Author Archive

The Pennsylvania primary

Posted: April 23, 2024 by chrisharper in Uncategorized

By Christopher Harper

Although today’s primary here in Pennsylvania won’t play a pivotal role in determining the presidential candidates for next November, the state may set the tone for challenges in the Congress and state legislature.

Rollcall.com focused on races to watch, including several that will be competitive in November.

–The U.S. Senate race in November will have Bob Casey, a longtime Democrat heavyweight in the state, versus Dave McCormick, a Republican who tried and failed to get a 2022 nomination. Casey is seeking a fourth term in the U.S. Senate, and almost every pundit agrees that the November election will be his most challenging test yet.

McCormick served in the George W. Bush administration’s national security apparatus and the Treasury Department. McCormick lost a 2022 Republican primary to TV host Mehmet Oz, who lost to Democrat John Fetterman. 

— Three Republicans are vying to challenge Democratic Rep. Susan Wild, a top GOP target, in this district north of Philadelphia. Army National Guard veteran Kevin Dellicker, who lost a 2022 primary, is running again, as are state Rep. Ryan Mackenzie and Maria Montero, a political newcomer.

— Six Democrats are running to challenge Rep. Scott Perry, a former Freedom Caucus chairman. Mike O’Brien, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, and former broadcast journalist Janelle Stelson lead the money race among the primary candidates. Shamaine Daniels, who lost to Perry two years ago, is running again. The other Democrats are Carlisle School Board member Rick Coplen, Blake Lynch, a former radio executive, and businessman John Broadhurst.

— GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, co-chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, faces a primary challenge from anti-abortion activist Mark Houck.

Fitzpatrick has cut a reputation as a moderate Republican representing a district that President Joe Biden would have won by 5 points in 2020, according to Inside Elections. Since he was first elected in 2016, he’s dispatched primary challengers with roughly two-thirds of the vote. 

Houck, who argues Fitzpatrick isn’t conservative enough, was indicted in 2022 and later acquitted on charges of assaulting a reproductive health care clinic escort. He later sued the Department of Justice over his arrest. 

The primary winner will face Ashley Ehasz, who is unopposed in the Democratic primary. Ehasz lost to Fitzpatrick by 10 percentage points in 2022. 

— Freshman Rep. Summer Lee faces a primary challenge from Bhavini Patel. The race has drawn attention for highlighting the Democratic Party’s divisions over Israel. Patel has criticized Lee for her position on the war in Gaza and a lack of support for Israel.

Lee has campaigned to bring federal dollars back to the district and has focused on issues like climate change. Since joining the House, she’s aligned herself with the so-called “Squad” of progressive lawmakers. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has campaigned for Lee. 

–The Pennsylvania General Assembly is divided between the parties, each holding one part of the state legislature. In many cases, incumbents face no opposition in the primaries. 

Republicans control the State Senate by a 28-22 margin, while the Democrats hold the State House of Representatives by a 102-100 margin. 

The U.S. and the Middle East: A record of failure

Posted: April 16, 2024 by chrisharper in Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

By Christopher Harper

As the U.S. government muddles its way through the current crisis in Israel, I am reminded how American involvement in Middle East affairs usually turns out badly for almost everyone involved.

Here’s a quick review of past mistakes:

–In 1953, the CIA helped launch the overthrow of duly elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and helped return the shah to power. Ultimately, the coup fueled religious discontent and led to the rule of mullahs in Teheran.

–In 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower launched a plan of economic and military aid to the Middle East. Lebanon was the only country to embrace the doctrine, which eventually led the U.S. Navy to send ships and troops to Beirut when the pro-Western regime was threatened. The Lebanese president, Camille Chamoun, was a Christian, and his critics were Muslims. The Christian-Muslim divide eventually broke out into a civil war in the 1970s, which continued for nearly two decades, with the United States seen as supporting the Christians over the Muslims.

–In 1982, the United States sent ‘peacekeeping forces” to Beirut after Israel invaded Lebanon. Again, the United States did not appear as a neutral play, leading Muslim extremists to launch attacks against American Marines, leaving more than 200 soldiers dead in 1983.

–In 1978-9, the Carter Administration helped create the Camp David Accords, intended to bring peace between Egypt and Israel. Ultimately, Egypt became isolated in the Arab world, leading to deeper divisions in the Middle East.

–In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S. government launched several ill-advised policies. First, the United States provided weapons to Islamic groups fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Eventually, these groups fought U.S. troops after the 2001 attacks. Second, the United States asked Egypt to supply weapons to Iraqi troops fighting Iran in the 1980s. That program encouraged Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who sent his troops to Kuwait in 1990. After that, the administration launched Operation Desert Storm to drive out the Iraqi military.

–More recently, the U.S. military invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, leading to more chaos and anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East.

All told, the United States has an abysmal record in bringing stability to the region. So far, the Biden administration has vacillated between support for Israel and concern for the Palestinians in Gaza.

Given the U.S. government’s history of mistakes, I think we are unlikely to help resolve the current crisis.

Lethal autonomous weapons

Posted: April 9, 2024 by chrisharper in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

By Christopher Harper

As the U.S. Congress plans an investigation of artificial intelligence, one of the most challenging areas of concern is what’s known as LAWS.

LAWS stands for lethal autonomous weapons systems, which critics call killer robots.

I started gathering information about this type of A.I. when two of my favorite military authors, Mark Greaney and Gregg Hurwitz, posed some significant issues with LAWS.

Greaney ponders an attempt by one tech company to control the worldwide supply of such weapons, while Hurwitz warns about the absence of ethics when computers take over.

By combining A.I. with advanced robotics, the U.S. military and those of other advanced powers are already hard at work creating an array of self-guided “autonomous” weapons systems—combat drones that can employ lethal force independently of any human officers meant to command them. Such devices include a variety of uncrewed or “unmanned” planes, tanks, ships, and submarines capable of autonomous operation. For example, The U.S. Air Force is developing an unmanned aerial vehicle to join piloted aircraft on high-risk missions. The Army is similarly testing a variety of autonomous unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), while the Navy is experimenting with both unmanned surface vessels (USVs) and unmanned undersea vessels (UUVs, or drone submarines). China, Russia, Australia, and Israel are also working on such weaponry.

Michael Klare of The Nation wrote recently: “For the most part, debate over the battlefield use of such devices hinges on whether they will be empowered to take human lives without human oversight. Many religious and civil society organizations argue that such systems will be unable to distinguish between combatants and civilians on the battlefield, and so should be banned in order to protect non-combatants from death or injury, as is required by international humanitarian law. American officials, on the other hand, contend that such weaponry can be designed to operate perfectly well within legal constraints.”

The imminent appearance of autonomous weapons has generated concern and controversy globally, with some countries already seeking a total ban on them. Others, including the United States, plan to authorize their use only under human-supervised conditions. In Geneva, a group of states has even sought to prohibit the deployment and use of fully autonomous weapons, citing a 1980 U.N. treaty that aims to curb or outlaw non-nuclear munitions believed to be especially harmful to civilians. Meanwhile, in New York, the U.N. General Assembly held its first discussion of autonomous weapons last October and is planning a full-scale review this fall.

Given China’s superior numbers, the so-called “swarm concept” of A.I. weapons is particularly appealing to U.S. strategists. The antonymous weapons would act like a swarm of bees, ants, or wolves.

This concept of warfare undergirds the new “replicator” strategy announced by Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks just last summer. “Replicator is meant to help us overcome [China’s] biggest advantage. More ships. More missiles. More people,” she told arms industry officials last August. By deploying thousands of autonomous weapons, she suggested, the U.S. military would be able to outwit, outmaneuver, and overpower China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army. “To stay ahead, we’re going to create a new state of the art.… We’ll counter the PLA’s mass with mass of our own, but ours will be harder to plan for, harder to hit, harder to beat.”

Any participating robotic member of such swarms would be given a mission objective, such as destroying enemy radar, but not precise instructions on how to do so. This would allow them to select their battle tactics in consultation.  

Authors Greaney and Hurwitz have one overriding concern about the technology: its introduction would make nations more prone to war.

Alternatively, the technology might reduce battlefield injuries and deaths.

One concept favoring A.I. technology development harkens back to the Cold War: mutual-assured destruction. If all the major powers each have LAWS, it is less likely that one will use the weapons because of the retaliation it would face.

Pennsylvania voting: A bumpy ride ahead

Posted: April 2, 2024 by chrisharper in Uncategorized
Tags: ,

By Christopher Harper

In Pennsylvania, a pivotal state in the 2024 campaign, it appears that the Democrats, who control much of the state government voting apparatus, realize that mail-in ballots played a significant role in Biden’s election as president.

Over the past two weeks, my wife and I have received six application forms to file for absentee ballots.

Moreover, the slick presentation allows us to file a once-for-a-lifetime guarantee of mail-in ballots for each election.

It is unclear how the local and state officials verify the requests for mail-in ballots, which were once known as “absentee” ballots for use when an individual would not be at his or her home address on Election Day.

But other problems loom as November nears.

Pennsylvania has experienced a significant decline in the number of experienced election directors, increasing the risk of errors that could cause voters difficulties, disenfranchise their votes, and ignite disputes over results.

In total, 58 officials who served during the November 2019 election have left. Compared with experience levels during the 2019 election, the state has lost a combined 293 years of experience among the top county election officials as of this publishing date, according to a Votebeat and Spotlight PA analysis of county data. The state has 21% fewer years of experience than it did for the November 2019 election.

Recent ballot printing and administration errors in Greene and Luzerne Counties, among others, show that having less-experienced county administrators can result in more problems occurring in an election. Last year, one of Greene County’s errors was an incorrect instruction telling voters to choose up to three candidates in a commissioner race that allowed only two selections.

If a voter had followed the instructions, the ballot would not have been counted. 

“I think the loss of experienced election directors at the county level is one of the biggest dangers we face,” Secretary of State Al Schmidt said recently. “That turnover creates an environment where it’s more likely for mistakes to be made.”

After the 2022 elections, a flurry of precinct-level recount petitions prevented Pennsylvania from certifying its election results until Dec. 22 — weeks later than usual.

This year presents an even more challenging scenario: a new federal law requires states to certify their slate of presidential electoral votes by Dec. 11, about five weeks after Election Day.

Forrest Lehman, the election director for Lycoming County in north central Pennsylvania, said he had hoped the legislature would shore up vulnerabilities in the post-election process in response to Congress passing the Electoral Count Reform Act, though that now seems unlikely.

“We need to look at what needs to be clarified, maybe what parts need to be hardened a little bit so that someone can’t take advantage of them,” he said. “The recount petitions are one example, but also [there’s] the potential for a repeat of what we saw previously, where a county simply refused to certify its results, and they had to be taken to court.”

Lehman referred to a dispute between the Pennsylvania Department of State and several counties after the spring primaries in 2022. Berks, Fayette, and Lancaster Counties refused to include mail ballots without handwritten dates. 

The department sued the counties and eventually obtained a court order compelling them to include the votes. However, the process took over two months.

Older Entries
Newer Entries