Why do Cuba and Haiti matter to US? Yes, freedom and rule of law are important. But there is also a safety reason: both countries are the starting point for the most difficult and destabilizing mass migrations to US in the 1980s and 90s. These are dangerous for those who flee. 1/
There is a misconception that mass migrations begin because of climate or other disasters. It isn't true; there are climate refugees, but unexpected mass maritime migrations are almost always caused by political unrest. 2/
Those of us of a certain age will remember "boat people." You can be pretty confident that our US intelligence and Coast Guard are monitoring maritime activity, things like are trees suddenly disappearing and whether there are sustainable water supplies. 3/
Lots of reasons to care, but this is also about protecting our (maritime) borders. Nothing to be ashamed about saying it. We have an interest in helping for reasons that are not just political or humanitarian and but also about our security. 4/4
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We spent 2020 learning about COVID, and we are still learning. We learned that a binary nature of response -- let it rip or shut it all down -- wasn't accurate or sustainable. #TokyoOlympics should have made decision to prohibit spectators earlier. Now the Games go on. Good. 1/
So much wrong with the Olympics: money, greed, stupid rules about marijuana use. Separate those all out. The question is really can the risk be reduced enough -- with all the health rules in place, including no spectators now -- to hold a safer, responsible Olympics. 2/
The answer is yes, but nothing is perfect. Many of us who help with sports security have been pushing for no spectators for awhile. It's a simple calculation: the goal is for athletes to compete and spectators are nice but not essential. Everything to its core functionality. 3/
On this 6 month anniversary of 1/6/2021 insurrection, it is important we take an account of where we are. Lots of bad news and worrying for our democracy. But, through the dismay, I'll do the good news part lest the hard work be viewed as totally futile. Thread. 1/
A week after 1/6, I wrote this @TheAtlantic about how viewing Trump as the leader of a terror organization was now the correct framework. It was viewed by many in my field as paranoid, too extreme, the wrong framing. We now know much more about 1/6. 2/ theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
I had long viewed Trump has inciting terror, and used words like "stochastic terrorism" to describe his brand of inciting, without owning, violence. It was too benign. Violence is his north star, the GOP knows it. The Big Lie isn't some political rally; it is a call to arms. 3/
Thread on #InsurrectionAct. After Hurricane Katrina, when civil society had broken down and basic food and water needs not addressed, Pres. Bush was presented with the option to invoke the #Insurrection Act to deploy active military. The merits were strong. Still, he declined 1/
It will go down as one of the most "what if" questions of that era. Deployments like that are complicated and it is naive to think the military would have solved everything.
But perhaps they could have solved more. And Bush liked military efforts, after all. 2/
In his recollections, and others, it was the idea of deploying active military, not trained for such efforts, opposed by the Governor (a Democrat then), and the precedent it would set for the nation that got him to no. 3/
How to measure success? On ransomware, the goal is delay and disruption; stopping Putin isn't about some legal action. So, some wins #GenevaSummit for US have already happened at G7 and NATO with greater focus and cooperation against Russia. Also 1/
Attribution isn't nothing. Calling out Putin's acceptance of criminal enterprises that target US networks is a positive step SINCE the opposite was occurring before (remember Trump focused on China and Iran). 2/
Those criminal enterprises will be less confident of continuing their mayhem against US civilians if they think either Putin might go after one or more of them as a public gesture to curb continuing international pressure or DOJ continues to disrupt their access to currency. 3/
NEW: The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism is out. Importantly, it distinguishes our focus on 1/6 from the larger issue of white supremacy, which predates it. Some of it is familiar, but there are also some important new highlights. 1/ whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
Before getting into the details, it is essential that the WH owns this issue, and owns it for us. While there is evidence of foreign countries amplifying our hate, this is an American problem. We have to embrace it to try to expel it. And that is a start. 2/
Details. First, it focuses on a specific issue: violence. While it gives due course to underlying hate, it also recognizes that the use of violence, or threat of it, is of primary importance. That is key because it opens up a conversation about guns, which are hard to ignore. 3/
Thread about MAGA violence and calling it out. MTG's comments aren't just about Nazis. Her words are in line with a narrative of Trumpism: endorsing violence or threat of violence for political gain, a throughline from 2016 to 1/6 to disenfranchisement efforts. 1/
Greene is disturbed. She is also promoting a familiar violent narrative meant to incite. Greene is equating those who support masking with Nazis. That's obvious. But it is more than horrifying. It is code. If we are Nazis, then violence towards us is justified. Wink and nod. 2/
It's a technique Trump mastered; promote violence without saying so, a sophisticated use of stochastic (inciting for random acts of violence) terrorism. "Liberate Michigan!" and they tried to kidnap the Gov. He would deny it. Just a joke, his people would say.
3/