Teaching national security affairs is part of a 10-month professional MA program for US officers of all military services, federal employees, and officers from about 70 countries. /2
On average, we teach 3-4 seminars a year during 26 weeks with about 45 students. The other 26 weeks is devoted to professional contributions, college service, and curriculum refinement. To see what faculty work on, check out usnwc.edu/Faculty-and-De…
/4
And to be literal, some of your colleagues would be senior leaders from the Department of State and intelligence community.
/5
Contact our dept chair, @DerekSReveron or see the announcement for more info.
/6x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here's a little Cold War nostalgia for you that relates to today. Back in 1983, Sam Huntington published an article in which he argued that one way to deter the Soviets from invading Western Europe was to threaten counter-invasions of Eastern Europe.
The idea was they invade West Germany, we do airdrops into the GDR and CZ. A lot of folks thought he was nuts, and it was a pretty off-the-wall idea, especially NATO didn't have a lot of ability to pull that off. Here's an article about it:
I was studying with Huntington at the time, and I think he was aiming at NATO guys whose only answer to a Soviet invasion was Armageddon. I also think he was trying to rattle the Soviets and piss them off. (It worked: They noticed.) /3
I'm gonna say that I am surprised (and gladly so) by how fast the Democrats coalesced around Harris. First time in a while I've really gotten the sense that they know what the stakes are that maybe disbanding the circular firing squad is a good idea. VP was the obvious choice. /1
Many of you asked me WELL WHO DO YOU WANT, TOM in that "we dare you to name a name" way. I didn't say Harris or anyone else. All of them had risks, and I didn't want a pile-on, especially on a candidate who becomes "the one you Never Trumpers" want, and esp before Biden quit. /2
But duh, if the President decides not to run the VP is the obvious choice unless someone in the party can make the strong case that she isn't. No one has. Instead, the Dems seem to be rallying around a pick as good as any they have. QED /3
Before I head downstairs for some late-night TV, I am going to do something I’ve never done:
To see if I can get through to some of you, I AM GOING TO USE A SPORTSBALL ANALOGY!
/1
Bottom of the 9th, Team Democracy tied with Team Autocrat. Biden’s been pitching a great game, but he’s getting tired. Facing their top hitter, he goes for his fastball.
He unloads a wild pitch into the stands, hitting a fan in the head. Crowd hushes. Opposing team grins.
/2
The Coach – concerned Dems – comes out to the mound.
"You okay?"
"Fine. Insulted you’d ask. Watch this next pitch."
Biden puts one in the dirt.
The Coach watches the catcher scrambling and then at the guy in the stands rubbing his sore noggin.
I agree that there is a double-standard in covering Trump. I have complained about it a lot. (The way I complain about everything: At length.) But maybe many of you should consider what you were saying about Trump coverage back at the start.
"Stop covering him!"
/1
I was one of the people arguing for saturating the airwaves with him so people could see his emotional instability. "Shut up," many of you yelled. "You're giving him oxygen!" When he was POTUS, I opposed kicking him off Twitter, which made some of you go nuts.
/2
And this isn't because it was good coverage; you wanted him cast into silence, which I opposed. This got so intense that I wrote this piece in USA Today to pushback on the calls to stop tweeting his press conferences:
This is an outdated way of thinking about nuclear bombers.
Yes, they are recallable - a great thing to have in 1960. Today, not as big a deal. Here's why. Short 🧵
/1
During the Cold War, you assumed that a crisis could erupt into hemisphere-wide, all-out nuclear war. So you wanted a way to get at least some of your nukes out of the way early - and show the enemy your readiness. Bombers are A+ for that./2
Once ICBMs enter the picture after 1959-ish, however, we have a new problem: What if the enemy's massive first strike destroys the ICBMs and the sub pens, leaving the last few subs able only to destroy cities and trigger Armageddon?
Bombers wait for the order, is what. /3
I don't usually respond to critics, but this guy hauls me up short on what I get wrong about my insistence on absolute deference to experts.
A thread!
/1
Good point here about scientists who can't speak to the normals:
/2
And yeah, we should have maybe paid more attention to the problem of progressives who wouldn't let go:
/3