Ground Troops Vs. the Islamic State, and More from CRS
In response to calls for increased deployment of ground forces against the Islamic State, the Congressional Research Service stated this week that “There are no clear-cut answers to determining the suitability, size, and mission profile of the ground elements of any military campaign; determining the disposition of military forces is in many ways as much an art as it is a science.”
“As it evaluates proposals to introduce more ground forces [to combat the Islamic State], Congress may therefore ponder five questions.” See Additional U.S. Ground Troops to Counter the Islamic State? Five Questions, CRS Insight, February 17, 2016.
Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service issued this week include the following.
IAEA Budget and U.S. Contributions: In Brief, February 17, 2016
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy, updated February 17, 2016
Border Security Metrics Between Ports of Entry, February 16, 2016
Deficits and Debt: Economic Effects and Other Issues, February 17, 2016
Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs, updated February 17, 2016
U.S. Farm Income Outlook for 2016, February 16, 2016
The Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program: Background, Funding, and Activities, February 16, 2016
Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, updated February 17, 2016
We’re asking the U.S. government to release holds on Congressionally-appropriated funding for scientific research, education, and critical activities at the earliest possible time.
It is in the interests of the United States to appropriately protect information that needs to be protected while maintaining our participation in new discoveries to maintain our competitive advantage.
The question is not whether the capital exists (it does!), nor whether energy solutions are available (they are!), but whether we can align energy finance quickly enough to channel the right types of capital where and when it’s needed most.
Our analysis of federal AI governance across administrations shows that divergent compliance procedures and uneven institutional capacity challenge the government’s ability to deploy AI in ways that uphold public trust.