increasingly complex and contested online battlespace for hearts and minds. The United States must not cede the information space, but efforts should be refocused on boosting the truth in an authentic way while also exposing falsehoods and deception peddled by adversaries. However, the questions around how to engage are many and complex: Which government and military organizations should lead public affairs, or information operations? And to what extent must they coordinate for a unified voice on U.S. policy and the promotion of regional diplomacy and development efforts? Are there instances when the operation of undisclosed accounts and personas is justified, such as for the infiltration of closed terrorist groups? What rules and oversight should be in place for such a wide range of information operations? How should the success of information operations be measured to ensure accountability and the constant improvement of such efforts? To better understand the dynamics in play, this piece offers a look at the full scope of the activity in the data sets from Meta and Twitter.
A Complicated Puzzle of Pro-Western Networks
At first glance upon receiving the data, we thought we were looking at a network connected to GDIT’s TRWI efforts from long ago, with accounts tied to the long-abandoned domains. Some of the accounts, and the websites that they connected to, openly claimed affiliation with U.S. military combatant commands (including CENTCOM) and clearly disclosed these affiliations in compliance with relevant laws and policies.
However, it quickly became clear that there was a second cluster of accounts that represented websites without U.S. military disclosures. This second cluster of activity, which we called “the covert cluster,” was reminiscent of the activities we’d seen from other state actors over the years. There were accounts related to websites that appeared to be sham media properties purporting to produce independent journalism and also fake persona accounts with profile pictures generated by artificial intelligence (AI). It was a demonstrably pro-U.S. propaganda effort, but we could not make a strong connection linking the overt TRWI-linked materials, which were demonstrably run by CENTCOM and a contractor, with this second cluster.
We wrote an extensive report summarizing the covert network cluster only, which had emerged as early as 2017, but was most active over the past three years across Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms. Fake personas promoted the interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East and Central Asia, including Iran and Afghanistan. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February, some of the persona accounts heavily criticized Russia for the deaths of innocent civilians and other atrocities. Others promoted U.S. Agency for International Development activities in the region or promoted positive views of American troops. The accounts sometimes shared articles from U.S government-funded media outlets, such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, and links to regional news websites sponsored by the U.S. military. A portion of the activity also promoted anti-extremism messaging. Overall, the covert accounts had low engagement, illustrating the limitations of using inauthentic tactics to build influence online. The vast majority of posts and tweets reviewed received no more than a handful of likes or retweets. Less than one in five accounts we analyzed from the overt and covert accounts had 1,000 or more followers.
To further complicate matters, however, there was a third segment of activity with accounts linked to new media websites that did have CENTCOM disclosure statements, but the affiliation was not always clearly posted on their social media profiles. And these accounts also appeared to be linked to the old TRWI domain infrastructure.
The Short-Lived Trans-Regional Web Initiative
Under the TRWI contract, GDIT registered and operated 10 coordinated websites and corresponding social media channels targeted at regional audiences across the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia. The content focused primarily on issues related to regional stability, human rights, and economic growth while promoting regional partners and allies and attacking adversaries like Russia and Iran.
The websites, which all disclosed U.S. military backing, include Info Sur Hoy, Sabahi Online, Magharebia, Mawtani, Al-Shorfa, Khabar South Asia, Southeast European Times, and Central Asia Online. All of the aforementioned websites focused on politics and news unique to their respective regions. Al-Shorfa, for example, targeted an audience in the Middle East, promoting interfaith dialogue initiatives and pointing to the destabilizing effects of terrorism and extremism across the region. Mawtani similarly promoted “greater regional stability [in the Middle East] through bilateral and multilateral cooperation” with a special emphasis on Iraq.
Based on an assessment of news articles from the time during which the TRWI was active, audience engagement with the sites varied, but they seemed to achieve some reach. Coverage in Foreign Policy noted that “for a small outlet covering an obscure corner of the world, Central Asia Online does relatively well. In 2011, the site published an average of 71 stories per month,” earning a reported 168,000 article reads, 85,000 unique visitors, and 380 reader comments per month. The coverage also noted that the site’s material “seeps into local newspapers, websites, and news aggregators around the world, expanding the site’s readership.” A 2013 doctoral thesis by Roy Revie includes an in-depth analysis of media and social media dynamics of the sites—including ranking data from Alexa, a web analytics service; locations in which articles were quoted, linked to, and engaged with; and tables of social media interactions—noting that some of the sites received hundreds of engagements on articles shared to their Facebook pages while others received almost none.
Even in 2013, however, the program was controversial. A classified Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, leaked to USA Today, faulted the program for a lack of coordination with other U.S. efforts. While the White House saw some benefit to the program, Congress cut funding for the TRWI in fiscal year 2014, citing the GAO report that emphasized failures with military information support operations—including the TRWI program, which rose to an annual cost of $22 million. The report highlighted a surge in funding for cloudy results and a lack of coordination for military-operated websites with embassies and State Department efforts on U.S. policy positions and with regional diplomatic efforts in the target regions. State Department officials expressed concern about how audiences “sensitive to foreign military presence” in northern Africa might receive military-operated news websites, according to USA Today reporting at the time. Then-Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) opposed the continued funding of the effort, with bipartisan support from senators skeptical of the military programs or the perceived funding waste.
The timing of the TRWI’s termination is extraordinary when viewed in the context of the past seven years: Around the time of the program’s demise, state actors and non-state extremist groups were increasingly engaging in social media propaganda and online influence campaigns. Islamic State recruitment and propaganda activity was highly visible on Twitter. And the Internet Research Agency—the now-notorious Russian troll factory best known for interfering in American domestic affairs and the 2016 election—had already begun to operate.
In August 2014, General Dynamics Information Technology warned 61 employees in the D.C. suburbs that their positions would likely be terminated given the funding cuts for the program. In a truly remarkable turn of events, some of the laid-off GDIT contractors soon found new jobs working for the Russian government’s Sputnik news agency.
“What seems to be clear is that the anti-status quo powers in the world today—Russia, China, Iran, and the Islamic State—know the value of information warfare and invest heavily in it,” former Voice of America director and Defense Department information strategy adviser Robert W. Reilly told the AMI wire service in its 2016 reporting on the former U.S. contractors’ move to Sputnik. The former TRWI contractors had “nowhere else to go and are being picked up by Putin …. [I]t’s a powerful illustration of who takes information warfare strategy seriously and who doesn’t,” he said.
Zlatko Kovach was one of those former GDIT contractors who supported the TRWI. His seemingly abandoned LinkedIn profile continues to list his current position as “Senior Editor at General Dynamics Information Technology” with a description that he produces “content for online news websites covering the European Union, Southeast Europe and Turkey,” working with “over 60 freelance reporters and photographers” to assign, produce, and edit stories.
He echoed Reilly’s sentiment, telling AMI that:
the nature of the game has changed …. You have media that’s shrinking. U.S. government communication efforts were being canceled. The media is evolving. There is a media space, and the question is, who’s going to fill that space? Then I had to ask, who’s offering jobs?
The Cat Came Back
Media reporting and contract data on the original TRWI domains was easy to find. But, curiously, coverage on what appears to have been a TRWI “respawn” in the 2016-2017 time frame was largely absent. These domains also had appropriate CENTCOM or other combatant command attribution language in their “About” pages, as the old TRWI sites had—however, their Instagram, Twitter, and Telegram accounts did not have obvious disclosures. They were neither covert nor particularly proactive about putting their affiliation in highly visible places. As we investigated these still-active websites, domain registrations and Google Analytics data suggested that from late 2016 to early 2017, a new cluster of websites with largely the same regional focus—and some of the same branding—had emerged to replace the TRWI.
The rebranding, it seems, began in mid-to-late 2016.
The TRWI ran across multiple social media platforms. Websites linked to the TRWI Twitter accounts pointed to over a dozen Facebook pages and YouTube channels, all of which had also been operated as part of the program. Several of these Facebook pages and YouTube channels were still active when they were discovered but had been rebranded as new outlets covering the same regions as their predecessors.
Mawtani rebranded as Diyaruna and continues to focus on international efforts toward regional stability in the Middle East with a focus on Iraq. Al-Shorfa, also targeting an audience in the Middle East, became Al-Mashareq. The website and its social media channels continued to promote interfaith dialogue and highlight the harms of extremism in the region. In at least one occasion, the operators behind Al-Mashareq’s Facebook page—blocked to users in the U.S.—exposed location tags from Rockville, Maryland, and Fort Worth, Texas, in posts. The websites continue to have the appropriate CENTCOM attribution to comply with U.S. law. At least eight TRWI Twitter accounts also rebranded and operate under this as-yet-unknown program, based on unique Twitter IDs.
Shortly after, nearly concurrently with the rebranded launch of TRWI outlets, the covert operation began. While we have no evidence that the operators are the same, we do observe that the covert personas boosted the overt content, linking to these overt “respawned” domains. Continued research and a deeper investigation of these activities is warranted. “With the rise of Russia and China as strategic competitors, military commanders have wanted to fight back, including online,” Nakashima wrote in Washington Post coverage of the new Pentagon review. An anonymous defense official told the Post that commanders “got really excited” when legal barriers to conducting clandestine operations were pulled back in 2019.
The Cat’s Out of the Bag. What to Do?
States engage in influence operations. This is not new, nor is it unique to social media. Cold War history is replete with examples of Western governments using overt propaganda alongside covert operations to influence nonaligned countries—and even overthrowing democratically chosen governments—through print, television, and radio communications. There is also a long history of “agents of influence” who secretly worked on behalf of rival governments—some used their real names, while others crafted elaborate personas. And, of course, online espionage and cyber operations have been a reality since the dawn of the internet. State influence activities stem from strategic objectives—they serve a purpose. No government, Western or otherwise, is simply going to stop pursuing them.
But this data set offers a rare glimpse into pro-Western influence operations—both overt and covert—in the social media age. From what we have seen, the meager benefits of the covert operation were not worth the substantial risks. The overt activity appeared to perform slightly better, but, while our glimpses may be limited, strategy in the information domain appears scattered and incoherent.
The U.S. government and military should not run influence operations powered by inauthentic accounts or fake engagement. Operating a network of fake social media accounts with masked or AI-generated faces to target publics in adversary countries in the battle for hearts and minds is not worth the loss of the moral high ground for what appears to be minimal upside. By creating inauthentic personas and using fake accounts and inauthentic engagement to boost perspectives, the United States gives up the high ground of truthful, though selective, information campaigns that have previously defined U.S. doctrine. This approach has distinguished U.S.-backed reporting and public affairs efforts abroad.
The online influence game has been normalized. It has expanded significantly since the notorious 2014 efforts by the Russian Internet Research Agency to convince the American public that a Louisiana chemical company was under attack, an initial volley that subsequently extended into a multiyear effort to erode American social cohesion and interfere in the 2016 U.S. election. A combination of that activity, and the actions of the highly visible Islamic State propagandists, no doubt inspired some of the U.S. military’s changing views and authorities around online influence operations over the past decade.
However, in our analysis of the data sets, we observed this operation to take a “spray and pray” approach, with flimsy personas, content that achieved only the most minimal engagement, and no clear strategic value. While the ethics may be debated, the numbers show this approach is not a successful strategy. It may enrich defense contractors, but it diminishes Western credibility, with no obvious benefit.
The threat of online propaganda is real, and the United States needs a capacity for response. While some in the national security establishment likely believe that this is “fighting fire with fire” and justified, they should keep in mind one of Russia’s key goals with their influence operations: to attack the very idea of objective truth and create a sense of nihilism among global audiences. Actions by democracies to copy Russia’s techniques create conditions favorable to Russian and Chinese fabulists, with no upside to the free world. American principles, instead, must continue to adhere to spreading factual information to advance democratic values and shape public opinion. In the shadow of Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine and China’s imprisonment of millions of ethnic minorities, the moral gap between authoritarians and democracies has not been this clear since World War II. The United States and its allies should not make things easier for those states by muddying the water using inauthentic online propaganda.
As the Department of Defense takes an increasingly offensive cybersecurity strategy, known as “defend forward,” a similar approach may be warranted in the information space. Instead of replicating the deceitful networks of authoritarian adversaries, U.S. and Western efforts should focus on exposing those adversarial networks with radical transparency and winning hearts and minds with an underutilized weapon: the truth.
We are encouraged by the serious response the research findings are reported to have at the highest levels of the U.S. government and the military. These findings warrant a thorough review to ensure the U.S. does not supply up the moral high ground by tearing down, instead of building up, trust with critical audiences abroad.
The Army missed its recruiting goal by about 15,000 new soldiers in 2022, coming up 25% short of its goal at a time when each of the services were struggling to meet their benchmarks. Military officials worry that all of the branches have had to reach deep into their pools of delayed entry applicants, a move that puts them behind in recruiting for the new year.
Military recruiters have leaned on tried-and-true factors to explain the challenges, including low unemployment and a dearth of applicants up to physical, educational and behavioral standards.
But the truth is, no one keeps detailed data on what’s stopping America’s youth from signing up. Experts and senior military leaders point to the perennial factors of competition from the private sector and a dwindling number of young Americans both qualified and interested in military service. But what they don’t have much information on is why that propensity is going down, and whether the country is undergoing an ideological shift in attitude toward military service.
One possibility that is increasingly resonating with veterans is that the military is too “woke.” Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., for example, is among a group of Republican senators who have repeatedly blamed recruiting problems on the Biden administration for trying to build a “woke Army.”
Thomas Spoehr, director of the Center for National Defense at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, recently opined that wokeness is the “chief worry of grizzled American veterans today.”
“The largest threat they see by far to our current military is the weakening of its fabric by radical progressive (or ‘woke’) policies being imposed, not by a rising generation of slackers, but by the very leaders charged with ensuring their readiness,” he wrote. “Wokeness in the military is being imposed by elected and appointed leaders in the White House, Congress, and the Pentagon who have little understanding of the purpose, character, traditions, and requirements of the institution they are trying to change.”
Spoehr acknowledged that “direct ‘cause and effect’ studies on the impact of woke policies such as these do not exist,” but suggested that “common sense” dictates that it is having an effect on recruiting.
“Is anyone surprised that potential recruits — many of whom come from rural or poor areas of the country — don’t want to spend their time being lectured about white privilege?” he wrote.
In an interview with Fox News, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a West Point graduate and Army officer who served in Germany during the Cold War, talked about the campaign he is launching, including TV ads and a website, to target what he calls “woke polices” directed toward the military.
“How can we ask young men and women who have decided to risk their lives for America, even die for America, to affirm that our country is inherently racist?” Pompeo wrote in a Sept. 28 opinion column for Fox. “How can we ask them to view their brothers and sisters in arms through the narrow prisms of race or gender? The clear and obvious answer is that we cannot — not without putting their lives at risk on the battlefield. A woke military is a weak military.”
But Defense Department leaders, while often apprehensive to address the intersection of politics and recruiting, have said they don’t see a connection anecdotally or statistically
“That whole ‘woke’ terminology has me a little perplexed,” Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force JoAnne Bass told Air Force Times Sept. 6. “I don’t know that I agree [with] and appreciate that term.
“I’ve said it before; I think perhaps we do need to wake up to what our society is about today. Perhaps we need to wake up to how we actually have more in common than not. Perhaps we need to wake up to the goodness of the diversity that America brings to the table. That diversity is not just singular to demographic diversity, but … it’s experiences and it’s cognitive diversity as well. I don’t subscribe to the ‘wokeness’ in the way that it’s discussed. I actually think that, yeah, we probably need to wake up to the goodness of what all airmen and what all people bring to the fight.”
In reality, service members spend hundreds of hours a year on mandatory training, covering everything from operational safety to financial responsibility and suicide and sexual assault prevention, with a tiny fraction of that focusing on diversity, equity and inclusion education.
But what seems to incense people is that the issue of racial disparity is discussed at all, not that it’s truly cutting into time spent on training.
When Marine Corps Reserve Col. Matthew F. Amidon, director of veterans and military families at the George W. Bush Institute, wrote a commentary urging veterans to help during the recruiting crisis by recommending military service to their kids and other young people, Military Times was inundated with a hundreds of emails from veterans saying they would do no such thing.
Their reasons varied, but most said wokeness is to blame. They accused the military of becoming so “political,” or such a “social experiment,” that even proud veterans wouldn’t recommend service.
“I’ll be blunt. I wouldn’t encourage anyone to join today’s armed forces and I discouraged both of my sons from considering serving,” wrote Peter Demas, who described himself as a third-generation veteran. “America’s military leaders have sold out the Services for their own advancement and reflect all the poorest qualities of civilian ‘leadership’ from whom they accepted thirty pieces of silver; instead of being the nation’s repository of integrity and moral courage, they have become more political than the political animals they grovel before.”
Survey data compiled by the Defense Department three times a year shows that propensity to serve has been dipping in recent years. A report from fall 2021 shows that just 9 percent of 16- to 24-year-old survey respondents affirmed that they were likely to be serving in the military “in the next few years,” down from highs of 13% in 2018 and 15% in 2013.
But the survey doesn’t drill down into the why, leaving open questions of whether that’s due to disinterest in the military, known factors that would prevent someone from joining, or a concrete aversion overall. So, while the Pentagon regularly takes the temperature of American youth and their likelihood to join up, they don’t regularly drill down into the “why.”
Still, a vocal group of veterans insist they know the answer.
“With a woke military, whose most senior officer is concerned about ‘white rage,’ searching for a tattle tale process to discover and discharge white ‘extremists,’ blaming it on toxic masculinity, discharging real warriors for not getting vaccinated, having a two-day stand down to discuss white extremism, the promotion and expansion of women in combat, lowering physical fitness standards to accommodate naturally weaker women, recruiting with social justice and diversity ads, stating we need more female and minority pilots, promotions based on the color of one’s skin or genitalia, lowering recruiting standards, blaming the military for 247 years of institutional racism, is not the military I was in for 26 years,” wrote Dale Papworth, who said he was a retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel.
Papworth’s comments run counter to some evidence. For instance, the dearth of women and people of color in the upper ranks suggests that if there is a biased promotions system, it’s biased toward white men.
His comments resemble those made by Fox News host Tucker Carlson last year, in response to news reports that the Air Force had authorized a maternity flight suit.
“So, we’ve got new hairstyles and maternity flight suits,” Carlson said, also referring recently updated Army and Air Force hair regulations allowing braids and ponytails. “Pregnant women are going to fight our wars. It’s a mockery of the U.S. military.”
That statement was misinformed at best, and deliberately misleading at worst. Pregnant women in the military are not allowed to deploy, while pilots and aircrew are required to secure waivers from their doctors in order to do training flights.
That is without even mentioning that the maternity flight suit that so incensed Carlson is not just worn by aircrew onboard aircraft ― it’s a standard day-to-day office uniform in aviation units.
Reader feedback suggests that a military and veteran population that has traditionally leaned conservative is no longer supportive of an institution they find unrecognizable.
“My 19-year-old has expressed in no uncertain terms he does not want to serve in the U.S. military in any capacity,” wrote Adam, who asked to be identified by his first name only. “The politicization of our [government] institutions is creeping into the services now, and that is also having an effect. They may as well put out a sign that conservative or right of center Americans are not welcome. They just keep making it worse with their messaging. Boys want to be challenged and go on adventures, not be schooled on pronouns or the sins of their skin color. Girls want to beat boys and prove themselves.”
Since 2020, the services have ramped up their diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, following a lead from then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who in the wake of George Floyd’s murder called on the department to do better.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ran with that idea in the early weeks of the Biden administration, ordering a day-long stand down in every unit to discuss the threat of violent extremism, following years of proclamation from the FBI that right-wing domestic terrorism is on the rise.
But to some, these efforts were a direct attack on their worldview.
“Instead of training and preparing for combat, today’s military is too busy worrying about teaching proper pronouns, how to incorporate men who think they’re women and women who think they’re men into the barracks and showers,” wrote Ron Eslick, describing himself as a 1970s-era Navy submariner. “[Joint Chiefs Chairman] General Milley and Sec Def Austin are a disgrace to the uniform I once wore. They are nothing less than lap dogs to the current administration. What a shame that our country has now become a second rate threat in today’s world.”
And then came the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, one of nearly two dozen inoculations service members must receive in order to join and/or stay in the military, but one whose controversy pushed thousands to preternaturally end their careers.
“Covid vaccine mandates are undermining the military’s recruitment goals as well as harming overall morale,” wrote Harrison Wills. “Even if most troops complied with the mandate, how many did so only because their livelihoods were threatened? How many troops applied for exemptions but were denied? How many soldiers suffered and/or are suffering from side effects? How many people would consider joining the military but now won’t due to coercive mandates?”
A survey released this year of more than 8,600 military families found that troops are becoming less likely to recommend that their kids join up, potentially cutting into a traditionally reliable recruiting pool.
But it wasn’t because of politics, according to Shannon Razsadin, president and executive director of the Military Family Advisory Network, who put out the survey. It was because of quality of life.
“At the end of the day, families are having a hard time making ends meet, and that’s affecting their overall well-being,” she said in July. “We see the connection between well-being and loneliness, well-being and housing, well-being and food security. When you layer that on top of the fact that fewer people are likely to recommend military service, it paints a very clear picture of concern related to the future of the all-volunteer force.”
Notably, however, the survey doesn’t ask specific questions about politics.
Each of the services, along with DoD, are continuously researching the recruiting environment, including tweaking resources and messaging to draw in more prospects.
“The Department continues to review our recruiting programs to ensure current funding and policies align with the realities of today’s youth market. We recognize we must ensure the Services have the resources and support they need to successfully man the All-Volunteer Force,” Army Maj. Charlie Dietz, a Pentagon spokesman, told Military Times.
But they don’t always get it right. In 2018, the Army missed its recruiting goal by about 6,500, the result of an end-strength bump that opened up the doors for more accessions.
The service announced a host of initiatives to Excellerate its 2019 prospects, including a push into major metropolitan areas, with the feeling that their suburban/small-town Southeast well was starting to dry up.
“They did report some positive effects, but the fact that they’re not doing that now suggests that they were limited,” Bruce Orvis, a senior behavioral scientist at the federally funded think tank Rand Corp. who has done dozens of recruiting studies, told Military Times on Sept. 13.
It’s unlikely the Pentagon’s strategy for communicating about its initiatives will change.
“The communication methods on new policies continue to follow a long-standing standard and there have not been any discussions of framing the policies to appease someone that will mold it to meet their argument,” Dietz said.
So, while department officials don’t plan on getting into a direct argument with some of its detractors, they will continue to present their case in as straightforward and nonconfrontational a manner as possible.
“A policy that may increase diversity and inclusion makes us a better military because it brings new perspectives of decision making, operational decision making that we conduct, as well as better ideas, more unique perspectives and increased understanding of experiences which might actually make us smarter on the battlefield,” Dietz added. “We are a stronger military because of our diversity and because we represent all Americans, just like we defend all Americans.”
The chief master sergeant of the Air Force described the path forward differently.
“I feel like I’m a pretty conservative American, but … I’m a conservative American who values what everybody brings to the fight,” Bass said. “… We actually have to educate ourselves and help make ourselves more aware. Often, what you see in a two-second sound bite is not truth. When we read things like, ‘Hey, the military is focused more on pronouns,’ that could not be more inaccurate. We are not focused more on pronouns. We are focused on warfighting and ensuring that we’re able to defend the homeland. That’s what we’re focused on. But the quick two-second sound bite always seems pretty attractive.”
If a misunderstanding of policy is driving down propensity to serve, particularly in communities that have been more likely to join the military in the past, the service could take steps to diagnose that.
One would be to expand the DoD Youth Poll’s questions to drill down into why the respondents answered the way they did.
A task force is already dedicated to looking into some theories about why propensity to serve is down, Orvis said.
The trick will be determining which factors can be remedied without second and third-order effects. For instance, if tight regulations on past mental health history, or criminal history, are keeping the recruiting pool small, the services may be wary of risking continued issues once someone is in uniform.
“Because you don’t want to implement something nationally, on a more or less a permanent basis, if it turns out it’s going to bite you later on it, and you just don’t know,” he said.
The services will also have to redouble their efforts to explain to American youth what it means to serve in the military.
“We must also increase desire to serve in the Army by reconnecting to America through improved marketing and meeting America through interactive events across our nation, including a dedicated surge of Army leaders and soldiers telling their stories,” retired Gen. Paul Funk II, formerly head of Army Training and Doctrine Command, told Military Times last summer.” American youth simply don’t understand us, we owe it to them to ensure they understand all the benefits of service.
But in the meantime, with every report of lower recruiting numbers, military leaders will have to fight a perception of political indoctrination.
“The U.S. Army has fallen 15,000 soldiers short of its recruitment goal this year,” tweeted Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. “Maybe we ought to stop imposing vaccine mandates, preferred pronouns, and woke education training on them. Just a thought.”
Is there truth to any of that? Maybe, but the research hasn’t been done. Until it is, the narrative belongs to the loudest voices.
Air Force Times senior reporter Rachel Cohen contributed to this report.
Meghann Myers is the Pentagon bureau chief at Military Times. She covers operations, policy, personnel, leadership and other issues affecting service members.
Efforts to uncover the prevalence of woke, divisive critical race theory-based equity training and policies in the military are bringing to light an extensive problem.
The latest revelation is the Air Force Academy promoting gender-based “inclusivity” indoctrination while advertising for a fellowship that excludes cadets based on sexual orientation.
Those are only the latest tips of the critical race theory and gender ideology icebergs.
The divisiveness of critical race theory’s and gender ideology’s influence on the military is pervasive, infecting military academies, operational units, and—incredibly—even military medical care.
This scourge was introduced into the military with President Barack Obama’s well-intentioned-sounding diversity and inclusion Executive Order 13583 of Aug. 18, 2011. It was quickly followed by a Government-Wide Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan that directed all agencies to establish diversity and inclusion councils with visible leadership involvement.
These councils and their associated diversity, equity, and inclusion advisers have created a nomenklatura enforcing political preferences that Nadia Schadlow has correctly equated with Soviet political commissars.
One of these diversity apparatchiks was recently uncovered and is under investigation for racist and derogatory public statements. This person is the Department of Defense’s education activity chief diversity officer. This shouldn’t surprise anyone, as this agency has been pushing these divisive ideas for some time.
But this is only a reflection of deeper rot, which also has seemingly infected the military medical community’s thinking.
The Uniformed Service University trains uniformed medical care providers, and in its strategic plan, it aims to institutionalize similar critical race theory-sounding efforts for diversity, equity, and inclusion. Ostensibly a mission for its associate dean, an Army colonel is heading up the institution’s School of Medicine diversity, equity, and inclusion office.
Meanwhile, the Navy’s own medical command’s culture of excellence prioritizes support for diversity and inclusion, albeit dropping the equity part. Understanding how these efforts affect medical guidance, approval for grants, and selection of applicants merits closer scrutiny, especially given the vice president’s recent remarks on equity in allocation of disaster-recovery assistance and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s past guidance on equity in COVID-19 vaccination distribution.
A critical race theory whistleblower hotline created by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, has helped bring a lot of this sort of thing to light, but must be sustained and awareness increased among service members. Already it is credited with exposing the Navy’s “pronoun” training focused on creating safe spaces, and so too could it uncover malfeasance of military medical training and policies.
The nonprofit watchdog group Judicial Watch also has been active in uncovering critical race theory prevalence in the military, and it has outstanding lawsuits against the Navy seeking information on Naval Academy training records. It recently was credited with uncovering critical race theory ideology in the training at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, despite the Army’s protestations to the contrary.
Overall, the effect has been to subordinate operational readiness in defense of the nation to social shibboleths such as diversity, equity, and inclusion.
That’s something that retired Gen. Thomas Spoehr, now the director of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense, detailed in a recent speech. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)
Spoehr rightly points out that this has already led to unwise medical decisions, such as waiving prohibitions on HIV-positive personnel from serving in combat zones. Given that soldiers, sailors, and Marines bleed together in combat, this operationally uninformed policy change makes little medical sense.
To be clear, HIV is now a chronic disease, requiring lifelong medical treatment, whereas COVID-19 fatality rates are very low with rare long-term consequences requiring sustained medication.
So, where will all of this lead? The revolutionary French navy of the 1790s provides a good case study. It was a fleet that years earlier was victorious over the British navy at the Battle of the Capes, the 1781 battle that helped us win independence at Yorktown. Revolutionary France undid its fleet’s readiness by prioritizing political reliability as the principal qualification for command at sea.
As a result, three years later, France was unable to muster an effective naval response to British blockades and interdiction of its shipping during war with Britain. As such, the revolutionary French navy suffered a string of naval defeats for 26 years, eventually leading to Napoleon’s defeat in 1815.
Hopefully, our nation will heed such lessons and reverse the caustic influence of critical race theory on military good order and discipline. Then-President Donald Trump’s September 2020 executive order banning related training in the federal government came too late in his administration to markedly change the trajectory in the military.
So deeply ingrained is critical race theory that even a commander in chief’s efforts can be stymied. While Trump was still president, the Navy was so enraptured by the tenets of diversity, equity, and inclusion that in July 2020, it launched Task Force One Navy, a deep look into the prevalence of racism and extremism in the ranks.
The Task Force’s final report, released in January 2021, revealed a Navy that’s still remarkably egalitarian, despite anecodotal claims of racism and extremism. That report was followed shortly by an unfortunate embrace of problematic books such as Ibram Kendi’s “How to Be an Antiracist” on naval professional practicing lists.
When it comes to proponents of critical race theory, facts and unbiased research are in short supply. Moreover, despite the military political leadership’s protestations to the contrary, no statistically relevant data has been provided. Little evidence validates the time and energy devoted to diversity, equity, and inclusion indoctrination, or claims of rampant racism and extremism in the military.
It has in fact been a straw man to instill political compliance among the rank and file, sowing discord where little existed before in the military.
In the immediate future, efforts such as the critical race theory whistleblower hotline and legal requests for information must continue apace, and new vigor must be directed at uncovering critical race theory’s influence in the military medical community.
Left to spread for too long, rooting out the caustic influences of critical race theory on our military will regrettably take years to undo.
This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal
Occurred on October 3, 2022 / Tucson, Arizona, USA: "Driving home from a trip and saw the train. The whole train was just military vehicles. I had never seen that on a train before. Was with my husband and kids on I-10"
Data informs military decisions at the government level. Now, the GAO says its oversight has been "hindered" by information that is incomplete or unavailable.
WASHINGTON — A new report from the Government Accountability Office says more (and better) data is needed to ensure that the U.S. military's elite warriors and taxpayers get the most bang for their buck.
The size of the nation's special operations forces, and the demands upon them, have grown substantially since 9/11.
The number of personnel that perform the mission -- to advance and protect U.S. national security interests -- has increased from a little over 45,000 people in 2001 to nearly 74,000 last year.
The Department of Defense (DOD) collects and uses data to oversee these forces while they're deployed.
But, according the GAO report, the information itself has problems, was incomplete or unavailable, and oversight of units has therefore been "hindered."
"They're heavily deployed and heavily used and stretched to the limit. So, every dollar and every person counts," said Cary Russell, a director in the GAO's Defense Capabilities and Management team. "And, so it's imperative that where those resources are placed are absolutely the right place and and in the right amount so that you're not over-extending or under-extending forces that are out there."
Russell said it's urgent that the DOD gets this right.
"It's everybody's -- the U.S. government and in the U.S. taxpayers' -- interests that these resources and capabilities be optimized and be put in the right places at the right time to ensure successful missions," he said, "and to ensure the outcomes our special operators are working so hard to advance."
The GAO is calling for the use of standard terminology among the branches' different special operations commands and task forces, and establishment a centralized data collection mechanism.
The DOD concurred with recommendations.
While President Biden's Secretary of the Army has defended its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs this week as "important," several current and former members of the U.S. military, who have put their lives on the line to ensure America's security and defend its freedoms, are sounding the alarm over what they call a culture putting "wokeness" before training and combat effectiveness.
Those service members, some of whom served with Special Operations Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, are blaming that culture for its recruiting challenges, which have risen to a level unseen since it was transitioned to an all-volunteer force.
"The military is extremely woke," one service member told Fox News Digitial recently.
"I do perceive the Army leadership as woke, and probably the lower enlisted (they have been indoctrinated in school)," another service member said. "Equity-diversity is another way to divide and control the masses. It does nothing for the warfighter."
"We get criticized, frankly, sometimes for being ‘woke,'" Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said at a Monday discussion with other military leaders on national security and the branch’s modernization efforts. "I'm not sure what ‘woke’ means. I think ‘woke’ means a lot of different things to different people."
She continued, "But, first of all, if ‘woke’ means we are not focused on warfighting, we are not focused on readiness, that doesn’t reflect what I see at installations all around the country or overseas when I go and visit."
ARMY MISSES RECRUITING GOALS WHILE OTHER BRANCHES FALL BEHIND FOR NEXT YEAR
The service members, who remained anonymous so they could speak freely, almost universally shared a similar sentiment, with many noting that senior members who speak out on the issue risk their careers or retirement pensions.
"Merely questioning the goals or methods used to promote ‘Equity & Diversity’ is punished and that punishment is swift, harsh, and public," one service member said.
BIDEN'S ARMY SECRETARY RESPONDS TO ‘WOKE’ CRITICISMS, SAYS DEI PROGRAMS ‘IMPORTANT’
"I 100% believe the military is woke. I see daily minorities, overweight people and women not adhering to military standards," another said. "Nobody corrects them due to the fear of being fired and labeled a racist or a sexist."
"I do think we do have a wide range of soldiers in our Army, and we've got to make them all feel included," Wormuth said Monday. "And that’s why a lot of our diversity, equity and inclusion programs are important."
Another service member pointed to the military's COVID-19 policies, noting the vaccine mandate has forced many members in good standing into difficult decisions.
LAWMAKERS SOUND ALARM OVER U.S. MILITARY RECRUITMENT CRISIS: ‘WHY WOULD I JOIN?’
"Most of us who serve did so because we came from military families. Patriotism and American values are no longer appreciated or expected," one service member said. "Troops themselves are largely treated as expendable and they don't even pretend otherwise. Spending 15+ years in the military during wartime with multiple deployments risking their lives only to be tossed out like garbage. Losing the retirement they have worked years to earn because they didn't want to take an experimental vaccine for an illness that was mild for fit and healthy people."
The military has been facing a recruiting crisis, with the Army failing to meet its recruiting goals in 2022 and the Marines, Air Force and Navy all dipping deep into their pools of delayed entry program candidates to scratch by this year, putting them well behind the pace for meeting next year's goals.
"In the Army's most challenging recruiting year since the start of the all-volunteer force, we will only achieve 75% of our fiscal year '22 recruiting goal," Wormuth said in a statement after the numbers were publicly released.
While the military has faced several challenges in recent years, including restrictions to entering schools brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic and a tight jobs market, many others have pinned the blame for the issue on a culture becoming less focused on winning the nation's wars.
"How can we ask young men and women who have decided to risk their lives for America, even die for America, to affirm that our country is inherently racist?" former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wrote for Fox News last month. "How can we ask them to view their brothers and sisters in arms through the narrow prisms of race or gender? The clear and obvious answer is that we cannot – not without putting their lives at risk on the battlefield. A woke military is a weak military. Unfortunately, woke and weak are exactly what our military is becoming under Biden’s leadership."
AMERICA’S MILITARY AND OUR COUNTRY WON’T SURVIVE IF WOKEISM CONTINUES TO RULE
Many of the service members reached by Fox News Digital expressed similar concerns, with some saying they would not encourage their children to join the military.
"I would not have my children join for the same reason they are in private schools vs. public schools," one service member said.
"I couldn’t allow my kids to join the military, and risk having them serve under commanders like I saw on deployments," another service member said, citing the failures of leadership witnessed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"They’d be better off serving for one of our allies who are focused on defending their country and will come to our aid when our woke and unready force embarrasses itself," another said.
"Why would I have my kids join an institution who works every day to call them evil and diminish the contributions of their ancestors," said another.
AIR FORCE ACADEMY PROMOTES FELLOWSHIP THAT BANS ‘CISGENDER' MEN: ‘THIS PROGRAM ISN’T FOR YOU’
Service members also complained of an overly-political culture among the military's leadership, arguing it has hindered their ability to prepare the country for conflict.
"The DOD is absolutely politicized. No matter what party is in power. Generals have basically become politicians, and ‘yes men’ and will conform to whatever party is in power," one service member said.
"It seems like in the '90s, DOD was apolitical, but that doesn’t seem to be the case now. It seems like more and more leaders are more overtly supporting a political side, rather than their oath," another said.
Though most of the members expressed concern about the direction of the military, some shared optimism that the culture could be turned around.
"I still think the military has values that are salvageable," one service member said.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Others stressed that the military needs to return its focus on the mission in order to turn things around.
"I prefer a military that was more concerned with the standards of the unit, rather than equity," a service member said, describing those initiatives as "disruptive towards the real training the military should focus on."
Fox News' Houston Keene contributed to this report.
The military electronic chart display and information system market size has the potential to grow by USD 32. 08 million during 2020-2024, and the market's growth momentum will accelerate during the forecast period.
New York, Oct. 11, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Reportlinker.com announces the release of the report "Military Electronic Chart Display and Information System Market by Type and Geography - Forecast and Analysis 2020-2024" - https://www.reportlinker.com/p06327308/?utm_source=GNW
This report provides a detailed analysis of the market by type (submarines, frigates, corvettes, destroyers, and others) and geography (APAC, Europe, MEA, North America, and South America). Also, the report analyzes the market's competitive landscape. It offers information on several market vendors, including ADVETO AB, Danelec Marine AS, Elbit Systems Ltd., Kongsberg Gruppen ASA, Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp., QinetiQ Ltd., Saab AB, Thales Group, and WÃ¤rtsilÃ¤ Corp.
Market Competitive Analysis
The military ECDIS market is concentrated. ADVETO AB, Danelec Marine AS, and Elbit Systems Ltd. are some of the major market participants. Although the proliferation of sophisticated naval weapons and technology will offer immense growth opportunities, ECDIS solution complexity will challenge the growth of the market participants. To make the most of the opportunities, market vendors should focus more on the growth prospects in the fast-growing segments, while maintaining their positions in the slow-growing segments.
To help clients Excellerate their market position, this military electronic chart display and information system market forecast report provides a detailed analysis of the market leaders. It offers information on the competencies and capacities of these companies. The report also covers details on the market's competitive landscape and provides information on the products offered by various companies. Moreover, this military electronic chart display and information system market analysis report also provides information on the upcoming trends and challenges that will influence market growth. This will help companies create strategies to make the most of future growth opportunities.
This report provides information on the production, sustainability, and prospects of several leading companies, including:
Danelec Marine AS
Elbit Systems Ltd.
Kongsberg Gruppen ASA
Lockheed Martin Corp.
Northrop Grumman Corp.
APAC will offer several growth opportunities to market vendors during the forecast period. The rise of illegal maritime activities and naval threats will significantly drive military electronic chart display and information system market growth in this region over the forecast period.
33% of the market's growth will originate from APAC during the forecast period. China and India are the key markets for military electronic chart display and information system in APAC.
Modern military submarines use an inertial guidance system to navigate while submerged. To combat the unavoidable drift error that builds over time, submarines are increasingly relying on ECDIS that helps obtain an accurate position. With the addition of features such as increased sensor data acquisition, data-processing algorithm, key information layer management (customization of displayed map layers), and powerful, high-performance 2D/3D display engine and information layer management, the global military ECDIS market is expected to foresee significant growth in the submarine segment during the forecast period. This report provides an accurate prediction of the contribution of all the segments to the growth of the military electronic chart display and information system market size.
Military Electronic Chart Display and Information System Market: Key Drivers and Trends
Due to increased tension among neighboring countries worldwide and the procurement of new-age weapons, countries across the globe are making significant investments in combat systems. The proliferation of sophisticated naval weapons and technology to counter threats has been positively affecting the global military electronic chart display and information system market during recent years. Additionally, the sales of advanced warships, submarines, and naval combat systems have boosted the procurement of electronic chart display and information systems.
Many countries across the globe, are manufacturing combat ships, maritime patrol aircraft, and deploying mines to boost their naval platforms. New auxiliary vessels are supporting these increased operations. An increase in the number of these assets will simultaneously boost the development of naval combat systems, which is a driver for the military electronic chart display and information system market.
Military Electronic Chart Display and Information System Market: Key Highlights of the Report for 2020-2024
CAGR of the market during the forecast period 2020-2024
Detailed information on factors that will drive military electronic chart display and information system market growth during the next five years
Precise estimation of the military ECDIS market size and its contribution to the parent market
Accurate predictions on upcoming trends and changes in consumer behavior
The growth of the military electronic chart display and information system industry across APAC, Europe, MEA, North America, and South America
A thorough analysis of the market's competitive landscape and detailed information on vendors
Comprehensive details of factors that will challenge the growth of military electronic chart display and information system market vendors
Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p06327308/?utm_source=GNW
ReportLinker is an award-winning market research solution. Reportlinker finds and organizes the latest industry data so you get all the market research you need - instantly, in one place.
CONTACT: Clare: firstname.lastname@example.org US: (339)-368-6001 Intl: +1 339-368-6001