New UK “Ranger Regiment” to “match brainpower with firepower”

The key takeaway from UK news about their Ranger Regiment design is that they’re claiming a need to move from training/advisory to “expeditionary” roles that go into the field with the forces they’re training.

Training, advising and accompanying partner forces dealing with extremist organizations and hostile state threats… creation of land regional hubs in Oman, Kenya, Germany and Belize…

General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, Chief of the General Staff, actually has the money quote:

…all army capability, matching brainpower with firepower, data and software with hardware. …if you actually want to guarantee tactical success, you’re much better placed operating alongside those troops you’ve actually been responsible for generating and training in the first place.

Matching software with hardware seems… more like standard operating procedure than specialized. Likewise, was firepower being sent into field without any brainpower? And does that sound like training actually had been taking place at all?

I found a message from 1994 (Army Communicator, Vol 19, No 2) by Robert E. Gray, Major General, U.S. Army Commanding, which used similar language in a bitter form of farewell/warning.

It is a myth that technology is an operational panacea and thus requires fewer people to get the job done. Rather, budget constraints and technology require innovative people doing things smarter… We will endure reductions in training, and field units will have to pick up the ball. Also, some technology enhancements will be slow in reaching the field. Despite all these factors, no country in the world can match our might — whether it’s firepower, technology, or brain power.

“Field units will have to pick up the ball” of 1994 sounds eerily like General Carleton-Smith today, no?

Perhaps even more interesting is what was called an “uncomplimentary view of the US military noted by a retired Army officer” (James Mrazek, “The Art of Winning Wars” 1968, p. 53), as cited in “Strategymaking for the 1980s” by Lieutenant General Raymond B. Furlong, US Air Force (Parameters, Journal of the US Army War College, Volume 9, Issue 1, 1979, p. 9)

Except for our first two wars, an overwhelming abundance of economic power has been the deciding factor that has given the United States Army its victories. America has been inclined to rely on raw strength to the neglect of brains.

When you really get into reading Mrazek, you have to wonder why he didn’t call his 1968 thesis the war of art…

The impotence of the American juggernaut in Vietnam has put this problem under the spotlight of history. The one thing the guerrillas have in abundance is imagination, and this seems to outweigh the imbalance in materiel. It is the author’s contention that creativity is what wins battles–the same faculty that inspires great art.

Anyway, back to the 2021 UK message details, their stated move from training to an expeditionary approach signals to me planners admitting failure or obscuring harsh reality by trying to rebrand it as a new opportunity (far more than actually taking a move towards “guarantee” of any success).

It’s almost like when the power of money and technology fails to deliver, there’s a tendency of those charged with power management to grasp longingly at mysticism for solutions — as if art comes from divine inspiration, an individual appeal towards ultimate power, instead of being the expression of collective wisdom and collaboration (inverse to conflict).

Unfortunately, this announcement very much reminds me of an intentional lack of UK intelligence — how under reported SAS history has been (not to mention the role of US Vietnam War veterans), given who actually was sending expeditionary forces into the disastrous killing fields of Rhodesia.

I mean in reality will this really be anything more than a new chapter for the infamous “ace of spades“, or more than a return to the 101 of special forces (roots planted in WWII by the “long lines” of an “expeditionary” Wingate)?

US Retailers Pull Surveillance Company Products Linked to Genocide

Some argue a national security concern was the greater driver for pulling product off retail shelves.

Either way the result is Dahua products such as Lorex are gone from Lowe’s and Best Buy, which should tell you something about where might be safest to shop in America.

Best Buy, Home Depot, and Lowe’s dropped Lorex (Dahua) products after IPVM and TechCrunch reached out to the retailers about them selling products from a manufacturer deemed a threat to US national security as well as being sanctioned for human rights abuses.

Alibaba “Most-Privilege” Cloud Access Model Compromised

Everyone and their dog knows that Unix systems come with a “least-privilege” default, which for some reason was flipped on its head when Alibaba created a service model.

Trend Micro reports:

…the default Alibaba ECS instance provides root access…all users have the option to give a password straight to the root user inside the virtual machine (VM)… In this situation, the threat actor has the highest possible privilege upon compromise, including vulnerability exploitation, any misconfiguration issue, weak credentials or data leakage. Thus, advanced payloads such as kernel module rootkits and achieving persistence via running system services can be deployed.

Ouch. It’s a burning question who setup Alibaba’s security to be the exact opposite of basic practices.

The rest of the Trend Micro report describes how security detection software easily was disabled since the attacker had total system control.

AllTrails is Centrally-Planned Centrally-Managed System Dangerous to Hikers

An interesting Bay Area article has taken AllTrails to task for being a heavily funded attempt to centralize and plan an economy, without investing in data integrity required to keep people safe.

I get a call from Meaghan Praznik, AllTrails’ head of communications. I ask her why my email led to an immediate change when the National Park Service’s previous outreach did not. She mostly doesn’t answer the question and instead talks about a new feature they’ll be debuting soon, which will apparently let park employees monitor and edit illegal shortcuts added to their 300,000 trails. (This does not seem like something park employees will have time to do.) “What I can say is we really do pride ourselves on offering the safest routes possible,” she says, after I ask her why they gave explicit directions to this incredibly dangerous shortcut. […] I ask her how big a “large team” is, and she says the San Francisco-based company employs more than 100 people, but most of them work on engineering and data integrity. “So you only have a fraction of 100 people trying to keep up with more than 300,000 trails?” I ask. “It is wild,” she replies. Not exactly the reply I was expecting, but it does lead to more questions: To what degree is the largest hiking app in the world responsible for the safety of hikers?

This of course begs why AllTrails exists when they could have just funded improvements to the National Park Service.

There is NO park-sanctioned “Alamere Falls Trail”
Please take note! Many social media posts, websites, and older (and some newer) guide books reference an “Alamere Falls Trail” (also sometimes referred to as a “shortcut to the falls”). The “Alamere Falls Trail” is NOT a maintained trail, and poses many hazards to off-trail hikers—crumbling and eroding cliffs, massive poison oak, ticks, and no cell phone service. Visitors who use this unmaintained trail may endanger themselves and rescuers, and inadvertently cause resource damage, such as trampling plants, which may lead to the death of the trampled plants. On an almost weekly basis, visitors get hurt scrambling down the heavily rutted route leading to the top of the falls or sliding down the crumbly cliff-face to get to the beach, sometimes requiring search and rescue teams to be mobilized. The National Park Service strongly advises visitors against using this unmaintained route. Please use the recommended routes described below to visit the falls.

While a public service like NPS is regulated as an official resource using distributed personnel dedicated to local expertise, AllTrails seems to bank on very low cost of centrally acquiring information from others yet avoiding accountability for being out of touch or lacking knowledge.