In this episode, Antulio J. Echevarria II discusses how NATO might better leverage risk to strengthen the alliance’s extended deterrence. Can NATO increase the risks and costs of war for an adversary without unduly raising the alliance’s own? Can the alliance strengthen the credibility of NATO’s extended deterrence through a proxy strategy of “waging war without going to war”?  Keywords: risk-benefit models, cost-benefit models, military risk, political risk, Russian deterrence, risk aversion, self-deterrence, deterrence by denial, deterrence by punishment, proxy warfareStephanie Crider (Host)You are listening to Conversations on Strategy. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the guests and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.I’m in the studio with Professor Antulio J. Echevarria II.Echevarria is currently a professor of strategy at the US Army War College and the editor in chief of the US Army War College Press, which includes Parameters. He’s held the General Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research and the Elihu Root Chair of Military Studies and is the author of six books on military strategy.He’s the author of Weaponizing Risk: Calibrating Western Deterrence, which was published by the US Army War College Press in July 2025.Welcome to Conversations on Strategy, Dr. Echevarria.Antulio J. Echevarria IIThank you. I’m pleased to be here.HostI’d like to start with understanding risk in strategic thinking. You introduce the idea of weaponizing risk. Please explain how risk-benefit models differ from traditional cost-benefit approaches.EchevarriaTraditionally, cost-benefit models are designed to persuade an adversary, an aggressor, [or] potential aggressor, that the costs of a particular action are going to outweigh its benefits. The problem has always been that we don’t necessarily know where the cost ceiling is for that adversary, so we don’t know how far we have to go in order to dissuade them from doing the action we don’t want them to take. And the other problem is we don’t really know how much they value that particular object or piece of territory that they might be after.We do the best we can with our intelligence analysis, and we develop a model that we hope will work. Where, opposed to risk-based deterrence models, risk-benefit models actually allow us to go right at the heart of what an aggressor regime values most, which is its political survival. So, we step back, look at the calculations and, instead of trying to drive up costs in terms of economics or military materiel destroyed and personnel loss, we look at what about this particular situation will pose a direct threat to the regime and its political survival.Although every regime has a cost ceiling—Putin, for instance, certainly does, but it may be a lot higher [than we expected], as we have seen in recent times—the Russian cost ceiling is much higher than it is for the West and certainly for Ukraine. So, we need a method to get around just a basic cost-benefit approach. So, the risk-benefit approach does help us do that because we have to answer our own question, which is: Are the costs we are about to impose, or threatening to impose, really going to get at the heart of what the regime actually cares about? If so, how long will it take?HostI’m glad you brought up Putin and Russia.

In this episode of Conversations on Strategy, Major Brennan Deveraux interviews select authors of The Weaponization of Artificial Intelligence: The Next Stage of Terrorism and Warfare, a book written in partnership with NATO Centre of Excellence – Defence Against Terrorism (COE-DAT). The authors discuss their respective chapters, which include topics such as how terrorists use large language models, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) as a weapon, and the future of AI use in terrorism and counterterrorism. Keywords: AI, artificial intelligence, terrorism, counterterrorism, large language models (LLM), technology, security, privacy, ethicsBrennan Deveraux (Host)You are listening to Conversations on Strategy. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the guests and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.I’m your host, Major Brennan Deveraux. Today we’ll be talking about the newly released book, The Weaponization of Artificial Intelligence: The Next Stage of Terrorism and Warfare. I’m joined today by some of the book’s authors, and we’ll be exploring some of the findings and broader implications of the analysis. I have five guests with me.The first is Dr. Tony Pfaff, the director of the Strategic Studies Institute. He was the project director and contributing author to the book. The second is Dr. Sarah Lohman, a University of Washington Information School faculty member and Army Cyber Institute visiting researcher. Her chapter of the book is entitled “National Security Impacts of Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Models.” The third is Dr. Gábor Nyáry. He’s a research professor at the National Public Service University in Hungary. His chapter was entitled “The Coming of the Techno-Terrorist Enterprise: Artificial Intelligence and the Tactical, Organizational, and Conceptual Transformation [of] the World of Violent Non-State Actors.” The fourth is Dr. Thomas Spahr, the [Francis W.] De Serio Chair of Theater and Strategic [Strategic and Theater] Intelligence at the US Army War College. His chapter is entitled “Raven Sentry: Employing AI for Indications and Warnings in Afghanistan.” Finally, Colonel Christopher Lowrance [is] an associate professor in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department at the US Military Academy. He coauthored a chapter with Dr. Pfaff entitled “Using Artificial Intelligence to Disrupt Terrorist Operations.”For my first question, Dr. Pfaff, I’d like to look to you. If you could tell us about the project as a whole, talk a little bit about the relationship between the Strategic Studies Institute and NATO that led to this project and just a little bit about bringing the team together.Tony PfaffThanks for that question. This project was a yearlong collaboration between us here at the Strategic Studies Institute and the NATO Centre of Excellence-Defence Against Terrorism (COE-DAT). The intent was to explore how emerging artificial intelligence technologies are capable of—or have the potential to—transform both terrorist operations and, by extension, counterterrorism strategies. The COE-DAT initiated the project with the aim of not simply [performing] an academic exercise but producing actual insights for NATO, partner nations, [and] anyone involved in the counterterrorist enterprise.As the lead editor and project manager, we built [an] extremely competent and interesting multinational team of experts, who came from a variety of backgrounds, bringing together academic researchers, military practitioners, legal scholars, and so on. And, everyone brought in their own unique lens, whether it was technology, law, strategy, or on-the-ground experience, which, I think,

In this episode of Conversations on Strategy, Mr. Patrick N. Kelleher and Brigadier General Ronnie D. Anderson Jr. discuss the importance of logistics and readiness. They recommend senior leaders shift their perspective on these topics to k...

In this episode, Major Brennan Deveraux interviews Dr. C. Anthony Pfaff, Colonel Michael Shekleton, and Colonel Clayton T. Manning on the recently published Strategic Questions Research List (SQRL) (https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1975&context=monographs#page=93). They discuss the contents of the SQRL, how it differs from previous years’ compendiums to the Annual Estimate of the Strategic Security Environment, and how it can be used by students during their research.Keywords: Strategic Questions Research List (SQRL), research, academics, research questions, sponsors, Strategic Research RequirementMajor Brennan DeverauxHello, you are listening to Conversations on Strategy. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the guests and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, [the] US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.My name is Major Brennan Deveraux. I work at the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI). I will be the guest host for this podcast on our Strategic Questions Research List (SQRL) (https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1975&context=monographs#page=93) and all associated podcasts for the Strategic Estimate.I’m joined today [by] three guests. The first is Dr. [C. Anthony] Pfaff, the director of the Strategic Studies Institute. The second is Colonel [Michael] Mike Shekleton—my boss—the director of the Strategic Research and Analysis Department (SRAD) here at SSI. And then, Colonel Clay Manning, a professor at the US Army War College’s School of Strategic Landpower (SSL), as well as the director of the Strategic Research Requirement (SRR).Dr. Pfaff, I’m going to start with you today. The Strategic Questions Research List, also known around the War College as the squirrel (SQRL)—fun name—can you tell me a little bit about what it is, why it’s important, and why we’re having this conversation today?Dr. C. Anthony PfaffIt’s a great question. And I guess [I will share] a little bit about the history of the name: In the before times, we often relied on something called the Key Strategic Issues List, also known as the KSIL, that was both loved and hated by various entities, both here at the War College and abroad. Part of the problem with the KSIL was that it wasn’t well aligned in any given year with the requirements of the service and of DoD (Department of Defense) in general. So, it had gotten abandoned, and we had started using just the Strategic Estimate, but then we kind of discovered that we still weren’t properly aligned with the field. And so, the SQRL became our effort to do that, as we would reach out to major commands, agencies, and others who we would consider our stakeholders, and ask them what their resource priorities are.We came up with the name because Research Questions List is RQL (Urkel), and that was right out. Strategic Research Questions List was SRQL (circle), and we certainly don’t want any more of those around here. Then, it was Strategic Questions Research List, which is a little awkward to say out loud, but it does form the acronym SQRL, and chasing squirrels is always fun.That’s how we got the name. And, it’s our effort to be as aligned as possible with the national security challenges that we’re facing in ways that are interactive in using it. Unlike the KSIL, [in] which you sort of drop the [questions] on the researchers, who are the students, this is [an] interactive process where we help shape the questions so that they’re easier to use and then have a mechanism and a venue for providing the feedback from the research back to the field. That’s what we’re trying to do here.Back over to you.

Commander of the Canadian Army Lieutenant General Michael C. Wright discusses the Canadian Army, modernization, Ukraine, technology, and more. Listen in for insights about the Canadian Army, its mission, its future, and how America’s neighbor to the north partners with the United States.  Keywords: Canada, Arctic, Canadian Army, technology, modernization Stephanie Crider (Host)You are listening to Conversations on Strategy. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the guests and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.Lieutenant General Michael C. Wright, commander of the Canadian Army, is joining me remotely today. Wright enrolled in the Canadian Armed Forces in 1990 as an infantry officer. He has commanded from platoon to brigade and Joint task force levels. He served in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and the Middle East, as well as in Canada. On promotion to Lieutenant General in July 2024, he was appointed as the commander of the Canadian Army.Welcome to Conversations on Strategy, sir. Thank you for joining me.Lieutenant General Michael C. WrightStephanie, thanks very much for the invitation. [I am] really looking forward to this.HostI'd like to open our discussion with land warfare and modernization. Looking at the last three years of fighting in Ukraine, what are your most important takeaways regarding the evolution of land warfare, and how is the Canadian Army modernizing to meet this moment?WrightThanks, Stephanie.The Canadian Army, like all of our close allies, are paying very close attention to what’s happening on the battlefield in Ukraine. I think I’ll start with three key takeaways and then how it’s shaping what the Canadian Army is doing.The first one is that it has proven that Landpower absolutely matters. Landpower in terms of the conventional large-scale combat operations capability absolutely matters, which is really driving the modernization effort that we’re doing within the Canadian Army. Not only for the capabilities that we’re trying to bring in, but also for the wholesome review of our force structure that we’ve engaged in.The second one—and this is one that I actually spend a lot of time thinking about and, frankly, worrying about—is how rapidly technology is evolving on the battlefield. Just looking at drones, for example, the multiple iterations of drones, how they are used—how they’re use for reconnaissance, how they’re used for strike—has changed so many times over the past three plus years, and knowing the challenges that we have in many of our militaries in keeping up with innovation and procuring the equipment that we need in the right time frame.The third key take away is following on from that rapidly evolving technology, we certainly see the importance of precision, but I always like to remind people that it is not a binary decision between precision or mass. We actually need precision and mass because—I’ll go back to the first part—Landpower matters. And in fact, I think one of the major reasons why we’re seeing this conflict, this war, go on over three years is because that decisive Landpower has not been—certainly in the past year to year and a half—has not been able to be applied at the level that’s required to see a decisive victory by either side.HostThese are big enough challenges in the present, and I know you’re working a lot on modernization and looking into the future. Can you talk a little bit about your vision for the Canadian Army?WrightMy vision of the Canadian Army is really building upon the great work that was done by my predecessors.

TranscriptThis podcast was recorded on January 28, 2025, and updated on February 11, 2025.In this episode, Dr. R. Evan Ellis discusses the Panama Canal, including its history and significance to the United States, China’s involvement in the region, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit to Panama in February 2025.Keywords: Panama Canal, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, China, trade, President Jimmy CarterStephanie Crider (Host)You’re listening to Conversations on Strategy. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the guests and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.I’m happy to be here today with Dr. Evan Ellis. Ellis is a professor of Latin American studies at the Strategic Studies Institute at the United States Army War College.First, I just want to welcome you back. I know that we’ve been talking for a while about recording another podcast. Thank you for making time to join me for another Conversations on Strategy.Dr. Evan EllisStephanie, it’s a pleasure to be part of the program today. Thanks for having me.HostSo, we’re talking about Panama today. I’d like to really dig in and get a better understanding of things here. What did the original agreement regarding the Panama Canal say?EllisWell, by “original agreement,” of course, we’re talking about the agreement on September 7th, 1977, in which President [Jimmy] Carter agreed with President [Martín ] Torrijos of Panama to, essentially, return the Panama Canal and, in turn, Panama agreed to, essentially, defend and maintain and operate the canal. So, there are really two components of this. One, which is the more commonly known Panama Canal Treaty, which made arrangements for the return, again, at the end of December 31st, 1999, although there were different enclaves that the United States was able to hold on to after that point and that one by one [it] released or turned over to Panama in an organized fashion. Panama then, in turn, agreed to defend the canal and to operate the canal. Indeed, Article 4 of the treaty that talks about its obligations for protection and defense is a very important component of that, and that also served [as] the basis for the military coordination that we have today with Panama, in which we not only work with their border service SENAFRONT but also the air and naval service SENAN, international police, and also conduct one of the largest military exercises, multilateral exercises, that we conduct in the hemisphere, which is the two-part PANAMAX exercise.But, it’s also important to note that aside from the Panama Canal Treaty itself, there was a second related treaty invoked the same day—the Neutrality Treaty—and that made provisions that the Panama government would operate this in what was referred to as a just and equal or equitable fashion and at what was called a reasonable fashion from the perspective of rates. In other words, the commitment on the Panamanian side was not only to ensure that all nations, the United States, China, et cetera, had access to it but also that the rates that it would charge would not prejudice one country or another—that even though you could have different rates for different classes of ships at different times—but, essentially, every country would have equal right and prioritization. Now, having said that, there are some important exceptions to that. Number one is pointing out that essentially, US military warships get to go to the head of the queue, and there’s also a separate related Treaty of Montería, which actually gives the Colombian government and the Costa Rican government [the] right to have free access or free use of the canal. So, there’s a number of different little-known details but, really,

Dr. James D. Scudieri and Colonel Jon Klug analyze Lieutenant General Robert C. Richardson Jr.’s extensive operational reports and his role as Theater Army commander under Admiral Nimitz. The discussion highlights Richardson’s advocacy for Joint ope...

This episode’s topic is A Call to Action: Lessons from Ukraine for the Future Force, with Dr. John A. Nagl and Colonel Katie Crombe. They discuss the project’s origins and its goal to extract key lessons from the Russia-Ukraine War for US military strategy. Nagl outlines the collaborative research behind the publication, while Crombe highlights strategic lessons related to US military preparedness. The conversation covers the impact of technology and the necessity of multidomain operations, emphasizing the importance of strong alliances and the need for adaptive training in anticipation of future conflicts. The authors’ insights underscore the critical need for the military to learn from current events to enhance its readiness for tomorrow’s challenges.E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil (mailto:usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil) to give feedback on this podcastKeywords: Russia-Ukraine War, strategy, military preparedness, drone warfare, cyber warfareDownload the transcript: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Nov/14/2003583942/-1/-1/0/COS-54-CROMBE-NAGL-TRANSCRIPT.PDF (https://media.defense.gov/2024/Nov/14/2003583942/-1/-1/0/COS-54-CROMBE-NAGL-TRANSCRIPT.PDF)

LTG Ben Hodges (US Army, retired) America and the International Order In this episode, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges (US Army, retired) discusses America’s role in the international order. The podcast covers the Russia-Ukraine War and what it means for NATO, maintaining stability in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, strategic competition between China and the United States in the Indo-Pacific, the economic and technological competition between the United States and China, South America and immigration, North Korea, and more. E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcastDate recorded: August 12, 2024Keywords: Russia-Ukraine War, China, North Korea, South America, NATODownload the transcript: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Oct/30/2003575009/-1/-1/0/COS-53-HODGES-TRANSCRIPT.PDF (https://media.defense.gov/2024/Oct/30/2003575009/-1/-1/0/COS-53-HODGES-TRANSCRIPT.PDF)

This episode delves into the concept of strategic culture and how it influences international relations, military strategy, and deterrence, particularly between the United States, China, and Russia. Dr. Scobell and Dr. Kuznar share insights from their extensive research and highlight the nuances of strategic culture in peacetime, crisis, and conflict scenarios.  Keywords: culture China, Taiwan, strategy, strategic culture  E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast.Download the transcript: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Oct/23/2003569840/-1/-1/0/COS-52_KUZNAR_SCOBELL%20TRANSCRIPT.PDF (https://media.defense.gov/2024/Oct/23/2003569840/-1/-1/0/COS-52_KUZNAR_SCOBELL%20TRANSCRIPT.PDF)

In this episode, Lieutenant Colonel Zachary Griffiths, Colonel Todd Schmidt, and Major Brennan Deveraux from the Harding Project and Army University Press discuss the how-to edition of Military Review, including the initiative’s goal to enhance professional military writing by providing essential guidelines and resources for Army units. Griffiths highlights the need for writing support, while Schmidt recounts the collaboration’s origins at a West Point conference. Deveraux shares insights as a guest editor, emphasizing quality in submissions. The episode also spotlights key contributions, including Captain Theo Lipsky’s writing guide and Lieutenant Colonel Max Ferguson’s “Catalyst Papers” for collaborative writing. The episode underscores the initiative’s transformative potential for military discourse and encourages listeners to explore the valuable resources now available to Army units and online. E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast Keywords: Military Review, Harding Project, professional discourse, professional military writing

This episode will be published soon.

In this episode, Dr. Darrin L. Frye, associate professor of science and technology and innovative futures at the Joint Special Operations University, discusses the profound implications of nanotechnology in modern warfare. He explores the concept of the “resolution revolution,” examining how emerging technologies shift battlefields from traditional domains to the microscopic realms of biology, where threats can operate invisibly at a cellular level. Frye explores the potential of nanoweapons to manipulate human cognition and behavior, raising ethical concerns about their environmental impact and the risk of mass extinction. He emphasizes the urgent need for genetic surveillance to protect against these vulnerabilities and advocates for a strategic approach in preparing for the future of warfare. This conversation serves as a crucial call to action for individuals and policymakers as we face an unprecedented era of conflict intertwined with our very existence.Keywords: nanotechnology, nanobot, resolution revolution, DNA, genetic informationE-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article.Download the transcript:https://media.defense.gov/2024/Sep/20/2003551198/-1/-1/0/20240830-FRYE%20TRANSCRIPT.PDF (https://media.defense.gov/2024/Sep/20/2003551198/-1/-1/0/20240830-FRYE%20TRANSCRIPT.PDF)Download the full transcript: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Oct/02/2003557713/-1/-1/0/COS-50-STRATEGIC%20ESTIMATE-TRANSCRIPT.PDF (https://media.defense.gov/2024/Oct/02/2003557713/-1/-1/0/COS-50-STRATEGIC%20ESTIMATE-TRANSCRIPT.PDF)

In this episode, COL Thomas Spahr and Zach Kallenborn discuss technology and warfare and what practitioners and leaders can learn from America’s past wars and the Russia-Ukraine War. Keywords: Afghanistan, Russia, Ukraine, AI, dronesE-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article.Download the transcript:https://media.defense.gov/2024/Sep/17/2003545729/-1/-1/0/20240917_SPAHR-KALLENBORN_TRANSCRIPT.PDF

If leaders of terrorist organizations can recruit, indoctrinate, plan, and operate using AR with little drop-off in effectiveness while staying safely in hiding, the challenges faced by national security and law-enforcement organizations will increase exponentially. Keywords: animaia, augmented realty, AR, virtual reality, terrorism E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis chapter.

This episode explores the intersection of food insecurity and precision agriculture in the United States with author Michael W. Parrott, an expert in Special Operations Forces counterintelligence. Drawing from his experience in combat zones and research, Parrott discusses the vulnerabilities of the agricultural industry and the potential nexus with violent extremist organizations globally. He delves into the evolving tactics of these groups, the role of precision agriculture in modern farming, and the importance of enhancing security measures to protect against cyber and physical threats. Parrott emphasizes the imperative of studying the impact of nation-states and non-state actors on agriculture and calls for proactive measures to fortify the industry against emerging risks. Keywords: food insecurity, VEOs, violent extremist organizations, China, DJI Agriculture E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article.

Dr. Sarah Lohmann discusses the use of AI in terrorism, emphasizing its potential for both good and malicious intent. She highlights terrorists’ utilization of AI tools for recruitment and accessing sensitive data, posing cybersecurity risks. Lohmann also touches on AI regulation efforts, disparities between regions, and the importance of innovation and transparency in AI governance. Global cooperation is crucial in mitigating security risks in the digital age. Keywords: artificial intelligence, AI, ChatGPT, Perplexity, terrorism E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article.Download the transcript: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jul/09/2003499211/-1/-1/0/COS-45-LOHMANN-CHATGPT-AI-TRANSCRIPT.PDF

Colonel Eric Hartunian and Lieutenant Colonel Paul Milas, co-editors with Susan Sims of Emerging Technologies and Terrorism: An American Perspective, discuss their newly published collaborative study from the US Army War College Press. The publication focuses on how terrorists may exploit emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, augmented reality, biotechnology, and nanotechnology from an American and Western Hemisphere perspective over the next 5–10 years. They highlight the pace of technological development and the need to safeguard against terrorist exploitation of these innovations. E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the collaborative study. Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, AI, drones, nanotechnology, agriculture, augmented realityDownload the transcript: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jul/03/2003497269/-1/-1/0/COS-44-HARTUNIAN-MILAS-EMERGING-TECHNOLOGIES-TRANSCRIPT.PDF (https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jul/03/2003497269/-1/-1/0/COS-44-HARTUNIAN-MILAS-EMERGING-TECHNOLOGIES-TRANSCRIPT.PDF)

Lieutenant Colonel Zachary Griffiths and Sergeant First Class Leyton Summerlin of the Harding Project discuss military discourse and why it matters, the impact of professional writing, tips for aspiring writers, and more. Named after Major General Edwin Forrest Harding, the Harding project focuses on US Army professional publications with the intent to renew and revive them. Keywords: Harding Project, professional discourse, US Army journals, writing, publishingE-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article.Download the transcript: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jun/12/2003484109/-1/-1/0/COS-43-GRIFFITHS_SUMMERLIN-TRANSCRIPT.PDF (https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jun/12/2003484109/-1/-1/0/COS-43-GRIFFITHS_SUMMERLIN-TRANSCRIPT.PDFwritingpublishingprofessional%20discourseHarding%20ProjectUS%20Army%20journals)writingpublishingprofessional discourseHarding ProjectUS Army journals (https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jun/12/2003484109/-1/-1/0/COS-43-GRIFFITHS_SUMMERLIN-TRANSCRIPT.PDFwritingpublishingprofessional%20discourseHarding%20ProjectUS%20Army%20journals)

Lieutenant Colonel Zachary Griffiths and Sergeant First Class Leyton Summerlin of the Harding Project discuss military discourse and why it matters, the impact of professional writing, tips for aspiring writers, and more. Named after Major General Edwin Forrest Harding, the Harding project focuses on US Army professional publications with the intent to renew and revive them. Keywords: Harding Project, professional discourse, US Army journals, writing, publishingE-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article.Download the transcript: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jun/12/2003484109/-1/-1/0/COS-43-GRIFFITHS_SUMMERLIN-TRANSCRIPT.PDF (https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jun/12/2003484109/-1/-1/0/COS-43-GRIFFITHS_SUMMERLIN-TRANSCRIPT.PDF)