John Bolton: Tales of a Disgruntled and Disgraced National Security Advisor Bolton was silent when the world needed to hear from him and when it mattered. Now, as a disgruntled former employee, it is hard to credit his account. by Ahmed Charai

Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, will not go down in history alongside President Nixon’s Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, President  George H. W. Bush’s advisor, Air Force Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, President Barack Obama’s Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, or President Carter’s Zbigniew Brzeziński.

Unlike his famous forebears, he didn’t end a war, nor did he negotiate a peace, sound the alarm on a gathering threat, or make any deep mark on diplomacy. Timing and presidential temperament create these historic opportunities; Bolton either didn’t see or seize them or the nature of the Trump White House did not allow an advisor to act alone on the team sport of U.S. foreign policy. This sense of disappointment is the background music of his book.

Bolton, though an honorable man, carries nothing into history with his name on it—except a book that breaks new ground in allegedly exposing state secrets and presidential confidences. And the book appears not only during the current presidential term but some 135 days before a close-fought presidential election. Other advisors had waited until a president was safely past reelection or a president had left office altogether. So, the one historic precedent that Bolton has set will bring him little honor.

The Trump campaign and its surrogates will tirelessly remind the public of Bolton’s championing of the Iraq War, which the president sees as a costly misadventure. Less partisan minds may admit that it is too soon to judge a war that did create a rough, multi-party democracy and enjoy a near tripling of its economy’s size since 2003, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). If Iraq withers into a Teheran-led puppet state or succumbs to extremism on its own, then the war’s critics will be right. If Iraq soldiers on, peacefully changing parties in free elections and finding its economic feet, then it’s critics will seem small. It is, from my perspective as an Arab publisher living in Casablanca, simply too soon to say.

The real goods on Bolton lie elsewhere and in four parts. First, there is his tenure as national security advisor. Second, is the completeness of the record he presents in his book and interviews. Third, there is his history as a partisan critic of presidents, especially Obama. Finally, there is the likely foreign-policy fallout of his book, which undermines an administration he was once sworn to uphold.

 

While Bolton had few accomplishments, there are several cases where his ardent advocacy might have been dangerous if followed. Consider how he urged the president to bomb Iran, which Trump veered away from only hours before the bombers were set to fly. Or consider his hawkish advice regarding North Korea, which might have reignited the Korean War.

How complete is Bolton’s record of history? It is hard to say since he refused to testify under oath during the U.S. House’s impeachment inquiry when it might have changed history. In his book, he has much to say about the Ukraine matter. But when the world needed to hear it and he might have imperiled his White House post, he was silent. Now, as a disgruntled former employee, it is hard to credit his account. His words might have once been seen as brave honesty but now they seem peevish and vengeful. Timing tends to color perception.

Bolton’s criticism of Trump, though based on personal experience, is soft compared to his criticism of Obama as “inattentive and terribly naïve. He has taken the path of least resistance abroad and the Russians have moved in and filled the strategic background.” This March 2014 criticism, and many others like it, is broadly similar to what he now says about Trump. Maybe no president is tough enough for Bolton.

Yet his criticism of Obama set up a chain of circumstances that led to his hiring by  Trump. It is hard to escape the idea that Bolton, at least partly, criticizes presidents for personal advantage.

Finally, consider how Bolton’s book may affect U.S. foreign policy, especially with China and Israel.

Chinese state-run news services immediately disputed Bolton’s published contention that its trade negotiations were designed to help Trump win reelection. At the very least, Bolton’s book has complicated trade talks when U.S. farmers are desperate to export food to China and recover from the coronavirus.

As for Israel, Bolton’s account in casting Trump as an unreliable friend of Israel is at odds with the president’s own actions: He moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, formally recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, and supported it’s right to build new settlements in the West Bank. It is hard to imagine a more pro-Israel president. Bolton doesn’t say—and it is hard to imagine—what significant policies remain unchecked off of Jerusalem’s list.

Bolton’s only substantive complaint is about his frequent antagonist in the West Wing, Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law. It was Kushner who wisely asked Israel to limit its construction in the Jordan Valley since it could topple the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan, which has a large Palestinian population. Destabilizing the Middle East is simply unwise and failing to further antagonize the Palestinians is no flaw.

On balance, Bolton’s book makes the Trump White House look wiser for not heeding his advice.

Russia's Anti-Air S-400 System Can Kill Almost Anything in the Sky NATO doesn't like this. by Charlie Gao

This missile system is feared by pilots around the world. Everyone knows that this weapon is no joke.

The S-400 is one of the most controversial missiles in the world currently. The United States has imposed economic sanctions on countries simply for buying the system, but many of the world’s powers are interested in it, with India signing deals in September 2018 and China in April 2018. But what exactly makes the S-400 such a hot ticket item in the world today? How did it evolve from the earlier S-300?

More From The National Interest: 

The S-300 began development in the 1960s as a follow-up to a multitude of prior surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems. The primary missile it planned to replace is the S-75 (SA-2) missile system, which was famously used against the U-2 spy plane and deployed in Cuba and Vietnam. The missile underwent testing in the 1970s and entered service in 1978.

The primary improvement of the S-300 compared to earlier systems would be the ability to be multichannel—to utilize multiple guidance beams to guide missiles to different targets simultaneously. The earlier S-25 system was also multichannel, but it was extremely heavy and only deployed in stationary mounts. The American SAM-D (which would become the MIM-104 Patriot) was the first American land-based SAM with multichannel technology; it entered service three years later in 1981.

The main customer for the new missile was the Soviet PVO or air defense forces. They adopted the first version of the S-300, the S-300PT. All “P” missiles were meant to be to be for the PVO. The S-300PT involved a towable TEL (Transporter, Erector, Launcher) and towable radar that relied on heavy trucks to reposition. The set also included a fire control system. This was good enough for relatively stationary PVO duties but was not an ideal solution.

The Soviet military looked at SAM usage in Vietnam and the Middle East and determined quicker repositioning was the key to maximizing the effectiveness of SAMs. The S-300PT took more than an hour to set up and become operational due to the towed nature of the launchers and radar. This was seen as an area that needed improvement. The original S-300PT utilized the 5V55 with a range of around 75 kilometers.

As a result, the S-300 came into the form that it is now known for: mounted on the heavy MAZ-7910 truck (though variants have been mounted on newer trucks as well in articulated platforms). The TEL, radar and fire control system were all mounted on these trucks. Additional support equipment, such as that to rectify differences between the radar and launcher height were mounted on lighter trucks. The complete system, now known as S-300PS, entered service in 1982. The slightly modified version for export is known as the S-300PMU. The PS utilized the longer 5V55R missile with a range of around 90 kilometers.

While the S-300P in both forms was under development, the S-300F for the Navy and S-300V for the Army were also in development. The S-300V was developed specifically to counter tactical ballistic missiles like the Lance and Pershing in addition to air threats.

One key feature of the S-300V system is that it has two TEL variants, a TEL with four shorter ranged (75 kilometers) 9M83 missiles and a TEL with two longer ranged (100 kilometers) 9M82 missiles. The TEL, radar, and command post sets for the S-300V are mounted on a tracked chassis (the same as the 2S7 artillery piece) for better off road mobility in contrast to the S-300PS. The S-300V was accepted into service in 1985.

Further development happened with both the V and P variants of the S-300. The S-300PM series of missiles was borne out of the desire to integrate the V’s functionality of intercepting ballistic missiles into the P series of missiles. Export versions of the S-300PM are called the S-300PMU, and one can track the more recent evolution of the S-300 in the listed capabilities of these missiles, leading up to the S-400.

Indeed, early versions of the S-400 were called S-300PMU-3, indicating a third modernization of the road-mobile version of the S-300 for air defense. When the system was first showcased at MAKS 2007, it was noted that most vehicles were externally similar to the S-300PMU-2 system.

However, advances in missile and radar technology make the ~2x advance “versus prior missile systems” likely possible in the S-400. The new radars used in the S-400 make it likely very capable versus almost all air targets.

Another key aspect of the S-400 is the ability to use four different types of missiles with different weights and capabilities, allowing the system by itself to form a large portion of a layered air defense. This makes the S-400 a more flexible system. It also can utilize missiles employed by earlier S-300 variants.

The new missiles for the S-400 predictably extend the range even further, out to 240 kilometers versus aerial targets, an incremental upgrade from the S-300PMU-1 which could go out to 150 kilometers, and the S-300PMU-2 which could go out to 200 kilometers. Newer missiles like the 40N6 can even boost the range out to 400 kilometers for the S-400.

What does this mean about the S-400? At its heart, it’s still a relatively road-mobile system designed for air-defense forces. While it represents a significant capability leap (especially compared to fielding first-gen S-300PT/PS systems) and is significantly more flexible than earlier variants of the S-300, the evolution of the S-300 into a more flexible, capable system was already going with the various sub-variants of the S-300PMU.

In contrast, the Russian Army has continued developing the S-300V into the S-300V4 and S-300VM (Antey 2500 for export), which incorporates more modern missile and radar technology to give it the increased (200 kilometers) range of the later S-300PMUs. It also adds a new TEL which has a small missile guidance radar built into the vehicle, possibly reducing the number of vehicles on the field.

While the capabilities of the S-400 may appear to be a significant leap, they got there through the slow evolution of earlier S-300 missiles. Many of the advanced features, such as ballistic missile interception, interchangeable, modular missiles and multichannel engagement have been present in the system for a long time, and the S-400 just builds upon the existing strengths of the S-300 to make it an even more deadly threat.

Attack! How America's Paratroopers Will Get Real-Time Battle Maps A much better way to know what threats lie ahead. by Kris Osborn

What if U.S. Army Airborne Rangers are moving quickly to seize an airfield for a fast-advancing attack on enemy positions, when they suddenly learn that heavy concentrations of enemy armored vehicles, artillery and troops have just entered the target area? What happens if the paratroopers in transit don’t receive that information in time?

Perhaps they are not equipped with real-time moving digital maps showing terrain and force location information? Perhaps radio communications have been complicated in an austere environment or thwarted due to enemy jamming? 

It is this particular kind of scenario that informs current Army-Air Force technical efforts to integrate faster, more effective in-flight data transmission as a way to optimize airborne intelligence gathering. Army paratroopers jumping out of C-17s to assault enemy locations will now land equipped with better intelligence information to achieve their combat objective, attack enemies and perform missions.

The Air Force is preparing to drop Army soldiers behind enemy lines equipped with the latest and best intelligence information with which to approach missions, due to an emerging high-tech roll-on Tactical Data Link system networking C-17s, C-130s and other combat nodes. 

The service recently conducted a simulation exercise involving 75 aircraft overall to assess, prepare and demonstrate a new increased data-transmission rate on a C-17 and drop Army troops deep into enemy territory. The attack scenarios included both C-130s and C-17s. 

“This allows us to get instantaneous access to data regarding where people are, what they are looking at and where the bad guys are in the fight. That way we can stay safe and avoid them,” Captain Zac Barry, C-17 instructor pilot, said an Air Force TV Around the Air Force video report. 

The C-130s were from Arkansas and Texas, and the C-17s were from South Carolina; the planes shared data and networked to one another throughout the mission, to ensure arriving Army soldiers were fully informed with requisite mission specifics. 

If paratroopers needed to land quickly and attack an objective for an offensive assault, raid, or hostage rescue—this technology enables them to land on the ground already having combat relevant details such as location, composition, weapons or force structure of a given enemy location. Having this vital data in transit will give soldiers an ability to view digital maps, battlefield assessments and intelligence information while traveling instead of needing to wait until they arrive.

Internet Pirates Love 'Stealing' John Bolton's New Book The book, in which Bolton shares stories about his 17 months in the White House and is highly critical of President Trump, has also put liberal opponents of the president in something of a bind: They like seeing strident criticism of the president, but they don't particularly want to enrich a longtime conservative stalwart like Bolton. The solution, for some? Rampant piracy. by Stephen Silver

"The Room Where It Happened,” the new memoir by former National Security Advisor John Bolton that's set for release today, has been highly controversial ever since it was first announced. The Trump administration even went to court last week seeking to block publication of the book — unsuccessfully — and it remains a possibility that if the book is found to contain classified material, the government could seize its profits.

The book, in which Bolton shares stories about his 17 months in the White House and is highly critical of President Trump, has also put liberal opponents of the president in something of a bind: They like seeing strident criticism of the president, but they don't particularly want to enrich a longtime conservative stalwart like Bolton.

The solution, for some? Rampant piracy.

According to the website TorrentFreak, "tens of thousands of downloads, if not more" of Bolton's book have appeared on torrent websites in the last week, with two different PDF versions of the book appearing at the top of The Pirate Bay's list of the most downloaded books. A leak-publishing group called Distributed Denial of Secrets, which distributed a copy of Bolton’s memoir, has dealt with so much demand for the pirated book, in fact, that its server "nearly ground to a halt."

Other versions of "The Room Where It Happened" have been distributed via Google Drive and other methods. 

Meanwhile, publisher Simon and Schuster, while simultaneously fighting efforts by the government to stop the book's publication, has now pivoted to filing countless takedown notices for those illegally distributing the book.

The National Interest obtained an advance copy of the book. In it, the former national security adviser shares disagreements he had with other members of the Trump Administration, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of Defense James Mattis and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, while also discussing his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal and President Trump's attempts to reach an arms control agreement with North Korea. 

Bolton, in the book and in recent television interviews, has also shared stories about the president being easily distracted, and lacking basic knowledge about the world.

The book's title, "The Room Where It Happened," is a reference to a song in Lin Manuel Miranda's popular musical "Hamilton."

Columbia-Class: The Most 'Stealth' U.S. Navy Submarine Ever? The Columbia-class is a real step forward. by Kris Osborn

The very first nuclear-armed Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine will hit the wide ocean in 2031, marking an enterprising beginning to a new era of undersea strategic deterrence. 

The move will bring new levels of navigational, command and control, weapons and quieting technologies to undersea warfare, as the Columbia-class will possibly be the stealthiest submarine ever to exist. The concept is both clear and well known: patrol the vast ocean in striking positions with submarine-launched Trident II D5 nuclear-armed missiles to ensure a catastrophic second strike in the event the U.S. mainland is subject to nuclear attack. 

Early construction, science and technology efforts, prototyping and advanced electronics for the submarines have been underway for several years, and now the Navy is taking a new, vigorous step to expedite the arrival of the new platforms. The Navy has awarded a Columbia-class submarine construction deal to General Dynamics Electric Boat for an amount possibly up to $10 billion to build the first two of twelve planned boats. 

Immediate work, as stated in DoD’s announcement, will include work on the U.K. Strategic Weapon Support System Kit as well as “continued design completion, engineering work and design support efforts.” The deal is also intended to help fortify the industrial base, the contract announcement states. 

The contract will support ongoing “tube and hull forging” to prepare the submarine’s missile tubes for integration into the boat, and also greatly accelerate current work on Columbia’s state-of-the-art, cutting edge electric drive propulsion system. 

In today’s Ohio-class submarines, a reactor plant generates heat which creates steam, Navy officials explained. The steam then turns turbines which produce electricity and also propel the ship forward through “reduction gears” which are able to translate the high-speed energy from a turbine into the shaft RPMs needed to move a boat propeller.

“The electric-drive system is expected to be quieter (i.e., stealthier) than a mechanical-drive system,” a Congressional Research Service report on Columbia-Class submarines from earlier this year states.

Designed to be 560-feet long and house sixteen Trident II D5 missiles fired from forty-four-foot-long missile tubes, Columbia-Class submarines will use a quieting X-shaped stern configuration. The “X”-shaped stern will restore maneuverability to submarines; as submarine designs progressed from using a propeller to using a propulsor to improve quieting, submarines lost some surface maneuverability, Navy officials explained.

Navy developers explain that electric-drive propulsion technology still relies on a nuclear reactor to generate heat and create steam to power turbines. However, the electricity produced is transferred to an electric motor rather than so-called reduction gears to spin the boat’s propellers.

The use of an electric motor brings other advantages as well, according to an MIT essay written years ago when electric drive was being evaluated for submarine propulsion.

Using an electric motor optimizes use of installed reactor power in a more efficient way compared with mechanical drive submarines, making more on-board power available for other uses, according to an essay called “Evaluation and Comparison of Electric Propulsion Motors for Submarines.” Author Joel Harbour says that on mechanical drive submarines, 80-percent of the total reactor power is used exclusively for propulsion.

“With an electric drive submarine, the installed reactor power of the submarine is first converted into electrical power and then delivered to an electric propulsion motor. The now available electrical potential not being used for propulsion could easily be tapped into for other uses,” he writes.

The Navy plans to ultimately build twelve Columbia-class submarines. 

Coming Soon to the U.S. Navy: 'Stealth' Destroyers Armed with Hypersonic Missiles? The Zumwalt-Class has had its share of issue. Could this be the cure to making the 'stealthy' warships much more effective and worth the cost? by Caleb Larson

The U.S. Navy's Zumwalt-class, named after Elmo Zumwalt of Vietnam fame, has been an incredibly problematic class of ship.

The class was originally designed as a stealthy land-attack platform intended to support land operations, conduct anti-aircraft defense, and provide naval fire support. To fulfill that mission, the ships were designed from the outset around the Long Range Land Attack Projectile, a failed 155-millimeter naval artillery system.

The Zumwalt-class’ odd-looking bow and lines are a stealthy, low radar cross-section design intended to make them nearly invisible to enemy radar. Indeed, this may be one of the few things that the Zumwalts excel at. Despite being larger than the preceding Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, the Zumwalts have a lower radar cross-section and are harder to detect.

Stealth has come at a cost, however. The Zumwalt’s inverted bow design may be much less seaworthy than traditional hull designs. Some naval designers have speculated that during certain sea conditions, the design could lose stability on the water and capsize. Ultimately obscene cost overruns doomed the program, and Bath Iron Works built only a paltry three Zumwalts.

However, the class may finally see some usefulness.

According to reports, various members of the U.S. House of Representatives want the Navy to arm the class with the Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic missile. To date, only some Virginia-class submarines and a few Ohio-class submarines are planned to be equipped with this new missile.

The missile is a Naval variant of a joint Navy-Army hypersonic boost-glide missile development project. In addition to the missile’s blisteringly high terminal velocity, it is also very maneuverable and therefore will be very difficult to defend against. They may be just the thing that the Zumwalts need.

Despite the Zumwalt class’ insanely high costs, they may be among the most survivable of the U.S. Navy’s platforms. Their stealth capabilities could allow them to get closer to targets on both land and sea than other Navy ships — and exchanging their useless Long Range Land Attack equipment for the Navy’s new hypersonic missile could be a great idea.

Still, the transition wouldn’t be as simple as swapping out the weapon system. The Zumwalt’s existing Mark 57 Vertical Launch System appears to be narrower in diameter than the Navy-Army Conventional Prompt Strike missile. A new launch system would have to be installed to give Zumwalts a launch capability.

Mating a hypersonic missile to the Zumwalt class would certainly augment their capabilities. But new hypersonic missile capabilities or not, the Zumwalt class is hindered by its diminutive three-hull size. The Navy — and the public — may be hesitant to put more money into the class after having already sunk billions of dollars per hull into the program. Stay tuned. 

Monumental Error: Washington DC Mob Attacks Andrew Jackson The police may manage to keep Jackson intact for now, but Lafayette Park and its immediate environs are in the hands of the protesters. by Jacob Heilbrunn

The war against the past took another step last night when a motley crew of demonstrators chanting “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Andrew Jackson’s got to go” sought to topple the equestrian statue of Andrew Jackson from its plinth in Lafayette Party. Old Hickory withstood the assault and the U.S. Park Police and DC police force dispersed the mob that tried to exercise a form of vigilante justice. But it may only be a holding action. While an “autonomous zone” may not be allowed to form in Washington—on Monday afternoon, DC police dismantled an incipient tent city on H street—it became clear to me early this morning after visiting downtown that the demonstrators have already established something of a foothold in Lafayette Park and Black Lives Matter Plaza. In staging his photo op outside St. John’s Church a few weeks ago, President Donald Trump inadvertently triggered the rise of what appears to be a free-floating encampment.

There weren’t many demonstrators around this morning. It was predominantly the news media feasting on the events of last night. Lafayette Park, which is blocked off by a fence, looked fairly intact, but Jackson’s statue was not. The word “Killer” was emblazoned in black spray paint on his plinth. Jackson has come in for a drubbing for his brutal treatment of American Indians.

But it’s also bizarre that Old Hickory is being denounced by the left tout court. For many decades he was a hero to liberals. Jackson was a founder of the Democratic party; a staunch populist; an opponent of moneyed, aristocratic elites; and a foe of banks as well as the electoral college. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. won a Pulitzer Prize for his biography The Age of Jackson, depicting him as a precursor of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. Now it seems that Jackson, who has been embraced by Trump, who probably never heard of him until Steve Bannon mentioned his name, is a tyrant and an ogre for the ages rather than a flawed product of his time.

The police may manage to keep Jackson intact for now, but Lafayette Park and its immediate environs are in the hands of the protesters. They have everything they need to keep going—tents, food, hand sanitizers, and port-a-potties. The atmosphere was subdued this morning, but the tone remains militant. The thousands of posters lining walls range from plaintive—“Democrats and Republicans Will Never Help Inequality. They Are Now Same Party! Are Sold Out Must Start New Party Now, Here”—to exhortatory—“Stop White Terrorism!”—to outright threatening—“We Will Never Conform to Injustice A Change Will Be Made By Any Means Necessary”.

 

Local businesses, whether from genuine conviction or prudent self-preservation, are encouraging the protesters. The Hay-Adams Hotel, for example, has large banners on each side of its entrance proclaiming “Black Lives Matter” with the Hay-Adams logo embossed in gold. 16^th Street, from K Street on down, is blocked to traffic and a rallying point for demonstrators as well as T-shirt vendors selling “Black Lives Matter” paraphernalia. Perhaps most discombobulating is the dilapidated state of St. John’s Church, which serves as a kind of home base for the movement. Any religious services would appear to be a non-starter: instead of the usual advertisements for religious services, the placard outside the church has been vandalized with such messages as: “Real Live On Moms We Not Reloctan Moe On Earl” and the like. What this gibberish is supposed to mean is beyond me. Another cardboard sign prominently displayed outside the church offers such pearls of wisdom as this: “Sex is Cool…But have you ever Fucked the System. Trump Did.”

What does it all add up to? This morning, Trump is tweeting, “There will never be an `Autonomous Zone’ in Washington, D.C., as long as I’m your President. If they try they will be met with serious force!” But this is taking the grandiosity of the protesters at their own word. There is unlikely to be an attempted storming of the Winter Palace, let alone an “autonomous zone.” The more likely prospect is that Trump will face what amounts to a prolonged siege that he will fulminate about for the rest of the presidential campaign.