DOCSLIB.ORG

Download/Csipubs/Modernwarfare.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download/Csipubs/Modernwarfare.Pdf DOING WHAT YOU KNOW THE UNITED STATES AND 250 YEARS OF IRREGULAR WAR DAVID E. JOHNSON DOING WHAT YOU KNOW THE UNITED STATES AND 250 YEARS OF IRREGULAR WARFARE DAVID E. JOHNSON 2017 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2017 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHOR David E. Johnson is a Senior Fellow at CSBA. He joined CSBA after eighteen years with the RAND Corporation, where he was a Principal Researcher. His work focuses on military innovation, land warfare, joint operations, and strategy. Dr. Johnson is also an adjunct professor at Georgetown University where he teaches a course on strategy and military operations and an Adjunct Scholar at the Modern War Institute at West Point. From June 2012 until July 2014, he was on a two-year loan to the United States Army to establish and serve as the first director of the Chief of Staff of the Army Strategic Studies Group. Before joining RAND, he served as a vice president at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) following a 24-year career in the U.S. Army, where he served in command and staff positions in the Infantry, Quartermaster Corps, and Field Artillery branches in the continental United States, Korea, Germany, Hawaii, and Belgium. He retired as a Colonel in 1997. His military awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit, Parachutist’s Badge, Ranger Tab, Expert Infantryman’s Badge, Army Staff Identification Badge, the Ancient Order of Saint Barbara, and the Noble Patron of Armor. His work has been featured on the profes- sional reading lists of the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force Chiefs of Staff, The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Commander, the Chief of Staff Royal Air Force (United Kingdom), the Chief of Staff of the British Army, the Royal Australian Air Force Chief of Staff, and the U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence. He has served as a member of the Maneuver and the Fires Centers of Excellence Advisory Boards, and as a consultant to the U.S. Defense Science Board and the U.S. Army Science Board. He has MA and Ph.D. degrees in history from Duke University. He also has an MMAS from the U.S. Command and General Staff College, an MS from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, and a BA from Trinity University. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This monograph is an expanded version of David E. Johnson, “You Go to COIN with the Military You Have: The United States and 250 Years of Irregular Warfare,” in Beatrice Heuser and Eitan Shamir, eds., Insurgencies and Counterinsurgencies: National Styles and Strategic Cultures (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2016). The author is grateful to his colleagues Hal Brands, Thomas Mahnken, Whitney Morgan McNamara, Rick Russo, and Timothy Walton; to his friend Mark Perry for commenting on this work; and to Kamilla Gunzinger and Erica Brown for their skillful editing. Thanks are also due to Adam Lemon for proofreading and Marlyn Brown for her work on the report layout. The opinions and analysis in this study are those of the author; any shortcomings are solely his responsibility. CSBA receives funding from a broad and diverse group of funders, including private foundations, government agencies, and corporations. A complete list of these organizations can be found on our website at www.csbaonline.org/about/contributors. Cover Photo: Long Khanh Province, Republic of Vietnam. SP4 R. Richter, 4th Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade and Sergeant Daniel E. Spencer with a fallen comrade Courtesy of National Archives and Records Administration. Contents INTRODUCTION ...............................................................1 A Word of Caution ..........................................................2 TWO CENTURIES OF IRREGULAR WARFARE AND COIN AT HOME AND ABROAD . 5 Regular Even in Revolution—The Origins of American Conventionality in War ...............5 Adapting the Regular Army for the Irregular—the Indian Wars of 1790–1891 ...............8 Expeditionary COIN After the Spanish–American War. 17 Back to Conventionality: the U.S. Military After World War I ...........................28 America in Vietnam (1945–1975) .............................................30 No More Vietnams (1975–2006) ..............................................50 21ST CENTURY U .S . COIN .......................................................55 Relearning COIN After “Winning” in Afghanistan and Iraq ............................55 21st Century U.S. COIN Methods .............................................65 Measuring Success .......................................................69 Constraints on U.S. and Western Irregular Warfare and COIN Approaches ................71 U.S. Strategic Culture Is Part of the Problem .....................................73 The United States is No Longer Doing COIN, So Why Does It Matter? ...................76 WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED AND WHAT DO WE DO GOING FORWARD? .......................79 INDEX ................................................................. 88 LIST OF ACRONYMS .......................................................... 91 FIGURES FIGURE 1 ............................................................... 7 FIGURE 2 .............................................................. 13 FIGURE 3 .............................................................. 16 FIGURE 4 .............................................................. 20 FIGURE 5 .............................................................. 24 FIGURE 6 .............................................................. 27 FIGURE 7 .............................................................. 33 FIGURE 8 .............................................................. 38 FIGURE 9 .............................................................. 41 FIGURE 10 .............................................................. 43 FIGURE 11 .............................................................. 46 FIGURE 12 .............................................................. 50 FIGURE 13 .............................................................. 52 FIGURE 14 .............................................................. 58 FIGURE 15 .............................................................. 64 FIGURE 16 .............................................................. 67 www.csbaonline.org 1 Introduction The United States has been continuously engaged in irregular combat since initiating operations in Afghanistan the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S. homeland. Its military forces, particularly the Army, Marine Corps, and Special Operations Forces, have made significant adaptations after the onset of the insurgency in Iraq following the initial success of conventional operations there in 2003. Yet, victory—achieving the desired political objectives—in Iraq and Afghanistan continues to elude the United States more than fifteen years into the Global War on Terrorism despite significant investments in blood and treasure.1 This study endeavors to answer the question: Why is that? The United States has a long history of engaging in irregular wars and countering insurgencies, one that predates its independence. Many of these efforts, as will be recounted, were successful. Others were not. To understand what worked, what did not, and why, this study assesses the measures, both coercive and benign, that the United States has used in a limited number of pivotal cases to determine if U.S. irregular warfare and counterinsurgency (COIN) approaches have changed significantly over the past two centuries. It also makes recommendations for the future. 1 There is a broad literature on U.S. counterinsurgency efforts. As Martin van Creveld noted on the back cover of Beatrice Heuser and Eitan Shamir, eds., Insurgencies and Counterinsurgencies: National Styles and Strategic Cultures (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2017), “Over the last decades, so large has the literature on insurgency and counterinsurgency become that, had it been loaded on the Titanic, that ship would have sunk without any help from the iceberg.” That said, there are several useful assessments, particularly on the political and strategic dimensions of Iraq and Afghanistan that I found particularly useful. See Richard D. Hooker Jr. and Joseph J. Collings, eds., Lessons Encountered: Learning from the Long War (Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 2015); Frank G. Hoffman, “Small Wars Revisited: The United States and Nontraditional War,” Journal of Strategic Studies 28, no. 6, December 2005; and Paul Cornish, “The United States and Counterinsurgency: ‘Political First, Political Last, Political Always’,” International Affairs 85, no. 1, 2009. 2 CSBA | DOING WHAT YOU KNOW A Word of Caution In the 1989 revised edition of his collection of essays on the American Revolution, historian John Shy reflected on his perspective when he wrote the original volume, published in 1976 shortly after the fall of South Vietnam: Several of [the essays] play deliberately in that dangerously subjective zone where past meets present, and all of them
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shadows and Wind
    1 HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER VIETNAMESE COMMUNISM A Politically Incorrect Approach Ottawa, February 2001 For Human Rights (Huntington Beach, C.A.) March 2001 Ton That Thien American anti-war writers and Vietnam For decades, the literature on Vietnam was strongly dominated by a coterie of Western - predominantly American – journalists and academics who claimed to be experts on Vietnam. These “experts” were fiercely anti-war revolutionaries determined to bring down South Vietnam for internal American reasons. South Vietnam provided the most convenient focus for the anti-war denunciations and demonstrations. As David Horowitz, one of the most radical leaders of the American anti-war movement wrote in his reflections after the war: “My speech illustrated the real importance of Vietnam to the radical cause, which was not ultimately about Vietnam but about our antagonism to America in our desire for revolution. Vietnam served to justify the desire; we needed the war and its violent images to vindicate our destructive intentions”.1 Typical of the above attitude is the “Indo-China Peace Campaign” organized by the famed actress Jane Fonda, which “worked tirelessly to ensure the victory of the North Vietnamese Communists...Fonda travelled first to Hanoi and then to the liberated zones of South Vietnam to make a propaganda film... it attempted to persuade viewers that the Communists were going to create a new society in the south. Equality and justice awaited its inhabitants if only America would cut off support for the Saigon regime...”2 Another illustration is that of Frances Fitzgerald, author of the best seller and Pulitzer Prize winning book, Fire in the Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Russell, the Senate Armed Services Committee & Oversight of America’S Defense, 1955-1968
    BALANCING CONSENSUS, CONSENT, AND COMPETENCE: RICHARD RUSSELL, THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE & OVERSIGHT OF AMERICA’S DEFENSE, 1955-1968 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Joshua E. Klimas, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor David Stebenne, Advisor Professor John Guilmartin Advisor Professor James Bartholomew History Graduate Program ABSTRACT This study examines Congress’s role in defense policy-making between 1955 and 1968, with particular focus on the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), its most prominent and influential members, and the evolving defense authorization process. The consensus view holds that, between World War II and the drawdown of the Vietnam War, the defense oversight committees showed acute deference to Defense Department legislative and budget requests. At the same time, they enforced closed oversight procedures that effectively blocked less “pro-defense” members from influencing the policy-making process. Although true at an aggregate level, this understanding is incomplete. It ignores the significant evolution to Armed Services Committee oversight practices that began in the latter half of 1950s, and it fails to adequately explore the motivations of the few members who decisively shaped the process. SASC chairman Richard Russell (D-GA) dominated Senate deliberations on defense policy. Relying only on input from a few key colleagues – particularly his protégé and eventual successor, John Stennis (D-MS) – Russell for the better part of two decades decided almost in isolation how the Senate would act to oversee the nation’s defense.
    [Show full text]
  • THE BRITISH ARMY in the LOW COUNTRIES, 1793-1814 By
    ‘FAIRLY OUT-GENERALLED AND DISGRACEFULLY BEATEN’: THE BRITISH ARMY IN THE LOW COUNTRIES, 1793-1814 by ANDREW ROBERT LIMM A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY. University of Birmingham School of History and Cultures College of Arts and Law October, 2014. University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT The history of the British Army in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars is generally associated with stories of British military victory and the campaigns of the Duke of Wellington. An intrinsic aspect of the historiography is the argument that, following British defeat in the Low Countries in 1795, the Army was transformed by the military reforms of His Royal Highness, Frederick Duke of York. This thesis provides a critical appraisal of the reform process with reference to the organisation, structure, ethos and learning capabilities of the British Army and evaluates the impact of the reforms upon British military performance in the Low Countries, in the period 1793 to 1814, via a series of narrative reconstructions. This thesis directly challenges the transformation argument and provides a re-evaluation of British military competency in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars.
    [Show full text]
  • Proquest Dissertations
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to loe removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI* Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 WASHINGTON IRVING CHAMBERS: INNOVATION, PROFESSIONALIZATION, AND THE NEW NAVY, 1872-1919 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctorof Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Stephen Kenneth Stein, B.A., M.A.
    [Show full text]
  • SPRING 2017 MESSAGE from the CHAIRMAN Greetings to All USAWC Graduates and Foundation Friends
    SPRING 2017 MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN Greetings to all USAWC graduates and Foundation friends, On behalf of our Foundation Board of Trustees, it is a privilege to share Chairman of the Board this magazine with you containing the latest news of our Foundation LTG (Ret) Thomas G. Rhame and of the U.S. Army War College (USAWC) and its graduates. Vice Chairman of the Board Our Spring Board meeting in Tampa in March was very productive as we Mr. Frank C. Sullivan planned our 2018 support to the College. We remain very appreciative Trustees and impressed with the professionalism and vision of MG Bill Rapp, LTG (Ret) Richard F. Timmons (President Emeritus) RES ’04 & 50th Commandant as he helps us understand the needs of MG (Ret) William F. Burns (President Emeritus) the College going forward. With his excellent stewardship of our Foundation support across Mrs. Charlotte H. Watts (Trustee Emerita) more than 20 programs, he has helped advance the ability of our very successful public/ Dr. Elihu Rose (Trustee Emeritus) Mr. Russell T. Bundy (Foundation Advisor) private partnership to provide the margin of excellence for the College and its grads. We also LTG (Ret) Dennis L. Benchoff thank so many of you who came to our USAWC Alumni Dinner in Tampa on March 15, Mr. Steven H. Biondolillo 2017 (feature and photos on page 7). Special thanks to GEN Joseph L. Votel III, RES ’01, Mr. Hans L. Christensen and GEN Raymond A. Th omas III, RES ’00, for hosting us at the Central and Special Ms. Jo B. Dutcher Operations Commands at MacDill AFB on March 17th.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legacy of American Photojournalism in Ken Burns's
    Interfaces Image Texte Language 41 | 2019 Images / Memories The Legacy of American Photojournalism in Ken Burns’s Vietnam War Documentary Series Camille Rouquet Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/interfaces/647 DOI: 10.4000/interfaces.647 ISSN: 2647-6754 Publisher: Université de Bourgogne, Université de Paris, College of the Holy Cross Printed version Date of publication: 21 June 2019 Number of pages: 65-83 ISSN: 1164-6225 Electronic reference Camille Rouquet, “The Legacy of American Photojournalism in Ken Burns’s Vietnam War Documentary Series”, Interfaces [Online], 41 | 2019, Online since 21 June 2019, connection on 07 January 2021. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/interfaces/647 ; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/interfaces.647 Les contenus de la revue Interfaces sont mis à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. THE LEGACY OF AMERICAN PHOTOJOURNALISM IN KEN BURNS’S VIETNAM WAR DOCUMENTARY SERIES Camille Rouquet LARCA/Paris Sciences et Lettres In his review of The Vietnam War, the 18-hour-long documentary series directed by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick released in September 2017, New York Times television critic James Poniewozik wrote: “The Vietnam War” is not Mr. Burns’s most innovative film. Since the war was waged in the TV era, the filmmakers rely less exclusively on the trademark “Ken Burns effect” pans over still images. Since Vietnam was the “living-room war,” played out on the nightly news, this documentary doesn’t show us the fighting with new eyes, the way “The War” did with its unearthed archival World War II footage.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Strategy: the Blind Spot of International Humanitarian Law
    Harvard National Security Journal / Vol. 8 333 ARTICLE Military Strategy: The Blind Spot of International Humanitarian Law Yishai Beer* * Professor of Law, Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel. The author would like to thank Eyal Benvenisti, Gabriella Blum, Moshe Halbertal, Eliav Lieblich, David Kretzmer, and Kenneth Watkin for their useful comments, and Ohad Abrahami for his research assistance. © 2017 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and Yishai Beer. 334 2017 / Military Strategy: The Blind Spot of International Humanitarian Law Abstract The stated agenda of international humanitarian law (IHL) is to humanize war’s arena. Since it is the strategic level of war that primarily affects war’s conduct, one might have expected that the law would focus upon it. Paradoxically, the current law generally ignores the strategic discourse and prefers to scrutinize the conduct of war through a tactical lens. This disregard of military strategy has a price that is demonstrated in the prevailing law of targeting. This Article challenges the current blind spot of IHL: its disregard of the direct consequences of war strategy and the war aims deriving from it. It asks those who want to comprehensively reduce war’s hazards to think strategically and to leverage military strategy as a constraining tool. The effect of the suggested approach is demonstrated through an analysis of targeting rules, where the restrictive attributes of military strategy, which could play a significant role in limiting targeting, have been overlooked. Harvard National Security Journal / Vol. 8 335 Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................336 I. Strategy Determines War’s Patterns and Scope .........................................340 II.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of US Marine Corps Intelligence Modernization During
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 5-2017 Innovation in Intelligence: An Analysis of U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence Modernization during the Occupation of Haiti, 1915-1934 Laurence M. Nelson III Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Nelson, Laurence M. III, "Innovation in Intelligence: An Analysis of U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence Modernization during the Occupation of Haiti, 1915-1934" (2017). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 6536. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/6536 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INNOVATION IN INTELLIGENCE: AN ANALYSIS OF U.S. MARINE CORPS INTELLIGENCE MODERNIZATION DURING THE OCCUPATION OF HAITI, 1915-1934 by Laurence Merl Nelson III A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in History Approved: ______________________ ____________________ Robert McPherson, Ph.D. James Sanders, Ph.D. Major Professor Committee Member ______________________ ____________________ Jeannie Johnson, Ph.D. Mark R. McLellan, Ph.D. Committee Member Vice President for Research and Dean of the School of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2017 ii Copyright © Laurence Merl Nelson III 2017 All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Innovation in Intelligence: An Analysis of U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence Modernization during the Occupation of Haiti, 1915-1934 by Laurence M.
    [Show full text]
  • 14664 Time to Woo India
    October 2004 A Strategy for Nuclear Iran By Thomas Donnelly Regardless of who is elected to the presidency in November, the growing threat posed by a nuclear Iran is certain to be at the top of the next administration’s national security agenda. Unfortunately, neither a “grand bargain” with Tehran nor a conventional military strike against its nuclear facilities offers much hope of preventing one of the world’s most dangerous regimes from acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons. In the short term, at least, the United States must instead work to isolate Iran not only militarily but ideolog- ically, by succeeding in the democratic transformation of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Islamic Republic in Iran continues to speed The anxiety raised by the prospect of nuclear- toward acquiring nuclear weapons, with every armed Iran is creating a “Do Something!” week, it seems, bringing further evidence of its moment in Washington. Boot, a strong supporter progress. In late September, the head of Iran’s of the Bush administration’s strategy for the Atomic Energy Organization, Gholamreza greater Middle East, allows that, “on Iran, as in Aghazadeh, announced his country had begun so many other areas, the administration seems to enriching a “test amount” of uranium—enough, be paralyzed by disagreements between Defense that is, for several nuclear weapons. Soon, there Department hawks and State Department will be no insurmountable hurdles left; it is sim- doves.”3 The Democrats, by contrast, have made ply a matter of engineering, time, and Tehran’s a point of advocating a “grand bargain” with the choice.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 17-965 In the S upreme Court of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP , PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES , ET AL ., petitioners v. STATE OF HAWAII , ET AL ., respondents On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE EVAN MCMULLIN, ANNE APPLEBAUM, MAX BOOT, LINDA CHAVEZ, ELIOT COHEN, MINDY FINN, JULEANNA GLOVER, NORMAN ORNSTEIN, MICHAEL STEELE, CHARLIE SYKES, AND JERRY TAYLOR IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS R. REEVES ANDERSON JOHN B. BELLINGER , III ARNOLD & PORTER Counsel of Record KAYE SCHOLER LLP ELLIOTT C. MOGUL 370 Seventeenth St. KAITLIN KONKEL Suite 4400 ARNOLD & PORTER Denver, CO 80202 KAYE SCHOLER LLP (303) 863-1000 601 Mass. Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 942-5000 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Interest of Amici Curiae .............................................. 1 Introduction and Summary of Argument ................... 2 Argument ..................................................................... 4 I. EO-3 contravenes the prohibition on nationality-based discrimination that Congress, with support from almost all Republicans, adopted in 1965 ................................ 5 A. Congress intended to eliminate “all vestiges of discrimination against any national group” from our immigration system ............................................................... 6 1. Members of both parties, and Republicans in particular, strenuously repudiated the discriminatory policies that predated the 1965 Act ......................... 7 2. The 1965 Act rectified missteps in U.S. immigration policy ............................ 12 3. The principles underlying the 1965 Act are now fundamental to our national identity ........................................ 16 B. EO-3 runs afoul of Congress’s nondiscrimination guarantee ......................... 18 II. The President may not substitute his alternative policy judgments for Congress’s comprehensive statutory immigration scheme ..
    [Show full text]
  • Write-Ins Race/Name Totals - General Election 11/03/20 11/10/2020
    Write-Ins Race/Name Totals - General Election 11/03/20 11/10/2020 President/Vice President Phillip M Chesion / Cobie J Chesion 1 1 U/S. Gubbard 1 Adebude Eastman 1 Al Gore 1 Alexandria Cortez 2 Allan Roger Mulally former CEO Ford 1 Allen Bouska 1 Andrew Cuomo 2 Andrew Cuomo / Andrew Cuomo 1 Andrew Cuomo, NY / Dr. Anthony Fauci, Washington D.C. 1 Andrew Yang 14 Andrew Yang Morgan Freeman 1 Andrew Yang / Joe Biden 1 Andrew Yang/Amy Klobuchar 1 Andrew Yang/Jeremy Cohen 1 Anthony Fauci 3 Anyone/Else 1 AOC/Princess Nokia 1 Ashlie Kashl Adam Mathey 1 Barack Obama/Michelle Obama 1 Ben Carson Mitt Romney 1 Ben Carson Sr. 1 Ben Sass 1 Ben Sasse 6 Ben Sasse senator-Nebraska Laurel Cruse 1 Ben Sasse/Blank 1 Ben Shapiro 1 Bernard Sanders 1 Bernie Sanders 22 Bernie Sanders / Alexandria Ocasio Cortez 1 Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren 2 Bernie Sanders / Kamala Harris 1 Bernie Sanders Joe Biden 1 Bernie Sanders Kamala D. Harris 1 Bernie Sanders/ Kamala Harris 1 Bernie Sanders/Andrew Yang 1 Bernie Sanders/Kamala D. Harris 2 Bernie Sanders/Kamala Harris 2 Blain Botsford Nick Honken 1 Blank 7 Blank/Blank 1 Bobby Estelle Bones 1 Bran Carroll 1 Brandon A Laetare 1 Brian Carroll Amar Patel 1 Page 1 of 142 President/Vice President Brian Bockenstedt 1 Brian Carol/Amar Patel 1 Brian Carrol Amar Patel 1 Brian Carroll 2 Brian carroll Ammor Patel 1 Brian Carroll Amor Patel 2 Brian Carroll / Amar Patel 3 Brian Carroll/Ama Patel 1 Brian Carroll/Amar Patel 25 Brian Carroll/Joshua Perkins 1 Brian T Carroll 1 Brian T.
    [Show full text]
  • Mt. Vernon Neighborhood
    Mount Vernon’s Hometown Newspaper • A Connection Newspaper June 1, 2017 Police Practices Improve, Citizens Demand More Board cites progress on Police Practices improvements, but Gazette Worker/The by Andrea Photos some citizens demand more. By Andrea Worker The Gazette ohn Lovaas admitted that he was a bit of a skeptic. Speaking at the JMay 22 meeting to update Fairfax County residents on the Ad Hoc Police Practices Review Commission’s rec- ommendations, the Restonian acknowl- Caycee Utley of Fairfax stands amid protest signs and edged that he hadn’t been expecting all that Supervisor John Cook (R-Braddock), as chair of the fellow members of Showing up for Racial Justice. The much to come from the 32-member com- board’s Public Safety Committee, co-hosted a public group doesn’t think any real progress has been made mission established by Board of Supervisors forum updating citizens on the recommendations to “end racism and brutality, particularly against Chairman Sharon Bulova — in spite of the made by the Ad Hoc Police Practices Review Com- minorities” and hold law enforcement accountable fact that Lovaas had actually been chosen mission. for their actions. as an alternate representative. “But I am more and more impressed by from the audience were Bulova; Supervi- had already approved and implemented or possible results. what’s coming out of the implementation sor John Cook (R-Braddock); Police Chief put in motion 172 of the 202 recommenda- stage,” said Lovaas. Edwin Roessler, Jr.; Richard Schott, inde- tions that the commission presented in its TWO NEW FORMS of independent over- Lovaas may now be cautiously optimis- pendent police auditor; Adrian Steel, Ad final report on Oct.
    [Show full text]