Podcasts about Central College

This episode is brought to you by the Change Makers Certification Program!    In this solo episode of Even Better, Sinikka Waugh explores how our appetite for change—just like our craving for pizza—varies from person to person and even from day to day. With warmth and insight, she reminds us that our openness to change doesn't define our worth. Instead of judging others for their responses to change, Sinikka encourages curiosity, compassion, and support. Whether you're leading change or just living through it, this episode offers a refreshing perspective—and a helpful tip—for managing the journey with empathy. Sinikka Waugh - Connect with me on either LinkedIn or send me an email! Founder, Owner, Trainer, and Coach Sinikka Waugh, PMP, President and CEO of Your Clear Next Step, spends her days helping people have better workdays. Trainer, coach, business leader, and difference maker, Sinikka is known for consistently helping people solve problems and get things done at work. With a 20+ year background in languages, literature, and project management, Sinikka has helped over 50,000 people have better workdays since 2008. Her clients value how her professionalism blends seamlessly with her down-to-earth, “try this now” approach and her passion for helping others. Sinikka holds a BA from Central College, an MA from the University of Iowa, and is a certified Project Management Professional through the Project Management Institute (PMI).

Lance interviewed many athletes during the recent 115th Drake Relays. Hear from Iowa State senior and former Charles City prep Kiki Connell, former Marion High and Iowa runner Maddie Block, former Dubuque Hempstead and Wartburg College star Shaelyn Hostager, Runablaze Iowa's Blake Whalen, Iowa State junior and former Humboldt prep Quinton Orr, former Glenwood and Iowa State star Janette Schraft, Iowans Derek Leicht and James Fingalsen from Iowa's winning 4x800 relay, Iowa senior and former Ottumwa prep Alli Bookin-Nosbisch, Olympians and Iowa natives Shelby Houlihan and Karissa Schweizer at a historic women's mile Saturday, former Drake star Isaac Basten, former Iowa runners Ellie Meyer and Haley Meyer from Wartburg's winning Iowa College distance medley relay,former Iowa preps Derek Webster, Alex Volden, Kaleb Brand and Jack Brown on Central College's record Iowa College DMR, former Davenport Assumption and Iowa standout Mallory Lindaman and Darius Kipyego from Iowa State's winning university sprint medley relay.

This episode is brought to you by the Change Makers Certification Program!  In this solo episode of Even Better, host Sinikka Waugh explores the real impact of excellence and why it's essential to organizational success. Excellence isn't just a lofty ideal—it's a practical, strategic advantage. Customers notice when we go above and beyond, and that level of quality is key to building satisfaction and loyalty. Team members notice too; when mediocrity is tolerated, top performers are more likely to disengage or walk away, making excellence vital to retention and morale. And ultimately, the bottom line feels it—because when excellence slips, so does profitability. Join Sinikka as she unpacks why excellence matters and how it shapes the health and success of the entire organization.   Sinikka Waugh - Connect with me on either LinkedIn or send me an email! Founder, Owner, Trainer, and Coach Sinikka Waugh, PMP, President and CEO of Your Clear Next Step, spends her days helping people have better workdays. Trainer, coach, business leader, and difference maker, Sinikka is known for consistently helping people solve problems and get things done at work. With a 20+ year background in languages, literature, and project management, Sinikka has helped over 50,000 people have better workdays since 2008. Her clients value how her professionalism blends seamlessly with her down-to-earth, “try this now” approach and her passion for helping others. Sinikka holds a BA from Central College, an MA from the University of Iowa, and is a certified Project Management Professional through the Project Management Institute (PMI).

Scott is from Clarksville, IA, where he wrestled for coach Ron Peterson. After high school, he went on to wrestle at Central College. While injuries hampered his career, it also helped him find a passion for coaching. Scott spent over 30 years coaching, mostly at West Delaware. Alongside Jeff Voss, they built the Hawks into a well-oiled machine. Along the way, Scott found a passion for helping kids build confidence and excitement for the sport of wrestling and now does so on a regular basis as a mindset coach with Z-Winning Mindset. Z-Winning Mindset offers world class mental training for athletes and teams of all sports. Head to zwinningmindset.com to check out more information. With that said, please sit back, relax and enjoy, Scott Litterer!Z-Winning Mindset website: https://www.zwinningmindset.com/Euphoria Coffee website: https://www.drinkeuphoriacoffee2go.com/Let's Talk Wrestling website: https://letstalkwrestlingpodcast.my.canva.site/

Central College Senior Lecturer of History Mark Barloon and Central College History Club Co-President Eric Malcolm discuss the History Club's annual Range Day event coming up on April 22nd.

Chris and Aaron sit down with George Wares, Head Women's Softball Coach at Central College. Coach gives facts and comments on the political climate surrounding transgender athletes and the impact on Women's sports. Sponsored by Revelton Distilling Company, Green Beret Realty, Kyle Lehman at Wintrust Mortgage and LIVE from the AKC Andrew Downs Studios.

Caleb Urban was nominated as a Beck's Player with Heart for his commitment and passion on and off the court and field. One thing he loves about high school sports is the leadership roles that he has held. He has been a captain in football and basketball for the past two years but has considered himself a leader his whole career. He enjoys being a role model for all the younger kids in his school and enjoys seeing and talking to them during school and after games. He expressed his gratitude that sports have allowed him to be a role model to the kids in his community. Caleb competes in football, basketball, track and field, and baseball. He is involved in the National Honor Society and Student Council. Caleb participates in his community as an EMAYS youth volunteer, where he coaches, referees, and helps set up and take down events. He is also the 4-H vice president, has worked at multiple blood drives through NHS, and volunteers at other various projects at his school. Through 4-H, he has attended nursing homes for visits with the elderly and made goodie bags to hand out, toy drives for Christmas gifts for kids in need, the Salvation Army bell ringing, and cleanup at the fairgrounds. Agriculture is important to Caleb and his family because it has provided a living for his grandparents and is an important way of life for all of them. His mother was raised on a second-generation farm and he grew up in tractors and combines, riding with his grandfather. He has also been given the opportunity to work on an area farm as a farmhand and enjoyed the first-hand experience. By growing up on a farm, he has had the chance to learn about the importance of agriculture to his family, his community, and the world. After graduating high school, Caleb plans to attend Central College and major in kinesiology with the goal of becoming an Emergency Room Physician. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Dr. Owen McConnell joined Tom Katz on Wake Up Tri-Counties for the first "Here's to Your Health" Hammond-Henry news segment on WKEI radio. Dr. McConnell talks about non-medicinal options for pain, including chiropractic adjustments and acupuncture. In December, Hammond-Henry Hospital in Geneseo expanded its healthcare services by introducing a new chiropractic practice led by Dr. Owen McConnell, DC, ATC, LAT. Dr. McConnell can treat patients from babies to the elderly. Located on the hospital's first floor, the practice will offer appointments and accept walk-ins, enhancing overall patient care by integrating chiropractic services with existing medical and ancillary services. Anyone interested in scheduling an appointment may call the Geneseo Medical Group at 309-944-1275. He will also accept walk-ins. “I chose chiropractic care because I like the hands-on approach to helping people feel better,” said Dr. McConnell, who uses a variety of techniques but also suggests his patients get muscle work to aid in their healing. “I am committed to providing each patient with exceptional care, offering personalized healthcare solutions tailored to each patients' unique needs.” Dr. McConnell is from Erie, where he resides with his wife and three children. He graduated from Erie High School, Central College, and Palmer College of Chiropractic. He obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Athletic Training and has a Doctorate in Chiropractic. As a certified Athletic Trainer, Dr. McConnell has a sports injury background and knowledge of diagnosis, initial treatment, and rehab exercises to enhance his patients' recovery.

This episode is brought to you by the Change Makers Certification Program!  Sinikka Waugh - Connect with me on either LinkedIn or send me an email! Founder, Owner, Trainer, and Coach Sinikka Waugh, PMP, President and CEO of Your Clear Next Step, spends her days helping people have better workdays. Trainer, coach, business leader, and difference maker, Sinikka is known for consistently helping people solve problems and get things done at work. With a 20+ year background in languages, literature, and project management, Sinikka has helped over 50,000 people have better workdays since 2008. Her clients value how her professionalism blends seamlessly with her down-to-earth, “try this now” approach and her passion for helping others. Sinikka holds a BA from Central College, an MA from the University of Iowa, and is a certified Project Management Professional through the Project Management Institute (PMI).   In this episode of Even Better, we explore the powerful idea that caring for others isn't an act of sacrifice or selflessness—it's a choice that can lift us all. #6 of 10 Things in the 100th episode, Sinikka talks about how showing up for others doesn't drain us, but fuels us. When we give our best, we create ripples of hope and light. It's about the encouragement we receive in return and the joy of seeing others uplifted. Don't apologize for caring—what we put out into the world has a way of coming back. Tune in for a refreshing take on how looking out for each other strengthens us all, builds faith, and inspires us to keep doing good—no matter the circumstances.

John Moretta is a seasoned historian with a Ph.D. from Rice University and extensive teaching experience at Central College, Houston Community College, and the University of Houston. Dr. Moretta returns to provide an in-depth analysis of McCarthyism—its origins, its influence on American society at its height, and the ways it continues to resonate in modern times. We delve into the fear-driven environment of the Red Scare, exploring how it shaped public opinion, government policies, and cultural norms during the mid-20th century. Dr. Moretta also discusses the lasting implications of McCarthyism, from its impact on civil liberties to its role in shaping contemporary political rhetoric and attitudes toward dissent.

Today's discussion on the podcast is one of depth around the hot topic of NCAA roster limits and how they will fundamentally change the nature of the NCAA forever. In my opinion, there's no better person to have this conversation with than Liberty University's Assistant Track Coach and Meet Director, Mark Fairley. Coach Mark recently written a letter to Congress in hopes of standing before a Federal Judge in April as an advocate for the removal of the NCAA's new proposed changes to roster limits. Coach Mark discusses his involvement and how he has educated his own athletes at Liberty on this issue, getting many to participate and get their voices out there. Coach Mark is a native of Dubuque, Iowa, and has worked his way up the ranks since joining as an interim assistant. Coach Mark found success as an athlete in the world of triathlon, earning his professional racing license in 2019. Coach Mark was a standout athlete at Central College, where he captured the men's steeplechase national title at the 2018 NCAA Division 3 Outdoor Championships as a senior. He has the school record in the steeplechase with a time of 8:57.39. His other PRs include a 4:16.42 in the mile; 8:23 in the 3K and 14:42.67 in the 5K. He was the Central Region Men's XC and Outdoor Track and Field Athlete of the Year. Coach Mark graduated from Central College with a bachelor's degree in Exercise Science. He has a Master's Degree in sport management and is working toward a second in biblical studies. In today's conversation, we go through Coach Mark's individual accolades and accomplishments, how he rose in his coaching career, and then tackle the hot topic of roster-limits. He takes me through the 2.8 billion dollar NCAA settlement, revenue-sharing, and roster-limits. We discuss all of this at length and what it means for the next era of the NCAA. Tap into the Coach Mark Fairley Special.  If you enjoy the podcast, please consider following us on Spotify and Apple Podcasts and giving us a five-star review! I would also appreciate it if you share it with your friend who you think will benefit from it.  If this episode blesses you, please share it with a friend! S H O W N O T E S -Our Website: https://therunningeffect.run  -THE PODCAST ON YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClLcLIDAqmJBTHeyWJx_wFQ -My Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/therunningeffect/?hl=en⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

If you want to support the channel, I've set up a Patreon - patreon.com/AllThingsDivisionIIISoccer DiscoverCollegeSoccer.com Study Table - https://discovercollegesoccer.mykajabi.com/a/2147532196/7WKTpfoL Use the Discount Code - SIMPLE for 20% off. ✔ If you enjoyed the video, please like & subscribe! And don't forget to hit the bell button to get notifications of our video uploads!

This episode is brought to you by the Change Makers Certification Program!  Sinikka Waugh - Connect with me on either LinkedIn or send me an email! Founder, Owner, Trainer, and Coach Sinikka Waugh, PMP, President and CEO of Your Clear Next Step, spends her days helping people have better workdays. Trainer, coach, business leader, and difference maker, Sinikka is known for consistently helping people solve problems and get things done at work. With a 20+ year background in languages, literature, and project management, Sinikka has helped over 50,000 people have better workdays since 2008. Her clients value how her professionalism blends seamlessly with her down-to-earth, “try this now” approach and her passion for helping others. Sinikka holds a BA from Central College, an MA from the University of Iowa, and is a certified Project Management Professional through the Project Management Institute (PMI).   Build More Forts is about finding joy, even in the toughest seasons. Hosted by Sinikka, this episode invites you to shift your focus from darkness and discouragement to the intentional pursuit of joy. After experiencing a tough year both personally and in business, and feeling off-track, Sinikka discovered that joy isn't something that just happens—it's a choice you make. In this episode, she shares how to intentionally seek out joy, even when life feels hard or uncertain. Through personal stories and practical insights, Sinikka encourages listeners to make time for joy, and for her that looks like trusting in God, and choosing to look beyond the darkness. Yes, at times, it means to actually build the fort! If you're feeling lost or overwhelmed, Build More Forts is a reminder that joy is always within reach—if you choose to go there.

Hello and welcome back to the Other 22!  We have a very special guest with us on the podcast as Central College President Mark Putnam joins us for our season finale!  We talk about his journey to becoming president, some of the most difficult challenges he's faced as president of Central College, and his experiences with creating/being a part of a great leadership team.  Listen in for a very special moment in the podcast as we interview such an influential figure on campus!Follow us on Instagram! @_theother22_Check out our show website: https://theother22.buzzsprout.comGot ideas/topics for the podcast? Let us know by DMing the Instagram or reaching out to one of us hosts personally!

Central College Assistant Dean of Students Kristi Leonard discusses their annual “Season of Gratitude”, which promotes the importance of helping others during the holiday season.

Join us in this episode with Patricia Hittner O'Connell, a passionate homeopath from Massachusetts, as she shares her journey into homeopathy and her insights into working with clients who are highly sensitive to remedies. Patricia discusses the challenges these individuals face and offers practical strategies for managing remedy aggravations. She also emphasized the importance of a gentle approach, advocating for "going slow and low" with remedies. We also explored the idea of antidoting aggravations with remedies that match the new state of the client, rather than relying solely on traditional antidotes, and highlighted the significance of building strong relationships with clients, as this fosters trust and deeper healing.   Episode Highlights: 02:51 - Patricia's Journey into Homeopathy 06:29 - The Role of Lifestyle in Natural Healing 07:40 - Tips for Homeopaths Working with Sensitive Clients 13:28 - Water Dosing Techniques 15:58 - Antidoting Aggravations 22:47 - The Link Between Energy Sensitivity and Environmental Factors 28:01 - How Resilient Are Homeopathic Remedies 30:51 - Essential Tips for Homeopaths on Remedy Aggravations 33:55 - Understanding Client Responses   About my Guest: Patricia Hittner O'Connell is a Certified Homeopathic Educator (C.Hom) with 25 years of experience in natural medicine. She has been using homeopathy since her children were young, witnessing its transformative potential firsthand. Mentored by renowned homeopaths, including the late Dr. Robin Murphy, ND, she is a graduate of his Hahnemannian Academy of North America and has pursued graduate-level studies through the Centre for Homeopathic Education in the UK. Patricia is on track to earn a Dip CCH from the Central College of Homeopathy. Having successfully treated her own chronic pain and insomnia, she is passionate about helping others achieve better health with homeopathy, which she believes is a gift from God.   Find out more about Patricia Website: https://www.organicpalacequeen.com/ Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/389836313048110   If you would like to support the Homeopathy Hangout Podcast, please consider making a donation by visiting www.EugenieKruger.com and click the DONATE button at the top of the site. Every donation about $10 will receive a shout-out on a future episode.   Join my Homeopathy Hangout Podcast Facebook community here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/HelloHomies   Follow me on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/eugeniekrugerhomeopathy/   Here is the link to my free 30-minute Homeopathy@Home online course: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqBUpxO4pZQ&t=438s   Upon completion of the course - and if you live in Australia - you can join my Facebook group for free acute advice (you'll need to answer a couple of questions about the course upon request to join): www.facebook.com/groups/eughom  

Hello and welcome back to The Other 22! Join as us we discuss with Professor Babcock, an educator and director of the choir here at Central College.  We discuss different aspects of choir, the differences of choir as you become a collegiate student, and his approach to directing and guiding a choir.  It was a great conversation full of lots of insights regarding Central, the choir, and how music can enrich an individual's life.  Tune in!Follow us on Instagram! @_theother22_Check out our show website: https://theother22.buzzsprout.comGot ideas/topics for the podcast? Let us know by DMing the Instagram or reaching out to one of us hosts personally!

This episode is brought to you by the Change Makers Certification Program!  Sinikka Waugh - Connect with me on either LinkedIn or send me an email! Founder, Owner, Trainer, and Coach Sinikka Waugh, PMP, President and CEO of Your Clear Next Step, spends her days helping people have better workdays. Trainer, coach, business leader, and difference maker, Sinikka is known for consistently helping people solve problems and get things done at work. With a 20+ year background in languages, literature, and project management, Sinikka has helped over 50,000 people have better workdays since 2008. Her clients value how her professionalism blends seamlessly with her down-to-earth, “try this now” approach and her passion for helping others. Sinikka holds a BA from Central College, an MA from the University of Iowa, and is a certified Project Management Professional through the Project Management Institute (PMI).   In a world that constantly pushes us to do more, be more, and achieve more, it's easy to forget that taking care of ourselves is not a luxury, but a necessity. Self-care isn't about pampering or indulgence—it's a fundamental aspect of adulting. It's the conscious choice to prioritize our well-being, so we can show up fully in our work, relationships, and lives.   At the core of self-care is emotional intelligence: the ability to recognize, understand, and manage our emotions. When we are emotionally aware, we can better navigate stress, prevent burnout, and make more thoughtful decisions. Self-care begins with self-awareness—taking time to assess where we are emotionally, physically, and mentally. Once we know where we stand, we can move toward self-management: creating strategies that help us maintain balance, set boundaries, and respond to life's demands in a healthy way.   Self-care also requires us to examine our priorities. What really matters to us, and how do we protect and nurture those values? As adults, it's our responsibility to care for what's most important—not just for others, but for ourselves. When we take care of our own needs, we have the energy, focus, and resilience to show up and do the work that matters, whether it's at home, in our careers, or in our communities.   Tune in for more on how self-care is not about escaping responsibilities, but rather how it's about embracing them fully, with the emotional and physical resources we need to succeed. It's adulting at its finest.

Mary Benedict with Central College discusses the Season of Gratitude at Central College and their annual food drive taking place this week.

This episode is brought to you by the Change Makers Certification Program!  Sinikka Waugh - Connect with me on either LinkedIn or send me an email! Founder, Owner, Trainer, and Coach Sinikka Waugh, PMP, President and CEO of Your Clear Next Step, spends her days helping people have better workdays. Trainer, coach, business leader, and difference maker, Sinikka is known for consistently helping people solve problems and get things done at work. With a 20+ year background in languages, literature, and project management, Sinikka has helped over 50,000 people have better workdays since 2008. Her clients value how her professionalism blends seamlessly with her down-to-earth, “try this now” approach and her passion for helping others. Sinikka holds a BA from Central College, an MA from the University of Iowa, and is a certified Project Management Professional through the Project Management Institute (PMI).

On today’s program, listen to special feature about Harry Smith teaching a course at Central College.

Episode #461 Preventing/Rehabbing Injury Sunday, May 24, 2020 6:59 AM Welcome Welcome to Episode #461 of the 303 Endurance Podcast. We're your hosts Coach Rich Soares and standing in for Bill Plock is my good friend and last week's guest interview, Coach April Spilde. Thanks for joining us for another week of endurance news, coaching tips and discussion.   Coach April Spilde April.spilde@tridot.com Grit2Greatness Endurance Podcast Podcast Series - Apple Podcasts   Show Sponsor: UCAN UCAN created LIVSTEADY as an alternative to sugar based nutrition products. LIVSTEADY was purposefully designed to work with your body, delivering long-lasting energy you can feel. Whether UCAN Energy Powders, Bars or Gels, LIVSTEADY's unique time-release profile allows your body to access energy consistently throughout the day, unlocking your natural ability to finish stronger and recover more quickly!    In Today's Show Feature Interview with Megan Davis, Board-Certified Orthopedic Clinical Specialist Triathlon News/Updates - T-100 Vegas Ask A Coach - Two Coaches Two Questions Two Answers   Feature Interview: Megan Davis   Dr. Megan Davis is a Colorado native moving back to the Denver area after completing her bachelor's degree in Exercise Science from Central College in Pella, Iowa and her Doctorate in Physical Therapy from A.T. Still University in Mesa, Arizona. Megan's passion for Physical Therapy started when she developed a love for learning about the human body in her college anatomy course in high school as well as playing many competitive sports. She continued on to play collegiate tennis and basketball where she underwent multiple injuries and physical therapy herself. Meet Dr. Megan Davis, a Proud Mend Colorado Doctor 303Triathlon News and Updates:   Ruth Chepngetich of Kenya sets women's world record in Chicago Marathon - CBSSports.com   How to watch the free PTO T100 Vegas livestream The women's race kicks off at 8:15 a.m. Pacific/11:15 a.m. Eastern Saturday, October 19, with the men's race following at 2:00 p.m. Pacific/5:00 p.m. Eastern. The PTO T100 Vegas livestream will be free to watch live on Outside TV, and Outside+ members can view the race on demand after the finish anytime, on any device.   Rich Women Taylor Knibb India Lee Flora Duffy   April Paula Findley Lucy charles barkley Anne Haug   Men Sam Long Kyle Smith Martin Van Reil   April Sam Long Allistair Brownlee Jason West     Train With Coach Rich: TriDot Signup - https://app.tridot.com/onboard/sign-up/richsoares RunDot Signup - https://app.rundot.com/onboard/sign-up/richsoares     Train with Coach April: TriDot Signup - https://app.tridot.com/onboard/sign-up/aprilspilde

Retired national television journalist Harry Smith is teaching a college course in Iowa.

This fall, Central College will induct three new members to the Hall of Honor. We featured retired Sports Information Director Larry Happel (’81) on our last episode with a career retrospective. On this episode of Dutch Memories,

This episode is brought to you by the Change Makers Certification Program!  Sinikka Waugh - Connect with me on either LinkedIn or send me an email! Founder, Owner, Trainer, and Coach Sinikka Waugh, PMP, President and CEO of Your Clear Next Step, spends her days helping people have better workdays. Trainer, coach, business leader, and difference maker, Sinikka is known for consistently helping people solve problems and get things done at work. With a 20+ year background in languages, literature, and project management, Sinikka has helped over 50,000 people have better workdays since 2008. Her clients value how her professionalism blends seamlessly with her down-to-earth, “try this now” approach and her passion for helping others. Sinikka holds a BA from Central College, an MA from the University of Iowa, and is a certified Project Management Professional through the Project Management Institute (PMI).

This episode is brought to you by the Change Maker Certification Program! A solo episode where Sinikka discusses the idea that Not Everyone is Meant To Be In Your Tribe. Sinikka Waugh Founder, Owner, Trainer, and Coach Sinikka Waugh, PMP, President and CEO of Your Clear Next Step, spends her days helping people have better workdays. Trainer, coach, business leader, and difference maker, Sinikka is known for consistently helping people solve problems and get things done at work. With a 20+ year background in languages, literature, and project management, Sinikka has helped over 50,000 people have better workdays since 2008. Her clients value how her professionalism blends seamlessly with her down-to-earth, “try this now” approach and her passion for helping others. Sinikka holds a BA from Central College, an MA from the University of Iowa, and is a certified Project Management Professional through the Project Management Institute (PMI).

Dr. Mukul Dhakal is the general secretary and spokesperson of Rastriya Swatantra Party. Additionally, he is also a guest lecturer at the Central College of Business Management and was the former director of Raskot Hospital.

A long overdue episode featuring 3 national champions from the 2024 Outdoor National Meet. Megan Johnson and Caroline McMartin went 1-2 in the steeplechase from Central College. We speak to them about how cool it was going 1-2, the great year of Central College, and what they did to buy in. The Freshman sensation, Haley Schoeneggee of Vassar, fills us in how she went from high school to being a national champion. She was a high school state champion and credits having a target on her back in high school to prepare her for the National meets. Rainah Dunham of Ursinus College went into the Long Jump competition as the 13th seed and came away as the national champion. She goes into what changed about her training, how she handles these competitions and how cool her final jump in the triple jump to get 2nd was. Time Stamp: Central: 3:25 Haley: 26:26 Rainah: 46:00 How to Support D3 Glory Days: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠D3 Glory Days Venmo⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠We launched a Patreon!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscribe and leave us a review on Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Strava⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/d3glorydays/message

Jeff Jones (@jonseyjeff1) has spent the past four years as the Arkansas St. Red Wolves' Assistant Athletics Director for Athletics Performance. He has 19 years of coaching experience at the collegiate level, including prior stops working with football at Arkansas State, Boise State, Auburn and Appalachian State.  Jones came to Arkansas State owning previous Sun Belt Conference championships with both the Mountaineers (2019) and Red Wolves (2012), while also collecting an SEC title at Auburn in 2013 and WAC championships at Boise State in 2006, 2008 and 2009.  During his time at the four schools, they combined to play in 11 bowl games including the 2013 BCS National Championship game with Auburn. Jones earned his bachelor's degree in exercise science-health promotion from Central College in Pella, Iowa, in 2006 before going on to earn his master's degree in curriculum and instruction in foundational studies from Boise State University in 2011. He has worked under incredible coaches including chris Peterson and Butch Jones, an don the podcast this week shares his wealth of knowledge on athletic performance, character development, overcoming adversity, and more. Connect with Jeff at on IG @coach_jeffjones. NEW WOC MASTERMIND AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAM A you may have heard, we decided to cancel ou r2024 Way of Champions Conference, which opens up the opportunity for us to begin a year long mastermind and coach certification program in the Way of Champions and CTGP materials. If you want to simply take a deeper dive then ever offered before into your coaching and personal development, or work within your school or club improving coaching or transforming the culture, or you want to hit the road as a speaker and presenter working with teams and youth sports organizations, we will give you the tools and support to do so. We are collecting names who are interested at this moment in learning more, you can do so by clicking here and adding your name and email to the list.  PUT IN YOUR BULK BOOK ORDERS FOR OUR BESTSELLING BOOKS! Programs such as UNC soccer and lacrosse, Syracuse lacrosse, Stanford Lacrosse, Middlebury College, Colby College, Rutgers University, and many other champions are using THE CHAMPION TEAMMATE book with their athletes. Schools and clubs are using EVERY MOMENT MATTERS for staff development and book clubs. Are you?  We have been fulfilling numerous bulk orders for some of the top high school and collegiate sports programs in the country, will your team be next? Click here to visit John's author page on Amazon Click here to visit Jerry's author page on Amazon Please email John@ChangingTheGameProject.com if you want discounted pricing on 10 or more books on any of our books. Thanks everyone. This week's podcast is brought to you by our friends at Sprocket Sports.  Sprocket Sports is a new software platform for youth sports clubs.  There are a lot of these systems out there, but Sprocket provides the full enchilada. They give you all the cool front-end stuff to make your club look good– like websites and marketing tools – AND all the back-end transactions and services to run your business better so you can focus on what really matters – your players and your teams. Sprocket is built for those clubs looking to thrive, not just survive, in the competitive world of youth sports clubs.  So if you've been looking for a true business partner – not just another app – check them out today at https://sprocketsports.me/CTG. Become a Podcast Champion! This weeks podcast is also sponsored by our Patreon Podcast Champions. Help Support the Podcast and get FREE access to our most popular online courses, a $300 value. If you love the podcast, we would love for you to become a Podcast Champion, (https://www.patreon.com/wayofchampions) for as little as a cup of coffee per month (OK, its a Venti Mocha), to help us up the ante and provide even better interviews, better sound, and an overall enhanced experience. Plus, as a $10 per month Podcast Super-Champion, you will have access to never before released and bonus material, including: Downloadable transcripts of our best podcasts, so you don't have to crash your car trying to take notes! A code to get free access to our online course called “Coaching Mastery,” usually a $97 course, plus four other courses worth over $100, all yours for free for becoming a patron. Other special bonus opportunities that come up time to time Access to an online community of coaches like you who are dedicated listeners of the podcast, and will be able to answer your questions and share their coaching experiences  

Recent Pella Christian graduate Ellison Ritzert discusses her recent signing to continue her academic and dance careers at Central College next fall.

100 episodes of Even Better! 100+ ways shared with our audience with tips, tricks, ideas, ways to be even better! What better way to celebrate our 100th episode than a solo episode where Sinikka discusses the 10 Things That I Have Learned in the Years That I Have Been Running This Business?!    Sinikka Waugh Founder, Owner, Trainer, and Coach Sinikka Waugh, PMP, President and CEO of Your Clear Next Step, spends her days helping people have better workdays. Trainer, coach, business leader, and difference maker, Sinikka is known for consistently helping people solve problems and get things done at work. With a 20+ year background in languages, literature, and project management, Sinikka has helped over 50,000 people have better workdays since 2008. Her clients value how her professionalism blends seamlessly with her down-to-earth, “try this now” approach and her passion for helping others. Sinikka holds a BA from Central College, an MA from the University of Iowa, and is a certified Project Management Professional through the Project Management Institute (PMI).

Samuel Parker and Joe Lynch discuss DAT iQ: the metrics that matter. Samuel is Director of Product Marketing at DAT Freight & Analytics' Shipper segment. DAT operates the largest truckload freight marketplace in North America. Shippers, brokers, carriers, news organizations and industry analysts rely on DAT for trends and data insights based on a database of $150 billion in annual market transactions. DAT iQ provides freight intelligence to inform your budget and procurement strategies so you can navigate market volatility with greater confidence and agility. About Samuel Parker Samuel is the Associate Director for DAT Freight & Analytics' Shipper segment. This segment is in the growth stage of its evolution, serving large enterprise brands and their Logistics, Procurement and Supply Chain teams. Samuel is an experienced market strategy and product leader with over 10 years of experience in supply chain logistics and innovation, specializing in helping technology companies build high-performing Go-to-Market teams. Experienced in solutions marketing and portfolio development across SaaS, Supply Chain Software, and OEM Hardware. Samuel has his B.A. degree in Marketing Communications from Central College and Masters of Science degree in Corporate Marketing and Organizational Communications from Northeastern University. Samuel is a board member of CSCMP's Rocky Mountain Roundtable and is a Certified Product Marketing Manager (CPMM). He lives in Denver, Colorado with his wife and son. About DAT Freight & Analytics DAT Freight & Analytics operates the largest truckload freight marketplace in North America. Shippers, transportation brokers, carriers, news organizations and industry analysts rely on DAT for trends and data insights based on more than 400 million freight matches and a database of $150 billion in annual market transactions.Founded in 1978, DAT is a business unit of Roper Technologies (Nasdaq: ROP), a constituent of the Nasdaq 100, S&P 500, and Fortune 1000. Key Takeaways: DAT iQ: The Metrics that Matter In the podcast interview, Samuel Parker gave a freight market overview based on DAT's database of $150 billion in annual market transactions. In short, the market has more or less hit bottom, but a recovery will not occur until the first quarter of 2025 - give or take a quarter.   Predicting the freight market is always tough even for DAT, so follow them for the most up-to-date freight market trends and insights. The metrics that matter are from DAT IQ and are summarized below: RateView Analytics: Get the most up-to-date pricing data in the industry based on actual contribution data. Analyze pricing trends and pinpoint seasonal changes with 13-month pricing histories on each lane. Access accurate freight rate forecasts that are over 95% accurate on more than 7 million daily predictions. Gain full visibility into spot and contract rates by viewing average rates paid by brokers and shippers on more than 68,000 lanes. Network Analytics: Understand past, present, and future market conditions. Identify emerging trends, seasonal shifts, and underperforming aspects of your network. Source capacity with precision using supply and demand metrics and forecasts. Uncover cost-saving opportunities by optimizing underperforming lanes or carriers. Build a resilient and diversified portfolio by negotiating with incumbents or efficiently procuring new carriers. Analytics Services: Tap into DAT's in-house team of subject matter experts for one-time or ongoing engagements. Improve data hygiene with services such as data cleansing and aggregation. Integrate data from any DAT product or service to enhance and centralize internal workflows. Receive custom reporting solutions tailored to your business operations. Learn More About DAT iQ: The Metrics that Matter Samuel Parker | Linkedin DAT Freight & Analytics | Linkedin DAT Freight & Analytics | Shippers DAT | DAT iQ DAT | Speakers Freightvine Podcast - DAT MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics with Chris Caplice | The Logistics of Logistics Navigating Market Uncertainty with Sarah Bertram | The Logistics of Logistics The Logistics of Logistics Podcast If you enjoy the podcast, please leave a positive review, subscribe, and share it with your friends and colleagues. The Logistics of Logistics Podcast: Google, Apple, Castbox, Spotify, Stitcher, PlayerFM, Tunein, Podbean, Owltail, Libsyn, Overcast Check out The Logistics of Logistics on Youtube

John Moretta received his Ph.D. in history from Rice University. He is professor of history at Central College, Houston Community College, and teaches at the University of Houston. John joins me again to discuss the counterculture and the hippie movement and how the presidencies of figures like LBJ and Nixon were affected and influenced by the social change of the times. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/out-of-the-blank/support

On today's Hearthstone Let's Talk Pella, our Central College intern Paige Farrell sits down with Central Student Kallie Wallick and Assistant Dean of Students – Wellness Kristi Leonard to discuss the Out of the Darkness Walk Coming

This week on Inside the Headset – Presented by CoachComm, we sit down with Jeff McMartin, the Head Coach at Central College. In this conversation, Coach McMartin discusses why he got into coaching, getting to serve as the head coach at his alma mater, and being selected as the President of the AFCA this past January. Coach McMartin has served as the Head Coach at Central College for 20 years and the Dutch have never finished a season below .500 during his tenure.   Follow Coach McMartin and Central College Football on social media here:   @mac4fb & @CUI_Football  1:00 Getting started in the coaching profession, taking advantage of unexpected opportunities, working as a Graduate Assistant.  23:07 Getting your first full-time job, involving your family in decisions to move/change jobs, serving as a track coach and a football coach.   35:58 Sharpening your tools as you go throughout your career, flipping to the offensive side of the ball, taking your first coordinator job.   51:32 Taking your first head coaching job at your alma mater, finding success year after year, experience being a part of the AFCA.   

Longtime TV Broadcast Journalist Harry Smith discusses his return to the Central College campus this fall.

We welcome Dr. Shelley Axelson , Director of Bands at Radford University, to The Band Room! We dive into Shelley's origin story, the importance of being patient with yourself, teaching teachers, fostering student connections, and much more!Help support the Band Room Podcast by becoming a patron through Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/bandroompodHelp support the Band Room Podcast by getting your merch at the BRP Store http://www.bandroompod.com/storeMusic used in this episodeBRP Theme Music: Skyline by EKR HammellPerforming Ensemble: University of Toronto Wind EnsembleDr. Gillian MacKay – ConductorChasing Sunlight (Piano Version) by Cait NishimuraArranged and performed by Brian BarberAbout ShelleyDr. Shelley Axelson is currently the Director of Bands at Radford University in Virginia where she conducts the Wind Ensemble, Campus-Community Band, graduate conducting students, and teaches courses in the music education curriculum.  She was previously an Assistant Professor of Music Education and Assistant Director of Bands at Montclair State University in New Jersey for twelve years where her duties included conducting the Symphonic Band and teaching courses in conducting, instrumental methods, and music education.  She also served as an academic advisor, faculty advisor for Sigma Alpha Iota, and created a Campus Band and Pep Band so students majoring in a subject other than music would have an opportunity to continue their musical education and experiences.Dr. Axelson earned her undergraduate degree in music education from the University of South Florida, where she studied conducting with Jerry Junkin, Michael Votta, and Mallory Thompson.  She continued her training by earning a Master of Music degree in Conducting at the University of Michigan, where her principal teacher was H. Robert Reynolds.   After graduating from Michigan, she taught at Pasco Middle School in Dade City, Florida (co-author of the Secondary Music Curriculum), and Richardson Junior High in Richardson, Texas.After earning her Doctorate in Conducting with Mallory Thompson at Northwestern University, Dr. Axelson was appointed Director of Bands at Central College in Pella, Iowa where she was responsible for running all aspects of the band program.  After three years in Iowa, she relocated to Indianapolis, Indiana to become the Assistant Professor of Music Education at the University of Indianapolis.  In 2009, she joined the faculty of the John J. Cali School of Music at Montclair State University in New Jersey and has been at Radford University since the fall of 2022.Dr. Axelson is a highly sought-after conductor, clinician, presenter, and adjudicator for professional development events, band festivals, honor bands, and conferences throughout the United States and Canada.  She recently presented at the National Association for Music Education Regional Conference in Atlantic City and the Mid-West Band and Orchestra Clinic in Chicago.Episode LinksRadford University School of Musichttps://www.radford.edu/content/cvpa/home/music.htmlUniversity of Toronto Wind Conducting Symposium 2024https://performance.music.utoronto.ca/conducting-symposium/BRP Consortium Projecthttps://www.bandroompod.com/consortiumSupport the showThe Band Room Podcast is proudly supported by Kaleidoscope Adventures! To learn more, visit: mykatrip.com

Dear Friends, In this season of Igniting Imagination, we are talking with leaders across disciplines who can help us name the realities of this moment and offer ways to claim the leadership needed to lean into God's call for a more loving world. This week's guest is Dr. Aaron Kuecker, President of Trinity Christian College in Chicago, and I can't wait for you to hear what they are doing on their campus to tend the wellbeing of their students. It is intentional and generous and nothing short of life-changing – from their approach to the funding model to how they are protecting the mid-week “Wellbeing Wednesday.” You can't help but think: What if all campuses were trying similar things? How would this generation be shaped for good? Perhaps we might all be a bit more grounded and generous and less despairing. I'm excited for you to meet Aaron and hear how truth-telling, transparency and a commitment to wellbeing is transforming individual lives, a campus, and a community. I hope it sparks a new imagination in you for what is possible in this season! By the grace of God, may it be so. LisaShow NotesSummaryOur guest is Dr. Aaron Kuecker, President of Trinity Christian College in Chicago. We can't wait for you to hear what they are doing at Trinity Christian to tend to the wellbeing of their students. It is intentional and generous and nothing short of life-changing – from their approach to the funding model to how they are protecting the mid-week “Wellbeing Wednesday.” You can't help but think: What if all campuses were trying similar things? How would this generation be shaped for good? Perhaps we might all be a bit more grounded and generous and less despairing. We are excited for you to meet Aaron and hear how truth-telling, transparency and a commitment to wellbeing is transforming individual lives, a campus, and a community. We hope it sparks a new imagination in you for what is possible in this season and if it does, let us know! Share with friends and leave us a review. In this conversation, you'll hear:Challenges college campuses are facing todayHow Christian theology led to prioritizing student wellbeingExploring a new economic model for higher educationLeading an established institution through significant changeAbout Aaron KueckerDr. Aaron Kuecker serves as president of Trinity Christian College. Before assuming this role, he had served as the College's provost since July 2016. His work as interim president and provost represent a sort of homecoming to the Trinity community. From 2008-2013, Kuecker was associate professor of theology and director of education at the College. In the intervening years, he served at LeTourneau University in Longview, Texas, most recently as dean of the School of Theology & Vocation, professor of theology, and director of the Honors College.Kuecker's academic work has largely focused on identity formation in the early Christian church, with an emphasis on New Testament studies and biblical theology. He received his Ph.D. in New Testament studies from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland; his M.Div., from Western Theological Seminary; and his B.A. in political science from Central College. Before earning his Ph.D., Kuecker served as associate pastor and youth pastor at Community Reformed Church in Zeeland, MI.For more information about Trinity Christian College, visit their website at https://www.trnty.edu/To view videos of podcast episodes, please go to the

Dr. Mukul Dhakal is the general secretary and spokesperson of Rastriya Swatantra Party. Additionally, he is also a guest lecturer at the Central College of Business Management and was the former director of Raskot Hospital.

In this inspiring episode, we sit down with Austin O'Brien, a semi-pro runner for Runablaze Iowa and certified mental performance coach. Austin's remarkable journey from an all-America college athlete to a dream of making it to the Olympic Trials is nothing short of extraordinary.We delve into Austin's story, which began with an unexpected transition from professional basketball aspirations to cross country. His rise in the sport led him to Central College, where he played a pivotal role in transforming the cross-country program. Yet, it was only the beginning of his incredible running adventure.Austin's determination and unwavering commitment to excellence drove him to pursue a marathon, an event he had never run before, with the goal of reaching the U.S. Olympic Trials. Against all odds, he achieved this dream, earning a spot among the contenders in Atlanta in 2020.However, as with any journey, there were setbacks and challenges, including a DNF at the Trials and the unexpected arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic. But for Austin, setbacks are opportunities for growth and motivation.Now, Austin O'Brien is setting his sights on the 2024 Olympic Trials, determined to become a true contender. He shares insights into his training regimen, mental preparation, and how he turns disappointments into fuel for success. Austin's dedication to improvement, both physically and mentally, is truly inspiring, and his story serves as a testament to the power of perseverance and unwavering belief in one's dreams.Tune in to gain valuable insights into the world of a dedicated athlete and mental performance coach who knows that success is a journey, not just a destination.

Central College Professor of Biology Russ Benedict, Professor of Art Mathew Kelly, and student Jocy Timmerman discuss the installation of their second student-designed sticker mural on the windows of the Roe Center in an effort to decrease

John Moretta received his Ph.D. in history from Rice University. He is professor of history at Central College, Houston Community College, and teaches at the University of Houston. John is back to discuss his understanding and examination of John F. Kennedy such as his policies on civil rights and the attitude towards the Vietnam war. John begins to share his perspective on the assassination and what can be learned from JFK and his short presidency. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/out-of-the-blank/support

Hello and welcome back to The Other 22!  Listen in as we have a great discussion with Matt Diehl about sports, Central College, and the Christian faith throughout different aspects of life.  We also have an update regarding the regionals cross country meet in Waverly, including the teams' bids for nationals and some individual highlights.  Tune in as there will be lots of great conversation and advice from campus favorite Matt Diehl!Follow us on Instagram! @_theother22_Check out our show website: https://theother22.buzzsprout.comGot ideas/topics for the podcast? Let us know by DMing the Instagram or reaching out to one of us hosts personally!

It's a creepy chapter of Indiana's history, but probably appropriate to explore during the season known for all things ghastly. Graverobbing in central Indiana had been an "open secret" for decades before several arrests in 1902 and subsequent trials drew national attention, according to Chris Flook, a public historian and senior lecturer at Ball State University's department of media. Rings of graverobbers in Indianapolis and Hamilton County had been plundering small cemeteries in the Hoosier capital city and rural cemeteries. They sold corpses to various medical schools that were desperate for cadavers. (These medical schools predated the formation of – and were unaffiliated with – the I.U School of Medicine.) Chris Flook, who will be Nelson's studio guest, describes the grisly conspiracies in a new book, "Indianapolis Graverobbing: A Syndicate of Death". Key figures in the graverobbing rings included Rufus Cantrell, an itinerant African American preacher known as the "King of the Ghouls", and his competitor, Hampton West, a white, former Confederate soldier who was based in Hamilton County. They were hired to ransack cemeteries by the medical schools, including the Central College of Physicians and Surgeons, that sought cadavers to use in training students. In his book, Chris Flook describes the impact of racism in the arrests and trials of the conspirators. "Racism played a decisive role in how the participants were adjudicated", Chris notes. "The Black graverobbers received a disproportionate amount of blame and punishment for a criminal conspiracy created, managed and maintained by white doctors at some of the medical schools."

Stephen Biddle, adjunct senior fellow for defense policy at CFR and professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University, leads the conversation on military strategy in the contemporary world. FASKIANOS: Welcome to today's session of the fall 2023 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic, if you would like to share them with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We're delighted to have Stephen Biddle with us to discuss military strategy in the contemporary world. Dr. Biddle is an adjunct senior fellow for defense policy at CFR and professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University. Before joining Columbia he was professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University. He regularly lectures at the U.S. Army War College and other military schools and has served on a variety of government advisory panels and analytical teams, testified before congressional committees on issues relating to the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria; force planning; conventional net assessment; and European arms control, just to name a few. And, finally, Dr. Biddle is the author of numerous scholarly publications and several books, including his most recent, Nonstate Warfare, published by Princeton University in 2021 and he just recently authored a piece in CFR's magazine Foreign Affairs in the September/October 2023 issue entitled “Back in the Trenches: Why New Technology Hasn't Revolutionized Warfare in Ukraine,” and we shared that out in the background readings for this conversation. So, Steve, thank you for being with us. I thought you could give us an overview of the changes you've seen in military operations as a result of technological innovation and say a few words about wartime military behavior especially as you've studied it over the years and what we're seeing now in Ukraine and now with the Israel-Hamas war. BIDDLE: Yeah, I'd be happy to. There's a lot going on in the world of military affairs and strategy at the moment between Gaza, Taiwan Straits, and, of course, Ukraine. Maybe as a conversation starter I'll start with Ukraine but we can go in whatever direction the group wants to go in, and the spoiler alert is in the headline of the article from Foreign Affairs that you've already assigned. There's a big debate over what Ukraine means for the future of warfare and what Ukraine means for the way the United States should organize its military, modernize its equipment, write its doctrine and so on. One of the most common interpretations of what Ukraine means for all this is that it's harboring—it's a harbinger of a revolutionary transformation. The new technology, drones, space-based surveillance, precision-guided weapons, hypersonics, networked information, artificial intelligence, this whole panoply of things in this argument is making the modern battlefield so lethal, so radically more lethal than the past is that in the present and in the future offensive maneuver will become impossible and we'll get the dawn of some new age of defense dominance in conventional warfare, which, if true, would then have all sorts of implications for how the United States should make all these kinds of defense policy decisions. As those of you who read the Foreign Affairs article know I don't buy it because I don't think the evidence is consistent with that supposition. You'll be happy to hear that I'm not planning to do a dramatic reading of the Foreign Affairs essay, entertaining as I'm sure that would be, but I did think it might be useful for me to briefly outline the argument as a way of teeing up the subsequent conversation. And the basic argument in the article is that whereas there are, indeed, all sorts of very new technologies in use in this war, when you actually look carefully at the results they're producing, at the attrition rates that they're actually causing, at the ability of the two sides to gain ground and to suffer the loss of ground, the actual results being produced by all this very new technology are surprisingly less new than is assumed and supposed in the argument that we're looking at some transformational discontinuous moment in which a new age of defense dominance is dawning. This doesn't mean that nothing's changing or that the United States military should do in the future exactly what it's done in the past. But the nature of the change that I think we're seeing is evolutionary and incremental as it has been for the last hundred years, and if you think what's going on is incremental evolutionary change rather than discontinuous transformation that then has very different implications for what the U.S. should do militarily. So just to unpack a little bit of that by way of pump priming let me just cite some of the examples of what one actually observes and the outcomes of the use of all these new technologies as we've seen in Ukraine. So let's start with casualty rates and attrition. At the heart of this argument that new technology is creating a new era of defense dominance is the argument that fires have made the battlefield so lethal now that the kind of offensive maneuver you saw in World War II or in 1967 or in 1991 is now impossible. And, yet, the actual attrition rates of, for example, tanks, right—tanks tend to be the weapon system that gets the most attention in this context—are remarkably similar to what we saw in the world wars. So in the first twelve months of the fighting in Ukraine, depending on whose estimates you look at the Russians lost somewhere between about half and about 96 percent of their prewar tank fleet in twelve months of fighting. The Ukrainians lost somewhat in excess of 50 percent of their prewar tank fleet, and intuitively that looks like a heavy loss rate, right? Fifty (percent) to 96 percent of what you opened the war with, that seems pretty—you know, pretty dangerous. But in historical context it's actually lower than it frequently was in World War II. In 1943, the German army suffered an attrition rate to the tanks it owned at the beginning of the year of 113 percent. They lost more tanks in 1943 than they owned in January 1943. Their casualty rate went up in 1944. They lost 122 percent of all the tanks they owned in January of 1944. So these attrition rates while high aren't unusually high by historical standards. What about artillery, right? Artillery is the single largest casualty inflicter on the modern battlefield defined as since the turn of the twentieth century, 1900. As far as we can tell the attrition rate from Ukrainian artillery fire of Russian forces in this war looks to be on the order of about eight casualties inflicted per hundred rounds of artillery fired and that's higher than in World War II but not discontinuously radically higher. In World War II that figure would have been about three casualties per hundred rounds fired. In World War I that figure would have been about two casualties per hundred rounds fired. If you chart that over time what you see is an essentially linear straight line incremental increase over a hundred years of about an additional .05 casualties per hundred rounds fired per year over a century of combat experience. There's no sudden discontinuous increase as a result of drones or networked information or space-based surveillance at the end of the period. What about ground gain and ground loss? The purpose of attrition on a modern battlefield is to change who controls how much territory and the whole transformation argument is that all this putatively much more lethal technology is making ground gain much, much harder than in the past, and yet the Russia offensive that opened the war, mishandled as it was in so many ways, took over 42,000 square miles of Ukraine in the first couple of months of the war. The Ukrainian Kyiv counteroffensive retook more than 19,000 square miles. Their Kharkiv counteroffensive retook 2,300 square miles. The Kharkiv counteroffensive took back more than 200 square miles. There's been plenty of defensive stalemate in the war, right? The Russian offensive on Bakhmut took ten months to take the city. Cost them probably sixty (thousand) to a hundred thousand casualties to do it. The Mariupol offensive took three months to take the city. But this war has not been a simple story of technologically determined offensive frustration. There have been offensives that have succeeded and offensives that have failed with essentially the same equipment. Drones didn't get introduced into the war in the last six months. Drones were in heavy use from the very outset of the fighting and this kind of pattern of some offensives that succeed, some offensives that don't, like the attrition rate is not particularly new. I mean, the popular imagination tends to see World War I as a trench stalemate created by the new technology of artillery and machine guns and barbed wire and World War II as a world offensive maneuver created by the new technologies of the tank, the airplane, the radio. Neither World War I nor World War II were homogeneous experiences where everything was defensive frustration of World War I and everything was offensive success in World War II. That wasn't the case in either of the two world wars. The Germans advanced almost to the doorsteps of Paris in the initial war opening offensive in 1914. In 1918, the German spring offenses broke clean through Allied lines three times in a row and produced a general advance by the Allies and the subsequent counteroffensive on a hundred-eighty-mile front. There was a lot of ground that changed hands in World War I as a result of offensives in addition to the great defensive trench stalemate of 1915 to mid-1917. In World War II some of the most famous offensive failures in military history were tank-heavy attacks in 1943 and 1944. The Battle of Kursk on the Russian front cost the German attackers more than a hundred and sixty thousand casualties and more than seven hundred lost tanks. The most tank-intensive offensive in the history of war, the British attack at Operation Goodwood in 1944, cost the British a third of all the British armor on the continent of Europe in just three days of fighting. So what we've seen in observed military experience over a hundred years of frequent observational opportunity is a mix of offensive success and defensive success with technologies that are sometimes described as defense dominant and, yet, nonetheless, see breakthroughs and technologies that are sometimes seen as offense dominant and, yet, sometimes produce defensive stalemates and what really varies is not so much driven by the equipment, it's driven by the way people use it. And the central problem in all of this is that military outcomes are not technologically determined. The effects of technology in war are powerfully mediated by how human organizations use them and there are big variations in the way human organizations use equipment. And if you just look at the equipment alone and expect that that's going to tell you what the result of combat is going to be and you don't systematically account for how the human organizations involved adapt to what the technology might do on the proving ground to reduce what it can do on the battlefield then you get radically wrong answers and I would argue that's what's going on in Ukraine. Both sides are adapting rapidly and the nature of the adaptations that we're seeing in Ukraine are very similar to the nature of the adaptations we've seen in previous great power warfare. Again, incremental lineal extensions of emphases on cover, emphases on concealment, combined arms, defensive depth, mobile reserve withholds—these are the ways that all great power militaries have responded to increasingly lethal equipment over time to reduce their exposure to the nominal proving ground lethality of weapons in actual practice. The problem is this collection of techniques—and in other work I've referred to them as the modern system, this kind of transnational epistemic community of practice and the conduct of conventional warfare—to do all these things right and minimize your exposure is technically very challenging. Some military organizations can manage this very complex way of fighting; others cannot. Some can do it on one front and not on another front, and the result is we get a lot of variance in the degree to which any given military at any given moment embraces the entirety of this doctrinal program. Where they do, defenses have been very hard to break through for a hundred years. This isn't something that came about in February of 2022 because of drones and networked information. This has been the case repeatedly for a century of actual combat. But where they don't, where defenses are shallow, where reserve withholds are too small, where combined arms aren't exploited, where cover and concealment isn't exploited, then casualty rates go way, way up. Then breakthrough becomes possible. Then attackers can gain a lot of ground with tanks or without tanks. The German offensives that broke clean through Allied defensive lines in 1918 had almost no tanks. The first of them, Operation Michael, was a one-million soldier offensive that had exactly nine tanks in support of it. So the differences that have mattered are the interaction of increasingly lethal technology with these variations and the ability of real human organizations to master the complexity needed to fight in a way that reduces exposure to this and that's the same thing we've seen in Ukraine. Where defenses have been shallow and haven't had enough reserves behind them you've gotten breakthroughs. Where they've been deep, adequately backed by reserves, as we've seen in this summer counteroffensive over the last three or four months, for example, they've not been able to break through and this isn't a new story. This is just a recapitulation of a hundred years' worth of military experience. If that's so then what difference does it make to the U.S.? So, again, as I suggested earlier, that doesn't mean don't change anything, right? A 1916 tank on a modern battlefield would not fare well. Part of the stability in these kinds of outcomes is because people change the way they do business. They change the way they fight. They update their equipment. They execute measure/countermeasure races and so we need to continue to do that. Depth is probably going to increase. Reserve withhold requirements are going to go up. Demands for cover and concealment are going to increase. There will be technological implications stemming from the particular measure/countermeasure races that are emerging now especially with respect to drones. Almost certainly the U.S. Army is going to have an incentive, for example, to deploy counter drone escort vehicles as part of the combined arms mix, moving forward. But the principle of combined arms that's behind so much of the way the U.S. Army fights is very unlikely to change very much. What's going to happen is a new element will be added to the combined arms mix, and escort jammers and anti-aircraft artillery and other air defense systems that are optimized for drones will become part of the mix of tanks and infantry and engineers and signals and air defense and all the rest, moving forward. The whole revolution argument, though, is not that, right? The reason people refer to this as a revolution, as transformation, is they're using language that's designed to tee up the idea that ordinary orthodox incremental updating business as usual isn't enough in this new era because of drones, because of hypersonics, or space-based surveillance or whatever. We need something more than that, and I think if we look closely at what's going on in Ukraine what we see is not an argument that we need to transform the way the U.S. military does business. What we see is an argument for incremental change that implies incremental adaptation is appropriate, that it's not the wrong thing to do. I think it's possible to over-innovate. I think there are ample historical examples of militaries that have gone wrong not by being resistant to innovation—there are plenty of those, too—but by doing too much innovation. In the 1950s and 1960s U.S. Air Force transformed itself around an idea that conventional warfare is a thing of the past, all wars of the future will be nuclear, and they designed airplanes for nuclear weapon delivery that were horribly ill-suited to the conventional war in Vietnam that they then found themselves in. The U.S. Army transformed its doctrine following a particular understanding of the lethality of precision-guided anti-tank weapons in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, adopted a concept called active defense that relied on static defense in a shallow disposition from fixed positions, emphasizing the ostensible new firepower of anti-tank weapons. Found that that was very innovative but very ineffective and abandoned it in favor of the airline battle doctrine that's a lineal descendant of the doctrine we use now, which was much more orthodox and conventional. There are plenty of examples of militaries that have over-innovated. This language of revolution and transformation is designed to promote what I'm concerned could be over-innovation again. I think we could talk more about the particulars of what incremental adaptation should comprise but I think that's the right way forward in light of what we actually observe about what's going on in Ukraine. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Thank you for that, Steve. That was great. Let's go now to all of you for your questions. (Gives queuing instructions.) And so don't be shy. This is your time. We have our first question from Terrence Kleven. Q: Hello. Can you hear me? FASKIANOS: We can. If you could tell us your affiliation that would be great. Q: Yes, very good. Terrence Kleven. I'm at Central College in Pella, Iowa, and I teach in a philosophy and religious studies department and I teach quite a lot of Middle Eastern studies. Thank you very much for your presentation because so much of this we don't talk about enough and we don't understand, and I appreciate the opportunity to hear what you have to say and look forward to reading your—some of your material. Just kind of a practical question, why aren't the Russians using more planes in this war or are they and we just don't have a report of that? I assume that the Russian air force is much superior to what the Ukrainians have but it doesn't seem to give them a great advantage. What's missing? What's going on? BIDDLE: Yeah. You're raising a question that has bedeviled military analysts in this war since its beginning. Part of the issue is the definition of what plane is, right? If we define a plane as something that uses aerodynamic lift to fly through the air and perform military missions the Russians are using lots of planes; they just don't have pilots. We call them drones. But a drone, to a first approximation, is just a particular inexpensive, low-performance airplane that is relatively expendable because it's inexpensive. But because it's inexpensive it's also low performance. If by airplanes one includes drones, then there's lots of airplane use going on. What you had in mind with the question, I'm sure, is the airplanes that have people in them—why aren't they more salient in the military conduct of the war, and the Russians have tried to use piloted aircraft. The trouble is the loss rates have kept them, largely, out of the sky. So this again gets back to the question of human adaptation to new technology. Air forces—and navies, by the way, but that's a different conversation—are much more exposed to more technology increases—the technology changes that produce increasing lethality than ground armies are. Ground armies have much easier access to cover and concealment. It's hard to find much cover and concealment up there in the sky, right? You're highlighted against a largely featureless background. There are things you can do as an air force to try and reduce your exposure to precision-guided anti-aircraft weapons and the U.S. Air Force, for example, practices those extensively. But the complexity of operating an air force to be effective at the mission called SEAD—suppression of enemy air defenses—is very high and it requires a lot of practice and it requires a lot of flight hours and it requires you to burn a lot of fuel in training, and the U.S. Air Force is willing to do that. The Russians historically have not. Therefore, they're not very good at it. Therefore, they're very—they have been very exposed to the lethality precision-guided Ukrainian anti-aircraft defenses and, therefore, they've mostly decided not to expose themselves to this fire. They fly mostly over friendly terrain, especially in metropolitan Russia, and they fly at low altitudes that keep them under the radar, which is a cliché that's leached into public conversation because of the actual physics of the way radar works and responds to the curvature of the earth. If the Russians operate over Russian territory at low altitude and launch cruise missiles at huge distances then their airplanes don't get shot down as much. But then the airplanes are a lot less effective and contribute a lot less and that's the tradeoff that the Russians have accepted with respect to the use of airplanes. The airplanes they use a lot are unpiloted cheap low-performance drones which they are willing to get shot down in huge numbers and they do get shot down in huge numbers. But piloted aircraft have played a limited role because the air defense environment is too lethal for an air force with skills no better than the Russians are to survive in it. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Mike Nelson. Q: Thanks for a very interesting overview. I work at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and also have taught at Georgetown on internet policy and the impacts of digital technologies. Seems to me that one of the big changes with this war has been the incredible transparency, more information on what's actually going on on the ground from social media, satellite photos, drone photos. I saw a tweet today about how they're able to infer how many Russian soldiers have mutinied by counting these soldiers marching back from the front, presumably under armed guard. It just seems that there's a lot more information on what's going on hour by hour. I wonder if that is causing some changes on both the Russian and the Ukrainian side and whether the insertion of disinformation to make it appear that things are going differently than it seems is also something that's getting better and better. Thank you. BIDDLE: Yeah. I mean, the information environment in Ukraine is complicated in ways that the debate often doesn't deal with very well, in my view. So starting at the superficial level, public perceptions of what the lethality of first-person view kamikaze drones has been against tanks and artillery are wildly exaggerated and the reason why the public impression is wildly exaggerated is because the medium formerly known as Twitter puts up endless videos of successful attacks. But nobody posts a video of their failed attack so we only see the subset of all drone missions that succeeded. The ones that don't are invisible. Therefore, the public gets this impression that all—that there are successful drone missions by the millions all the time and that that's—there are serious selection effects with the way the public understands drone success rates in light of that. So one point is that the apparent transparency is subject to a variety of selection biases that lead to misunderstandings of the transparency on the battlefield as a whole. Similarly, there are lots of videos of images of Russian soldiers in a trench and especially videos of Russian soldiers in a trench before a quadcopter drone drops a grenade on them and then kills them. You don't see any video feeds of a drone flying over a camouflaged position where you can't see anything because nobody's going to post that, right? It's not interesting enough. But, therefore, again, we get the selection effect. People believe that everything is visible and everything is transparent because every video feed they see, and they see a lot of them, shows a visible target. The trouble is you're not seeing the failed drone missions that didn't produce a visible target and those are the vast majority as far as we can tell from more careful analyses that try to look at the totality of drone missions rather than just the selected subset that appear on now X, formerly Twitter. Now, that leads to the general issue of how transparent is the modern battlefield and I would argue that the modern battlefield is a lot less transparent than people popularly imagine that it is. The cover and concealment available in the earth's surface to a military that's capable of exploiting it is still sufficient to keep a sizeable fraction of both militaries' targets invisible to the other side most of the time and that's why the artillery casualty rate hasn't gone up dramatically as a result of all this. It's because cover and concealment is still keeping most of the targets out of the way. So I would argue the battlefield is less transparent than we often assume that it is and in part that's because the systems that would generate information are countered by the other side so that they generate less information. Again, take drones, which have been the thing that everybody's been focusing on. There have been multiple waves of measure/countermeasure races just on the technical side, setting aside technical adaptation, with respect to drones already. When the war opened the primary drone in use, especially on the Ukrainian side, was the Bayraktar TB2, Turkish-built large, you know, capable, fairly expensive drone which was very lethal against exposed Russian armored columns. Then several things happened. One is the armored columns decided to get less exposed. Smart move on the Russians' part. The other thing is the air defense system under the Russians adapted and started shooting down Bayraktar TB2s at a huge rate to the point where the Ukrainians stopped flying them because they were so vulnerable and, instead, drones shifted from big expensive higher performance drones to smaller, cheaper, lower performance drones, which were so cheap that it didn't make sense to fire expensive guided anti-aircraft missiles at them anymore and then the air defense environment shifted to emphasize jamming, which is even cheaper than the drones, and anti-aircraft artillery firing bullets that are cheaper than drones. So the systems that would create this transparency and that would give you this information don't get a free ride. The opponent systematically attacks them and systematically changes the behavior of the target so that the surviving seekers have less to find, and in addition to cover and concealment and complementary to it is dispersion and what dispersion of ground targets does is even if you find a target it may very well not be worth the expenditure of an expensive precision munition to kill. A guided 155-millimeter artillery shell costs on the order of a hundred thousand dollars a shell. If you're shooting it at a concentrated platoon of enemy infantry that's a good expenditure. If you're shooting it at a dispersed target where they're in one- or two-soldier foxholes now even if you know where all the foxholes are—even if your drones have survived, the concealment has failed and the drone has accurately located where every single two-soldier foxhole is does it make sense to fire a $100,000 guided artillery shell at each of them or are you going to run out of guided artillery shells before they run out of foxholes, right? So the net of all of this—the technical measure/countermeasure race and the tactical adaptation is that I would argue that the battlefield is actually not as transparent as people commonly assume. If it were we'd be seeing much higher casualty rates than what we're actually seeing. There's incremental change, right? The battlefield is more transparent now, heaven knows, than it was in 1943. But the magnitude of the difference and the presence of technical measures and countermeasures is incremental rather than transformational and that's a large part of the reason why the change in results has been incremental rather than transformational. FASKIANOS: So we have a lot of questions but I do want to just ask you, Steve, to comment on Elon Musk's—you know, he shut down his Starlink satellite communications so that the Ukrainians could not do their assault on the—on Russia. I think it was the submersible—they were going to strike the Russian naval vessels off of Crimea. So that, obviously—the technology did affect how the war was—the battlefield. BIDDLE: It did, but you'll notice that Crimea has been attacked multiple times since then and metropolitan Russia has been attacked multiple times since then. So there are technical workarounds. On the technical side rather than the tactical side there are multiple ways to skin a cat. One of these has been that the U.S. has tried to make Ukraine less dependent on private satellite communication networks by providing alternatives that are less subject to the whims of a single billionaire. But tactical communications of the kind that Starlink has enabled the Ukrainians are very useful, right? No doubt about it, and that's why the U.S. government is working so hard to provide alternatives to commercial Starlink access. But even there, even if you didn't have them at all the Ukrainian military wouldn't collapse. I mean, in fact, most military formations were taught how to function in a communications-constrained environment because of the danger that modern militaries will jam their available communication systems or destroy communication nodes or attack the satellites that are providing the relays. Certainly, the U.S. military today is not prepared to assume that satellite communications are always going to be available. We train our soldiers how to operate in an environment in which those systems are denied you because they might be. So, again, I mean, tactical adaptation doesn't eliminate the effects of technological change—having Starlink, being denied Starlink, right, this Musk-owned communication satellite constellation that was the source of all the kerfuffle. It's not irrelevant whether you have it or not but it's less decisive than you might imagine if you didn't take into account the way that militaries adapt to the concern that they might be denied them or that the enemy might have them and they might not, which are serious concerns. Certainly, if the U.S. and Russia were true belligerents both the danger of anti-satellite warfare destroying significant fractions of those constellations is serious, or jamming or otherwise making them unavailable is a serious problem so militaries try to adapt to deal with it—with their absence if they have to. FASKIANOS: Great. We have a question—a written question from Monica Byrne at—a student at Bard College: Can you share thoughts and strategy for Israel and Gaza, given the conditions in Gaza? BIDDLE: Yeah. So shifting gears now from Ukraine to the Middle East, given Israel's declared war aim, right—if Israel's aim is to topple the Hamas regime and then hopefully replace it with something that's another conversation. But let's for the moment just talk about the military dynamics of realizing their stated war aim of toppling the Hamas regime. That will certainly require a ground invasion that reoccupies at least temporarily the entirety of Gaza, right? Airstrikes aren't going to accomplish that war aim. Special forces raids aren't going to accomplish that war aim. The Hamas administrative apparatus is, A, too large and, B, too easily concealed, especially underground, for those kinds of techniques to be sufficient. So if the Israelis really are going to topple Hamas a large-scale ground invasion is needed. That has obvious horrible implications for collateral damage and civilian fatalities in Gaza—urban warfare is infamously destructive of capital and of civilian human life—but also for military casualties to the Israelis. Urban warfare is a radically advantageous military environment for defenders and so Israel inevitably will take serious losses if they really expect to completely reoccupy Gaza as would be needed to depose Hamas. Now, there are ways that conventional militaries can try and reduce either the loss of innocent civilian life or casualty rates to their own forces but none of these things are perfect and the techniques militaries use to reduce civilian fatalities can be exploited by defenders who want to take advantage of them to increase Israeli military casualties and limit the Israelis' ability to limit collateral damage. You can fire only at identified targets and not at entire buildings. You can use small-caliber weapons rather than large-caliber artillery and missiles. You can warn the civilian occupants of a building either with leaflets or text messages or the Israeli technique that's called knocking on the roof where they drop a nonexplosive weapon on the ceiling to create a sound that tells the occupants they are about to be attacked so they leave. There are a variety of things like that that you can do and that the U.S. should hope that the Israelis are going to do. But the whole problem here is that the Hamas political and military infrastructure is deeply intermingled with the civilian population in Gaza, and so even if you're going to be as discriminating as modern technology and military skill potentially could make you, you're still going to kill a lot of civilians and Hamas is not going to conveniently remove the military infrastructure from the civilian population to make it easier for the Israelis to kill the fighters and not kill the civilians. They're going to keep them tightly intermingled. Now, the Israelis can reduce their losses by being slower and more deliberate and methodical in the way they enter Gaza. There's been a discussion in recent weeks about the difference between Mosul and Fallujah and the U.S. experience of urban warfare in Iraq. In Fallujah, we entered quickly with a large ground force that was fairly dependent on small arms direct fire and relatively less reliant on artillery and airstrikes. In Mosul with Iraqi allies on the ground, we did the opposite. Very slow entry. The campaign took months. Limited exposure, small-caliber weapons, heavy emphasis on airstrikes and artillery to reduce the ground—even so, thousands of civilians were killed in Mosul. Even so, our Iraqi allies took serious casualties. There's no way for the Israelis to do this Gaza offensive if they're going to realize their war aim that won't destroy Gaza, kill a lot of civilians, and suffer a lot of casualties themselves. All these things are marginal differences at the most. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Dan Caldwell. Q: Oh, Steve, thanks very much for a very interesting overview. I'd like to raise another subject that is, obviously, very broad but I would really appreciate your comments on it and that's the question of intelligence and its relationship to military operations that you've described. Broadly speaking, we can separate out tactical intelligence from strategic intelligence, and in the case of tactical intelligence the use of breaking down terrorists' cell phones' records and things like contributed to military successes in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a strategic sense, the breaking of the Japanese codes, Purple, and the Ultra Enigma secret in World War II contributed to the Allies' success, and in terms of the Middle East the strategic failures of Israeli intelligence in 1973 and, I would argue, in the recent Hamas attacks contributed to the losses that Israel has suffered. So how do you think about the relationship of intelligence to military strategy? BIDDLE: Yeah. I mean, intelligence is central to everything in security policy, right? It's central to forcible diplomacy. It's central to preparation for war. It's central to the conduct of military. So intelligence underlies everything. All good decision making requires information about the other side. The intelligence system has to provide that. The ability of the intelligence system to create transformational change is limited. Let's take the national level strategic intelligence question first and then we'll move to things like Ultra and battlefield uses. As you know, the problem of military surprise has been extensively studied, at least since the 1973 war in which Israel was famously surprised by the Egyptian attack in the Sinai. There's been an extensive scholarly focus on this problem of intelligence failure and surprise—how can this possibly happen. And the central thrust of that literature, I would argue, has been that almost always after a surprise you discover later that the surprised intelligence system had information that should have told them an attack was coming. They almost always receive indicators. They almost always get photographic intelligence. All sorts of pieces of information find their way into the owning intelligence system. And yet, they got surprised anyway. How could this happen? And the answer is that the information has to be processed by human organizations, and the organizational challenges and the cognitive biases that individuals have when they're dealing with this information combine in such a way to frequently cause indicators not to be understood and used and exploited to avoid surprise and part of the reason for that—the details, of course, are extensive and complex. But part of the reason for that is you get indicators of an attack that didn't—that then didn't happen way more often than you get the indicators of the attack that does happen. You get indicators all the time but usually there's no attack and the trick then is how do you distinguish the indicator that isn't going to become an attack from the indicator that is going to become the attack when you've always got both. And if you—especially in a country like Israel where mobilizing the reserves has huge economic consequences, if you mobilize the reserves every time you get indicators of an attack you exhaust the country and the country stops responding to the indicators anymore. It's the cry wolf problem. I mean, the first couple of times you cry wolf people take it seriously. The eighth, ninth, tenth, twelfth time they don't. So because of this the ability to change, to do away with surprise, with, for example, new technology, all right, a more transparent world in which we have a better ability to tap people's cell phones and tap undersea cables to find out what governments are saying to themselves we have better ability to collect information. But there are still organizational biases, cognitive problems, and just the basic signal-to-noise, wheat-to-chaff ratio issue of lots and lots of information, most of which is about an attack that isn't going to happen. And distinguishing that from the ones that are going to happen is an ongoing problem that I doubt is going to be solved because it isn't a technological issue. It resides in the structure of human organizations and the way the human mind operates to filter out extraneous and focus on important sensory information, and human cognitive processes aren't changing radically and human organizations aren't either. So at the strategic level I don't see transformation coming soon. Then we've got the battlefield problem of what about intercepted communications, for example, which have changed the historiography of World War II in an important way. We'll note that that didn't cause the Allies to defeat the Germans in 1944, right? I mean, the Allies cracked the German and the Japanese codes long before the war ended and, yet, the war continued, and this gets back to this question of how militaries adapt to the availability of information about them on the other side. At sea where there's not a lot of terrain for cover and concealment, right, then these kinds of communications intercepts were more important and as a result the Japanese navy was, largely, swept from the Pacific long before the war ended in 1945. But wars are ultimately usually about what goes on on land, and on land even if you intercept people's communications if they're covered, concealed, dispersed, and in depth being able to read German communications, which we could do in 1944, didn't enable us to quickly break through, rapidly drive to Berlin and end the war three months after the Normandy invasions. In spite of the fact that we could read the communications traffic we couldn't do those things because the communications traffic is only part of success and failure on the battlefield. So if that was the case in World War II where we had, you know, unusually good comment and usually good ability to break the enemy's codes and read their message traffic, again, I would argue that improvements in intelligence technology today were certainly helpful, and they're worth having and we should pursue them and use them, but it's not likely to transform combat outcomes in a theater of war any more than—to a radically greater degree than it did when we had that kind of information in 1944. FASKIANOS: So I'm going to combine the next two questions because they're about innovation from the Marine Corps University and Rutgers University: You mentioned over innovation. Can you explain what that is and how it can be detrimental? And then are you concerned that the Department of Defense R&D program could be at risk of being out of balance by over emphasizing advanced technology versus getting useful technology deployed and into the field? BIDDLE: I think that's one of the most important implications of this war is that the United States has historically chosen to get way out on the envelope of what technology makes possible for weapon acquisition, creating extremely expensive weapons that we can buy in very small numbers that we evaluate and we decide to buy because of their proving ground potential because what they can do against targets that haven't adapted to them yet. What the record of adaptation in Ukraine, I think, shows is that the actual lethality of very sophisticated weapons is not as high as it looks on a proving ground because the targets are going to be noncooperative and the real-world performance of extremely expensive sophisticated technologies is normally less than it looks, and if that's the case we are probably overspending on very sophisticated, very expensive weapons which we can only buy in very small numbers and which if they don't produce this radical lethality wouldn't be worth the expenditure that they cost. And if the adaptation of the target is going to reduce their lethality and increase their vulnerability, which is certainly what we're observing in Ukraine, then we're going to have a dickens of a time replacing them when they get lost, right, because very sophisticated high technology weapons, among other things, require a supply chain of materials that are often quite scarce—rare earths, cobalt, lithium. One of the reasons why the American Defense Industrial Base has had a hard time responding rapidly to the demands that the expenditure rate of things in Ukraine has created is because of these complicated supply chains that we can manage when we're building things in small numbers, which we think is sufficient because we're expecting that each one of them is going to be tremendously lethal. If we now realize that they're less lethal in practice than we expect them to be and therefore we need larger numbers of them, how are we going to get the materials we need to do that? And the experience in Ukraine has been that the kind of revolution in military affairs expectation for the lethality of high technology just hasn't been realized. Yes, weapons are very lethal in Ukraine, but not orders of magnitude differently than they were in 1944, right, and so I think this ought to suggest to us that the historical post-World War II U.S. strategy emphasizing very high technology at very high cost in very small numbers to compensate for small numbers with radical lethality may very well be misguided. It works well when you're fighting an opponent like the Iraqis who can't handle the complexity of cover and concealment, combined arms, and all the rest. They're exposed and the weapons have the kind of proving ground effect that you expect because the targets are not undercover. Not clear that it has been producing that kind of results in Ukraine and it's not clear that it would produce those kinds of results for the United States in a coming great power conflict. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going take the next question from Genevieve Connell at the Fordham graduate program in international political economy and development. How much does successful military strategy rely on stable domestic economic systems to fund it or is this less of an issue when one or both sides have strong geopolitical support and aid? BIDDLE: War is very expensive, as the Ukraine war is reminding us, right? This isn't news. The expenditure rates in modern industrial age warfare are massively expensive to maintain and that in turn means that the strength of the national economy is a fundamental foundational requirement for success in modern great power warfare. This, of course, leads to the set of tradeoffs that are fundamental in grand strategy, right? Grand strategy, as opposed to operational art, military strategy, or tactics, integrates military and nonmilitary means in pursuit of the ultimate security objectives of the state and one of the more important of the nonmilitary means is the economy. So you need a large GDP to support a large expensive war effort. The way you maximize GDP is with international trade. International trade makes you vulnerable to cutoff in time of war through blockade. Therefore, if we just maximize GDP in the short run we run the risk—we increase our vulnerability in time of war or blockades. We say: Oh, no, we don't want to do that. Let's reduce the amount of international trade we do, make ourselves more self-sufficient. Now GDP growth rates go down and now the size of the military you can support in steady state goes down. There's a fundamental tradeoff involving the interaction between classically guns and butter in the way you design the economy in support of the grand strategy you have in mind for how you're going to pursue your security interest in the international system at any given time. So, yeah, a productive expanding economy is essential if you plan to be able to afford the cost of modern warfare. The implications for what that means for things like international trade, though, are complicated. FASKIANOS: Great. I'll try to sneak in one last question from David Nachman. Q: Thank you. Thank you for this really interesting presentation. I teach at the Yale Law School, nothing related to the topic of today's submission and discussion. I'm just wondering, and you captured it towards the end here where you said something about wars are won and lost on land. With the advent of cyber and all the technological development that we're seeing in our armed forces is that still true as a matter, you know, and are we—is the Ukraine and even Gaza experience sort of nonrepresentative of the true strategic threats that the United States as opposed to its allies really faces at sea and in the air? BIDDLE: Yeah. Let me briefly address cyber but then extend it into the sea and the air. One of the interesting features of cyber is it's mostly been a dog that hasn't barked, at least it hasn't barked very loudly. There were widespread expectations as Russia was invading that cyberattacks would shut down the Ukrainian economy, would shut down the Ukrainian military effort, or vice versa, and neither of those things have happened. So I don't—there have been plenty of cyberattacks, right, and there have been plenty of efforts at break in and surveillance and manipulation. So far none of them have been militarily decisive and it's an interesting and I think still open question for the cyber community about why that has been so and what, if anything, does that tell us about the future of cyber threats to national military projects. But so far it hasn't radically—it hasn't produced a result that would have been different in the pre-cyber era. Now, when I say wars are won on land what I mean by that is that people live on the land, right? People don't live in the air and people don't live on the surface of the water. People live on land. Economies are on land. Populations are on land. That means that usually the stakes that people fight wars over are things having to do with the land. That doesn't mean that navies and air forces are irrelevant. We own a large one. I'm in favor of owning a large one. The Navy—my friends in the Navy would be very upset if I said otherwise. But the purpose of the Navy is to affect people who live on the land, right? In classic Mahanian naval strategy the purpose of the Navy is destroy the opposing fleet, blockade the enemy's ports, destroy the enemy's commerce, and ruin the land-based economy and it's the effect of the land-based economy that causes surrender or compromise or concession to the opponent or whatever else ends the war in ways that you hope are favorable to you. What this means then is that especially where we're dealing with large continental powers like Russia, classically—China's an interesting sub case but let's talk about Russia—the ability to influence the Russian decision-making calculus that leads to an end to a war or the beginning of a war without affecting the life of people on land is very limited. Cyber has not proven able to do that. Air attack historically has not been a good tool for doing that. Navies do that by affecting the land-based economy and I don't see that changing rapidly anytime soon. FASKIANOS: Well, Steve, thank you very much for this really insightful hour. I'm sorry to all of you we couldn't get to the questions, raised hands, so we'll just have to have you back. And thanks to all those of you who did ask questions. I commend to you, again, Steve Biddle's Foreign Affairs piece, “Back in the Trenches,” and hope you will read that. Our next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday, November 8, at 1:00 p.m. (EST) with José Miguel Vivanco, who is an adjunct senior fellow here for human rights, to talk about human rights in Latin America. So, Steve, thank you again. BIDDLE: Thanks for having me. FASKIANOS: And I—yes. And I'd just encourage you all to learn about CFR paid internships for students and fellowships for professors at CFR.org/careers. Our tenured professor and our fellowship deadlines is at the end of October. I believe it's October 31, so there's still time. And you can follow us on X at CFR_Academic. Visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Thank you all again for being with us today. (END)

Sinikka Waugh, PMP, President and CEO of Your Clear Next Step, spends her days helping people have better workdays. Trainer, coach, business leader, and difference maker, Sinikka is known for consistently helping people solve problems and get things done at work. With a 20+ year background in languages, literature, and project management, Sinikka has helped over 50,000 people have better workdays since 2008. Her clients value how her professionalism blends seamlessly with her down-to-earth, “try this now” approach and her passion for helping others. Sinikka holds a BA from Central College, an MA from the University of Iowa, and is a certified Project Management Professional through the Project Management Institute (PMI).   To connect with Sinnika Waugh - https://www.yourclearnextstep.com or Your Clear Next Step on the socials   To get in touch with Tyler - www.tylerkamerman.com

John Moretta received his Ph.D. in history from Rice University. He is professor of history at Central College, Houston Community College, and teaches at the University of Houston. John joins me once again to discuss the importance of history and how an understanding of a countries past can best predict a nations future. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/out-of-the-blank/support

John Moretta received his Ph.D. in history from Rice University. He is professor of history at Central College, Houston Community College, and teaches at the University of Houston. John is the author of "The Hippies: A 1960s History" and other various works on history and the political/social change of the times. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/out-of-the-blank/support