Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

The federal government’s most important responsibility is to ensure the security of the nation, and the central means to achieve that is the provision of an adequate defense budget, a figure that generally represents about 14% of all Washington’s spending.

A bipartisan Congressional agreement has been achieved on the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It should be noted that while a deal has been reached within the legislative branch, the White House figure, which provided significantly less funding, has been rejected.  The “topline” figure agreed to by Congress is $858 billion, a substantial hike over the $813 billion Biden proposal.

The Executive Branch’s proposal did not reflect the intense and growing combined threats from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and international terrorism. Dov Zakheim, In an article for The Hill, notes that    “The Biden administration’s fiscal year 2023 defense budget request is in equal parts disappointing and disturbing. It is disappointing because, when inflation is taken into account, it provides no real growth in defense spending, and most likely a real decline. It is disturbing because it has been released at a time when America’s worldwide commitments are as demanding as ever.“

Weaponry that exists merely on the drawing boards or in plans for the future don’t provide the degree of protection urgently required right now, an era fraught with danger. The NDAA addresses that by providing for readiness measures. It stops the early retirement of combat platforms, including the F-22 fighter.  As China seeks to expand its lead as the planet’s largest navy, NDAA for adding 11 Navy ships. This Puts the Navy back on track to building a 355 ship Navy. It restores funding for the sea-launched nuclear cruise missile. It reforms the National Defense Stockpile, and enhances the munitions industrial base. It also stops the bleed-off of personnel due to vaccine mandates, and politically-motivated woke agendas.

Just as aide to Ukraine was central to repulsing Moscow’s invasion and future plans for potential aggression, the NDAA provides for $10 billion over five years to provide for security assistance with Taiwan.

All the weaponry means little unless motivated skilled service members are present. The NDAA provides a 4.6% pay raise for service members. It also increased housing allowances and lowers prices at commissaries to offset inflationary pressures. It expands eligibility for low income military families to receive an additional allowances to cover basic needs.The NDAA Expands training availabilities for servicemembers, and improves the safety of the ships, aircraft, combat vehicles, and facilities.

Emerging technologies, such as AI, quantum computing, hypersonic weapons, and autonomous systems will receive investment, along with supply-chain and industrial strengthening.

It provides over $10 billion in service chief and combatant commander priorities left unfunded by the Biden Budget.

Some of the relatively modest hike in defense spending was approved in an effort to address inflationary pressures. Similar to what almost every American family is experiencing, the Pentagon is finding that its budget simply fails to go as far as it was planned to do when inflation has risen to levels not seen since 1982.

Increasing the defense budget comes at a time when it is urgently required.  As the noted research center the Jamestown Foundation notes, “ in early March, the Chinese government announced a defense budget of 1.45 trillion yuan (about $229 billion) for fiscal year 2022, which is a 7.1 percent year-on-year increase from 2021 … [a]fter years of double digit increases in the 2000s and early 2010s…An increase in Beijing’s defense budget raises red flags for China’s neighbors and the U.S. given the growing tensions over Taiwan, the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and the Sino-Indian border dispute in the Himalayas.

Photo: An Air Force B-21(DoD)

The Biden Administration is disturbingly oblivious to the growing terrorist threat its own actions and policies have caused.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) recently outlined the issue. He noted that the White House is “deaf, dumb and blind to the national security threats we face.Whether it is the collapse of Afghanistan where the Taliban now reign or a completely broken southern border that could be easily penetrated by international terrorists, the Biden Administration is failing.”

The U.S. Office of the Inspector General found that “After meeting with more than 130 individuals from the Department of Homeland Security, we determined DHS encountered obstacles to screen, vet, and inspect all Afghan evacuees arriving as part of Operation Allies Refuge (OAR)/Operation Allies Welcome (OAW). Specifically, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) did not always have critical data to properly screen, vet, or inspect the evacuees. We determined some information used to vet evacuees through U.S. Government databases, such as name, date of birth, identification number, and travel document data, was inaccurate, incomplete, or missing. We also determined CBP admitted or paroled evacuees who were not fully vetted into the United States.”

Senator Graham’s comments came in response to a hearing in which National Security Division of the Department of Justice admitted that it did not know the number of border crossings, which is in the millions, from special interest countries designated as such because of their ties to terrorism. In addition, dozens of individuals have been apprehended at the southern border who are on terrorist watch lists.

His concerns were echoed by Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), along with a number of her colleagues, who expressed concern to Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Alejandro Mayorkas that

“The most devastating event would be an organized terrorist attack, originating from Afghanistan, against our homeland via our southern border … We are tremendously exposed, as the unrelenting surge of illegal immigration on our southern border is tying up resources, and taking our eye off the ball when it comes to terrorism, drugs, and crime. The Border Patrol union and others have raised concern regarding the diversion and misuse of resources at the border. We must not ignore their concerns.”

The letter noted that Terrorist groups that have already found a foothold in Central and South America, including in the Tri-Border area and elsewhere, now have an opportunity to enter the United States by way of Mexico. In the past nine months, the Border Patrol has apprehended at least 56 individuals who were on the Terrorist Screening Database. Given the unprecedented number of “got-aways” – 500,000 that known about since last October – it is a “near certainty” that other individuals on the Terrorist Screening Database have entered the United States undetected, via our open southern border.

The Senator’s concern is shared by Texas Governor Abbot, who recently tweeted “80+ terrorists on the Terrorist Watchlist have been encountered along our southern border since Pres. Biden took office.”

Abbott shared information from the Intelligence and Counterterrorism Division of the Texas Department of Public Safety’s (DPS) Fusion Center that revealed that 66 non-U.S. citizens on the federal Terrorist Screening Dataset (TSDS) have been encountered in areas between U.S. ports of entry (POEs) just in the 2022 fiscal year.

American Military News notes that the 81 terrorist watchlist encounters outside of the points of entry at the southern border since the start of fiscal year 2021 are more than seven times the number of those types of encounters from fiscal years 2017 through the end of fiscal year 2020. During those years, there were 11 recorded terrorist watchlist encounters between points of entry at the Southern border.

Photo: DHS Secretary Mayorkas

Italy changes government as often as some people buy shoes – new ones for each season. Last month Italy get again formed a new government led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.  She immediately began a public diplomacy effort. She attended meetings in Asia and Europe with world leaders with the intend to dispel rumors speculating that Italy was heading toward a possible “Magyarization” (“Hungarization”) of Italy’s foreign policy. Claudia Palazzo, of the Jamestown Foundation, notes that that this had been “concerning for Rome’s NATO and EU partners in the sense that the country might turn intransigent and isolated.”

Earlier this month, the Italian Parliament decreed that the government is allowed to supply military aid, by way of exception, to Ukraine without the need to seek new approvals from Parliament. This is an extension of Rome’s February 25 decree that was scheduled to conclude at the end of December. Palazzo argues that this extension has “much more consequential political meaning than its apparent eminently technical content.” Its content is remaining secret to limit Russian access to the information, although the press has revealed some details.  

The current makeup of the Italian Parliament, according to Palazzo, doesn’t permit Italian-Russian ties to directly impact its decision-making. But, she argues, it should be viewed from the perspective of Italy’s homeland security. At the beginning of December, Italy extended its military personnel’s participation in the NATO Very High Readiness joint Task Force. This comes after last month’s announcement by Defense Minister Guido Crosetto that Rome will pursue dedicating its “2% of GDP funds” for military spending as required by NATO.

Like much of Europe, Italy’s citizens are experiencing significant penetration of Russian propaganda and a high number of Russian operatives working in the “grey zones” of society and trade. Of concern to security officials is that foreign threats within Italy are operationally managers by law enforcement branches trained to respond only to domestic threats and may be less effective against Russia. This had led to a stalemate between Paris and Rome over migrant policy.

Immigration management, according to Palazzo, “can be easily magnified to shake the respective consensus that seems to have emerged in European public opinion, with each country hoping to push the European partners to pick their side.” The Balkan states, she adds, have been waiting for Rome to play a central role in mediating relations with the European Union (EU). So far, the new government appears to be continuing the policies of the previous one as well as maintaining a similar foreign policy that aligns with that of the United States NATO, and the EU. 

What is new is Rome’s attention to resolving issues in the Balkans, something the EU as a whole has been unable to accomplish. Italy’s newly independent foreign policy emphasizes leveraging its own ties to the region and capitalizing on how it holistically benefits the European community. Second, is a trend toward improving the defense and strategic aspects for cooperating with third countries. Palazzo suggests that this lies in the willingness and ability of Rome to leverage its assets, among which “military know-how and production capability are among the most significant,” and can serve as a solid basis for expanding cooperation and acquiring new partnerships. Etiene Soula, a research analyst with the Alliance for Securing Democracy, says that “Amidst the cascading effects of Russia’s war on Ukraine, soaring energy prices and rampant inflation negatively impacting the whole EU, the foreign policy outlook of the [European] Union’s third-largest economy will be particularly important over the coming months.” He points out that Italy’s policies towards Moscow, as well as the government’s approach to allies in Brussels and Washington, will be “critical” to maintaining a united front against Russia’s aggression while preserving European cohesion on sanctions and military support for Ukraine. It appears that Europe is developing a more unified position in responding to the Russian threat despite attempts by its intelligence operatives to influence opinions and previous Italian governments.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

The CCP leadership in Beijing is concerned about growing domestic unrest this fall and the long-term implications for stability within the country. Chinese citizens are upset and demonstrating over the government’s zero Covid-19 policy which has led to tragic incidents and a downturn in the economy. In one case, fire and rescue personnel were unable to reach victims when a fire broke out in a locked down high-rise apartment building. Citizens were incensed by the needless deaths of the apartment dwellers. The demonstrations across China are bringing about comparisons to the 1989 demonstrations in Tiananmen Square. The government is censoring news about the deaths and demonstrations. Photos of demonstrators holding blank white placards symbolizing their lack of free speech quickly spread across the Internet.

The earlier demonstrations, beginning in April 1989, were sparked by the death of the reformist Chinese Communist Party Chief Hu Yaobang. Protests spread to major cities across China, along with violence and the student occupation of Tiananmen Square in Beijing. More than 100,000 students took to the streets in the capital. More recently, on the 30^th anniversary of Hu’s death, the Chinese government removed mentions of him on Weibo and the Chinese Internet. Leaders again feared unrest and chaos could spread and threaten the Party’s tight grip on the country.

Last month, just as protests were starting to calm down, former CCP General Secretary Jiang Zemin, passed away at the age of 96. “The timing of Jiang’s death was striking as it occurred amidst the largest public pushback against CCP rule since the student protest movement in spring 1989, which culminated in the June 3-4 Tiananmen Square massacre that preceded his assumption of CCP leadership at the 13th Central Committee’s Fourth Plenum that same month,” notes John S. Van Oudenaren of the Jamestown Foundation.

Similarly, the CCP leadership feared the current wave of demonstrations, ostensibly about the severe Covid lockdown, could morph into a more general renunciation of the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party and its principal leaders in a similar way to 1989 Tiananmen Square protest. President Xi has found himself trying to balance between totally shutting down society with a severe lockdown to stem the spread of the new variant of the virus, or bend to civil society and loosen the restrictions while risking increased cases of the virus. 

In response to pressure from the mass demonstrations President Xi Jinping folded and chose to relax Covid restrictions. In this case, the power of the people, won over the authoritarian dictates of the Chinese Communist Party leadership. Citizens in Western democracies often find ways to make their voices heard and change public policy. In China, such “luan” or chaos is not tolerated by Xi Jinping or the CCP leadership. It makes what happened this week all the more remarkable and brings into question the true strength of the Communist Party.   

 Xi Jinping, recently re-elected to a record third term as president in October, faces a domestic economy that is struggling. He is continuing to use a strong-armed interventionist approach against private sector businesses that is hurting business growth. The CCP has maintained power in the country mainly due to the expansion of the economy in recent decades. If the Party can’t produce good economic results, and the broad base of the population is suffering both economically and physically, the legitimacy of the CCP and its leadership could be called into question. 

Analysts this week suggest that Xi Jinping and the top leadership recognize this possibility and view themselves as in a weakened position, despite Xi’s directly overseeing all important levers of power, including the military, judiciary, police, propaganda, and foreign policy establishments. Looking to history for lessons learned from the 1989 demonstrations, it appears Xi Jinping chose the pragmatic course. 

There are differences between 1989 and today. The middle class is larger in China, their expectations are higher, and they are more connected to the outside world. Thirty-three years ago, students had little practical understanding of democratic practices, free market economics or advanced technologies common in the West. All that has changed. Xi may have taken the only action possible in the short-run to quell unrest. However, it may have opened the door to the eventual downfall of authoritarian rule in China.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Moscow has more to worry about than the war in Ukraine. As winter approaches and the ground begins freezing, Putin is also facing new concerns to his east. In the central Asian state of Azerbaijan, there are mounting concerns about a potential border war with Iran after November protests in Tehran spread across the country and the Iranian government attempted to destabilize Azerbaijan. “We will do everything possible to defend our way of life as well as the secular direction of the development of Azerbaijan and of Azerbaijanis, including Azerbaijanis living in Iran. They are part of our nation,” announced President Ilham Aliyev. Salam New Agency reports that the president’s words were intended to win support at home for those Azerbaijani living abroad. Some politicians in Azerbaijan see their secular nation as a divided people, similar to the situation on the Korean peninsula. They are vocally pushing to rename the Republic of Azerbaijan, Northern Azerbaijan. One parliamentarian in Baku, Gudrat Gasanguliyav, argued that renaming the state would serve as a “stimulus” for those religious individuals living south of the Aras River. They account for about one-third of Iran’s population, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. Azerbaijanis in the south are increasing dissatisfied with the repressive regime in Iran. 

Statements by politicians in Azerbaijan have lit a fuse in Tehran that could lead to a full-scale conflict that Putin might not be capable of stopping. The Russian publication Real Tribune reports that with heightened tensions between the two states, “the Kremlin is actively expanding shipping routes between Russia and Iran in the Caspian Sea to avoid having to rely on land routes that it once hoped could be used to circumvent Western sanctions,” notes Goble. He adds that it has “sparked fears in Tehran and elsewhere that either the Iranian authorities will try to use such language to gin up patriotic support in response to the current wave of protests or that the tit-for-tat moves by Iran and Azerbaijan along their common border may escalate into a full-scale military conflict.” It is an “indication of just how worried Moscow is about the current state of affairs,” notes Goble.  

In Regnum.ru, one Russian commentator, Stanislav Tarasov, wrote that while these statements may not lead to any immediate war, they are likely to have potentially far-reaching consequences not only for Azerbaijani-Iranian relations but also for the relationship between Baku and Ankara, thus representing a seriously destabilizing development for the greater Middle East. Tarasov says it is evidence that Baku is working with Turkey to destroy Iran but that “the actual facts of the case may be far different and lead to Azerbaijan becoming more independent of Turkey with regards to regional geopolitics.”

Aliyev’s decision to “play ‘the Iranian card’” is part of Baku’s efforts to create a kind of Azerbaijani world rather than to extend the Turkic world eastward, according to Tarasov. In what could turn out to be a potential geopolitical culture war Azerbaijan, formerly part of Persia and not Turkey, is again part of a Persian empire. Goble says that if Baku focuses its efforts to the south rather than to the west, there could be a complete reordering of the Middle East chessboard. 

There are still wider implications as President Aliyev’s words could prove even more threatening to Russia than any conflict between Azerbaijan and Iran. “This is because the Azerbaijani president’s statements suggest that Baku may now be interested not only in expanding its influence southward into Iran but also northward into Russia,” says Goble.

Last month in Baku, when Aliyev hosted Rustam Minnikhanov, the leader of the Republic of Tatarstan, he announced that “the Turkic world consists not only of independent Turkic states. Its geographic borders are much broader”—that is, it includes places such as Tatarstan, currently within Russia’s borders, and Eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang), currently within the borders of the People’s Republic of China. This is the first such meeting between Tatarstan and Azerbaijani leaders since 2011. Goble suggests it is a sign that Baku is now looking to extend its influence deep into the Russian Federation. 

While Turkish President Erdogan has “never publicly and directly declared that Iran must give up Southern Azerbaijan,” just as he has never made demands that China should “free Eastern Turkestan,” Russian commentator Dmitry Rodionov, such statements threaten Moscow’s control of Turkic areas within its borders and China’s control of its Turkic-majority areas. Goble argues that to the extent that this is true, Aliyev’s most recent statements about Iran, its minorities and the treatment of its population as a whole, appear likely to have a broader echo, potentially setting in motion events that could re-order not only the Middle East but the two largest countries in Eurasia as well. It is going to be a cold winter everywhere Putin turns this year.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay

The reason for both the suppression of the Hunter Biden Laptop story, as well as the reluctance of the media to criticize the massive failures and missteps of the Biden Administration are intimately related. 

Recently, Elon Musk revealed that Twitter intentionally censored the laptop revelation, a news item which would have altered the outcome of the last presidential election. In a similar vein, other social media outlets have noted that federal officials pressured them into actions specifically intended to influence the results of that ballot.

The reasons are both foreign and domestic.

Donald Trump was the most vocal critic of China in U.S. history. His comments threatened the growing influence Beijing has over political leaders, particularly within the California Democratic Party, as well as some politicians in both political camps, although predominately Democrats. That influence didn’t have to be direct.  Major donors to the California Democrat Party seek to expand their China market, and would be generous to those who would fight Trump’s expose of China’s growing influence. It is not a coincidence, then, that California Democrats, especially Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi, were at the forefront of the attacks on him, as well as on anyone or any group that exposed the corruption.

Exposing the reality that Beijing financially influenced then-vice president Biden would start an expose of its relationship with other politicians and corporations as well.  The most recent example was recently described by National Review.  According to its report, a staffer for Rep, Don Beyer (D-Va) openly lobbied other Congressional staffers on Beijing’s behalf.

But why did major corporate leaders go along with it?  Why did a leading pharmaceutical company withhold the announcement of the news that a COVID vaccine, the result of Trump’s “Operation warp speed,” until after the election?  Why did social media barons go along with pressure from the FBI to censor the Biden laptop story, and suppress pro-Trump supporters in general? 

There is no mystery there.  American companies have long succumbed to the dream that a fortune was to be made in the Chinese marketplace.  To do that in that totalitarian regime, you have to kowtow to the Beijing dictatorship. Recently, Apple was deeply embarrassed by its cooperation with Beijing in that government’s suppression of demonstrators. Similar acts of cowardice have occurred elsewhere, notably in the NBA. Trump’s actions threatened that potential corporate gravy train.

But why did the federal bureaucracy lead the Jihad? Trump was also the most vocal critic of the inordinate power unelected bureaucrats have attained. Their attitude was made clear in the testimony some gave at the impeachment hearings, when a common theme was that the 45^th president was “rogue,” “unstable,” and “out of control,” because he wouldn’t listen to advice given by those administrators.

Biden, by contrast, has essentially given free rein to the federal bureaucracy, indeed, even leading to questions about who is actually running his Administration.

Trump is not particularly eloquent nor personable, and has been an easy target for his critics. His policies, however, were largely successful. Energy independence, a blessed four years of no new wars, a healthy economy, and significant increases in the financial well-being of minorities were exceptional. Nevertheless, he was ruthlessly attacked.  Even after the various charges, such as Russian Collusion were exposed as being totally false, there was barely any retraction by the media or the California Democrats such as Pelosi and Schiff.

Contrast that with the coverage of the disastrous Biden Administration. He eliminated U.S. energy independence and used the U.S. treasury as a personal piggybank to influence voters.  He openly lied to the American people about the border. His withdrawal from Afghanistan was a national embarrassment. His inflationary policies have harmed the population deeply. He virtually invited the Russian invasion of Ukraine when he said he might not object to a “Little invasion.” Despite all that, social media barons and legacy media outlets have been largely silent. Rabid self-interest over the good of the nation is nothing new.  Never before, however, has there been such a powerful array of corrupt politicians, power-hungry federal bureaucrats, and greedy corporate leaders.

Illustration: Pixabay

In 2019, the FBI, as well as a group of other federal agencies, identified “Fostering a Diverse, Highly-Skilled Workforce” as one of their top priorities. 

Being such an overriding concern, what content is provided at “diversity training events” and “workplace discussion groups” to insure a “diverse, high-skilled workforce?”

According to Christopher Rufo, who has made an extensive study of this topic, “the training begins with the premise that ‘virtually all white people contribute to racism’ and hold narratives that ‘don’t support the dismantling of racist institutions.’ Therefore, the trainers argue, white federal employees must ‘struggle to own their racism’ and ‘invest in race-based growth.’ The trainers then ask ‘white managers’ to create ‘safe spaces,’ where black employees can explain ‘what it means to be black’ and to be ‘seen in their pain.’ White staffers are instructed to keep silent and to ‘sit in the discomfort’ of their racism. If any conflicts arise, the trainers insist that whites ‘don’t get to decide when someone is being too emotional, too rash [or] too mean.’ Whites are told they can’t protest if a person of color ‘responds to their oppression in a way [they] don’t like.’” 

To the outside observer, it is unclear how making federal employees “struggle to own their racism” will create a “diverse, high-skilled workforce.”  But there is a more important question – have these extraordinary efforts at “diversity and inclusion” worked?  

Not according to a report from Courtney Buble of the Government Executive; “Although diversity has been a priority at the FBI over the past decade, the make-up of the bureau’s workforce has barely changed over that time, and employees’ viewsof the agency’s support for diversity have not grown more positive…as of March 2019 the FBI’s overall workforce was 55.6% male and 44.4% female. This is compared to 56.1% male and 43.9% female in December 2009…(a)s for racial demographics, the FBI’s workforce was 75% white in 2009 and 74.4% white in 2019. Additionally, whites held 79.5% of the top GS grade positions in 2009 and 77.6% in 2019…(i)n February 2020 special agents were 79.1% male and 20.9% female. This was a slight improvement from 79.6% male and 18.8% female in 2010. For ethnic minorities, there were 17% in 2010 and 18.4% in 2020, according to FBI statistics.” 

Further, a study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and published in 2019 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that “diversity training does not generally result in much change in work environments…(t)he researchers found little evidence of behavior change in any of the organizations where employees had taken the diversity training program. In the program geared toward reducing biases against women, the researchers found that employees were willing to admit such biases, they just were not willing to do anything about them…(i)n the part of the study focusing on racial bias, the researchers found that employees were willing to admit having racial biases, but no measurable changes in behavior were seen during follow-up.”   

This lack of success has not stopped the FBI, and other federal agencies, from forcing their employees to continue to attend “diversity and/or inclusion training events” and “participating in workplace discussion groups focusing on diversity.”  If ten years of failure has not persuaded the FBI to try another tact, could there be some other reason for these endless workshops and trainings?

Christopher Rufo provides one explanation; “The larger goal is explicit: The diversity apparatchiks want to convert ‘everyone in the federal government’ to the work of ‘anti-racism.’ While that sounds innocuous, it emphatically is not what most Americans understand by the term. ‘Anti-racism,’ as the diversity hustlers define it, doesn’t teach Americans to judge each other according to the contents of their character. Rather, the ideology stands for precisely the opposite: a rigid and simplistic account of race, in which minorities are permanent victims and whites are forever tainted by racism. By promoting this toxic nonsense, activist bureaucrats seek to transform the federal government into power centers for this new racial orthodoxy.” 

Given the lack of success of diversity and inclusion training, and based upon the nature of its underlying assumptions and goals, it was no surprise that in September of 2020, President Donald Trump “issued an executive order prohibiting federal agencies and contractors from using workplace training materials that include ‘divisive concepts’ such as the U.S. being ‘fundamentally racist or sexist,’ or that ‘an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously. ‘The order cited several examples from (Christopher). Rufo’s work, such as a seminar at the Treasury Department that, according to the executive order, ‘promoted arguments that ‘virtually all White people, regardless of how ‘woke’ they are, contribute to racism.’’  

However, given the priorities of the Biden Administration, which is dedicated to continuing the work of the Obama Administration, President Joe Biden issued an Executive Order on his first day in office reinstating the Diversity and Inclusion Training for all federal employees – including members of the FBI.  

Apparently, 10 years of a failed policy is irrelevant to Joe Biden – the work of “anti-racism” must go on, no matter who objects, and no matter how little actual diversity is created.  

As for the FBI, according to The Guardian, there has been a “sharp decline in the number of applicants for special agent positions, long considered among the most prestigious in American law enforcement…from a peak of 68,500 in 2009 to a mere 11,500 in 2018.”  However, “(t)he FBI is not alone in this…(t)he army, navy and other military branches have seen recruitment shortages.”  In fact, “Police forces around the country have also had trouble recruiting of late. The total number of full-time sworn officers has dropped 23,000 since 2013 to about 700,000 according to NPR, who called the officer shortage ‘a quiet crisis in American policing.'” 

Perhaps potential Special Agents are just not interested in sitting through “diversity and/or inclusion training events” and “participating in workplace discussion groups focusing on diversity.”  Maybe there are other factors in play here as well – but in any event, the question remains – how do you create a “diverse, high-skilled workforce” when you can’t even get most  people to accept the job and sit through your indoctrination classes? 

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in New York City

Photo: Pixabay

If you are at least as old as I am, you will remember the TV show, “The FBI.”  From 1965 to 1974, Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. portrayed Inspector Lewis Erskine, who “personified the calm, business-suited government agent who always tracked his criminals down, scientifically and methodically and with virtually no emotion at all… Neither he nor his partners allowed themselves to become emotionally involved in their work which focused on a range of crimes, from bank robbery to kidnapping to the occasional Communist threat to overthrow the government. The cases were based on real FBI files and ranged across the United States and involved counterfeiters, extortionists, organised crime, Communist spies, and radical bombings.” 

For many years, the Federal Bureau of Investigation cultivated a positive image through shows like “The FBI,” and other media outreach.  Described by its most famous director, J. Edgar Hoover in 1961, the FBI was “(e)stablished in 1908 as the investigative arm of the U.S. department of justice, (and) is a fact-finding agency which does not evaluate the results of its investigations or recommend prosecutive action…(t)he two primary areas of FBI activity are general investigations and security operations. Within the latter field, it has jurisdiction over espionage, sabotage and subversive activities on a nation-wide scale… the FBI…reports the results of its investigation(s) to the attorney general, chief legal officer of the United States, his assistants and the various U.S. attorneys in federal districts throughout the United States for decisions as to prosecutive action.” 

Would J. Edgar recognize the organization he led from 1924 to 1972 in the 21st century?  What effort does the FBI make to cultivate a “positive image” in today’s world?

Rather than focus on professional, dispassionate “fact-finding,” the Bureau has found itself involved in other avenues of image-making.  For instance, in remarks given by the current FBI Director Christopher Wray to the National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives in April of this year, the director noted that the Bureau was “working hard to remove barriers and create a reflective workforce—not just in terms of gender, but across a full spectrum of diversity…(t)he FBI is focused on recruiting and building a diverse workforce…(w)omen now make up 45% of our workforce overall and nearly a quarter of our senior executive positions…(w)e’ve also increased our recruiting initiatives at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and are expanding our recruiting focus to other minority-serving institutions…I’m proud that the FBI is addressing this important issue, but I know that we can do even better, and we will.” 

These remarks underscore an emphasis on diversity and inclusion policies that have been in place at the Bureau since 2015, when “the FBI added diversity as one of the organization’s core values…(w)e stand committed, as today’s FBI, to fostering a culture of inclusivity and diversity.”  In fact, “The FBI’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion was created in 2012 to provide guidance and implement programs that promote a diverse and inclusive workplace that allows all employees to succeed and advance.”  

This office was created in response to Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13583, dated August 18, 2011, which “establish(ed) a coordinated Government-wide initiative to promote diversity and inclusion in the Federal workforce” by “highlight(ing) comprehensive strategies for agencies to identify and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity that may exist in the Federal Government’s recruitment, hiring, promotion, retention, professional development, and training policies and practices,” and to “identify appropriate practices to improve the effectiveness of each agency’s efforts to recruit, hire, promote, retain, develop, and train a diverse and inclusive workforce.”

While no one seriously disagrees that a modern workforce is not restricted to one race or sex alone, the FBI (as well as other federal agencies) exhibits a particular preoccupation with this issue.  The 2015 Policy Directive that established the Diversity and Inclusion guidelines for the FBI created a “Diversity and Executive Council,” as well as “Diversity Advisory Committees,” a “Diversity Advisory Council,” and a “Diversity and Inclusion Coordinator.”  These various levels of bureaucracy are tasked with ‘provid(ing) support to underrepresented groups within the FBI,”  and “encourage employee and management participation in diversity events…and cultural awareness activities.”  “Diversity training for supervisors and managers…includes a discussion of diversity and inclusion, as well as the use of work assignments as a professional development tool,” while “Diversity training for all other employees” includes “attendance at…diversity training event(s) or activit(ies)…completing an online course on a diversity and/or inclusion-related topic…participating in a workplace discussion group focusing on a diversity and/or inclusion topic (eg, a book, an article or an event)…” 

The Report concludes tomorrow

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in New York City