1/ Secretary of Defense nominee Lloyd Austin at Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing:

"Globally I understand that Asia must be the focus of our effort and I see China in particular as a pacing challenge for the Department"

2/ SecDef nominee Lloyd Austin on advance policy Qs

"Globally...most significant challenge I will face will be to ensure DOD's contd efforts to prepare & strengthen the US military for a dynamic, future security landscape driven by accelerating competitions w China & w Russia.."
3/ SecDef nominee Austin in written answers says strategic competition w/ China & Russia primary challenges but "because of its ascent and the scope and scale of its military modernization, China is the top priority"
4/ SecDef nominee Austin in written answers on his assessment of the military threat posed by China...
5/ SecDef nominee Austin on whether the NDS needs to be revised notes: "For example, the pace of China’s military modernization, its increasingly aggressive actions in the INDO-PACIFIC and its ability to threaten the US Homeland are concerning and must be continually reexamined"
6/ SecDef nominee Austin in APQs emphasizes "strength of this network of defense relations" w/ allies & partners as crucial "especially in global competitions with China and Russia"
7/ SecDef nominee Austin in APQs on resources for non-DOD agencies: "imperative" they "receive sufficient funding"

"I do not believe current funding levels for security assistance & development programs are pacing the challenges posed by China and others in these areas"
8/ SecDef nominee Austin in APQs re DoD priorities in Africa: "countering
1) violent extremist organizations (VEOs) that
threaten the homeland and U.S. national security interests and
2) competitors such as China and Russia"
9/ SecDef nominee Austin in APQs re his assessment of Chinese & Russian goals in Africa.

(among other things, notes concern re their overseas basing plans)
10/ SecDef nominee Austin in APQs re US strategy to compete vs China & Russia in Africa.

Says must not just compete, but win. Reqs whole of govt effort & addressing mutual security concerns
11/ Will circle back to APQs, picking up on the actual SASC hearing....
12/ Sen. Reed asks re Pacific Defense Initiative & solidifying ties w/ Australia, Japan, South Korea, & expanding w/ other Pacific nations.

Austin: refurbishing alliances "critical", hopes to "build add'l capacity where possible"

"the region will be one of my first stops."
13/ Sen. Reed talks about "strength in numbers" & security cooperation w/ Pacific partners being the "best deterrent we could think of with respect to the aspirations of China."

Austin says he agrees.
14/ Sen. Wicker asks if he agrees w/ assessment that China's goal is to devp a military by mid-century equal or superior to that of US.

Austin says he agrees & "I wld intend to make sure that never happens."

Talks abt maintaining competitive edge.

More from Government

I don't normally do threads like this but I did want to provide some deeper thoughts on the below and why having a video game based on a real world war crime from the same people that received CIA funding isn't the best idea.

This will go pretty in depth FYI.


The core reason why I'm doing this thread is because:

1. It's clear the developers are marketing the game a certain way.

2. This is based on something that actually happened, a war crime no less. I don't have issues with shooter games in general ofc.

Firstly, It's important to acknowledge that the Iraq war was an illegal war, based on lies, a desire for regime change and control of resources in the region.

These were lies that people believed and still believe to this day.

It's also important to mention that the action taken by these aggressors is the reason there was a battle in Fallujah in the first place. People became resistance fighters because they were left with nothing but death and destruction all around them after the illegal invasion.

This is where one of the first red flags comes up.

The game is very much from an American point of view, as shown in the description.

When it mentions Iraqi civilians, it doesn't talk about them as victims, but mentions them as being pro US, fighting alongside them.

You May Also Like