kscarbel2

Things to do in Washington, D.C. https://washington.org/things-do-washington-dc . . . . U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 301 14th Street Southwest

I'm curious, when you called Watt's Mack (provider of the BMT website) at 1-888-304-6225 and asked about the availability of a B-model muffler shield (Mack part-no. 13ME2120P1), what did they say ?

Caterpillar CEO to Step Down at Year’s End The Wall Street Journal / October 17, 2016 Doug Oberhelman to remain chairman until March; Jim Umpleby to be new CEO Caterpillar Inc. said Chairman and Chief Executive Doug Oberhelman is slated to retire next year after leading the equipment maker to its highest annual sales ever before overseeing the longest sales decline in the company’s history. The board selected Caterpillar executive Jim Umpleby, a company veteran and current head of the company’s energy and transportation business, to succeed Mr. Oberhelman in the CEO role, effective Jan. 1. Caterpillar’s board appointed Mr. Umpleby as CEO on Thursday, according to a filing Monday with regulators. Mr. Oberhelman will remain as executive chairman of Caterpillar until March 31, when he will retire from the company. After that, board member Dave Calhoun will assume the role of nonexecutive chairman. Mr. Calhoun is senior managing director and head of private equity portfolio operations of Blackstone Group L.P. It wasn’t immediately clear why Caterpillar decided to split Mr. Oberhelman’s roles, and a company representative was unavailable to explain. In recent history, the company has tended to have one person serve as chairman and CEO. Mr. Oberhelman has led Caterpillar since 2010. He spent his first years as CEO putting billions of dollars into factories to build more of its familiar yellow machines and move the company deeper into mining equipment, which would prove to be a risky bet, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. The year 2012 turned out to be a peak for Caterpillar, but soon after, miners began shelving equipment-buying plans as commodity prices fell, China’s growth slowed and then oil prices fell, along with demand for related equipment. Caterpillar now faces its fourth straight year of falling sales, the longest decline in its history. The Journal reported Sunday that the 63-year-old Mr. Oberhelman may not be at the helm when Caterpillar’s fortunes turn, as the company’s chiefs by tradition haven’t stayed beyond age 65. Of the members on Caterpillar’s 12-member board, Mr. Oberhelman received the fewest number of “For” votes to be elected to the board at the company’s annual shareholder meeting, according to a June filing with regulators. Caterpillar shares fell 22 cents to $87.45 in morning trading in New York. Before Monday, the stock was up 29% this year—the best-performing in the Dow Jones Industrial Average—but was trading 25% below its 2012 peak.

UK security agencies unlawfully collected data for decade The Guardian / October 17, 2016 Investigatory powers tribunal says agencies operated secret regimes to collect vast amounts of communications data for 10 years The UK’s security agencies have secretly and unlawfully collected massive volumes of confidential personal data, including financial information, on British citizens for more than a decade, top judges have ruled. The investigatory powers tribunal, which is the only court that hears complaints against MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, has ruled that the security services operated secret regimes to collect vast amounts of personal communications data tracking individual phone and web use and large datasets of confidential personal information without adequate safeguards or supervision for more than 10 years. The IPT ruling includes the disclosure from an unpublished 2010 MI5 policy statement that the “bulk personal datasets” include material on the nation’s personal financial activities. “The fact that the service holds bulk financial, albeit anonymised, data is assessed to be a high corporate risk, since there is no public expectation that the service will hold or have access to this data in bulk. Were it to become widely known that the service held this data, the media response would most likely be unfavourable and probably inaccurate,” it says. The ruling comes as the House of Lords debates the final stages of the investigatory powers bill – the snooper’s charter – which will put mass digital surveillance activities on a clear legal footing for the first time since the disclosure by Edward Snowden of the extent of state surveillance in 2013. The tribunal, chaired by Mr Justice Burton, also reveals internal warnings to the staff of security agencies not to use the databases created to house these vast collections of data to search for or access information “about other members of staff, neighbours, friends, acquaintances, family members and public figures”. It also reveal concerns within the security agencies themselves about the secretive nature of their bulk data collection activities. The campaign group Privacy International said despite this warning the ruling showed that internal oversight failed to prevent these highly sensitive databases being treated like Facebook to check on birthdays, and “very worryingly” on family members for “personal reasons”. In February 2010, a Mr Hannigan, then of the Cabinet Office, wrote of the agencies’ handling of these massive volumes of personal data: “It is difficult to assess the extent to which the public is aware of agencies’ holding and exploiting in-house personal bulk datasets, including data on individuals of no intelligence interest ... Although existing legislation allows companies and UK government departments to share personal data with the agencies if necessary in the interests of national security, the extent to which this sharing takes place may not be evident to the public.” The ruling says that the regime governing the collection of bulk communications data – the who, where, when and what of personal phone and web communications – failed to comply with article 8 protecting the right to privacy of the European convention of human rights (ECHR) between 1998, when it started, and 4 November 2015, when it was finally made public. The ruling says that the holding of bulk personal datasets (BPD) – which might include medical records, tax records, individual biographical details, commercial and financial activities, communications and travel also failed to comply with article 8 for the decade it was in operation until its public avowal in March 2015. In the words of the ruling: “The BPD regime failed to comply with the ECHR principles which we have above set out throughout the period prior to its avowal in March 2015. The BCD regime failed to comply with such principles in the period prior to its avowal in November 2015, and the institution of a more adequate system of supervision as at the same date,” it concludes. The legal challenge centred on the acquisition, use, retention, and disclosure by the security services of bulk communications data under section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the use of bulk personal datasets under a variety of legal powers. The tribunal noted the highly secretive nature of the communications data regime, saying “it seems difficult to conclude that the use of BCD was foreseeable by the public when it was not explained to parliament”. Mark Scott of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, instructed by Privacy International in the legal challenge, said: “This judgment confirms that for over a decade UK security services unlawfully concealed both the extent of their surveillance capabilities and that innocent people across the country have been spied upon.” Millie Graham Wood, legal officer at Privacy International, added: “Today’s judgment is a long overdue indictment of UK surveillance agencies riding roughshod over our democracy and secretly spying on a massive scale. “There are huge risks associated with the use of bulk communications data. It facilitates the almost instantaneous cataloguing of entire populations’ personal data. It is unacceptable that it is only through litigation by a charity that we have learnt the extent of these powers and how they are used. “The public and parliament deserve an explanation as to why everyone’s data was collected for over a decade without oversight in place and confirmation that unlawfully obtained personal data will be destroyed.” Privacy International added that the judgment did not specify whether the unlawfully obtained, sensitive personal data would now be deleted. A government spokesperson responded to the ruling, saying:” The powers available to the security and intelligence agencies play a vital role in protecting the UK and its citizens. We are therefore pleased the tribunal has confirmed the current lawfulness of the existing bulk communications data and bulk personal dataset regimes. “Through the investigatory powers bill, the government is committed to providing greater transparency and stronger safeguards for all of the bulk powers available to the agencies.” A further hearing in the case is scheduled for December to consider a number of outstanding issues. Alistair Carmichael, Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson said the ruling showed: “Mass spying on the British people should be replaced with targeted surveillance of specific individuals suspected of wrongdoing.” “Allowing the state to collect endless amounts of personal data is not just a gross invasion of a privacy, it is a waste of precious resources. Every pound the government spends monitoring people’s emails, text messages and calls is a pound taken away from community policing,” he added.

Yahoo was hacked in 2014. Either they're very incompetent and really didn’t notice, or they’re incredibly dishonest and purposely withheld news of the event for two years until September 22, 2016.

The Financial Times / September 23, 2016 Yahoo President and CEO Marissa Mayer has known since July that Yahoo was investigating allegations of a serious data breach, raising questions about whether the internet chief withheld information from investors, regulators and its acquirer Verizon until this week. The initial investigation found no evidence for the claim in July by a hacker known as “Peace” that details of more than 200 million accounts had been accessed, but concern about the allegation triggered a deeper probe. That investigation uncovered what Yahoo on Thursday called a state-sponsored hack affecting more than 500 million accounts. Yahoo has refused to say exactly when it discovered the theft, which took place in 2014, of account details including phone numbers, birth dates and certain security details, which ranks as the largest known data breach in history. Verizon, which agreed a $4.8bn bid for Yahoo’s core business in July, said it had been informed as recently as this Tuesday, 10 days after a September 9 regulatory filing to the US Securities and Exchange Commission in which Yahoo said it had no knowledge of “any incidents” of “security breaches, unauthorised access or unauthorised use” of its IT systems. “Marissa was aware absolutely — she was aware and involved when Peace surfaced this allegation in July,” a person briefed on Yahoo’s discussions said. “[She] was part of the investigation and conversation from the very beginning and along with the team every step of the evidentiary gathering and analysis process. In fact, the key executive team has been engaged from the very beginning.” Ms Mayer’s knowledge of events suggests that the SEC could intervene, lawyers and former officials said. In its SEC filing earlier this month, Yahoo also confirmed that to its knowledge, the company had not received any notice of any claims or investigations relating to personal data that could “reasonably be expected to have a Business Material Adverse Effect”. A Yahoo spokesperson said: “We believe we’ve been truthful in our representations.” Ms Mayer’s judgment in holding back information about the investigation is already being challenged. “This is unprecedented in its timing, in that the deal is still between signing and closing,” he said. “This will affect the reputation of the business, it will cost money to fix and it will take a long time — the consequences of this will go on for many months, if not years.” .

. . .

Construction Week / October 17, 2016 Straddling two rivers, Lyon has long been a centre of economic activity, and with the rise of the silk trade in Renaissance Europe it became an industrial powerhouse. Today, this legacy lives on in the operations of Renault Trucks, which was founded in 1978 through the merger of Renault Group subsidiary Saviem and Lyon-based truck and bus manufacturer, Berliet. Threading the strands of history together, Marius Berliet, a self-taught mechanic, founded his company in 1899 after a stint as an apprentice in a silk-weaving firm — before he was ‘smitten with automobile fever’ in the early 1890s, according to an account of ‘Silk and Metal Workers in Lyon’ by Keith Mann. Upholding this proud heritage of industry and enterprise today is Patrice Roeser, who, as a product manager for Renault Trucks (and now a Volvo Group employee), is tasked with ensuring that Lyon’s manufacturing remains as vital today as it ever was, and that Renault trucks remain indispensable to customers. The Kerax, first launched in 1997, has long popular in tough off-road applications. Since 2014, however, it has been gradually phased out and replaced by the C and K (2016) ranges, and this division has left Kerax loyalists with two separate value propositions. Over the course of an expert-led drive around a challenging test truck frequently used to trial firefighting and military vehicles, Patrice Roeser delves into the reasons behind the split and the utility behind the two models. He explains: “The aim of the C-range is to save the weight and maximise the payload — this truck is built to operate within weight regulations; the K is built for robustness and upwards of 50 tonnes as an 8x4 rigid with a reinforced Optidriver Xtrem transmission, and upwards of 120 tonnes as a tractor unit. “We had one 8x4 rigid body K tested for two years in a mining application in Turkey before we launched the range this June. It was driven 20 hours a day with an average payload of 72 tonnes, and a maximum of 82 tonnes.” In the Middle East and Africa, Renault Trucks is primarily pitching the K range as the likely vehicle of choice based on the higher prevalence of strenuous, off-road applications and less stringent regulation and restriction on gross vehicle and gross combination weights. In these markets, one particular advantage of K models is their high chassis, which grants the trucks an approach angle of 32 degrees. Renault’s literature proclaims the K’s approach angle to the best in class, and queried, Roeser is adamant that this is indeed the case. He explains: “The big difference between the C and K ranges is the chassis height. The chassis height on the K is quite high, and as a consequence of that you have higher ground clearance on the K range compared with the C range. But you save weight on the C range, so it is better for maximising the payload in countries with strict weight regulations. “We use exactly the same engines between the two ranges, the 11-litre and the 13-litre, and exactly the same rear frame, which the option of additional reinforcement.” The C range is in fact only 6cm lower in height, but this critical variance restricts its maximum approach angle to 26 degrees. It was hard to discern this limitation in the way Renault’s driving experts navigated the precipitous slopes of loose rock on the test track, but in less deft hands it might tell. The other technology facilitating the effortless navigation of tricky terrain is the Optidriver automated manual transmission. Renault’s transmission was engineered in tandem with the Volvo I-Shift, with the two brands pooling to develop the gearbox. Renault’s Optidriver features in both the C and K ranges, and like the I-Shift has 12 gears. It also has a reinforced ‘Xtrem’ version that can be fitted in the K for severe applications, while crawler gears can be added for applications involving high gross combination weights or requiring very slow speeds (0.5kmph). It is on the test track’s rough terrain and steeply elevated sections, however, that the transmission is fully realised in combination with the differential locks, which prevent wheel spin on loose surfaces, while the manual mode allows the driver to smoothly apply more power at the touch of a button, without even touching the accelerator pedal. This Renault-specific trait, essentially a button-operated cruise control for off-road applications, was designed specifically for developing markets. Roeser explains: “The manual accelerator is something unique to Renault Trucks. It is relevant for the driver, because when you are on a bumpy hill you can be thrown around.” In such a scenario the driver might depress or release the accelerator involuntarily, thus increasing or cutting the revolutions — a common cause of stalling on steep inclines. With the manual accelerator, he continues, “because you do not touch the pedal, it keeps the same rpm all the time — providing the necessary torque at a constant revolution.” This Renault feature was developed for an African market in 1986 owing to the extreme unevenness of many of its roads, and was introduced as standard on the first-generation Kerax back in 1997. In many developing markets, it is features like this that have built the reputation of the Kerax over the years. Another feature born out of Africa, but equally applicable in many Middle Eastern scenarios, is Renault’s careful fine-tuning of the off-road mode on its transmission to help drivers get out of literally sticky situations. Roeser explains: “In the off-road mode, we have increased the speed at which you can switch from forward to reverse by a factor of 10, allowing you to reproduce the manoeuvre that you perform with a manual gearbox: when you are stuck in muddy situations and escape by rocking backward and forward.” Renault has removed the requirement for the driver to engage the brake before switching into reverse. Instead, the driver simply takes their foot off the gas, engages reverse, reapplies the accelerator and the truck automatically brakes and, in short order, begins to reverse. I was invited to take the wheel and try out the manoeuvre, and the action was remarkably rapid and smooth. Roeser confidently affirms: “It is even better than a manual gearbox.” While the on-road mode was released with the second generation of Kerax in 2006, Renault held back and only released the off-road version after a further two years of rigorous testing. Equally rigorous trials preceded the introduction of the new T, D and C ranges in 2014. Roeser notes: “During the first phase of development of the full range of trucks — T, D, C, K — we conducted tests over two million kilometres. The K range then underwent a further 1.5 million kilometres of testing before its launch outside Europe in June 2016.” These tests included a 6x4 K range truck, used as a rigid body-cum-tractor for a logging application in Cameroon — pulling 85t for a year and a half —and equally tough mining work in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In all these scenarios, even skilled manual drivers were bested by the automated manual transmission, and from a driver training perspective, Renault’s team estimates that even a relatively unskilled driver could be taught to master the basics of the automated transmission within two days. Astonishingly, over the course of the total 3.5 million kilometres of testing, not a single concern was raised about the trucks. “Nothing, not even a small thing,” confirms Roeser. The pitch is compelling, not least because so many features of the C and K ranges, the spiritual successors to the Kerax, draw upon Renault’s extensive experience in challenging environments. Renault Trucks has not adapted its vehicles to the challenges of the Middle East and Africa; the vehicles are born of them. Renault’s air filtration system was developed by its teams on the ground in Algeria in the 1960s to deal with the highly dusty conditions. Roeser explains: “We had some trouble with the air cartridge — with it clogging all the time — so to solve this concern, the Renault Trucks guys in Algeria had the idea to prevent the dust from entering the air cartridge. They came up with a very simple system: a cyclonic air filter in between the air duct and the air cartridge. “In fact, they showed this solution to the development centre in Lyon and the guys said this was a marvellous system because there were no wearing parts — it’s a just a shape that exerts pressure. It’s a very simple solution, it doubles the cartridge life for the customer, and it’s also their gain in terms of lower maintenance costs. Now, each time we develop a new truck we include this cyclonic air filter.” Just to be sure, the C and K range also come with a double cartridge as standard, and can also be fitted with a larger double cartridge where it is anticipated that the trucks will be operating in particularly dusty environments. Engaging the brakes The flipside of powering up your vehicles is slowing them down again, so Renault Trucks’ C and K ranges have several options in terms of their braking combinations and functionality. After wheel brakes, the C and K ranges use three types of retarder: the engine brake, or Optibrake, with a power output of 303kW on the 11-litre engine or 414kW on the 13-litre engine; an exhaust brake with an output of 203kW or 227kW; and a Voith hydraulic retarder on the transmission with a power output of 450kW for both engines. Roeser notes: “First is the wheel brake, the normal one, with either an electronic VBS or a mechanical lever — the latter being preferred in markets that like to avoid electronics. “After that we have the hydraulic retarder provided by Voith. This solution is very efficient at high speed on good roads. When you are at or above 40kmph it is very efficient, because it uses the speed of the propshaft. “The engine brake is really efficient when the revolution of the engine is high, but the speed of the truck low — so it’s a very complimentary braking system with the hydraulic retarder.” Though the engine brake is weighty, its use is a point of solidarity between C and K ranges. Applying his brake to the lengthy conversation, Roeser concludes: “The engine brake is very, very efficient for the cost. It’s close to 50%.” Under the hood. The 11-litre and 13-litre engines fitted in the Renault Trucks C and K ranges provide six power options from 380hp to 520hp, with torque values that span the 1,800Nm to 2,550Nm range. However, which engine is suitable for which customer remains highly dependent on the proposed application. Roeser expands: “The first point is the weight; the 11-litre is 200kg less, which for some customers is very important. Equally, most of the time, especially in Europe, 380hp to 460hp — or around 400hp — is sufficient for construction activities, as well as longer range applications with 4x2 and 6x4 tractors. “If you are in a predominantly flat situation with a rigid trucks carrying up to 38t, then a 11-litre, with 440hp to 460hp, is the most efficient, because you won’t request the full torque from the engine. Equally, if you have a 4x2 tractor towing 40t, 80% of the time an 11-litre will be the best choice for fuel economy. “But if you plan to use a 6x4 tractor to pull 100t on a slippery road, then for sure you are going to request the maximum torque, and the fuel consumption of a 13-litre engine will be less compared to a 11-litre engine. With the 13-litre you have more torque, and for high gross combination weights it is interesting. “The 13-litre 460hp engine definitely covers range of needs of the customer. The 400hp engine is for very specific demands — some of which are highly situation dependent. “It is a question of how you use the engine — what exactly is your power request?” The most important Renault Trucks factory is an assembly plant located in Bourg-en-Bresse, 70km north-northeast of Lyon. Spread across a 120ha site, the facility has a workforce of 1,500 people, 250 of them employed on a temporary as per the varying production demands. On any given day, the plant can produce up to 125 trucks over the course of a single shift across two parallel assembly lines. Each line is 600m long and it takes a truck approximately four hours to go from a bare chassis at one end to a completed vehicle at the other. Each vehicle then undergoes a further 1.5 hours of testing, which alongside administrative tasks, results in a total production timeframe of six hours to take each truck from parts to a final product ready for delivery to the customer. The assembly lines uses a system of automatic guided vehicles and overhead cranes to move truck frames along the assembly lines as parts are brought in from adjacent loading bays and delivered from the integrated 9,000m2 parts warehouse located in the same space and under the same roof. The factory can produce 1,000 different variants of Renault’s current range of trucks, and was until recently producing a legacy line of Kerax trucks on a tertiary assembly. This line will soon be dedicated to an order of 1,600 8X8 vehicles for the Canadian military. On the main lines, Renault interchanges the assembly of two- and three-axled tractor heads and three- or four-axled rigid body models to maintain an averaged five-minute interval, or tag time, between each assembly stage along the production process. As is standard, the vehicles produced at the factory are equipped with Euro VI engines and aluminium fuel tanks, air tanks and wheels; for the Middle East, it is typically Euro III and these parts are requested in steel. While the factory predates Renault Trucks’ incorporation into the Volvo Group, the facility now operates according to the principles of the Volvo Production System, which was established group-wide in 2008. The facility has since emerged as one of the Volvo Group’s best performing, and routinely produces 85% of its output without any errors being flagged. Most errors that do crop up involve not Renault but third-party components, such as the fifth wheels couplings, and are resolved without trouble. Vehicle production at the Bourg-en-Bresse site dates back to 1964, when the a factory was set up to produce a range of off-road trucks, articulated haulers and rigid dump trucks. Today, the factory modifies its production to accommodate changes in the type or volume of Renault Trucks’ orders every six months. A lead time of two months is required to increase the size of its workforce, and three-months is required to familiarise the workforce in case of changes, such as the introduction a model. In 2015, the factory produced 25,000 vehicles, which is a considerable step down from the 45,000 trucks it produced in 2008 across two shifts, but also a confident step back up from the 14,000-unit low in 2009. From the time a client places an order, Renault ensures its trucks are delivered in nine weeks (and is targeting eight weeks), while rigid body trucks are delivered in 10 weeks. .

Truck News / October 13, 2016 Fiat Powertrain Systems (FTP) has announced the launch of Cursor 11 engine production in Chongqing, China. The engine is assembled at the SAIC-Fiat-Hongyan Powertrain joint venture, in support of the SAIC-Iveco-Hongyan heavy truck making joint venture. The new engine, with ratings from 420 to 480 horsepower, adds another power option for the joint venture’s “Genlyon” heavy truck range. One of FTP’s newest powertrains, the fuel efficient Cursor 11 has a B-10 engine life of 1.5 million kilometers and offers extended drain intervals of up to 80,000 kilometers. The Cursor is emissions rated thru Euro-6. .

Goor, Netherlands-based Wifocarr (http://www.wifocarr.nl/) does a lot of truck restorations. Photo gallery - http://www.wifocarr.nl/delivered-trucks-cars . . .

Transport Engineer / October 14, 2016 Aggregates and sand supply business Somerset-based RH & AJ Bateman has taken delivery of the UK’s first Renault Range C Tridem 8x4 tipper. Supplied by Renault Trucks South West, the 32-tonne Range C460, with Aliweld insulated tipper body, has a factory-fitted extra axle adaption giving Bateman the manoeuvrability of a six-wheeler, but with the load capacity of an eight-wheeler. The Range C Tridem is the latest replacement in Bateman’s 18-strong fleet and, with its lifting and steering rear axle, is used for a mix of traditional six and eight-wheeler work, delivering sand and aggregates to customers across the South West. Director Russell Bateman says: “The Tridem gives us extra load capacity, which helps with the profitability of our business and, crucially, it gives us better manoeuvrability and accessibility into more challenging places where an eight-wheeler would usually struggle – for example, accessing equestrian arenas at the back of properties.” He adds: “The Tridem was a bit of an experiment for us as we’ve previously had a drawbar, but it’s already been used for everything and been everywhere. “It’s performed really well and overall we’ve been really happy with the investment.” .

Commercial Motor TV - sponsored by DAF Trucks / October 14, 2016 .

Thomas Gibbons-Neff, The Washington Post / October 16, 2016 CAMP SHORAB, Afghanistan — Earlier this month, a small district center just south of this desolate U.S. base came under attack from Taliban militants who threatened to overrun the local police. Frantic calls arrived from Afghan officials: They needed air support. In a U.S. command center, a steel hut of plywood walls and a dozen video monitors piping in drone feeds and satellite imagery, soldiers began directing aircraft to the area. Redhanded 53, the call sign for a gun-metal-gray twin-engine propeller plane loaded with sensors, arrived overhead just in time to watch a truck loaded with explosives slam into the main police station. Within an hour, the Americans had marshaled an armed Predator drone in the skies over the battle in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan. But the commanding officer, Col. D.A. Sims, and his troops were unable to determine whether the men with guns on the ground were Taliban or Afghan soldiers. So Sims directed the Predator to fire one of its two hellfire missiles into an adjacent field — a $70,000 dollar warning shot just to let the militants know that the Americans had arrived. The Oct. 3 battle is a microcosm of what is happening across Afghanistan: Taliban fighters that show enormous resilience despite being on the wrong side of a 15-year, $800 billion war; an Afghan army that still struggles with leadership, equipment, tactics and, in some units, an unwillingness to fight; and the world’s most sophisticated military reduced at times to pounding fields with its feared armaments. The future of the U.S. role in Afghanistan after a decade and a half of war has received little attention in the presidential campaign and debates. But the next administration will be bequeathed a strategy that is doing “just enough to lose slowly,” said Douglas Ollivant, a senior national-security-studies fellow at the New America Foundation. Considered the birthplace of the Taliban — and the hub of the Afghanistan’s opium trade — Helmand is a hard-fought battlefield that runs deep with symbolism and blood. But despite a 2010 surge into the province by U.S. forces — the biggest military operation of the Afghanistan war — military reports now estimate that 85 percent of Helmand is controlled by the Taliban. “We’re like a Band-Aid on a bullet wound,” one U.S. adviser said of the U.S. presence. ‘Holding the Helmand Line’ It is a scene that has played out continuously since the Obama administration surged 30,000 troops into Afghanistan in 2009: U.S. forces torn between doing the Afghans’ job for them, or watching from the sidelines as they attempt to build a capable military from scratch. “The Army’s bringing security, and I’ll give them a D-minus, and they have a D-minus because of the [airstrikes] we’re bringing,” said Army Col. Jeremy McGuire, the U.S. officer in charge of advising the Afghan military in Helmand. “It’s a passing grade.” The balance between assistance and dependence, though, has proved elusive, as advisers such as McGuire say that aiding the Afghans with airstrikes — once available only for the self-defense of U.S. troops and Special Operations missions — has injected a new type of reliance on the U.S.-led coalition. U.S. air support was a temporary measure approved by President Obama in June. On paper, it grants U.S. forces the ability to strike targets that will deliver “strategic effects” on the battlefield. In reality, the new strikes in Helmand were used to keep Afghan forces on “life support,” McGuire said. The airstrikes have also inadvertently encouraged Afghan security forces to continue relying on checkpoints rather than becoming more mobile. Their static approach damages their ability to counter the Taliban, according to the Americans. Frequently, U.S. strikes are used to keep a checkpoint from falling or after they do fall, to help the Afghans retake them. Despite a renewed dependency on U.S. forces, Afghan casualties are at unsustainable levels across the country. U.S. military documents show that in one week in August alone, more than 100 Afghan forces were killed, and nearly 300 were injured. The casualties, along with inconsistent leadership, has led, in some areas, to dangerously low morale in both the Afghan army and various branches of the police forces. The result is the almost daily abandonment of police and army checkpoints that are looted by the Taliban. Of the 540 checkpoints in Helmand, Afghan police have abandoned 112 of them, and the army has lost 30, McGuire said. The Afghans “are too spread out across too many checkpoints, but that’s the story in all of Afghanistan,” McGuire said. “The reason we’re probably staying alive is because we are keeping district centers and provincial capitals from falling, but that’s about all the assets we really have.” In 2011, at the war’s peak, the United States had more than 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. Since then, it has slowly reduced its numbers. The remaining 9,800 U.S. forces are spread across the country alongside their counterparts in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The United States is scheduled in 2017 to decrease the number of its troops to 8,400 — unless the next president decides otherwise. As U.S. forces draw down in 2017, the number of advisers here will increase from 25 to more than 100. The soldiers who do security for Camp Shorab will be replaced by civilian contractors, and in the spring, the U.S. Army’s mission in Helmand will rotate out to be replaced by a familiar presence in the province: the U.S. Marine Corps. “The Afghans ask every day for airstrikes,” McGuire said. “It kind of becomes old, especially when you can’t provide [them] five airstrikes. You can only provide one, and that’s if the [Taliban] is outside with an AK-47 shooting at someone.” As the Afghans hemorrhage casualties, lose ground and try to provide security for a handful of districts, the Americans in Helmand have become interlocutors for most of the parties involved — including the Army, the provincial governor and Helmand’s police chief, all while striking the Taliban and helping prepare Afghan units for another year of fighting. In Helmand, according to U.S. military officials, the situation could be better today had it not been for a decision at the end of 2014 to leave the Afghan Army unit covering the province — the 215th Corps — without any U.S. or NATO advisers. The decision, deemed “an acceptable risk” by the U.S. military, allowed what gains had been made by the unit since 2009 — with a massive amount of U.S. support — to quickly disappear. According to one Corps adviser, the 215th suffered more than half of the Afghan security forces’ casualties in Afghanistan for all of 2015. Their casualties this year, though, are down 50 percent. In response to the 215th’s rapid degradation in the winter of 2015, the U.S.-led mission in Afghanistan rushed in what is called an “expeditionary advising package,” a term of art for advisers needed to stave off disaster in some of Afghanistan’s more embattled regions. What started in February 2015 as seven advisers and four interpreters living alongside the 215th Corps’ leadership in the derelict remains of Helmand’s largest base has subsequently turned into what is now known as Task Force Forge with roughly 550 soldiers, civilians and contractors. Its motto: “Holding the Helmand Line.” ‘They like to know there are Americans there’ Camp Shorab, located in Helmand’s desert and built among the ruins of two previous installations there, has grown into a base complete with a mess hall, showers, WiFi, a small post exchange and an Afghan-run shop that sells souvenirs and haircuts. Even with Forge’s presence here and nearby Task Force Lethal — an American unit made up of an infantry battalion, medical-evacuation helicopters and gunships, stationed at Camp Dwyer — the 215th throughout this year has been able to conduct only small-scale operations to clear parts of Helmand’s main north-to-south road, Route 601. Earlier in the year, the 215th had to give up two districts — Musa Qala and Nawzad — to the Taliban to start rotating units off the front lines for a much-needed rest and refit. In recent weeks, Afghan forces also pulled out of the southern town of Khanashin to provide more security in Helmand’s capital, Lashkar Gah. The move was a welcome one by the U.S. forces because directing air cover to the southern district was becoming increasingly difficult. In Marjah — one of the cities that had some of the heaviest fighting when the U.S. Marine Corps was in Helmand in 2010 — Afghan Army units have been forced to huddle in the town’s center. Roads in and out of Marjah are impassible because of roadside bombs, forcing the unit’s commander there to request that his forces be airlifted out, leaving behind their equipment, including U.S.-supplied Humvees. Lashkar Gah has also been under attack since late August, with reports of Taliban militants getting closer to the city limits each day. Earlier this week, a bomb-laden vehicle exploded in the city, forcing the Afghans to rush in 300 commandos to bolster its defenses. Currently, U.S. forces have an expeditionary advising package at the city’s adjacent airfield, and though that contingent was supposed to withdraw earlier this month, it will probably stay in place for the foreseeable future. Consisting of roughly 50 soldiers from Task Force Forge and a small contingent of advisers, the group is a “show of force” against the Taliban and a morale booster for the city’s residents. “They like to know there are Americans there,” one soldier said. “And they know Americans will defend their own.” Yet for the nearly constant fighting across Helmand, the war can seem like a distant one at Camp Shorab. “The only thing we see of Afghanistan is what’s on these screens and outside that door,” Task Force Forge’s assistant operations chief, Capt. Chris Cummings, said, gesturing toward the entrance to his command center. The soldiers here — including elements of the first and second squadrons of the Army’s 3rd Cavalry Regiment, based out of Fort Hood, Tex., and some German soldiers — spend their days helping refuel aircraft, providing security for the advisers at the camp and standing through eight-hour posts in Shorab’s machine-gun emplacements. The nearby airfield, controlled by the Afghans, has to be secured every time a flight comes in, so the soldiers rush out in pickups and Land Rovers to ensure the planes’ passengers get off safely. The sentry positions, stocked with junior soldiers — some of whom had to look up Helmand province on the Internet before deploying — are the only evidence that Shorab is in a combat zone. The last time the base received any indirect fire was when another Army unit was standing up Shorab in the spring. Although the routine on the ground for the Americans is a mixture of security operations and training the Afghans, what happens in the sky is more complicated. With troop numbers a fraction of the war’s peak, getting aircraft over Helmand is a daily scheduling dilemma. Blocks of the day can be covered by myriad aircraft, some armed, others not. And while most of the aircraft are used to look for the Taliban, they also are employed to find Afghan security forces as their commanders are often unreliable at reporting where exactly they are located. By nightfall during the Oct. 3 battle, the Afghan army had secured much of the district center, called Nawa-i-Barakzayi. It had required American air power. After the warning shot into the field, Sims used the second hellfire missile on the drone to hit a vehicle surrounded by Taliban. F-16 jets then killed at least two fighters with guided 2.75-inch rockets that hit their targets as they ran down a goat path. Apache gunships also arrived to rake a handful of more militants with their 30 mm cannons. The Afghan commander eventually reported that he had lost 15 of his men and that seven were wounded. “We killed 12, and the Afghans lost 15,” one American officer said. “Does that count as a loss? Because it’s certainly not a win.”

Why? The ISL G is produced by the Cummins-Westport joint venture.

Jackson Diehl, The Washington Post / October 16, 2016 In the fall of 2004 Vladi­mir Putin suffered a blow he has never forgotten. The fraudulent election of a pro-Kremlin Ukrainian president, which Putin had directly and brazenly engineered, was overturned by a massive popular uprising. What came to be known as the “Orange Revolution” created a model for resistance to rigged elections in autocracies across Eurasia — in Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Azerbaijan and, in 2012, Russia itself. Most of the rebellions didn’t succeed. But Putin developed an obsession with “color revolutions,” which he is convinced are neither spontaneous nor locally organized, but orchestrated by the United States — and in the case of the Moscow protests four years ago, by Hillary Clinton herself. That’s the context in which Russia’s intervention in the 2016 U.S. presidential election must be understood. Putin is trying to deliver to the American political elite what he believes is a dose of its own medicine. He is attempting to ignite — with the help, unwitting or otherwise, of Donald Trump — a U.S. color revolution. Let’s look at the way those revolts unfolded. In every case, they pitted an outsider political movement against an entrenched elite willing to employ fraud and force to remain in power. The outsiders mobilized their followers to collect evidence of rigging on election day and, when they could, conducted exit polls and “quick counts” to obtain vote totals they could contrast with official results. They disseminated their findings through satellite channels and other foreign media. When the inevitable victory of the ruling party was announced, they called their followers to the streets for mass protests they hoped would cause the regime to crumble — or at least discredit its phony election triumph. Of course, Trump’s populist campaign is no more comparable to the pro-democracy insurgencies in formerly Soviet lands such as Ukraine and Belarus than Clinton’s administration-in-waiting is to the Putin regime. But Putin’s audacious goal is to create the illusion that they are. “He’s trying to establish that our system is just as bad, just as corrupt, as his,” says Brian Whitmore, a senior editor of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. The first step of the campaign was to hack the computers of the Democratic National Committee and senior party figures and distribute — sometimes with alterations — material that was purported to show Clinton’s rigging of the system. The DNC was revealed, unsurprisingly, to lean against socialist-turned-Democrat Bernie Sanders; Clinton’s campaign team was shown to be making political calculations about her public statements. As if on cue, Trump and his surrogates responded with mock shock and charges of “corruption.” Next came the suggestions that the balloting itself might be tampered with. Most likely, that was the point of the hacking probes into the voting systems of more than 20 states, including key battlegrounds such as Pennsylvania and Florida. A joint statement by the Department of Homeland Security and the office of the Director of National Intelligence said it was unlikely voting systems could be tampered with “to alter actual ballot counts or election results.” But the reports of cyber-intrusions are by themselves enough to damage public confidence — which may be the point. Trump meanwhile plays his part; he could not be doing more to aid the Kremlin’s narrative if he were reading from a script. (Which in some cases, he literally is: See his citation last week of a Clinton-related email doctored by the Moscow-run Sputnik news service.) Repeatedly warning that the election may be rigged, Trump has been enlisting his supporters as observers to watch “certain areas” he is likely to lose, such as Philadelphia. His “Stop the Steal” movement is planning to conduct its own exit polls outside key precincts. Its inevitable reports of “irregularities” will provide the predicate for Trump to claim fraud. That, in turn, will prompt reactions like that already heard from a Trump supporter at a Mike Pence rally last week. After raising the specter of rigging, she said: “If Hillary Clinton gets in, I myself, I’m ready for a revolution, because we can’t have her in.” After a thousand cable broadcasts of that moment, Putin surely was still smiling. And the revolution? Putin understands that Washington is not Kiev; mobs are unlikely to mass in front of the White House or Congress. But rebellions can happen online: Imagine a blizzard of Internet posts, reinforced by the Kremlin’s paid trolls, its satellite television network and the Trumpian corners of Fox, alleging that what Trump calls the “political establishment” has stolen the election for Clinton. That wouldn’t stop Clinton from taking office — any more than the Bolotnaya Square protest in Moscow prevented Putin’s presidential inauguration in May 2012. But Clinton would start her term politically wounded, both domestically and abroad. Putin will have obtained payback. And Trump will have shown himself to be a most useful idiot.

Correspondence between Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and Clinton aid Neera Tanden about Hillary, revealed by Wikileaks.

A lot of key points here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Course Correction The National Interest / October 16, 2016 WHOEVER WINS the presidential race in November will face an uncertain world. With a serious and purposeful strategy, the United States can bolster its global leadership role and advance its national-security interests. Continued weakness and recklessness, however, could worsen trouble in critical regions, from Europe to the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific. The United States may experience more devastating terrorist attacks and an accelerated geopolitical realignment against its interests. A nuclear calamity, widely considered unthinkable since the late 1980s, could again become a real possibility. The next administration will need to start with a sober evaluation of the world as it is, rather than as the president and top officials wish it to be. U.S. leaders will need to define vital national interests, with a realistic hierarchy of international priorities. They will need to review the extent to which current policies, including alliances, serve U.S. interests. And they will need to establish clear objectives in relations with rival major powers China and Russia. Then, and only then, will the next president be able to design policies that further both immediate needs and enduring strategic objectives. So far, the two presidential candidates have demonstrated contrasting foreign-policy approaches. Hillary Clinton has showcased her experience, but has shown little willingness to question the conventional wisdom. Donald Trump has offered bold approaches, but has not explained how his administration would implement them, or how they might fit into a coherent strategy. Nevertheless, Trump’s shortcomings as a messenger do nothing to ameliorate the need for a reappraisal of U.S. foreign policy that abandons triumphalist clichés, flawed assumptions and predetermined conclusions in favor of facts and serious analysis. An honest appraisal of the world as it is, and of U.S. interests, capabilities and options, starts with accepting that U.S. actions have exacerbated some of today’s most ominous threats. This doesn’t mean blaming America first; terrorists conduct terrorist attacks, China is asserting its power in East Asia, and Russia annexed Crimea. Yet in each case, U.S. actions have tended to turn troublesome possibilities into dangerous realities. THE UNITED STATES is hardly to blame for the Arab world’s woes—corruption and stagnation provided a fertile ground for Islamic extremism—and for similar problems in South Asia and elsewhere. But U.S. interventions have contributed to the menace of radicalism. Indeed, Al Qaeda’s origins in Afghanistan are inseparable from U.S. support for radical Islamist fighters resisting the Soviet invasion and U.S. decisions about post-Soviet Afghanistan. Toward the end of the war, Mikhail Gorbachev’s Soviet government proposed negotiations to establish a coalition government in Kabul. Sensing Moscow’s weak position, the usually pragmatic George H. W. Bush administration did not want to deprive the mujahideen of total victory by granting a role to the Soviet Union’s Afghan clients. Once Boris Yeltsin’s post-Soviet Russia ceased military support for the Kabul regime, Washington got its wish. Yet the incoming Clinton administration did little to fill the vacuum and allowed the Taliban to assume power and harbor Al Qaeda. As late as 1999, during a period of strained U.S.-Russia relations following NATO airstrikes in Serbia, Vladimir Putin proposed U.S.-Russia cooperation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It took until after 9/11, well after Islamist extremism had metastasized throughout the Greater Middle East, for the George W. Bush administration to agree to work in concert with Moscow in Afghanistan. Likewise, U.S. policy in Iraq has contributed to new and unnecessary threats. Saddam Hussein was a genocidal dictator, but had no ties to anti-American terrorist groups that could justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq, particularly in the absence of weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, if it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place, it was no less a mistake to abandon a weak government with limited control of its own territory and a recent history of violent internal conflict. Outside Iraq, as instability spread from Tunisia to Egypt, Syria and Libya, the Obama administration called for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad’s secular authoritarian regime in Damascus. U.S. officials were trying to promote stability on one side of the Iraq-Syria border and regime change on the other—without investing much in either. That ISIS or a group like it would emerge from this was entirely predictable. The same can be said of other U.S. choices in the Middle East, as in Libya, where the administration decapitated a repressive regime that had made peace with the United States without planning—or even intending—to assist in establishing order and security on the ground. Why were U.S. and NATO officials surprised that Libya became simultaneously safe for terrorists and unsafe for many of its citizens, who then fled to Europe? AMERICAN POLICY in Europe has similarly failed. Washington is not responsible for either Russia’s assertive authoritarian government or its weak, and often corrupt, neighbors. In this environment, it was predictable that Russia would seek to recapture its past great-power status and an important regional role. Yet Moscow’s specific policy choices in Georgia, and later in Ukraine, were not inevitable; they were, in part, the result of deep divisions over pro-Western orientations and territorial integrity in these two countries. Russian leaders also considered Russia’s overall relationship with the United States and its allies and their own perception that Moscow’s preferences had not been adequately taken into account. Few policies have alarmed Moscow as much as NATO’s expansion. Just as George F. Kennan predicted in a letter to the National Interest in 1998, NATO’s relentless expansion along Russia’s borders fed a nationalist and militaristic mood across the country’s political spectrum. A bold move as this almost literally moved NATO to the suburbs of St. Petersburg, incorporating Estonia and Latvia into NATO was especially difficult for Moscow to stomach. Although today more than 25 percent of Estonia and Latvia’s populations are ethnically Russian, this figure was significantly higher at the time of the Soviet collapse. After the Cold War, each state chose to disenfranchise the vast majority of its Russian-speaking population as well as other minority groups. Because post-independence Estonia and Latvia were continuations of states that existed between the First and Second World Wars, they asserted, only the descendants of those citizens could become citizens of the new states. Even many third-generation residents—meaning both they and their parents were born in Estonia or Latvia—were given second-class status, denied many jobs and deprived of participation in national politics. Demographics produced political reality in the form of nationalist and anti-Russian governments. Granting those governments NATO membership confirmed Moscow’s suspicions that NATO remained what it was during the Cold War: an anti-Russian alliance. Worse for the United States, Washington and its allies extended their security umbrella to these states without assessing how to defend them short of war with a major nuclear power. Even if U.S. policy was guided by a genuine desire to ensure independence for these long-suffering nations, it was unreasonable to think that Washington could expand NATO—not to mention, promise Georgia and Ukraine eventual membership—without provoking Moscow’s countermove. Few recall that Vladimir Putin originally sought to make Russia a major part of a united Europe. Instead, NATO expansion predictably fueled an us-versus-them mentality in Moscow, encouraging worst-case thinking about U.S. intentions. Russian leaders now see rearmament and the search for new allies as appropriate responses to a U.S. policy that is clearer in its denunciations of Russia than in its contributions to American national security. Indeed, how can the United States benefit from new dividing lines in Europe reminiscent of the Cold War? For that matter, how can Latvia or Estonia become more secure as frontline states in a confrontation with an adversarial Russia? The recent collapse of U.S.-Russia diplomacy in Syria has only worsened this problem. Moscow had essentially accepted U.S. and Western sanctions as a fact of life following its annexation of Crimea and, for two years, sought to demonstrate that Russia remained open for business on key international issues. However, this posture—an essential ingredient in Russia’s support for the Iran nuclear deal—appears to be evaporating and its principal advocate, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, now says that so long as the sanctions remain in effect, Russia will no longer work with the United States where it is to America’s advantage. AMERICA-RUSSIA tensions are particularly troubling given how maladroitly Washington has approached its other major rival. In contrast to Russia, China is a full-scale superpower with a robust economy and an impressive culture of innovation. Given its underlying strengths, U.S. policy could not realistically have prevented China’s emergence as a leading power in the Asia-Pacific region. Still, this does not excuse Washington’s ongoing failure to develop a thoughtful long-term approach to the Chinese challenge. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton bears at least some responsibility for the deterioration in bilateral relations. After promising not to hector the Chinese about their domestic practices, Secretary Clinton could not resist the temptation to do just that. The point is not that the United States should neglect raising human-rights issues with Beijing. Rather, it is that Clinton’s approach, which sounded more like political posturing than an effort to produce tangible changes in Chinese conduct, was counterproductive. Her efforts accomplished little, other than fueling Beijing’s dark suspicions. President Obama’s “pivot”—now known as “rebalance”—to Asia lent further credence to Chinese concerns over a hostile U.S. containment and regime-change policy. In addition to widely publicized military deployments and open discussion of U.S. capabilities to penetrate China’s anti-access/area denial systems, the “pivot” has also included the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a major regional trade agreement. The problem is not TPP itself, which could benefit the United States and its allies. Rather, it is that the Obama administration explicitly championed a defining U.S. initiative as a means to outmaneuver China in Asia’s economic architecture. “If we don’t write the rules,” the president declared, “China will write the rules out in that region.” [He's right, but you don't publicly say it] This pattern of needlessly provoking China has become the norm. Consider one of countless examples: the Obama administration’s decision to encourage the Philippines’ legal challenge to Chinese claims in the South China Sea under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the U.S. Senate has refused to ratify. Why would the Obama administration believe that China would abide by the court’s decision when Beijing declared, at the outset, that it would not accept the legitimacy of the arbitration process? As Harvard’s Graham T. Allison has observed, “None of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have ever accepted any international court’s ruling when (in their view) it infringed their sovereignty or national security interests.” The greatest practical consequence of this episode, it seems, is that others may be emboldened to press claims against Beijing that neither they nor the United States have the will to enforce. Picking fights it is not determined to win undermines America’s position. Repeatedly provoking other great powers without being prepared to force their compliance with U.S. preferences may have dramatic global consequences. America’s well-intentioned desire to stand by its allies has catalyzed a geopolitical realignment to the detriment of American interests. China and Russia are now pursuing a rapprochement explicitly designed to check American power. If terrorism is the most immediate threat to American security, a Beijing-Moscow partnership represents the greatest long-term danger to American global leadership. There are serious differences between China and Russia, and both have compelling stakes in avoiding serious confrontation with America and its allies. For all their differences, however, Chinese and Russian leaders share the perception that U.S. policy—including Washington’s support for their neighbors—amounts to a containment regime designed to keep them down. This perception is not insignificant. Beijing and Moscow can profoundly complicate the conduct of U.S. security and foreign policy without a formal alliance or overt hostility to America. Consider today’s realities, including China-Russia diplomatic coordination in the UN Security Council, a more permissive Russian attitude toward the transfer of advanced weapons systems to China, and increasingly large and complex joint military maneuvers. And this may only be the beginning. UNFAVORABLE DYNAMICS in Europe and Asia point to a more fundamental flaw in U.S. strategy: an unwillingness to look critically at alliance commitments in relation to American interests and the current international environment. Broadly speaking, strong alliances are a key foundation of U.S. international leadership and a major contributor to national security. Yet alliances are human institutions, not religious relics, and deserve regular and thoughtful scrutiny to ensure that they serve their intended aims. NATO, established after World War II to address the existential threat of Soviet imperialism, has in some cases committed the United States to unconditional security guarantees that were appropriate at the time, but are now of dubious wisdom in a different world. However ominous Russian policy toward its neighbors may be, it is difficult to see how most Eurasian conflicts impact vital U.S. interests. Russia’s heavy-handed conduct in the former Soviet Union, though troubling, is not an existential threat to the United States—not unless nuclear weapons become a factor. Sensible policies articulated from a position of strength can avert that outcome and make U.S. allies safer. Meanwhile, countries that are routinely described as close American friends have done a great deal to endanger the sovereignty and security of the United States. Mexico has paid virtually no price for its failure to cooperate in limiting illegal immigration, which has profound consequences for the economy, security and society—and, over time, could even change the American electorate, without its consent. Supermajorities in Congress have held Saudi Arabia partly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, yet the U.S.-Saudi relationship has only expanded since the days when the Soviet threat and the high price of oil first drew the two countries together. A bottom-up review of current alliances to assess their contributions to U.S. security, prosperity, values and leadership would be a sensible first step for the next administration. Relationships that contribute more trouble than security to America should be retooled or curtailed, using a scalpel rather than an axe. After all, collapsing the flawed structures and bad habits of the triumphalist post–Cold War years could prove worse than the status quo. Moreover, Washington must make clear how any changes will strengthen U.S. security and leadership and avoid adding to Obama-era international impressions of U.S. retreat and retrenchment. One way to accomplish this is by setting clear expectations within alliance relationships. The NATO treaty’s well-known Article Five, which commits alliance members to consider an attack on one as an attack on all, requires America to “assist” its allies, but only through “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.” U.S. officials should explain to NATO allies that while America is committed to defending them in the event of an unprovoked attack, Article Five is not a license to engage in reckless or provocative conduct. Indeed, America’s defense commitment to Taiwan already incorporates this notion. Washington could also encourage leaders in especially vulnerable states like Estonia and Latvia to reflect more deliberately on the fact that U.S. efforts to defend or liberate their territory could lead to their utter devastation, even without escalation to tactical nuclear strikes by Moscow or Washington. They could also reflect on the ways in which their own words and deeds could make such a conflict more—or less—likely. The West’s complex and contradictory relations with Russia and China are likely to retain adversarial elements for years to come. For this reason, American power remains a cornerstone of international security and U.S. alliances remain key tools. Nevertheless, new thinking on when and how to exercise power is long overdue. Too often, U.S. leaders have expended American resources on causes incidental to vital interests. This is not a call to avoid using force or a banal statement that force should be but a last resort. On the contrary, in some circumstances, force may be the most appropriate instrument and thus a first resort. At the same time, military preponderance is a key tool in ensuring successful diplomacy on U.S. terms; its value is in the leverage it provides in securing fundamental American interests, not its regular employment to achieve peripheral aims. In the same spirit, Washington should acknowledge that the liberal use of economic sanctions has surely contributed its fair share to human misery and is not inherently less costly to America or less threatening to its targets than armed conflict. In considering whether to employ military power, economic coercion or other tools, Washington should assess costs, benefits and risks—including unintended consequences—much more systematically and frankly. If the next president pursues a new strategy, he or she should expect resistance from America’s entrenched foreign-policy establishment. Recent fiascos from Iraq to Libya have been bipartisan affairs, and many will seek to defend their records. Similarly, foreign-policy elites in both parties have internalized the notion that “American exceptionalism” is a license to intervene in other countries and that “universal aspirations” guarantee American success. Despite the presence of many individuals of common sense and integrity in government, U.S. leaders have too often forgotten that jumping off a cliff is easier than climbing back to safety. Notwithstanding the election of some well-informed and thoughtful individuals to the Senate and House of Representatives, the Congress has largely abdicated its responsibility to foster serious debate on foreign policy and has failed to fulfill its constitutional role as a check on executive power. The mainstream media has become an echo chamber for a misbegotten and misguided consensus. But Americans can no longer afford to accept bad policies in the hopes that things will somehow work out. Today’s world is too complex and too dangerous, with more major powers, less discipline among international blocs and factions, and greater power for nonstate actors. In the past, geography and American power allowed Washington to make serious mistakes at relatively low cost. In the future, the United States will not be able to count on this luxury. With determined leadership, the same executive power that has been used so irresponsibly over the past two decades can put the country back on a sustainable path, with periodic course corrections from an active Congress and a discerning media. The next president cannot single-handedly fix the Congress or the media, but he or she can and should take a hard look at the executive branch, particularly the bloated National Security Council. Of course, any significant change in U.S. foreign policy will also require the new president to select top officials based on their alignment with his or her objectives and style rather than political correctness or perfect résumés. To do otherwise would be to sabotage any efforts at change from the start. America’s challenges are real, but hardly insurmountable. Fortunately, if the 2016 presidential campaign has demonstrated anything, it is that the American people are frustrated with post–Cold War foreign policy—so a determined and skillful president will have an important opportunity for a new beginning.

DAF Trucks Press Release / October 11, 2016 The DAF XF 460 FT Super Space Cab won the prestigious ‘Master Truck of the Year 2016’. The XF won the award for its leading overall efficiency and driver comfort. DAF Trucks’ extensive network of highly professional European dealers were instrumental in selecting the XF as ‘Master Truck of the Year 2016’. The Master Truck of the Year is judged by twelve leading Polish magazines which specialize in road transport. All competing vehicles were evaluated on engine performance, driving characteristics and driver comfort. In addition, the total cost of ownership and quality of back-up services were taken into account. In its report, the jury wrote, “The DAF XF 460 FT Super Space Cab is a very driver-friendly vehicle. DAF has been perfecting the XF for years, ensuring it meets the requirements of its users to the largest extent possible.” They went on to say, “This vehicle is a state-of-the-art transport solution. It offers excellent performance combined with low fuel consumption. Important as well, is that operators have the support of a very effective service network which enables the lowest cost of ownership and the highest vehicle uptime.” In response to the recognition, Richard Zink, Director of Marketing and Sales at DAF Trucks said: “This prestigious award proves what our customers already know: when it comes to both efficiency and driver comfort, there is no better choice than DAF. This June, the XF won Motor Transport’s ‘Fleet Truck of the Year’ award in the UK and we are now extremely honored with this special recognition in Poland, where we entered the market 20 years ago and where DAF is market leader. Winning the title ‘Master Truck of the Year 2016’ once again underlines the excellence of our products and organization.” .

Scania Group Press Release / October 14, 2016 With Scania’s best aerodynamic performance ever, Scania’s new truck generation is also its most fuel efficient. .

Daimler Trucks from around the globe Daimler Press Release / October 14, 2016 Daimler showcased new products from around the world at IAA Trucks from the US, India, China and Japan exhibited in Europe for the first time Stuttgart / Hanover - Daimler is present with eight commercial vehicle brands in all regions of the world – and therefore globally more present than any other manufacturer. At the 66th IAA Commercial Vehicles, Daimler showed the complete range of its portfolio: Next to exhibits of the Mercedes-Benz and Setra brands, the company presented heavy-duty vehicles from America, Africa, Asia and China. IAA Commercial Vehicles is the most important trade fair for mobility, transport and logistics around the globe. With more than 2000 exhibiting companies from over 50 countries, IAA Commercial Vehicles was more diverse than ever. Daimler Trucks also showcased its worldwide range at IAA. Thanks to more than half a million trucks and over 28 000 buses, coaches and chassis in 2015, Daimler is the world's leading commercial vehicle manufacturer. With its brands Mercedes-Benz, Auman Truck, BharatBenz, Freightliner, Fuso, Thomas Built Buses, Western Star and Setra, Daimler meets the wishes of freight and passenger transport operators on every continent. The successful strategy is based on three pillars: technology leadership, global presence and intelligent platforms. The result is a worldwide footprint accompanied by tailor-made regional offerings. Trucks and Buses for the World – this is the slogan under which Daimler showed a representative selection of its vehicles for every continent at the IAA. Widespread interest There were typical US trucks, representing the image of an entire industry and in many cases the dream of genuine European truckers. Two trucks from the Daimler Trucks CBE range were showcased at IAA: the Freightliner Inspiration Truck, on the basis of the Freightliner Cascadia Evolution, and the impressive Western Star WS 5700XE. Auman 430 EST: innovation from China Vehicles, such as the Chinese Auman were also very popular at IAA. The vehicle is built as part of a 50:50 joint venture between Daimler and Foton. With the brand new 430 model series Auman, Daimler presents a semitrailer tractor demonstrating Western European equipment features. The Auman EST is equipped with a twelve-litre Euro V Mercedes-Benz OM 457 engine, achieving fuel savings of up to five percent compared with its predecessor in conjunction with the cutting-edge ZF Traxon transmission. The Auman features disc brakes, ABS and ESP as well as modern lighting technology with LED daytime driving lights. BharatBenz 3723R: five-axle rigid truck from India for India At IAA, Daimler presented the BharatBenz 3723R, a five-axle rigid with a unique modular load body that spans 28 feet for a permissible gross vehicle weight of 37 tons. The load body parts can be easily replaced with individual modules for special transportation, delivering the perfect solution for various needs in the Indian market. Major assemblies, such as the Mercedes-Benz OM 906 with an engine capacity of 6.4 litres, producing 175 kW (235 hp), which is built largely in India as well as the manual nine-speed Mercedes-Benz G 131 transmission are located below the bunk of the right-hand drive COE truck. These are robust and proven aggregates that are also very familiar in Europe. The chassis features parabolic springs on the front axles, while the driven axle comes with air suspension and the two other rear axles are equipped with semi-elliptic leaf springs. Fuso TV-R (Concept 4043S): heavy-duty tractor unit for export markets from India In Western Europe, Fuso is known mainly for its Canter light-duty truck, which is made in Portugal. Fuso's heavy-duty trucks are also marketed in many parts of the world. The most recent example is the Fuso TV-R series, which saw its first launch in Kenya in August 2016. As a tractor for heavy loads, the Fuso TV concept truck 4043S on show at the IAA is aiming at growth markets in the Middle East and Latin America. The left-hand drive, three-axle tractor unit for long-distance haulage is designed for a gross combination weight of up to 100 t. Beneath its high-roof cab is the familiar in-line six-cylinder engine, the Mercedes-Benz OM 457, here in a 315 kW (430 hp), Euro V version. The power is transmitted to the two driven rear axles by the twelve-speed Mercedes PowerShift transmission G 330. The muscular looks are enhanced by mighty wheels with size 12.00 R 24 tyres, enabling the truck to tackle challenging terrain as well. Fuso FV Super Great V Spider: multi-function work machine from Japan This is a mobile multi-function work machine of XXL format: the Fuso Super Great V Spider concept vehicle breaks the mould of conventional utility vehicles. Mounted behind the right-hand drive cab of the three-axle rigid truck from Japan are four arms equipped with different tools. These enable the Spider to drill, grab, chop and excavate as an extremely versatile construction vehicle. Four extendable support legs keep the truck horizontal during such work. The vehicle is powered by the Fuso 6R10 (T8) six-cylinder in-line engine with a 12.8 l displacement, an output of 338 kW (460 hp) and a plentiful torque of 2500 Nm. Experts will note that the engine is closely related to the European Mercedes-Benz OM 471 and the American Detroit DD 13. Appropriately configured, the fully automated Fuso Inomat II 12-speed transmission, completes the powertrain. Mercedes-Benz school bus: fully equipped bus for growth markets from India The launch with fully equipped touring coaches under the Mercedes-Benz brand for the premium segment of the Indian market is now followed by the appearance of a school bus custom-tailored to operator requirements in the Middle East. It is available as a complete vehicle, complementing the successful chassis from Daimler Buses India that have been offered to date. The 9.1 metre long school bus is based on the Mercedes-Benz OF 917 RF C front-engined chassis with rugged truck technology produced in the Indian Daimler Trucks plant Oragadam. The four-cylinder engine with a capacity of 3.9 litres produces 125 kW (170 hp). It is optionally available in either Euro III or Euro IV, depending on the market and regional requirements. The school bus comes with 17.5 inch wheels, parabolic springs on both axles, anti-lock braking system, anti-roll bars and three point seat belts and comes with standard features like automatic stop arm, automatic fire suppression systems, CCTV cameras and a LED destination board. Freightliner Inspiration Truck: autonomous truck from the USA It was the world's first self-driving truck with approval for use on the roads – and Daimler is now bringing it to Europe: the Freightliner Inspiration Truck represents a milestone in the history of the truck. The technology behind the Highway Pilot with radar system, stereo camera and tried-and-tested assistance systems is based on the Mercedes-Benz Future Truck and has been configured for use on American highways. The base vehicle for the Freightliner Inspiration Truck is the Freightliner Cascadia Evolution. The CBE vehicle with a long bonnet is characterised by its integrated drivetrain. At the front, at quite a distance from the driver, the Detroit DD 15 in-line six-cylinder engine, producing 294 kW (400 hp) from 14.8 litres is working away. The fully automated Detroit DR 12-DA transmission, like the engine, is closely related to its European counterparts. The axles, too, originate from the modular system of Daimler's US subsidiary Detroit. Western Star WS 5700XE: truck dreams come true – from the USA The dream of the American Way of Driving – with the mighty trucks of the US brand Western Star, that dream comes true. As made clear by the muscular radiator grille and ample chrome trim, the Western Star 5700XE is a special truck even by North American standards. Western Star is the brand for successful owner-operators, independent long-haul truckers, most of whom now opt for a Western Star with an integrated drivetrain from Daimler's Detroit subsidiary: engine, transmission and axle are from a single source and perfectly matched to each other. .

No worries. The elections show this time around is more action-packed than we've seen in years. Two grown-ups ruthlessly attacking the skeletons in each others closets with reckless abandon. The fans of reality shows, who know all the stars by heart but couldn't begin to tell you where Ukraine or Somalia are, are enjoying it. Both Hillary and Trump have even brought the Kardashians into it all, thrilling millions of Americans. Now, if it's all real, wouldn't the American people rather hear about how these people would lead the nation going forward? I haven't heard a clear, concise and comprehensive game plan from either. The European Union's inevitable demise is being realized, the Middle East is in an orchestrated crisis from one end to the other, we're on the razor's edge with China with minimal footing in Asia, and all the while Latin America and Africa are in crisis. U.S. industry is a mere fraction of its former self. When we led the world, and by a wide margin, both industrially and militarily, it was significantly more settled (there's always a crisis occurring somewhere). We haven't led the world since the Reagan era, some 30 years ago. Things are very bad right now......very bad. Most Americans don't know, and have no interest in knowing.

Fleet Owner / October 13, 2016 Motor carrier aims to complete intermodal division’s conversion to all-company owned chassis by 2017 Trucking conglomerate Schneider recently purchased its 15,000th intermodal container chassis, which the company noted is a “major milestone” in its effort to convert its intermodal division to a completely company-owned and managed chassis fleet. Jim Filter, senior vice president and general manager of Schneider’s Intermodal division, added in a statement that the carrier still anticipates it will fully covert to a network of all company-owned chassis by 2017 – three years after it began the conversion process. “We saw significant issues with the shared chassis pool, causing delays for drivers primarily at the ramp or when experiencing a breakdown on the road,” he explained. “That downtime gets costly for shippers.” Filter pointed out that by gaining complete control of its chassis equipment, Schneider can improve chassis availability and reliability – two primary service constraints within the intermodal segment, he stressed. In addition to chassis maintenance and availability issues in shared pools, there are many different specs with varying weights–up to a 700-lb. difference between models, he noted. Because it is not known which type of chassis will be available at the destination ramp, carriers have to plan as if the load will move on the heaviest chassis type, which limits payloads. “Schneider now has a standard chassis,” Filter said. “It is 500 lbs. lighter than the lightest chassis in the shared pools; we can plan on that to eliminate the need to reconfigure loads while allowing customers to move up to 45,500-lbs. of product.” The investment in a company-owned chassis network is one in a series of ongoing improvements to deliver “truck-like” service in the intermodal segment, he noted, with benefits for shippers that include: Increased availability: The demand for chassis in shared pools often outstrips supply. Schneider’s equipment increases supply and allows the company to precisely match the number of customer orders to equipment availability. Decreased downtime and improved reliability: Schneider’s complete control over the maintenance of its chassis fleet allows the company to maintain as well as identify issues and make repairs before they turn into critical breakdowns and costly delays. Cost-efficient shipping: With the variety of chassis in the current chassis pool, a shipper can see as large as a 700-lb. difference between one chassis and another. The lightweight design of Schneider’s new chassis allows customers to secure more product in each load for a more cost-effective and environmentally friendly freight move, the company said. .

Truck News / October 14, 2016 The Council of Ministers Responsible for Highway Safety announced it has approved in principle changes to the national Memorandum of Understanding on Interprovincial Weights and Dimensions (the MoU) to allow use of longer tractors. The Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA) applauded the announcement as it has lobbied for longer tractors based on the need for more frame rail space to accommodate emission reduction technologies as well as larger sleeper berths to address driver comfort and fatigue. “CTA is extremely pleased with the announcement as it signals another step forward by transportation ministers from across the county to adjust regulations to provide greater flexibility for fleets and OEMs to adapt to forthcoming GHG regulations,” said Geoff Wood, CTA’s vice-president, Operations and Safety. All provinces and territories are signatories to the MoU and agree to allow vehicles which comply with MoU weights and dimensions to travel on designated highways in their jurisdiction. “CTA is hopeful all jurisdictions will work in an expedited manner to move this important issue forward and amend appropriate regulations. While this is taking place, enforcement deferrals should be strongly considered, which have worked well for other key GHG reducing technologies such as trailer boat tails,” added Wood. For full details, please click here.