Military doctrine on the control of stress in combat is presented in a new Army field manual (pdf).
“In our own Soldiers and in the enemy combatants, control of stress is often the decisive difference between victory and defeat across the operational continuum. Battles and wars are won more by controlling the will to fight than by killing all of the enemy combatants. Uncontrolled combat stress causes erratic or harmful behaviors, impairs mission performance, and may result in disaster….”
See “Combat and Operational Stress Control,” U.S. Army Field Manual 4-02.51, July 2006.
A recent Congressional Research Service report “presents difficult-to-find statistics regarding U.S. military casualties in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF, Afghanistan), including those concerning medical evacuations, amputations, and the demographics of casualties.”
“Some of these statistics are publically available at the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) website, while others have been obtained through contact with experts at DOD.”
See “United States Military Casualty Statistics: Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom,” June 8, 2006.
“Medical Program Support for Detainee Operations” (pdf) is the subject of Department of Defense Instruction 2310.08E, issued June 6, 2006.
After months of delay, the council tasked by President Trump to review the FEMA released its final report. Our disaster policy nerds have thoughts.
FAS and FLI partnered to build a series of convenings and reports across the intersections of artificial intelligence (AI) with biosecurity, cybersecurity, nuclear command and control, military integration, and frontier AI governance. This project brought together leaders across these areas and created a space that was rigorous, transpartisan, and solutions-oriented to approach how we should think about how AI is rapidly changing global risks.
Investment should instead be directed at sectors where American technology and innovation exist but the infrastructure to commercialize them domestically does not—and where the national security case is clear.
AI is already consequential, but its future trajectory remains contested. Policymakers should make their assumptions explicit, focus on what can be shaped rather than what can be perfectly predicted, and build institutions that can learn and respond as evidence changes.