The ACFT, which emphasizes brute strength, appears to reinforce traditional gender stereotypes rather than accurately assess soldiers’ combat capabilities. This shift, introduced after women were allowed into combat roles, disproportionately disadvantages female soldiers while lowering the bar for men.

The Department of Defense (DoD) seems to be undermining Congressional mandates to integrate women into combat arms, setting fitness benchmarks that hinder both equality and readiness.

The decision to shift focus to raw strength under the ACFT comes at a politically charged moment in the military’s long struggle with gender roles. While the test was initially presented as a gender-neutral assessment, its implementation suggests a deliberate move to preserve male dominance in the military’s most elite ranks.

The study’s findings highlight how the ACFT’s standards fail to reflect the broad range of competencies necessary for effective combat, including teamwork, decision-making, and tasks that properly measure flexibility, agility, and endurance.

About the Study

This study is part of my graduate research while pursuing a master’s degree at the University of Oxford.

Having served in both Civil Affairs (Airborne) and Military Intelligence, I conducted this research with a focus on military readiness and gender equality in combat roles. With 21 years of military service, including leadership roles such as commanding a company of drill sergeants and deployments to Afghanistan and Qatar in support of combat operations, I drew on my experiences to critically examine the ACFT and its broader implications.

For this study, I used a mixed-method approach that included an extensive text analysis of Army combat manuals, interviews with senior officers, and a detailed survey of over 400 soldiers’ fitness test scores.

This allowed me to explore both the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of the ACFT’s impact, providing a comprehensive view of how fitness standards affect gender equality in the Army.

My research seeks to answer whether the ACFT’s design truly aligns with the physical demands of modern combat and whether it helps or hinders the integration of women into combat arms roles.

Disconnect Between Standards and Combat Readiness

Through text analysis of Army combat manuals, the study uncovers a clear disconnect between the ACFT’s focus on brute strength and the more nuanced skills required for battlefield success.

Through text analysis tools, researchers can systematically examine and quantify patterns within large amounts of information, offering insights into how these manuals prioritize various capabilities.

Army combat manuals prioritize capabilities that extend far beyond sheer physical power, raising questions about why the ACFT neglects these critical aspects. By elevating raw strength as the primary marker of fitness, the ACFT subtly redefines what it means to be combat-ready in a way that perpetuates gender inequality.

The most alarming revelation comes from data showing that the ACFT has significantly lowered fitness standards for men.

Under the previous Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), far fewer men qualified as “highly fit.” Now, men are passing and maintain elite categories under the ACFT at unprecedented rates. For instance, in initial trials at Fort Sill, nearly every male soldier passed the ACFT, while 61 percent had previously failed the APFT.

The data points to an uncomfortable reality: the ACFT is less challenging for male physiology, giving men an unnecessary advantage under the guise of gender neutrality.

Survey data further illustrates this imbalance. Even after gender-normed scoring, men still outperformed women by 3.29 percent, despite the survey including a significant number of exceptionally fit women.

This finding underscores the deep flaws in the ACFT’s design, which continues to act as a barrier to women’s advancement in the military. The survey’s analysis of individual events, such as the shift from sit-ups to planks and the introduction of the hand-release push-up, raises serious questions about why the Army chose exercises that seem to disproportionately disadvantage women’s physiology.

The findings from the Baseline Soldier Physical Readiness Requirements Study (BSPRRS), which were used as the reasoning for including the plank and now discontinued leg tuck in the ACFT, contradict broader medical literature that traditionally uses sit-ups to assess core strength.

The hand-release push-up, which a RAND report found to have weaker validity in assessing upper body strength compared to traditional push-ups, requires repeated impact on female breast tissue, leading to unnecessary discomfort and potential performance challenges for women.

Similarly, the RAND study notes that while sit-ups have traditionally been used to measure core endurance, there is limited evidence supporting the plank exercise in this context, particularly in relation to military tasks. The report highlights the need for further analysis to validate the plank’s effectiveness.

The shift from sit-ups to the plank exercise disproportionately affects female soldiers. Sit-ups, by allowing women to leverage their typically stronger lower body muscles and wider base, result in closer scoring parity between genders whereas the plank requires greater shoulder stability and upper body strength.

This disparity in event selection raises serious concerns because it directly limits women’s opportunities for promotions, access to advanced military schools, and competitive positions within the Army.

As the largest branch of the US military, the Army’s adoption of this fitness test sets a precedent that could be closely followed by other service branches, potentially magnifying the impact on gender equity across the military.

Challenging Gender Norms in Combat Roles

The findings also challenge the necessity of requiring women to meet the same physical strength standards as men. The study argues that women can perform combat roles effectively without needing to match men’s strength. These insights call for an urgent reevaluation of the ACFT to ensure it aligns with the actual demands of combat and provides a fair assessment for all soldiers, regardless of gender.

What’s at stake here goes beyond fitness standards. The ACFT represents a battleground in the military’s ongoing debate over gender equality.

By implementing a test designed to favor male soldiers, the Army reinforces outdated gender norms at a time when the country is pushing for greater inclusivity in its armed forces. Congressional mandates aimed at promoting gender equity in the military are at odds with the direction the Army has taken with the ACFT, and the political fallout could be significant.

As pressure mounts on the military to address the ethical, legal, and practical implications of the ACFT, this study’s conclusions could drive sweeping reforms. By calling for gender-specific physical fitness tests alongside gender-neutral combat task assessments according to occupational specialty, the report advocates for a more equitable approach to physical readiness in the Army.

In a military environment where inclusivity and effectiveness are paramount, the ACFT needs to be rethought entirely to ensure that all soldiers are judged fairly and according to the real demands of modern warfare.

This battle over fitness standards isn’t just about physical capabilities — it’s a reflection of the Army’s deeper struggle to redefine its identity in a more diverse and inclusive future. The outcome of this struggle will determine whether the Army truly stands for equality or remains mired in outdated traditions that reinforce gender inequality.

Major Amy Forza, US Army Reserve, specializes in Civil Affairs (Airborne) and Military Intelligence. With 21 years of military service, she has served both as an enlisted soldier and a commissioned officer. She has held various leadership roles, including company command and multiple deployments in support of combat operations.

Amy has commanded a unit training Army Drill Sergeants and initial entry training soldiers. She served as an Intelligence and Operations Officer in Afghanistan and Qatar and has cultivated a deep understanding of the nuances of military training and fitness assessments.

Currently, she is pursuing a master’s degree at the University of Oxford.

Her article presents findings from her dissertation, which includes text analysis and survey data on the ACFT, highlighting the need for revisions to better align the test with the diverse operational demands of modern military engagements.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The Defense Post.

The Defense Post aims to publish a wide range of high-quality opinion and analysis from a diverse array of people – do you want to send us yours? Click here to submit an op-ed.

The post The Army’s Fitness Test: A Political Battlefield Over Gender Equality appeared first on The Defense Post.

Known as AUKUS, the alliance aims to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific and enhance defense capabilities through technology sharing. The initial phase of the partnership involves working on nuclear submarines for Canberra.

According to Canadian Defence Minister Bill Blair, Ottawa wants to join a second pillar of the alliance, which involves collaboration on emerging military technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing.

“There have been important discussions about processes and platforms on a project-specific basis on where other nations, including Japan and ourselves, might participate,” he said during his first visit to Tokyo as defense minister.

“I would respectfully wait until they’ve come to their determination, but I’m very optimistic.”

Expanded Alliance?

Talks about potentially expanding the AUKUS alliance began when Japan signified its intent to become a fourth member.

The founding nations have confirmed they were considering Tokyo’s involvement in “specific Pillar 2 defense projects,” given its substantial investments in cutting-edge military technologies.

South Korea and New Zealand have also shown interest in contributing to the second pillar, offering their expertise in areas such as AI, autonomy, undersea capabilities, electronic warfare, and cyber operations.

The US previously said it was open to allowing more countries to participate in AUKUS’ technological activities, noting its appreciation for the interest from various allies.

“I think all three countries have made clear that under the appropriate circumstances we would be prepared to work collaboratively with other partners who bring capacity to the challenge,” US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said.

Increasing Threats

China’s growing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific has led many countries to view it as the biggest threat in the region.

Its aggressive stance in the South China Sea, marked by multiple maritime confrontations with Philippine Navy vessels and its mounting pressure on Taiwan, has heightened regional tensions.

Chinese President Xi Jinping previously warned against a resurgence of Cold War-era tensions in the Asia-Pacific due to increasing military cooperation among its adversaries.

The post After Japan, Canada Wants In on AUKUS Alliance to Counter China appeared first on The Defense Post.

The ministry’s department head of ideological work Alexander Ivanov shared his suspicions on the national talk show, Po Suschestvu, during a discussion about potential targets for spies.

“Where do you think there were the most Pokémon at that time?” he asked before stating that the bulk of virtual Pokémon were present at the “territory of the 50th air base, where the runway is, where there is a lot of military aviation equipment.”

Pokémon GO relies on GPS tracking as it invites users to turn on location and use their phone camera to search their physical surroundings and collect virtual pocket monsters.

The mobile game was developed as a collaboration among Niantic Inc., Nintendo, and The Pokémon Company.

Privacy Concerns

Since the game’s release in 2016, several governments and individuals have been wary of the game’s data-gathering capabilities.

It requires uninterrupted use of user location and camera and “full access” to Google accounts on Apple devices, which garnered multiple data privacy concerns.

At the height of the game’s popularity, Indonesian State Intelligence Agency director Sutiyoso commented that the location-based mobile game poses national security risks, although security experts and analysts did not share this view.

Egypt, Kuwait, and other Middle Eastern governments echoed similar concerns and warned players to avoid sensitive sites.

The US also established procedures preventing civilians from trespassing onto military bases and preventing service members from entering restricted areas to catch Pokémons as these might expose confidential information.

In the year of its release, Russia asserted that the mobile game was a security risk, claiming that it was part of a CIA plot.

Niantic, the game’s software developer company, is headed by former Google Geo division executive John Hanke. 

Hanke was tangled up in conspiracy theories because his former company Keyhole (later acquired by Google) received funding from various sources, including the CIA’s venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel.

However, Niantic denied the allegations and informed The Register that the game “only accesses basic Google profile information (specifically, your User ID and email address) and no other Google account information is or has been accessed or collected.”

In 2022, the year Russia invaded Ukraine, Niantic shut down game operations in the Russian and Belarus markets.

“We stand with the global community in hoping for peace and a rapid resolution to the violence and suffering in Ukraine. Niantic’s games are no longer available for download in Russia and Belarus, and gameplay will also be suspended there shortly,” the company tweeted on March 11 of that year. 

The post Belarus Claims AR Game ‘Pokémon GO’ Spied on its Military Assets appeared first on The Defense Post.

Around 2,000 experts and government representatives from over 90 countries attended the event.

In his opening address, South Korean Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun highlighted how AI use in military operations could strengthen capabilities but also bring potential harm if misused. 

Ukraine’s use of AI-enabled drones in the ongoing conflict with Russia was cited as an example.

The Blueprint

The REAIM Blueprint for Action outlined 20 clauses divided into three sections: the impact of AI on international peace and security; implementing responsible AI in the military domain; and envisaging future governance of AI in the military.

It acknowledged that “AI capabilities in the military domain must be applied in accordance with applicable national and international law.”

Further, the document highlighted that “appropriate human involvement needs to be maintained in the development, deployment and use of AI in the military domain, including appropriate measures that relate to human judgment and control over the use of force.”

Among the topics discussed were risk assessments, confidence-building measures, and preventing AI from being used in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, especially by terrorist groups.

China Opts Out, Russia Not Invited

South Korea, the US, Japan, France, Germany, the UK, Switzerland, Sweden, Pakistan, and Ukraine were among the 61 countries that endorsed the document.

China was one of 30 to opt out. 

Meanwhile, Russia was not invited for the second year in a row due to international condemnation of its Ukraine invasion.

“We also need to be realistic that we will never have the whole world on board,” Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans said, adding that this dilemma must be part of further discussions.

This Seoul summit, co-hosted by the Netherlands, Singapore, Kenya, and the UK, follows the inaugural session at The Hague last year that initiated guidelines about AI use on the battlefield. 

This year’s summit’s declaration is said to be more action-oriented. “Last year … was more about creating shared understanding, now we are getting more towards action,” Brekelmans said.

South Korea aims to continue discussions based on the summit document in the upcoming UN General Assembly later this month.

The post Responsible AI in Military Summit Highlights Human Control, Endorsed by 61 Countries appeared first on The Defense Post.

The government and the Segunda Marquetalia, a dissident group of the FARC guerrilla army that disbanded in 2017, will hold talks in Havana, they said in a joint statement, without providing a date.

The Segunda Marquetalia had agreed to a unilateral ceasefire in June, but talks broke down the following month.

Earlier this month, the rebel group’s chief negotiator, Walter Mendoza, told AFP he blamed the talks’ collapse on the government’s failure to cancel warrants for the arrest of the faction’s leaders.

In Monday’s statement, the parties jointly condemned reports of an incident over the weekend in which an Indigenous person was killed and six wounded in an army operation in a coca-growing region of the southwestern Narino department, where the Segunda Marquetalia is active.

Coca is the main ingredient in cocaine.

The 2016 peace deal that saw the FARC disarm was hailed as a turning point in the six-decade-long conflict between Colombian security forces, guerrillas, right-wing paramilitaries, and drug gangs.

Dissident factions of the FARC — including the Central General Staff (EMC), a rival of Segunda Marquetalia — continue to hold sway in several parts of the country.

Colombia’s first-ever leftist president, Gustavo Petro, vowed on his election in 2022 to end the violence through dialogue.

On his watch, the state has entered into talks with at least eight armed groups.

The post Colombian Government, Rebel Group to Resume Peace Talks appeared first on The Defense Post.

Israel’s defense minister Yoav Gallant said he was “deeply disheartened” to hear of the sanctions but rights groups said the suspensions did not go far enough.

Foreign Secretary David Lammy told parliament that the UK would suspend 30 out of 350 arms export licenses following a review by his department into Israel’s conduct of its war against Hamas militants.

He said the partial ban covered items “which could be used in the current conflict in Gaza,” including fighter aircraft, helicopters, and drones.

The ban does not include parts for Israel’s advanced F-35 stealth fighter jets, Lammy added.

Lammy announced a review looking at the arms sales shortly after Labour swept to power in a landslide general election victory over the Conservatives in early July.

“It is with regret that… the assessment I have received leaves me unable to conclude anything other than that for certain UK arms exports to Israel, there does exist a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law,” he told lawmakers.

He stressed that the suspension was “not a determination of innocence or guilt” and that the situation would be kept under review.

“We have not and could not arbitrate on whether or not Israel has breached international humanitarian law,” Lammy said, adding that Britain is “not an international court.”

Lammy restated Britain’s support for Israel to defend itself and stressed the suspension would not have a “material impact on Israel’s security.”

‘Bad Decision’

Britain’s center-left Labour government has repeatedly called for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war, and for the speeding up of aid deliveries into Gaza, since taking power on July 5.

It has largely followed the same approach to the conflict as the previous Conservative government, with Lammy and other ministers at pains to demand Hamas release the hostages seized in its October 7 attacks as part of any ceasefire.

Some commentators have suggested however that Labour, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer — a former human rights lawyer — may take a tougher long-term stance towards Israel and how it conducts its military operations.

Last week, the UK foreign ministry said it was “deeply” concerned by an Israeli military operation in the occupied West Bank, urging it to “exercise restraint” and adhere to international law.

Amnesty International’s UK chief executive Sacha Deshmukh said the government’s decision was a belated acceptance of “the very clear and disturbing evidence of Israeli war crimes in Gaza.”

But he and other rights groups said it did not go far enough and called the exemption for F-35 components “a catastrophically bad decision” as the jets were being used “extensively” in Gaza.

A trio of rights groups took the Dutch government to court this year over its supply of parts for the jets.

“We need to see a complete halt — with no loopholes, including for components for F-35s supplied to the USA for onward export to the Israeli military — to all UK arms transfers to Israel,” Deshmukh added.

The UK government has faced legal action from rights groups about its export of arms and military components to Israel.

Britain’s strategic licensing criteria states that weapons should not be exported when there is a clear risk they could be used in international humanitarian law violations.

That led to claims that the government was ignoring its own rules in the Gaza conflict.

The post UK Announces Partial Suspension of Arms Exports to Israel appeared first on The Defense Post.

Relations between Nigeria and its northern Sahel neighbor Niger have been tense since the military took over in Niamey in 2023 and broke away from the regional bloc ECOWAS.

Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who is head of the Economic Community of West African States, initially took a hardline but has since been trying to persuade the three junta-led states Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso to return to the group.

Nigeria’s chief of defense staff, General Christopher Musa, on Wednesday met in Niamey with General Moussa Salaou Barmou to discuss security cooperation, a Nigerian military statement said.

“Both parties reaffirmed their commitment to resuming and strengthening collaboration, with a view to ensuring regional stability and security,” it said on Thursday.

The statement said Niger’s chief of staff would visit Nigeria to finalize cooperation, and a Niger advisory group would be created to improve communication between the two militaries.

“Niger affirmed its readiness to resume active participation in security cooperation under the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJT),” the statement said.

The task force, involving Nigeria, Niger, Cameroon, and Chad, has been key in battling jihadists active along the border areas of the four countries.

Niger’s military government is battling jihadists linked to the Islamic State group, Al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram in the western Tillaberi region and in the southeastern Diffa area near Nigeria.

The post Nigeria, Niger Armies Discuss Security Cooperation appeared first on The Defense Post.

The pact — which includes provisions for joint drills and each military operating in the other country — was unveiled as Indonesian defense minister and president-elect Prabowo Subianto visited Canberra.

Prabowo, who will take the reins of the world’s third-largest democracy in October, said he wanted to forge closer ties with Canberra while following the “general policies” of his predecessor Joko Widodo.

He singled out the need for Australian help in areas such as agriculture, food security, and international drug trafficking.

Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles said the defense agreement, expected to be formally signed in the coming days, was one of the most significant agreements ever negotiated between the two neighbors.

“This historic treaty… will be a vital plank for our two countries to support each other’s security,” said Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Indonesia and Australia have been hashing out the defense agreement since February last year.

The post Australia, Indonesia Agree Defense Pact appeared first on The Defense Post.

Putin was in Azerbaijan on a two-day visit — his first to the oil-rich country since Moscow invaded Ukraine in 2022, and since Baku retook the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave in a September 2023 offensive.

Russia has for decades been a traditional mediator between the Caucasus foes but has in the last two years been bogged down by its Ukraine campaign, with Western powers playing an increasing role in arbitrating the conflict.

“It is widely known that Russia is also facing crises, first of all on the Ukrainian track,” Putin said in Baku in joint remarks with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev.

“However, Russia’s historical involvement in the events in the South Caucasus, even during the recent years, makes it necessary for us to participate where needed by the sides, without a doubt.”

Baku’s campaign ended three decades of Armenian separatist rule and soured relations between Yerevan and its traditional ally Moscow, with Armenia accusing Russia of inaction and strengthening its ties with Western countries since.

“If we can do something to sign a peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia… we will be very happy to,” Putin said.

The Russian leader said that after his Baku visit he will contact Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to “tell him about the results of our negotiations.”

Aliyev said the security of the region largely depended on the close cooperation between Azerbaijan and Russia.

“The new situation (since September last year) opens up new opportunities for establishing a lasting peace in the South Caucasus,” he said.

When Baku recaptured Karabakh in a swift offensive last September, it led to the exodus of the mountainous enclave’s entire ethnic Armenian population — more than 100,000 people.

The post Putin in Baku Offers to Mediate Azerbaijan-Armenia Peace Deal appeared first on The Defense Post.

But despite appearances, this development is not progress: it augurs more sovereign “piracy” by the enemies of free nations.

Of course, we should all be overjoyed that Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, Marine Paul Whelan, and the independent radio journalist Alsu Kurmasheva have returned to the US, and that Kara-Murza and two other Russian dissidents were saved.

But the price for their release was huge: an FSB colonel who assassinated a Chechen national in Germany, another FSB agent who laundered money for the Kremlin, an operative who hacked into computers to make trades netting millions for Vladimir Putin’s coffers, another Russian agent who moved American ammunition into Russia, and four confirmed Russian spies held in western prisons.

Asymmetric Swaps

These are in no way symmetric swaps: Russians convicted of very serious crimes in impartial jury trials are increasingly being traded for completely innocent Western journalists, businesspersons, and athletes who were snatched at Putin’s command and convicted many months after capture in Russian kangaroo courts.

The same was true when American basketball star Brittany Griner was exchanged for Russian arms dealer Vicktor Bout, nicknamed “the merchant of death.”

These moves are nothing like the US-Soviet swaps during the 20th century Cold War, when actual American operatives and military agents were captured in Russia. We are trading innocents for hardened criminals involved in enabling totalitarian systems of mass murder.

The same holds for Biden’s September 2023 decision to release over $6 billion in Iranian assets, which were held sequestered in a South Korean account, in exchange for five innocent Americans held for years without just cause by Iran’s totalitarian theocracy.

Rather than “prisoner exchanges,” we should be calling them “criminals for hostages swaps.”

Hostage Diplomacy

The glaring problem with such “hostage diplomacy” is obvious: as Senator Mitt Romney said of the Iran deal, the appearance of paying more than $1 billion for each American freed will only encourage more hostage-taking.

Putin will be further emboldened to order more Russian agents and proxies to carry out assassinations, hacking, fraud, weapons trafficking, and attacks on democratic election systems because he can retrieve any of his agents who are caught and convicted: all he has to do is snatch some innocent Americans, Germans, or other Western citizens to use as bargaining chips.

This is a losing spiral: sovereign hostage-taking has been increasing for years, just like ransomware, and it is a bipartisan problem no matter who is in the White House. In 1985, Ronald Reagan infamously sent arms to Iran in exchange for US hostages held in Lebanon as part of an illegal complex larger deal. Short-term gain leads to long-term pain.

The situation is similar when terrorist groups take hostages. In his 2018 book on terrorism, economist and game theory expert Todd Sandler notes one study that found that 2.62 “additional abductions” resulted from concessions to get one hostage back.

The International Center for Counter-Terrorism concludes that rewarding terrorist kidnappers can “encourage imitation and become contagious.”

This is why, ironically, the Biden administration earlier this year began seriously considering a ban on paying ransomware attackers to release computing systems they have seized. But the White House and congressional leaders failed to follow through on this, caving to pressure from corporations and local governments that fear having no recourse when their systems are breached.

New International Hostage Game

Of course, hostage-taking has been part of warfare and hostile relations among nations for many centuries.

Yet medieval kings and queens responded very differently than Western authorities do now: when their innocent citizens were captured and held, they would often snatch innocents from the other side to use as bargaining chips.

Western nations have not done this because our systems of justice are not dictatorial and include habeas corpus, which is the basic right to a speedy and impartial trial. Thus, as Keir Giles from Chatham House told Newsweek, Putin can retrieve his “murderers, spies, and criminals” by taking Western hostages to trade for them, knowing that the US cannot “respond in kind.”

This central asymmetry is now the reason why the US and its allies are losing so badly in the new international hostage game.

To even the scales, American presidents may have to consider detaining Russians or Iranians of interest to their regimes whenever those dictators grab innocent Americans. This would require suspending habeas corpus for those foreign nationals we hold under special reprisal orders, and exchanging only them – not Russians, Iranians, or Chinese operatives already convicted of major crimes – in exchange for American victims.

In other words, we would need to copy Putin’s tactic of “stockpiling” prominent Americans to use as bargaining chips.

For example, when Putin seized and held Griner to use as a pawn in exchange for Russian criminals justly convicted in the US, we could have responded by seizing three more Russians closely connected with the Kremlin and suspected of shady dealings. Indefinite detentions of select foreign nationals held for months or years without trial might sound extreme; yet without such reprisals, we will see more innocent victims in Griner’s and Gershkovich’s former situation.

Legal Reforms

We could further strengthen this tit-for-tat response with legal reforms that also beat ransomware.

Outlawing all forms of payment for taking innocent American hostages and seizing control of computer systems is the most essential step. The law should include “waivers” or presidential permissions to pay only when hundreds of lives or hundreds of billions in assets are at stake, and should include criminal penalties for its violation, given the desperation payers endure.

When such a law is strictly enforced, sovereign adversaries seizing computers or human hostages will eventually realize that they are wasting their time and resources on such efforts.

So we should reconsider the policy announced by President Barack Obama in June 2015, which he broke and both Donald Trump and Biden rejected, that “the United States government will make no concessions to individuals or groups holding US nationals hostage.”

While this policy should not apply to exchanging prisoners of war, it can deter civilian hostage-taking because returning foreign civilians seized in reprisal is not a “concession.”

Beyond banning paying ransoms in all forms, we need to punish rogue regimes that snatch our citizens as political prisoners with other reprisals — such as destruction of military assets and even detention of their own friends working in the US.

The ultimate solution is to rid the Earth altogether of dictators who take innocents as political hostages, but that will probably require a global alliance of democratic nations of the sort outlined in my book, A League of Democracies.

John Davenport is Professor of Philosophy and Peace & Justice Studies at Fordham University.

He is the author of The Democracy Amendments, available through Amazon.com.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The Defense Post.

The Defense Post aims to publish a wide range of high-quality opinion and analysis from a diverse array of people – do you want to send us yours? Click here to submit an op-ed.

The post Why the US and Its Allies Are Losing the New International Hostage Game appeared first on The Defense Post.