Fa-la-la-la… hear that? That’s the sound of the fat lady singing. That means my Afghan adventure is over.
After 18 months, it was time. Basically, I had outlived my usefulness, given the changes going on in the South of Afghanistan. That was actually a good thing, as my position was going away due to changes in the support contracts. So, rather than wait for the boat to sink, I jumped ship a little early to avoid the turmoil.
My farewells were both wonderful and a bit anticlimactic. The Afghans were genuinely sorry to see me go and presented me with many honors and gifts. Most important to me was when the senior officers of both the Afghan Army and Police presented me with my former military rank (Lieutenant Colonel) in Afghan Army and Police Insignias. I had told them early on that, if they thought I had earned them, that that would be the highest honor I could imagine, and far more meaningful than a rug or a vase or a plaque. They came through, the Police even promoting me to full Colonel (although that may have been just to “show up” the Army ;-) ). Several Afghan officers also provided personal gifts for my wife and children. I am humbled by their generosity and honored by their respect. The anticlimax came with the Americans – after 18 months of living on the FOB, managing the internet service, and helping out whenever I could, I was told that it was “not convenient” for them to run me into KAF to start my outprocessing. Instead, they helped me coordinate a run in with another team – and changed the time/date three times in three days. Oh well, Doris Day sang it best… “Que sera sera.” I wish them the best of luck and success as they finish their tours.
Have been home for two weeks now. Very strange reintegrating into routine “home-life”. Having more than 81 square feet to live in is a huge difference. For 18 months I lived in a 9ft x 9ft box, with all my worldly possessions crammed inside. Now I’m rattling around my 1900 square foot ranch style and have found myself misplacing things all the time. Also strange to share this living space with three other people (wife and two boys) and the dog. I was used to a much more private/solitary existence. Don’t get me wrong, these are good things to get used to, as is not having to get completely dressed to go to the bathroom at 3am, having a very comfortable bed to sleep in, and being able to “pop down to Lowe’s, Walmart, Albertson’s, etc.) whenever we need something, instead of having to plan it for the next KAF/PX run.
“We’re” going to win in Afghanistan, but not because of any great strategic or tactical thinking on the part of McChrystal or Petraeus or Obama. “We’re” going to win because the forces of modernity have established a beachhead into Afghan culture that cannot be undone. Cell phones, satellite television, and the internet are “corrupting” the conservative Pashtun/Taliban culture beyond all repair. Between the cultural corruption and the actual corruption, Afghanistan will never be the same. Think Vietnam after we pulled out in 1975. It went through a repressive period, then, strangely, began to modernize and embrace Western “values”. It was the younger generation that had grown up with the Americans that did it – as they aged and took over the reins of power, they remembered what was good and put it to use. The young Afghans will do the same thing, trust me.
The “builders” always beat the “destroyers” in the end. Most young Pashtuns I worked with loved to see pictures of Western Cities. Many of them had been to “big” cities before – Kabul has several million now, Quetta is over a million, Peshawar and Karachi are several million each – but they all look dated next to the BIG cities of the West – New York, Hong Kong, Singapore – with all of their high-rises and vibrant economies. Google Earth was a wonderful tool to show these young Afghans that we are no strangers to urban sprawl – and that we’ve figured out how to ensure that all those houses all have affordable electricity 99.99% of the time, as opposed to the 20% or less time that the Afghans have in Kandahar. Try running a business when you only have power 8 hours out of every 48 (and it may be between midnight and 8 am). All I had to do was show pictures of high rise buildings, then ask the question “When’s the last time the Taliban built a high-rise? – when’s the last time the Taliban built ANYTHING?” Then I’d show them a picture of the Taliban blowing up the statues of Buddha in Bamian. Believe me, they got it. One interpreter, on seeing a picture of an 8-lane freeway full of speeding traffic asked, incredulously, “How do you stop and check for bombs?” He was amazed and at first refused to believe us when we told him that we do not have IEDs on our roads. He asked several other Americans to verify that we weren’t pulling his leg. He could not imagine a road without the danger of IEDs – but he can now.
As for me – I’m starting an exciting new business promoting proper nutrition and wellness. I’m promoting a product called Isagenix™ and I’m VERY impressed with both the product and the company. If you have stubborn pounds you need to lose or think you or your family could be healthier, please, check out www.isagenix.com to get an idea of what I’m talking about, then, if you think you could be both healthier and potentially wealthier, contact me and let me show you why I’m so excited about this.
This is also an energy thing for me – for 20+ years, I’ve been working in the Intelligence Community. Basically, my job has been to forecast the worst possible things that anyone could do and help my commanders plan to mitigate or eliminate the potentials. All of this has smacked of negative energy, and frankly, I’m tired of it, as good as I might be at it. With Isagenix™, I am helping people better themselves, from a positive energy position. It’s much more exciting and energizing to work from this position.
As for the blog here, it will stand for now – but this will be the last entry, methinks. I’m going to start up a new blog to go along with my new career. Check out www.astrolabealley.blogspot.com for my further adventures and musings.
As the dolphins said to the Earth in Douglas Adams’ “Hitchhiker’s Guide” series “So long, and thanks for all the fish!” See you on the flip side!
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
In Case You Doubted "The Politics of Fear"...
Just came across this in “The Politico”… link to original is here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866.html
XXXXXXXXX
Exclusive: RNC document mocks donors, plays on 'fear'
By: Ben Smith
March 3, 2010 04:23 PM EST
The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism."
The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how “ego-driven” wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”
The presentation was delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart to top donors and fundraisers at a party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18, a source at the gathering said.
In neat PowerPoint pages, it lifts the curtain on the often-cynical terms of political marketing, displaying an air of disdain for the party’s donors that is usually confined to the barroom conversations of political operatives.
The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.
"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks.
The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”
Manipulating donors with crude caricatures and playing on their fears is hardly unique to Republicans or to the RNC – Democrats raised millions off George W. Bush in similar terms – but rarely is it practiced in such cartoonish terms.
One page, headed “The Evil Empire,” pictures Obama as the Joker from Batman, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid are depicted as Cruella DeVille and Scooby Doo, respectively.
The document, which two Republican sources said was prepared by the party’s finance staff, comes as Chairman Michael Steele struggles to retain the trust and allegiance of major donors, who can give as much as $30,400 a year to the party.
Under Steele, the RNC has shifted toward a reliance on small donors, but the document reveals extensive, confidential details of the strategy for luring wealthy checkwriters, which range from luxury retreats in California wine country to tickets to a professional fight in Las Vegas.
The 72-page document was provided to POLITICO by a Democrat, who said a hard copy had been left in the hotel hosting the $2,500-a-head retreat, the Gasparilla Inn & Club. Sources at the event said the presentation was delivered by Bickhart and by the RNC Finance Chairman, Peter Terpeluk, a former ambassador to Luxembourg under President George W. Bush.
The RNC reacted with alarm to a question about it Wednesday, emailing major donors to warn them of a reporter’s question, and distancing Steele from its contents.
“The document was used for a fundraising presentation Chairman Steele did not attend, nor had he seen the document,” RNC Communications Director Doug Heye said in an email. “Fundraising documents are often controversial.
“Obviously, the Chairman disagrees with the language and finds the use of such imagery to be unacceptable. It will not be used by the Republican National Committee – in any capacity – in the future,” Heye said.
The most unusual section of the presentation is a set of six slides headed “RNC Marketing 101.” The presentation divides fundraising into two traditional categories, direct marketing and major donors, and lays out the details of how to approach each group.
The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.”
Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.”
Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.”
The slide also allows that donors may have more honorable motives, including “Patriotic Duty.”
A major Republican donor described the state of the RNC’s relationship with major donors as “disastrous,” with veteran givers beginning to abandon the committee, which is becoming increasingly reliant on small donors.
The party’s average contribution in 2009, according to the document, was just $40, and the shift toward a financial reliance on the grassroots may help explain Steele’s increasingly strident tone toward the Obama Administration.
While the crude portrayal of Obama may be - as Steele ‘s spokesman put it - “unacceptable,” other elements of the presentation may be of equal interest to close political observers.
The RNC plans to raise $8.6 million from major donors alone in 2010, less than 10% of its total 2009 fundraising take, which was primarily from small donors."
The center of that plan is an extensive, and colorful, schedule of events. Along with traditional fundraisers with conservative luminaries including Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes, the party plans to raise $80,000 for a trip to London to meet David Cameron, the British Conservative Party leader, on September 17.
The RNC’s “Young Eagles” – younger major donors and the only group, according to a major donor, continuing to pull its weight financially – are invited to a “professional bull riding event” in October, expected to raise $50,000, and to a no-holds-barred Ultimate Fighting Championship fight in Las Vegas the same month, expected to raise $60,000.
The RNC’s aim, according to one section of the document: “Putting the Fun Back in FUNdraising.”
CORRECTION: The RNC raised a total of $81 million in 2009. An earlier version of this story understated that figure.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
So, there you have it in black and white – and here are the slides in question…
Cover Slide for the Presentation
Slide 29
Slide 30
Slide 31
Anyone out there still think that you’re not being played? Guess again.
Thanks to the Politico and Huffington Post for breaking this story!
Now in all fairness, this is not the exclusive domain of the RNC – the DNC used much the same strategy against G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney – which is exactly the point I’m trying to make All of the big industries – Politics, Banks, Insurance, Health Care, Religion, Manufacturing, Pharmaceuticals, Agriculture, etc. – all of them understand and use FEAR to manipulate you, the potential donor, buyer, consumer, etc.
One more week until I start my odyssey back to the US and the next chapter of my book of life. Hooah!
SLK
XXXXXXXXX
Exclusive: RNC document mocks donors, plays on 'fear'
By: Ben Smith
March 3, 2010 04:23 PM EST
The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism."
The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how “ego-driven” wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”
The presentation was delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart to top donors and fundraisers at a party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18, a source at the gathering said.
In neat PowerPoint pages, it lifts the curtain on the often-cynical terms of political marketing, displaying an air of disdain for the party’s donors that is usually confined to the barroom conversations of political operatives.
The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.
"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks.
The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”
Manipulating donors with crude caricatures and playing on their fears is hardly unique to Republicans or to the RNC – Democrats raised millions off George W. Bush in similar terms – but rarely is it practiced in such cartoonish terms.
One page, headed “The Evil Empire,” pictures Obama as the Joker from Batman, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid are depicted as Cruella DeVille and Scooby Doo, respectively.
The document, which two Republican sources said was prepared by the party’s finance staff, comes as Chairman Michael Steele struggles to retain the trust and allegiance of major donors, who can give as much as $30,400 a year to the party.
Under Steele, the RNC has shifted toward a reliance on small donors, but the document reveals extensive, confidential details of the strategy for luring wealthy checkwriters, which range from luxury retreats in California wine country to tickets to a professional fight in Las Vegas.
The 72-page document was provided to POLITICO by a Democrat, who said a hard copy had been left in the hotel hosting the $2,500-a-head retreat, the Gasparilla Inn & Club. Sources at the event said the presentation was delivered by Bickhart and by the RNC Finance Chairman, Peter Terpeluk, a former ambassador to Luxembourg under President George W. Bush.
The RNC reacted with alarm to a question about it Wednesday, emailing major donors to warn them of a reporter’s question, and distancing Steele from its contents.
“The document was used for a fundraising presentation Chairman Steele did not attend, nor had he seen the document,” RNC Communications Director Doug Heye said in an email. “Fundraising documents are often controversial.
“Obviously, the Chairman disagrees with the language and finds the use of such imagery to be unacceptable. It will not be used by the Republican National Committee – in any capacity – in the future,” Heye said.
The most unusual section of the presentation is a set of six slides headed “RNC Marketing 101.” The presentation divides fundraising into two traditional categories, direct marketing and major donors, and lays out the details of how to approach each group.
The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.”
Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.”
Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.”
The slide also allows that donors may have more honorable motives, including “Patriotic Duty.”
A major Republican donor described the state of the RNC’s relationship with major donors as “disastrous,” with veteran givers beginning to abandon the committee, which is becoming increasingly reliant on small donors.
The party’s average contribution in 2009, according to the document, was just $40, and the shift toward a financial reliance on the grassroots may help explain Steele’s increasingly strident tone toward the Obama Administration.
While the crude portrayal of Obama may be - as Steele ‘s spokesman put it - “unacceptable,” other elements of the presentation may be of equal interest to close political observers.
The RNC plans to raise $8.6 million from major donors alone in 2010, less than 10% of its total 2009 fundraising take, which was primarily from small donors."
The center of that plan is an extensive, and colorful, schedule of events. Along with traditional fundraisers with conservative luminaries including Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes, the party plans to raise $80,000 for a trip to London to meet David Cameron, the British Conservative Party leader, on September 17.
The RNC’s “Young Eagles” – younger major donors and the only group, according to a major donor, continuing to pull its weight financially – are invited to a “professional bull riding event” in October, expected to raise $50,000, and to a no-holds-barred Ultimate Fighting Championship fight in Las Vegas the same month, expected to raise $60,000.
The RNC’s aim, according to one section of the document: “Putting the Fun Back in FUNdraising.”
CORRECTION: The RNC raised a total of $81 million in 2009. An earlier version of this story understated that figure.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
So, there you have it in black and white – and here are the slides in question…
Cover Slide for the Presentation
Slide 29
Slide 30
Slide 31
Anyone out there still think that you’re not being played? Guess again.
Thanks to the Politico and Huffington Post for breaking this story!
Now in all fairness, this is not the exclusive domain of the RNC – the DNC used much the same strategy against G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney – which is exactly the point I’m trying to make All of the big industries – Politics, Banks, Insurance, Health Care, Religion, Manufacturing, Pharmaceuticals, Agriculture, etc. – all of them understand and use FEAR to manipulate you, the potential donor, buyer, consumer, etc.
One more week until I start my odyssey back to the US and the next chapter of my book of life. Hooah!
SLK
Friday, February 26, 2010
Getting Short
It’s been eighteen months since I came to Afghanistan, and my time here is coming to a close. In mid-March I will leave my position and return home to my family and friends to start a new chapter in my book of life.
I have no personal regrets whatsoever. This has been a good experience, both personally and professionally. It does bother me, however, that we as a nation, and we as a coalition of nations, have not made more progress. We are still locked into a “one step forward, two steps back, two steps forward, one back,” box-step dance routine that leaves us standing where we started with little to show for it except for the blood and the grave markers.
As for the Afghans I have decidedly mixed feelings. There are several Afghans that I have come to know and respect. They are good men in any culture. Men like Haji Mohammad, Mirwais Noorzai, Ahmad Shah, Gul Ahmad, and Basir Tokhi. These men are willing to fight for Afghanistan as a nation, not just their tribe or ethnicity.
Unfortunately, men like these are overshadowed by the corrupt and the power hungry. But that’s no different than in our own country. Edmund Burke said it best when he said “All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” The problem in Afghanistan is twofold – first, no one trusts anyone to allow them to do anything (similar to our own country, anymore) and second, 30 years of war has created a “get it while you can before the well goes dry” attitude among many. Thus, aid monies are pocketed, goods are misappropriated, and illegal activities are run by the same warlord/powerbrokers that we are trying to woo. Bank balances in the Emirates and Switzerland grow fatter, and, just as in America, the average citizen just gets stepped on.
As for the coalition effort, to include the US military effort… Never has so much been done by so many for so few who are so unappreciative. The Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors (yes, surprisingly common to see various countries naval personnel running about) are, collectively, great. If it weren’t for the uniforms and the languages, there’d be little to tell them apart. The leadership is challenged, however, by a complex war that is run by complex rules. And, all of the troops and officers are people, and people make mistakes. The problem with a war is that mistakes can cost lives, sometimes many. Sometimes the consequences are immediate and due to one or two people, as in an airstrike called in last week by special operations forces that killed over a dozen civilians. That was definitely a “two-step back” day as relations with the Afghan people and government were very significantly affected.
Sometimes, the consequences are affect fewer people and are due to complacence, momentary inattention, or sometimes just plain bad luck. We had a pretty high speed MP Lieutenant here – her platoon was the first true MPs we had here. They’ve been working a subdistrict of Kandahar City. The other evening, her platoon was dismounted in a built-up area, checking things out. A motorcycle drove up and the rider got off and walked away as if going somewhere. The LT walked over towards the motorcycle – and then it detonated. A fragmentation device was in one of the saddlebags – probably remotely detonated. The bulk of the blast hit her in the upper legs. She lost one and they are fighting to save the other. It is a testament to the discipline she instilled in her platoon that there wasn’t a massacre of Afghans that night – she was well liked, but more importantly, well respected. She’s the second officer that I’ve known who has been gravely injured by IEDs. What a waste.
It’s time to go. Kipling nailed what is happening here over 100 years ago. He originally wrote “White Man’s Burden” as a commentary on the US Annexation of the Phillippines after the Spanish American War. But he based his commentary on his own experience living in India and the struggles of Great Britain and the Great Game. If “White Man’s” is too racist or politically sensitive, substitute "Western" – it doesn’t change the meter and applies equally well.
White Man’s Burden – 1899
by Rudyard Kipling
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
Let’s hope that our peers judge us for our intentions as well as our actions and the consequences we’ve wrought.
Hooah
SLK
I have no personal regrets whatsoever. This has been a good experience, both personally and professionally. It does bother me, however, that we as a nation, and we as a coalition of nations, have not made more progress. We are still locked into a “one step forward, two steps back, two steps forward, one back,” box-step dance routine that leaves us standing where we started with little to show for it except for the blood and the grave markers.
As for the Afghans I have decidedly mixed feelings. There are several Afghans that I have come to know and respect. They are good men in any culture. Men like Haji Mohammad, Mirwais Noorzai, Ahmad Shah, Gul Ahmad, and Basir Tokhi. These men are willing to fight for Afghanistan as a nation, not just their tribe or ethnicity.
Unfortunately, men like these are overshadowed by the corrupt and the power hungry. But that’s no different than in our own country. Edmund Burke said it best when he said “All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” The problem in Afghanistan is twofold – first, no one trusts anyone to allow them to do anything (similar to our own country, anymore) and second, 30 years of war has created a “get it while you can before the well goes dry” attitude among many. Thus, aid monies are pocketed, goods are misappropriated, and illegal activities are run by the same warlord/powerbrokers that we are trying to woo. Bank balances in the Emirates and Switzerland grow fatter, and, just as in America, the average citizen just gets stepped on.
As for the coalition effort, to include the US military effort… Never has so much been done by so many for so few who are so unappreciative. The Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors (yes, surprisingly common to see various countries naval personnel running about) are, collectively, great. If it weren’t for the uniforms and the languages, there’d be little to tell them apart. The leadership is challenged, however, by a complex war that is run by complex rules. And, all of the troops and officers are people, and people make mistakes. The problem with a war is that mistakes can cost lives, sometimes many. Sometimes the consequences are immediate and due to one or two people, as in an airstrike called in last week by special operations forces that killed over a dozen civilians. That was definitely a “two-step back” day as relations with the Afghan people and government were very significantly affected.
Sometimes, the consequences are affect fewer people and are due to complacence, momentary inattention, or sometimes just plain bad luck. We had a pretty high speed MP Lieutenant here – her platoon was the first true MPs we had here. They’ve been working a subdistrict of Kandahar City. The other evening, her platoon was dismounted in a built-up area, checking things out. A motorcycle drove up and the rider got off and walked away as if going somewhere. The LT walked over towards the motorcycle – and then it detonated. A fragmentation device was in one of the saddlebags – probably remotely detonated. The bulk of the blast hit her in the upper legs. She lost one and they are fighting to save the other. It is a testament to the discipline she instilled in her platoon that there wasn’t a massacre of Afghans that night – she was well liked, but more importantly, well respected. She’s the second officer that I’ve known who has been gravely injured by IEDs. What a waste.
It’s time to go. Kipling nailed what is happening here over 100 years ago. He originally wrote “White Man’s Burden” as a commentary on the US Annexation of the Phillippines after the Spanish American War. But he based his commentary on his own experience living in India and the struggles of Great Britain and the Great Game. If “White Man’s” is too racist or politically sensitive, substitute "Western" – it doesn’t change the meter and applies equally well.
White Man’s Burden – 1899
by Rudyard Kipling
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
Let’s hope that our peers judge us for our intentions as well as our actions and the consequences we’ve wrought.
Hooah
SLK
Monday, February 8, 2010
Absolutely Brilliant!
Every now and then I stumble across something I find very profound - this is one of those things. It's long, I know, but the last sentence is perfect... enjoy the read and be happy that our society and our armed forces have such great minds despite the challenges outlined herein.
XXXXXXXXXX
The Founders’ Wisdom
BY LT. COL. PAUL L. YINGLING (Published in Armed Forces Journal, Feb 2010)
The U.S. faces a number of difficult challenges in civil-military relations that carry with them profound effects on our national security. Among these issues are declining popular support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, growing isolation between the U.S. military and the society it serves, and unresolved disputes over the limits of executive authority. However difficult these problems may be, they are neither unprecedented nor insoluble.
The underlying issues in these debates were explicitly addressed by America’s Founders in drafting the U.S. Constitution. Winston Churchill famously observed that “America will always do the right thing, but only after exhausting all other options.” Having today exhausted all other options to provide for our security, Americans would be well served to return to the system of war powers established by the Constitution.
James Madison’s elegant system of checks and balances created a system to ensure that we choose our wars carefully and prosecute them intelligently and vigorously. After rebelling against Great Britain and rejecting the Articles of Confederation, the Founders were well aware of the dangers of both tyranny and anarchy. They created a system of government that provided for strong legislative and popular oversight of national security and vigorous executive power to deal with crises. Many of the challenges in civil-military relations that we face are attributable to insufficient legislative and popular oversight of executive authority. The solution to these challenges therefore lies in a reassertion of this authority.
It’s important to consider the historical context in which the Constitution developed. The rebellion against British tyranny was a defining experience for America’s Founders, shaping their views on virtually every aspect of governance. While the American Revolution was largely a dispute over the authority of Parliament to tax the colonies, civil-military disputes also played a significant role. The American colonists’ grievances against King George III cited in the Declaration of Independence included the maintenance and quartering of standing armies in times of peace without the consent of colonial legislatures and the denial of colonial jurisdiction over crimes committed by British troops in the colonies.
The Founders were deeply suspicious of standing armies accountable solely to executive power. The colonists accepted the presence of British regulars out of necessity during the French and Indian War (1758-1763) but wished for the removal of these forces to the greatest extent possible once the war ended. Consistent with this view, the Founders raised a Continental Army only for the duration of the Revolution, and all but disbanded it once the British were defeated.
Unfortunately, the Articles of Confederation replaced British tyranny with a government too weak to defend American interests. Each state maintained its militia, and 11 also maintained their own navies. The Congress lacked the power to tax, which made it difficult not only to provide for future expenses but also to pay past debts, including those owed to veterans of the Revolution. Amending the Articles required unanimity, and the passage of any law required the assent of nine of the 13 states. The national government lacked the authority to resolve disputes among the states, creating numerous disputes in every aspect of public life. The new government was nearly paralyzed on questions of foreign policy and defense, including negotiating a peace treaty with Great Britain, resolving boundary disputes with Spain and raising a navy capable of protecting commercial interests. Throughout the 1780s, the newly created United States drifted toward anarchy. George Washington feared that unless the national government could be made more vigorous, the new country would “become the sport of European politics.”
The Constitution created a system of war powers that remedied many of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation while ensuring that the war powers of the U.S. remained under strong legislative and popular oversight. This system of checks and balances applied to every aspect of war powers, from raising forces to conducting operations. The Founders vested the power to raise armies with Congress, using specific language intended to ensure these forces would remain beholden to Congress for support. The Constitution states that Congress shall have the power “to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.” The Founders used different language when describing support for naval forces. While the Constitution empowers Congress to raise armies, it then states that Congress shall have the power “to provide and maintain a navy.” The Founders viewed armies as temporary necessities to deal with particular crises but understood that the maintenance of a navy was an enduring requirement. Naval forces, both the fleet and Marines, gave the young republic an enduring expeditionary capability to protect its commercial interests. As these commercial interests were enduring, so too the capability to protect them must be enduring. Additionally, the Founders viewed naval forces as less of a threat to popular liberties than armies, as the latter are capable of controlling land, populations and resources for extended periods.
The Founders also ensured that executive branch officials, including senior military officers, were accountable to Congress. While the authority to appoint military officers resides with the president, the Constitution requires Senate confirmation for the appointment of officers.
Perhaps no check on executive power is more important than the provisions concerning the writ of habeas corpus. The Constitution states that “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Two issues are worth noting here. The first is that there are no “emergency war powers” in the Constitution. The Founders expected us to govern ourselves in time of war according to the same laws that apply in times of peace. Second, the language regarding the suspension of the Great Writ is found in Article I, which covers Congress, and not Article II covering the president. This omission was no accident; the Founders considered executive power to be both a necessary guardian and a potential danger to popular liberty. The Great Writ is the most important of all checks on executive power, for if the executive has the unchecked power to imprison its opponents, every other liberty is meaningless.
The Founders also extended legislative oversight to the conduct of war itself. By vesting the power to declare war with Congress, the Founders ensured that America would choose its wars carefully. While Congress may be less well-suited to vigorous unitary action than the executive, it is far better-suited to engage in deliberation over the purpose and necessity of committing the nation to war. At the same time, entrusting Congress with the power to declare war ensured that America would prosecute its wars vigorously. The Founders expected that the prosecution of war would require the mobilization of the militia under federal service paid for under the federal budget.
The president alone is the commander in chief, but he is dependent on the Congress to raise and maintain military forces and to mobilize the militia. The president may appoint officers to positions of command, but such appointments are dependent on Senate confirmation. Most importantly, the president cannot commit the nation to war without congressional authority. While in practice the president may act in the interest of public safety, Congress’ power of the purse limits such actions to brief expeditionary operations.
Many of the difficulties in civil-military relations today are attributable to our departure from the elegant system of checks and balances established in the Constitution. Congress has all but abdicated many of its war powers, including raising forces, confirming the appointment of officers, providing oversight to operations and declaring war. This has made the U.S. weaker by allowing hasty, ill-considered and poorly supported executive actions to imperil national security. The remedy for these failures requires not innovation, but rather a return to the time-tested principles of America’s founding.
The Constitution requires Congress to raise and maintain military forces to ensure popular support for the development and employment of American military power. However, today’s military forces are manned solely by volunteers and paid for with borrowed money. The congressional task of “raising the Army” has been reduced to the acts of appropriating money and raising the debt ceiling. Until recently, wartime funding came through supplemental appropriations that received far less scrutiny than funds allocated through the normal budgetary process. The financial burdens for raising today’s military and fighting today’s wars will fall to future generations, as the entirety of the defense budget has been financed with deficit spending for nearly a decade. The dangers of military service are born solely by volunteers, a disproportionate number of whom come from working- and middle-class families. The wealthiest and most privileged members of American society are all but absent from the ranks of the U.S. military.
Moral exhortations for citizens to care more deeply about national defense are insufficient. Unless the public and its elected representatives have some personal stake in decisions of war and peace, they can not and will not provide adequate oversight in these profound choices. Madison understood that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.” It is precisely because men are not angels that the Founders placed the terrible power to choose and make war with those who would feel its burdens most directly. In Federalist 51, Madison argues that the “policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public.” Rather than hope for better motives in either the executive or the legislature, the American people would be best served by returning to the system of checks and balances in war powers that has served us so well for so long. Given America’s global responsibilities, the U.S. can no longer rely for its security on a small and relatively cheap standing military supported by a large 18th-century style militia. However, we can return to the principle that America’s citizens and our elected representatives must be engaged in the defense of our country.
A RETURN TO CITIZEN SOLDIERS
The U.S. should therefore abandon the all-volunteer military and return to our historic reliance on citizen soldiers and conscription to wage protracted war. This approach proved successful in both world wars and offers several advantages over the all-volunteer military. First and most important, this approach demands popular participation in national security decisions and provides Congress with powerful incentives to reassert its war powers. Unlike the all-volunteer force, a conscripted force of citizen soldiers would ensure that the burdens of war are felt equally in every community in America. Second, this approach provides the means to expand the Army to a sufficient size to meet its commitments. Unlike the all-volunteer force, a conscripted force would not rely on stop-loss policies or an endless cycle of year-on, year-off deployments of overstressed and exhausted forces. Third, conscription enables the military to be more discriminating in selecting those with the skills and attributes most required to fight today’s wars. Unlike the all-volunteer force, a conscripted force would not rely on exorbitant bonuses and reduced enlistment standards to fill its ranks. Finally, this approach would be less expensive. Unlike the world wars of the 20th century, today’s dangers will not pass quickly, allowing for a return to a smaller and less expensive military establishment. Imposing fiscal discipline on the Pentagon would not only strengthen America’s depleted finances, but also constrain executive ambitions for adventures abroad and congressional appetites for pork-barrel projects at home.
Some may argue that conscription is unfair. Only a small percentage of the 4 million Americans eligible for military service in any given year would be required to serve. Past conscription systems were riddled with waiver policies that allowed the most-privileged Americans to avoid military service. Any future conscription policy must be both fair and militarily effective. Both goals may be achieved by raising induction standards to conscript those with the attributes necessary for today’s wars: the ability to speak foreign languages and operate in foreign cultures, engage in complex moral reasoning about the use of force, as well as bear the heavy physical and psychological burdens of combat. Many of the young people who possess these attributes also demonstrate a low propensity to volunteer for military service. Conscription based on militarily relevant skills and attributes without waiver would provide the quality and quantity of manpower required to prosecute today’s wars. Conscripting gifted young people would embrace the fairest principle of all: To whom much is given, much is expected.
Defenders of the all-volunteer force often argue that the U.S. already has a military that is broadly representative of and better educated than the society it serves. Today’s military volunteers have certainly demonstrated admirable intelligence, courage and adaptability. However, claims that today’s military is representative of American society are based more on methodological sleight of hand than rigorous analysis. Opponents of conscription point out that the richest 20 percent of American households with military-aged children are slightly overrepresented in today’s military. This category includes all households with median incomes over $52,000, grouping together middle-class families with multimillionaires. By grouping together widely divergent income categories, the Defense Department obscures the absence of the most-privileged Americans from the ranks of the armed forces. The same sleight of hand is evident regarding educational levels. Any educational barrier to enlistment, however low, would necessarily produce a force that is better-educated than the general population from which it is drawn. Defenders of the all-volunteer force are at difficulties to explain why, as demands on enlistees have increased since the end of the Cold War, enlistment standards have declined. In truth, the all-volunteer military competes in a labor market for a limited pool of talent that often has more viable economic alternatives than military service.
Beyond the issue of fairness, some may object to increased reliance on the National Guard and reserve on the grounds of strategic responsiveness. The U.S. will continue to require an immediately available active-duty expeditionary force to respond to short-notice, small-scale contingencies. A congressional declaration of war and mobilization of the National Guard and reserve take time. However, for cases of protracted major wars, this time would be well-spent in deliberating the wisdom of proposed war aims. Prior to America’s entry in World War II, Congress and the country engaged in a rigorous debate about the wisdom of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s defense policies. In the summer of 1941, congressional authorization to extend the draft and federalization of the National Guard passed the House of Representatives by a single vote. However contentious and slow this process may have been, it ensured the country was informed of and committed to FDR’s policies. Roosevelt understood that congressional debate was a vital step in mobilizing popular passions for war. However tactically proficient today’s all-volunteer force may be, it remains isolated from America’s greatest strategic assets: the wisdom and energy of the American people.
Others may dispute these methods of raising and funding military power on the grounds of political expediency. Imposing conscription, mobilizing National Guard and reserve forces, raising taxes and cutting domestic spending to pay for military expenditures will be politically unpopular. However, the development of America’s military forces and their commitment to protracted wars were never intended to be politically expedient. The Founders placed these powers in the hands of Congress to ensure that such momentous decisions were undertaken carefully after sober public deliberation. The Founders did not expect that America would “go to war with the Army we have” but rather that Congress would raise the Army we need to prosecute carefully thought out war aims to a successful conclusion.
The responsibility of Congress to raise military forces includes the responsibility to confirm senior military officers to positions of important command. To ensure that America’s armed forces are ably led, Congress must return to its tradition of exercising strong oversight on the appointment and conduct of senior officers. The historical record contains ample evidence of the efficacy of Congressional oversight in this regard. The National Security Act (1947) and the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act (1986) both substantially strengthened U.S. military capabilities and both passed despite the objections of senior military officers. During World War II, Sen. Harry Truman’s leadership of a military oversight committee dramatically improved procurement procedures, saving lives as well as money in the process. More recently, Congress has deviated from this tradition of strong oversight. When Army Gen. George Casey was nominated to serve as the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, the Senate confirmed the nomination unanimously after essentially pro forma hearings. As Greg Jaffe and David Cloud note in “The Fourth Star: Four Generals and the Epic Struggle for the Future of the United States Army,” “[Casey] hadn’t interviewed with either Rumsfeld or Bush before being chosen. No one asked him for his ideas about what needed to be done, and he hadn’t thought about it very much. [Army Chief of Staff Gen. Pete] Schoomaker had given him a book entitled ‘Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons Learned from Malaya and Vietnam.’ ... It was the first book Casey had read on guerrilla war.”
After two more years of mounting chaos in Iraq, Congress again returned to its tradition of strong oversight in the appointment of military leaders. When Army Gen. David Petraeus was nominated to replace Casey, the Senate confirmation hearings were far more vigorous, despite Petraeus’ distinguished pedigree in counterinsurgency warfare. The Senate would never confirm a Supreme Court justice who hadn’t given much thought to questions of constitutional law. Instead, senators inquire vigorously into the qualifications and judicial temperament that each nominee brings to his or her grave responsibilities. The Senate should exercise the same rigor in confirming those who lead American forces in battle.
Congress must be equally vigorous in resisting expansive interpretations of executive authority. Hasty and ill-considered executive decisions may burden the country with untenable and counterproductive policies whose consequences endure for decades. No issue makes this point more clearly than the Bush administration’s policies regarding the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Bush administration asserted broad authority to detain suspected terrorists, asserting that they were neither lawful combatants fully protected by the Geneva Conventions nor criminal suspects fully protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected these arguments, but not before these policies did substantial damage to America’s reputation around the world. Greater congressional oversight in the formulation of the Bush administration’s detention policies might have prevented this. The Founders provided Congress with ample authority to conduct such oversight, including the appropriation of funds and the confirmation of executive branch nominees. The Founders did not provide the executive with expanded power in time of war, and placed the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus under Congress. The Founders were not naive and understood that not every exigency of war could be anticipated and satisfactorily resolved by the law. Even strong advocates of legislative supremacy recognized the possibility that an executive might act contrary to the law for the purpose of preserving the state. John Locke, whose “Second Treatise on Government” powerfully influenced the Founders’ thinking, acknowledged the possibility of executive prerogative, defined as “power to act according to the discretion for the public good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it.” However, Locke warned that “the people shall be judge” as to whether such sweeping executive action was intended for the public good. Lincoln’s suspension of the Great Writ in the Civil War, imposed during congressional recess and affirmed only after the fact, is an example of the exercise of executive prerogative for the public good. Especially in times of war, the people’s elected representatives must balance executive demands for broad discretion with equally important concerns for accountability and oversight.
Finally and most importantly, Congress must discontinue the practice of authorizing protracted military operations without a formal declaration of war. Since World War II, Congress has abandoned the practice of declaring war prior to the onset of military hostilities. This practice may be justified in the immediate aftermath of an attack, such as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or the al-Qaida attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In such circumstances, the president as commander in chief has the authority to act in self-defense until he can bring the matter before Congress. However, the Constitution places the power to declare war and commit the armed forces of the U.S. to battle with the Congress.
The Founders recognized that war placed substantial demands on the public in both blood and treasure. For a self-governing society to fight a protracted war, the people must believe in the wisdom and justice of the conflict. Because they will bear the burdens of war, the people through their elected representatives are the best judges in the decision to use force to achieve the aims of policy. The Founders relied on the people and their elected representatives to ask hard questions and seek peaceful solutions in order to avoid potential conflicts.
There is no need for Congress to revisit or revise the War Powers Act of 1973, or to pass new legislation constraining executive war powers. The constitutionally mandated power of Congress alone to declare war is sufficient in and of itself. A popularly supported declaration of war is the surest indication that the war aims proposed by the executive have been carefully thought out, and peaceful means to achieve those aims have been exhausted. More importantly, such a declaration commits the full energy of the American people in prosecuting the war to a successful conclusion.
Eschewing a congressional declaration of war calls into question both the wisdom of the war and the public’s commitment to winning it. The clearest example of this phenomenon is the 2002 congressional authorization for the use of force in Iraq. This resolution authorized the president to employ the armed forces “as he deems appropriate” to “defend the national security of the U.S. against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” Moreover, unlike U.N. Security Council resolutions, the congressional authorization for the use of military force had no fixed time limit. Once passed, the president could and did use this authority to initiate a preventive war and sustain a protracted counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq. Congress granted this authority despite the fact that the Bush administration’s justification for war contained a number of highly dubious claims. Among these were that Iraq had links to al-Qaida, that Iraq possessed or would soon possess weapons of mass destruction and that establishing a democracy in Iraq could transform the conflict-torn Middle East into a more peaceful region. Prior to the war, a number of highly prestigious international relations scholars questioned the wisdom of the case for war. Moreover, several internal Defense Department studies indicated that the armed forces lacked sufficient troop strength to prosecute the war successfully. To be fair, a number of members of Congress questioned the justification for war and the means available for its prosecution. However, the resolution interpreted by the executive branch to provide sweeping presidential authority to invade, occupy and govern Iraq passed both houses of Congress by wide margins and without members of Congress accepting responsibility for the ensuing conflict.
In many ways, the prosecution of the war in Iraq is a cautionary tale against bypassing the war powers of Congress. If members of Congress had to impose conscription and fully mobilize the National Guard, they might have been more skeptical of the case for war. Had members of Congress been required to cut popular domestic programs to pay for the war, they might have insisted on prosecuting the war more intelligently and vigorously. Instead, Iraq edged toward chaos over the course of four years, costing the lives of thousand of volunteers and hundreds of billions of dollars in borrowed money. Members of Congress held hearings and asked questions, but took no action to change the course of events in Iraq. The public did not have to endure conscription as it did during the Vietnam War; the nascent anti-war movement therefore never approached the size and intensity of its Vietnam-era counterpart. Congress played only a minor role in the 2007 change of strategy in Iraq, the so-called “surge” that has created a remarkable, if fragile, turnaround. Nonetheless, the underlying fact remains that our conduct of the war in Iraq calls into question both the intelligence and vigor of America’s capacity to wage war.
As the U.S. commits additional forces to Afghanistan, Americans would be well-served to return to our constitutional system of war powers. The burdens of fighting in Afghanistan cannot and will not be shouldered solely by those in uniform today. Many of the soldiers who will fight in Afghanistan have not yet entered high school, and many of the workers who will pay for this conflict are not yet born. No war policy can succeed unless the American people are committed to the wisdom and justice of the conflict, and prepared to bear the burdens necessary for victory. America’s Founders understood this principle well, and gave us a system of government to keep us both safe and free. In practice, this form of government provides for a deliberative process that is slow, inefficient, messy and noisy. However, these inconveniences are a small price to pay to ensure that we choose our wars wisely and fight them intelligently and vigorously. We have paid a terrible price for ignoring the Founders’ wisdom, and in doing so have gained neither safety nor freedom. However, the great advantage of our system of government is that it allows us to learn from the past and do better in the future. Perhaps Madison should have added an eighth article to the Constitution: “When all else fails, read the directions.”
XXXXXXXXXXX
There it is - "When all else fails, read the directions" - and the Constitution of the United States is, if nothing else, the directions that came with the country.
Hooah
SLK
FOB Walton, Kandahar
XXXXXXXXXX
The Founders’ Wisdom
BY LT. COL. PAUL L. YINGLING (Published in Armed Forces Journal, Feb 2010)
The U.S. faces a number of difficult challenges in civil-military relations that carry with them profound effects on our national security. Among these issues are declining popular support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, growing isolation between the U.S. military and the society it serves, and unresolved disputes over the limits of executive authority. However difficult these problems may be, they are neither unprecedented nor insoluble.
The underlying issues in these debates were explicitly addressed by America’s Founders in drafting the U.S. Constitution. Winston Churchill famously observed that “America will always do the right thing, but only after exhausting all other options.” Having today exhausted all other options to provide for our security, Americans would be well served to return to the system of war powers established by the Constitution.
James Madison’s elegant system of checks and balances created a system to ensure that we choose our wars carefully and prosecute them intelligently and vigorously. After rebelling against Great Britain and rejecting the Articles of Confederation, the Founders were well aware of the dangers of both tyranny and anarchy. They created a system of government that provided for strong legislative and popular oversight of national security and vigorous executive power to deal with crises. Many of the challenges in civil-military relations that we face are attributable to insufficient legislative and popular oversight of executive authority. The solution to these challenges therefore lies in a reassertion of this authority.
It’s important to consider the historical context in which the Constitution developed. The rebellion against British tyranny was a defining experience for America’s Founders, shaping their views on virtually every aspect of governance. While the American Revolution was largely a dispute over the authority of Parliament to tax the colonies, civil-military disputes also played a significant role. The American colonists’ grievances against King George III cited in the Declaration of Independence included the maintenance and quartering of standing armies in times of peace without the consent of colonial legislatures and the denial of colonial jurisdiction over crimes committed by British troops in the colonies.
The Founders were deeply suspicious of standing armies accountable solely to executive power. The colonists accepted the presence of British regulars out of necessity during the French and Indian War (1758-1763) but wished for the removal of these forces to the greatest extent possible once the war ended. Consistent with this view, the Founders raised a Continental Army only for the duration of the Revolution, and all but disbanded it once the British were defeated.
Unfortunately, the Articles of Confederation replaced British tyranny with a government too weak to defend American interests. Each state maintained its militia, and 11 also maintained their own navies. The Congress lacked the power to tax, which made it difficult not only to provide for future expenses but also to pay past debts, including those owed to veterans of the Revolution. Amending the Articles required unanimity, and the passage of any law required the assent of nine of the 13 states. The national government lacked the authority to resolve disputes among the states, creating numerous disputes in every aspect of public life. The new government was nearly paralyzed on questions of foreign policy and defense, including negotiating a peace treaty with Great Britain, resolving boundary disputes with Spain and raising a navy capable of protecting commercial interests. Throughout the 1780s, the newly created United States drifted toward anarchy. George Washington feared that unless the national government could be made more vigorous, the new country would “become the sport of European politics.”
The Constitution created a system of war powers that remedied many of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation while ensuring that the war powers of the U.S. remained under strong legislative and popular oversight. This system of checks and balances applied to every aspect of war powers, from raising forces to conducting operations. The Founders vested the power to raise armies with Congress, using specific language intended to ensure these forces would remain beholden to Congress for support. The Constitution states that Congress shall have the power “to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.” The Founders used different language when describing support for naval forces. While the Constitution empowers Congress to raise armies, it then states that Congress shall have the power “to provide and maintain a navy.” The Founders viewed armies as temporary necessities to deal with particular crises but understood that the maintenance of a navy was an enduring requirement. Naval forces, both the fleet and Marines, gave the young republic an enduring expeditionary capability to protect its commercial interests. As these commercial interests were enduring, so too the capability to protect them must be enduring. Additionally, the Founders viewed naval forces as less of a threat to popular liberties than armies, as the latter are capable of controlling land, populations and resources for extended periods.
The Founders also ensured that executive branch officials, including senior military officers, were accountable to Congress. While the authority to appoint military officers resides with the president, the Constitution requires Senate confirmation for the appointment of officers.
Perhaps no check on executive power is more important than the provisions concerning the writ of habeas corpus. The Constitution states that “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Two issues are worth noting here. The first is that there are no “emergency war powers” in the Constitution. The Founders expected us to govern ourselves in time of war according to the same laws that apply in times of peace. Second, the language regarding the suspension of the Great Writ is found in Article I, which covers Congress, and not Article II covering the president. This omission was no accident; the Founders considered executive power to be both a necessary guardian and a potential danger to popular liberty. The Great Writ is the most important of all checks on executive power, for if the executive has the unchecked power to imprison its opponents, every other liberty is meaningless.
The Founders also extended legislative oversight to the conduct of war itself. By vesting the power to declare war with Congress, the Founders ensured that America would choose its wars carefully. While Congress may be less well-suited to vigorous unitary action than the executive, it is far better-suited to engage in deliberation over the purpose and necessity of committing the nation to war. At the same time, entrusting Congress with the power to declare war ensured that America would prosecute its wars vigorously. The Founders expected that the prosecution of war would require the mobilization of the militia under federal service paid for under the federal budget.
The president alone is the commander in chief, but he is dependent on the Congress to raise and maintain military forces and to mobilize the militia. The president may appoint officers to positions of command, but such appointments are dependent on Senate confirmation. Most importantly, the president cannot commit the nation to war without congressional authority. While in practice the president may act in the interest of public safety, Congress’ power of the purse limits such actions to brief expeditionary operations.
Many of the difficulties in civil-military relations today are attributable to our departure from the elegant system of checks and balances established in the Constitution. Congress has all but abdicated many of its war powers, including raising forces, confirming the appointment of officers, providing oversight to operations and declaring war. This has made the U.S. weaker by allowing hasty, ill-considered and poorly supported executive actions to imperil national security. The remedy for these failures requires not innovation, but rather a return to the time-tested principles of America’s founding.
The Constitution requires Congress to raise and maintain military forces to ensure popular support for the development and employment of American military power. However, today’s military forces are manned solely by volunteers and paid for with borrowed money. The congressional task of “raising the Army” has been reduced to the acts of appropriating money and raising the debt ceiling. Until recently, wartime funding came through supplemental appropriations that received far less scrutiny than funds allocated through the normal budgetary process. The financial burdens for raising today’s military and fighting today’s wars will fall to future generations, as the entirety of the defense budget has been financed with deficit spending for nearly a decade. The dangers of military service are born solely by volunteers, a disproportionate number of whom come from working- and middle-class families. The wealthiest and most privileged members of American society are all but absent from the ranks of the U.S. military.
Moral exhortations for citizens to care more deeply about national defense are insufficient. Unless the public and its elected representatives have some personal stake in decisions of war and peace, they can not and will not provide adequate oversight in these profound choices. Madison understood that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.” It is precisely because men are not angels that the Founders placed the terrible power to choose and make war with those who would feel its burdens most directly. In Federalist 51, Madison argues that the “policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public.” Rather than hope for better motives in either the executive or the legislature, the American people would be best served by returning to the system of checks and balances in war powers that has served us so well for so long. Given America’s global responsibilities, the U.S. can no longer rely for its security on a small and relatively cheap standing military supported by a large 18th-century style militia. However, we can return to the principle that America’s citizens and our elected representatives must be engaged in the defense of our country.
A RETURN TO CITIZEN SOLDIERS
The U.S. should therefore abandon the all-volunteer military and return to our historic reliance on citizen soldiers and conscription to wage protracted war. This approach proved successful in both world wars and offers several advantages over the all-volunteer military. First and most important, this approach demands popular participation in national security decisions and provides Congress with powerful incentives to reassert its war powers. Unlike the all-volunteer force, a conscripted force of citizen soldiers would ensure that the burdens of war are felt equally in every community in America. Second, this approach provides the means to expand the Army to a sufficient size to meet its commitments. Unlike the all-volunteer force, a conscripted force would not rely on stop-loss policies or an endless cycle of year-on, year-off deployments of overstressed and exhausted forces. Third, conscription enables the military to be more discriminating in selecting those with the skills and attributes most required to fight today’s wars. Unlike the all-volunteer force, a conscripted force would not rely on exorbitant bonuses and reduced enlistment standards to fill its ranks. Finally, this approach would be less expensive. Unlike the world wars of the 20th century, today’s dangers will not pass quickly, allowing for a return to a smaller and less expensive military establishment. Imposing fiscal discipline on the Pentagon would not only strengthen America’s depleted finances, but also constrain executive ambitions for adventures abroad and congressional appetites for pork-barrel projects at home.
Some may argue that conscription is unfair. Only a small percentage of the 4 million Americans eligible for military service in any given year would be required to serve. Past conscription systems were riddled with waiver policies that allowed the most-privileged Americans to avoid military service. Any future conscription policy must be both fair and militarily effective. Both goals may be achieved by raising induction standards to conscript those with the attributes necessary for today’s wars: the ability to speak foreign languages and operate in foreign cultures, engage in complex moral reasoning about the use of force, as well as bear the heavy physical and psychological burdens of combat. Many of the young people who possess these attributes also demonstrate a low propensity to volunteer for military service. Conscription based on militarily relevant skills and attributes without waiver would provide the quality and quantity of manpower required to prosecute today’s wars. Conscripting gifted young people would embrace the fairest principle of all: To whom much is given, much is expected.
Defenders of the all-volunteer force often argue that the U.S. already has a military that is broadly representative of and better educated than the society it serves. Today’s military volunteers have certainly demonstrated admirable intelligence, courage and adaptability. However, claims that today’s military is representative of American society are based more on methodological sleight of hand than rigorous analysis. Opponents of conscription point out that the richest 20 percent of American households with military-aged children are slightly overrepresented in today’s military. This category includes all households with median incomes over $52,000, grouping together middle-class families with multimillionaires. By grouping together widely divergent income categories, the Defense Department obscures the absence of the most-privileged Americans from the ranks of the armed forces. The same sleight of hand is evident regarding educational levels. Any educational barrier to enlistment, however low, would necessarily produce a force that is better-educated than the general population from which it is drawn. Defenders of the all-volunteer force are at difficulties to explain why, as demands on enlistees have increased since the end of the Cold War, enlistment standards have declined. In truth, the all-volunteer military competes in a labor market for a limited pool of talent that often has more viable economic alternatives than military service.
Beyond the issue of fairness, some may object to increased reliance on the National Guard and reserve on the grounds of strategic responsiveness. The U.S. will continue to require an immediately available active-duty expeditionary force to respond to short-notice, small-scale contingencies. A congressional declaration of war and mobilization of the National Guard and reserve take time. However, for cases of protracted major wars, this time would be well-spent in deliberating the wisdom of proposed war aims. Prior to America’s entry in World War II, Congress and the country engaged in a rigorous debate about the wisdom of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s defense policies. In the summer of 1941, congressional authorization to extend the draft and federalization of the National Guard passed the House of Representatives by a single vote. However contentious and slow this process may have been, it ensured the country was informed of and committed to FDR’s policies. Roosevelt understood that congressional debate was a vital step in mobilizing popular passions for war. However tactically proficient today’s all-volunteer force may be, it remains isolated from America’s greatest strategic assets: the wisdom and energy of the American people.
Others may dispute these methods of raising and funding military power on the grounds of political expediency. Imposing conscription, mobilizing National Guard and reserve forces, raising taxes and cutting domestic spending to pay for military expenditures will be politically unpopular. However, the development of America’s military forces and their commitment to protracted wars were never intended to be politically expedient. The Founders placed these powers in the hands of Congress to ensure that such momentous decisions were undertaken carefully after sober public deliberation. The Founders did not expect that America would “go to war with the Army we have” but rather that Congress would raise the Army we need to prosecute carefully thought out war aims to a successful conclusion.
The responsibility of Congress to raise military forces includes the responsibility to confirm senior military officers to positions of important command. To ensure that America’s armed forces are ably led, Congress must return to its tradition of exercising strong oversight on the appointment and conduct of senior officers. The historical record contains ample evidence of the efficacy of Congressional oversight in this regard. The National Security Act (1947) and the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act (1986) both substantially strengthened U.S. military capabilities and both passed despite the objections of senior military officers. During World War II, Sen. Harry Truman’s leadership of a military oversight committee dramatically improved procurement procedures, saving lives as well as money in the process. More recently, Congress has deviated from this tradition of strong oversight. When Army Gen. George Casey was nominated to serve as the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, the Senate confirmed the nomination unanimously after essentially pro forma hearings. As Greg Jaffe and David Cloud note in “The Fourth Star: Four Generals and the Epic Struggle for the Future of the United States Army,” “[Casey] hadn’t interviewed with either Rumsfeld or Bush before being chosen. No one asked him for his ideas about what needed to be done, and he hadn’t thought about it very much. [Army Chief of Staff Gen. Pete] Schoomaker had given him a book entitled ‘Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons Learned from Malaya and Vietnam.’ ... It was the first book Casey had read on guerrilla war.”
After two more years of mounting chaos in Iraq, Congress again returned to its tradition of strong oversight in the appointment of military leaders. When Army Gen. David Petraeus was nominated to replace Casey, the Senate confirmation hearings were far more vigorous, despite Petraeus’ distinguished pedigree in counterinsurgency warfare. The Senate would never confirm a Supreme Court justice who hadn’t given much thought to questions of constitutional law. Instead, senators inquire vigorously into the qualifications and judicial temperament that each nominee brings to his or her grave responsibilities. The Senate should exercise the same rigor in confirming those who lead American forces in battle.
Congress must be equally vigorous in resisting expansive interpretations of executive authority. Hasty and ill-considered executive decisions may burden the country with untenable and counterproductive policies whose consequences endure for decades. No issue makes this point more clearly than the Bush administration’s policies regarding the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Bush administration asserted broad authority to detain suspected terrorists, asserting that they were neither lawful combatants fully protected by the Geneva Conventions nor criminal suspects fully protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected these arguments, but not before these policies did substantial damage to America’s reputation around the world. Greater congressional oversight in the formulation of the Bush administration’s detention policies might have prevented this. The Founders provided Congress with ample authority to conduct such oversight, including the appropriation of funds and the confirmation of executive branch nominees. The Founders did not provide the executive with expanded power in time of war, and placed the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus under Congress. The Founders were not naive and understood that not every exigency of war could be anticipated and satisfactorily resolved by the law. Even strong advocates of legislative supremacy recognized the possibility that an executive might act contrary to the law for the purpose of preserving the state. John Locke, whose “Second Treatise on Government” powerfully influenced the Founders’ thinking, acknowledged the possibility of executive prerogative, defined as “power to act according to the discretion for the public good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it.” However, Locke warned that “the people shall be judge” as to whether such sweeping executive action was intended for the public good. Lincoln’s suspension of the Great Writ in the Civil War, imposed during congressional recess and affirmed only after the fact, is an example of the exercise of executive prerogative for the public good. Especially in times of war, the people’s elected representatives must balance executive demands for broad discretion with equally important concerns for accountability and oversight.
Finally and most importantly, Congress must discontinue the practice of authorizing protracted military operations without a formal declaration of war. Since World War II, Congress has abandoned the practice of declaring war prior to the onset of military hostilities. This practice may be justified in the immediate aftermath of an attack, such as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or the al-Qaida attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In such circumstances, the president as commander in chief has the authority to act in self-defense until he can bring the matter before Congress. However, the Constitution places the power to declare war and commit the armed forces of the U.S. to battle with the Congress.
The Founders recognized that war placed substantial demands on the public in both blood and treasure. For a self-governing society to fight a protracted war, the people must believe in the wisdom and justice of the conflict. Because they will bear the burdens of war, the people through their elected representatives are the best judges in the decision to use force to achieve the aims of policy. The Founders relied on the people and their elected representatives to ask hard questions and seek peaceful solutions in order to avoid potential conflicts.
There is no need for Congress to revisit or revise the War Powers Act of 1973, or to pass new legislation constraining executive war powers. The constitutionally mandated power of Congress alone to declare war is sufficient in and of itself. A popularly supported declaration of war is the surest indication that the war aims proposed by the executive have been carefully thought out, and peaceful means to achieve those aims have been exhausted. More importantly, such a declaration commits the full energy of the American people in prosecuting the war to a successful conclusion.
Eschewing a congressional declaration of war calls into question both the wisdom of the war and the public’s commitment to winning it. The clearest example of this phenomenon is the 2002 congressional authorization for the use of force in Iraq. This resolution authorized the president to employ the armed forces “as he deems appropriate” to “defend the national security of the U.S. against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” Moreover, unlike U.N. Security Council resolutions, the congressional authorization for the use of military force had no fixed time limit. Once passed, the president could and did use this authority to initiate a preventive war and sustain a protracted counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq. Congress granted this authority despite the fact that the Bush administration’s justification for war contained a number of highly dubious claims. Among these were that Iraq had links to al-Qaida, that Iraq possessed or would soon possess weapons of mass destruction and that establishing a democracy in Iraq could transform the conflict-torn Middle East into a more peaceful region. Prior to the war, a number of highly prestigious international relations scholars questioned the wisdom of the case for war. Moreover, several internal Defense Department studies indicated that the armed forces lacked sufficient troop strength to prosecute the war successfully. To be fair, a number of members of Congress questioned the justification for war and the means available for its prosecution. However, the resolution interpreted by the executive branch to provide sweeping presidential authority to invade, occupy and govern Iraq passed both houses of Congress by wide margins and without members of Congress accepting responsibility for the ensuing conflict.
In many ways, the prosecution of the war in Iraq is a cautionary tale against bypassing the war powers of Congress. If members of Congress had to impose conscription and fully mobilize the National Guard, they might have been more skeptical of the case for war. Had members of Congress been required to cut popular domestic programs to pay for the war, they might have insisted on prosecuting the war more intelligently and vigorously. Instead, Iraq edged toward chaos over the course of four years, costing the lives of thousand of volunteers and hundreds of billions of dollars in borrowed money. Members of Congress held hearings and asked questions, but took no action to change the course of events in Iraq. The public did not have to endure conscription as it did during the Vietnam War; the nascent anti-war movement therefore never approached the size and intensity of its Vietnam-era counterpart. Congress played only a minor role in the 2007 change of strategy in Iraq, the so-called “surge” that has created a remarkable, if fragile, turnaround. Nonetheless, the underlying fact remains that our conduct of the war in Iraq calls into question both the intelligence and vigor of America’s capacity to wage war.
As the U.S. commits additional forces to Afghanistan, Americans would be well-served to return to our constitutional system of war powers. The burdens of fighting in Afghanistan cannot and will not be shouldered solely by those in uniform today. Many of the soldiers who will fight in Afghanistan have not yet entered high school, and many of the workers who will pay for this conflict are not yet born. No war policy can succeed unless the American people are committed to the wisdom and justice of the conflict, and prepared to bear the burdens necessary for victory. America’s Founders understood this principle well, and gave us a system of government to keep us both safe and free. In practice, this form of government provides for a deliberative process that is slow, inefficient, messy and noisy. However, these inconveniences are a small price to pay to ensure that we choose our wars wisely and fight them intelligently and vigorously. We have paid a terrible price for ignoring the Founders’ wisdom, and in doing so have gained neither safety nor freedom. However, the great advantage of our system of government is that it allows us to learn from the past and do better in the future. Perhaps Madison should have added an eighth article to the Constitution: “When all else fails, read the directions.”
XXXXXXXXXXX
There it is - "When all else fails, read the directions" - and the Constitution of the United States is, if nothing else, the directions that came with the country.
Hooah
SLK
FOB Walton, Kandahar
Saturday, January 30, 2010
The Politics of Fear - The War for Your Mind
There is a war going on, but not one you think about as a war - I'm not referring to Afghanistan or Iraq or any other hot spot on the planet.
I'm talking about the war for your mind. For your beliefs. For your ignorance.
No, I'm not going to counsel wearing tin foil hats, nor am I hearing voices from my dental fillings. I'm talking about the constant battle that is ongoing through what we call the "Mainstream Media".
The Mainstream Media, or MSM, is actively engaged in what can only be called an information warfare campaign to modify your behaviors, and by extension, your belief structures. Sound paranoid? Let's review a few basic facts.
Most Americans get their news from media corporations through either television or the internet. Both are "visual" mediums, which increases the rapidity and scope of the impact on us - after all, we are visually oriented creatures. These media corporations exist as capitalist entities to make money.
The primary source of income for both television and internet news is advertising. Advertising rates are set based on viewership. Thus, the advertising rates for the Superbowl are astronomical while the advertising rates for my blog are nil.
The way that media networks maintain viewership is to provide engaging content - to do whatever it takes to keep your attention just enough to keep you from turning the channel or clicking a bookmark to another network or web page. To to this, they use every psychological trick in the book - graphic video, the teaser line before the commercial, powerful music and graphics. All is fair in the quest for your attention.
Now here's the great secret. I think it's been known for a long time, but really first reared its impact with Orson Welles' 1938 Halloween broadcast of H.G. Wells "War of the Worlds". He "made" people believe that Martians were actually landing in Grovers Mill, New Jersey, and several small panics ensued. He did this by making his broadcast sound like actual "routine" programming - a radio orchestra being interrupted by news bulletins that gradually escalated into live broadcasts from the scene. Brilliant - it was "Wag the Dog" without the dog - which is the point.
The great secret is that "Fear Sells". All we have to do is make you afraid and you will not change the channel. In fact, if we advertise it up front, we can get you to watch without knowing what you will be afraid of. Think of all the "Very Special Episodes of..." that you've heard advertised. What did that mean? Something bad was going to happen to a main character on a normally comedic show and you were going to share the pain and uncertainty with them. Pain and uncertainty - two roots of fear.
Now think about the central message of most of what you see on what passes for television news today. Pain and uncertainty. Even when something good happens - a peace treaty is signed, rain comes to a drought ravaged region, a baby dolphin is reunited with its mother - the reporters or the anchors will end it with the "It remains to be seen what happens next with the warring parties," or "Forecasters fear that the rain may be too little, too late," or "We have no way of knowing whether baby Flipper's mother will accept him back into the fold - if not, he will surely die." Why do they do this - pain and uncertainty leading to an implied promise that, if we find out anything, we'll update you.
What are the right-wing television and radio talking heads doing with Obama? Pain and uncertainty. Be afraid, be very afraid. In the spirit of fairness, the left-wing television and radio talking heads did the same thing during the Bush administration - what few there were, but they do not have the same traction with the public.
The other day I received, as I'm sure many of us do, a forwarded email of a right wing pundit's column or blog or whatever. Now, I am aware that the person who sent it to me has far different political beliefs than I do, and we playfully throw stuff at each other from time to time. This one was a great example of what I am referring to here - here it is, as sent...
XXXXXXXXX
It's Hillary in 2012, if Obama even makes it that far
By Bryan Fischer
There is virtually unanimous agreement that President Obama is toast. Mort Zuckerman says the air is out of the balloon, and even Der Spiegel is saying that, for German commentators, the hope is gone. In my judgment, Obama is now a lame duck president with 75% of his first (and only) term remaining.
ObamaCare, his signature issue, is dead in the water and Democrats are floating belly up right next to it. Think Corzine, Deeds, Coakley, Dodd, Dorgan, Snyder, Nelson, Lincoln, etc. etc.
If the Democrats do not insist that Obama resign from office ¬ politically unlikely to be sure ¬ they are liable to be dessicated, withered and powerless by 2012. His coattails are just long enough to drag them all under unless they detach themselves immediately if not sooner.
The natives are restless. If I've observed any one thing over time in politics, it's that the only thing that matters to 95% of politicians is getting re-elected. They will sell their soul to anyone who will ensure re-election and abandon any principle and any friend who serves as a drag on their electoral hopes.
The president is now dead weight, an albatross around the neck of every Democrat member of the House and the Senate. They simply cannot afford to be linked to him anymore. He is blindly pursuing policies that the great majority of Americans flatly reject, and yet he soldiers on, oblivious, perhaps through sheer hubris, to the fact that voters aren't buying the swill he is trying to sell as champagne. Congressional Democrats have got to get as far away from him as they can, and they will. Sheer self-interest will dictate separation.
Obama is a disastrous 0-5 on the campaign trail, in his first year after an inauguration attended by unmatched euphoria and expectation. Few in political history, apart from appalling scandal, have fallen so far so fast. He is the Tiger Woods of the political world. He got hosed in Copenhagen, trying the bag the Olympics for Chicago. He got hosed again in Copenhagen, trying to impose economy-destroying carbon caps on the entire world.
And he got hosed in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts when he tried to lend his now vanished charisma to troubled candidates. He's now preparing to make it 0-6 by going to Nevada to prop up the dismal fortunes of the thoroughly unappealing Harry Reid.
Congressional Democrats now can safely ignore their own president, and in fact must do so to preserve any chance of survival. Dick Morris is surely correct when he says that the president will never be able to pass a significant piece of legislation ever again. The American people are watching, they know he cannot be trusted, and they will beat the daylights out of any politician who supports his disastrous agenda.
He has grossly misread the American public, perhaps again because in his insular and self-adulating world he believes he is the smartest person in the room and is sure that his brilliance will inevitably be recognized by the great unwashed. Ain't gonna happen. The American people are a lot smarter than he thinks, maybe even smarter than he is, and surely wiser when it comes to politics. They will never trust him again about anything.
The president is catastrophically weak and naive when it comes to our war against Islamofascism. He is indifferent, desultory, casual, and lacking in seriousness regarding the threat. The American people know this. He waited three days to say anything at all about the Tighty-Whitey Bomber of Christmas Day, his Pentagon whitewashed completely the jihadist attack on Ft. Hood by refusing to use either the word "Islam" or "Muslim" anywhere in its 86-page report, and he nominated a manifestly unqualified man (Erroll Southers) to head the TSA.
If there is another successful Islamic attack on the United States, and a planeload of innocent Americans gets blown up, I believe that will be the last straw for this vain and incompetent president. The American people will hound him out of office. He won't be able to show his face in public because the reaction will be so visceral and angry. He will become as isolated as Dick Nixon became in his last days in office.
He'll crank up the Oval Office thermostat to 72 degrees and hunker down in an effort to ride out the storm.
Hillary Clinton is of course watching, and I have been predicting for months now that she will launch a primary challenge to Obama in 2012. Rush Limbaugh said much the same thing this past week. The campaign of 2012 is her last realistic shot, and she is shrewd enough to see that he is finished as a politician and she'll just be too old in 2016.
Surely the Democrats in the party will see the same thing, and know that if they back Obama in 2012 they will be backing a loser. Believe me, there will be an underground movement among Democrats to plead with Hillary (or somebody) to save what shreds will remain of their party from The One in the next presidential election.
President Obama has no chance at a second term. And eroding chances of completing his first one.
© Bryan Fischer
XXXXXXXXXX
Are you afraid? What is the message? Obama's a loser. As Americans we don't back losers. We like to win. Therefore, you should fear to associate your beliefs with Obama.
My response to my friend was the following:
XXXXXXXXXX
Anytime I hear a commentator use terms like “virtually unanimous” I remember what an old boss of mine told me when I wrote something similar in an analytical piece - “Scott, there are no modifications to unanimous – it is either unanimous or it is not. If it is not, it may be a majority, but it is intellectually dishonest to try to imply something that simply isn’t.” He was one of the smarter guys I worked for over the years – and the best Commander I ever had.
Last time I checked, “Obama-Care” had morphed into “House and Senate Care” – with Obama agreeing only that it was better than doing nothing. It wasn’t “his” plan by the time the Congressional sausage grinders got done with it.
I will agree that Obama has failed – but what he has failed to do is communicate with the people who elect those Congressmen and Senators. Those same people who elected him.
Anytime I hear anyone mention Obama’s “birth status”, I want to puke. The man is President. Every court in the land that this issue has been raised in has rejected it out of hand. But that’s not good enough for politics these days – no, we’ll keep on beating the dead horse because there are still idiots who will believe it and pass it on, whether out of ignorance or out of thinly disguised racial prejudice or undisguised political prejudice.
Think about how far this country has fallen intellectually in the past 40 years. Do you remember, as I do, the Vacuum Tube Testers that used to be in the front of stores like Skaggs or Thrifty Drugs? Where you could pull a tube out of your television or radio at home, bring it in, and plug it in to the tester to see if it worked or not – and if it didn’t, they were right there for you to buy a replacement – that you then could put back into your television by yourself? We can now text 30 words a minute with our thumbs, often while driving, but we can’t change the oil in our own cars because we’ve turned into a nation of idiots – no curiosity, no skills at anything beyond mere existence. How many kids today can tune a carburetor by ear? How many kids can actually make something from nothing to play with? That’s one of the reasons I’m so indulgent with the boys with their Legos – at least they are creating something. I know technology has made vacuum tubes and carburetors obsolete, but it illustrates the point - but what is the modern equivalent? Playing golf under par on the Wii?
I am very suspicious of the motivations for most of these pundits, commentators, etc. Pure and simple, they make their money by counseling “fear” – fear of the evil Democrats, fear of the evil black man, fear of anything “non-Christian”, fear of anything not 100% Republican party – and even then they will turn on each other like sharks if any one of them deviates the slightest degree. Their incomes and livelihoods are based on spreading fear, spreading rumors, walking right up to the line for slander and libel, then hiding behind the very legal system they decry when they are called on their inaccuracies. Their tactics are taken straight from the masters of the game – Goebbels, Stalin, Mao, Castro – repeat a lie often enough and it gains a truth of its own.
Why deal in fear? Manifest the things you fear and you will find things to be afraid of. Why not have faith in our system of government and faith that most of our leaders are doing their best every day to make America better? I’ll give George W. Bush that much credit – I think he was doing what he believed was right, much as I disagreed with the things he did. I can disagree politically, religiously, philosophically, and personally and still respect the individual for who he is, what he attained and how he has dared stand in the arena. Teddy Roosevelt said it best…
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
How many of us can say that we have risked what Obama has risked to pursue what we believe in?
XXXXXXXXXX
I think that many of these commentators, pundits, etc., have forgotten or confused just what the real arena is – they think they are the gladiators out there jeering at Caesar, when in fact, they are mere spectators, often loud ones, but spectators, nonetheless.
As Americans, we can choose to be informed or ignorant - no one makes us pay attention. But apathy is insidious - and ignorance is ripe ground for the practitioners of political or media information warfare.
Next time, we'll talk about how we've failed to apply these similar lessons in Afghanistan. There - a teaser with no fear involved.
Hooah
SLK
FOB Walton, Afghanistan
I'm talking about the war for your mind. For your beliefs. For your ignorance.
No, I'm not going to counsel wearing tin foil hats, nor am I hearing voices from my dental fillings. I'm talking about the constant battle that is ongoing through what we call the "Mainstream Media".
The Mainstream Media, or MSM, is actively engaged in what can only be called an information warfare campaign to modify your behaviors, and by extension, your belief structures. Sound paranoid? Let's review a few basic facts.
Most Americans get their news from media corporations through either television or the internet. Both are "visual" mediums, which increases the rapidity and scope of the impact on us - after all, we are visually oriented creatures. These media corporations exist as capitalist entities to make money.
The primary source of income for both television and internet news is advertising. Advertising rates are set based on viewership. Thus, the advertising rates for the Superbowl are astronomical while the advertising rates for my blog are nil.
The way that media networks maintain viewership is to provide engaging content - to do whatever it takes to keep your attention just enough to keep you from turning the channel or clicking a bookmark to another network or web page. To to this, they use every psychological trick in the book - graphic video, the teaser line before the commercial, powerful music and graphics. All is fair in the quest for your attention.
Now here's the great secret. I think it's been known for a long time, but really first reared its impact with Orson Welles' 1938 Halloween broadcast of H.G. Wells "War of the Worlds". He "made" people believe that Martians were actually landing in Grovers Mill, New Jersey, and several small panics ensued. He did this by making his broadcast sound like actual "routine" programming - a radio orchestra being interrupted by news bulletins that gradually escalated into live broadcasts from the scene. Brilliant - it was "Wag the Dog" without the dog - which is the point.
The great secret is that "Fear Sells". All we have to do is make you afraid and you will not change the channel. In fact, if we advertise it up front, we can get you to watch without knowing what you will be afraid of. Think of all the "Very Special Episodes of..." that you've heard advertised. What did that mean? Something bad was going to happen to a main character on a normally comedic show and you were going to share the pain and uncertainty with them. Pain and uncertainty - two roots of fear.
Now think about the central message of most of what you see on what passes for television news today. Pain and uncertainty. Even when something good happens - a peace treaty is signed, rain comes to a drought ravaged region, a baby dolphin is reunited with its mother - the reporters or the anchors will end it with the "It remains to be seen what happens next with the warring parties," or "Forecasters fear that the rain may be too little, too late," or "We have no way of knowing whether baby Flipper's mother will accept him back into the fold - if not, he will surely die." Why do they do this - pain and uncertainty leading to an implied promise that, if we find out anything, we'll update you.
What are the right-wing television and radio talking heads doing with Obama? Pain and uncertainty. Be afraid, be very afraid. In the spirit of fairness, the left-wing television and radio talking heads did the same thing during the Bush administration - what few there were, but they do not have the same traction with the public.
The other day I received, as I'm sure many of us do, a forwarded email of a right wing pundit's column or blog or whatever. Now, I am aware that the person who sent it to me has far different political beliefs than I do, and we playfully throw stuff at each other from time to time. This one was a great example of what I am referring to here - here it is, as sent...
XXXXXXXXX
It's Hillary in 2012, if Obama even makes it that far
By Bryan Fischer
There is virtually unanimous agreement that President Obama is toast. Mort Zuckerman says the air is out of the balloon, and even Der Spiegel is saying that, for German commentators, the hope is gone. In my judgment, Obama is now a lame duck president with 75% of his first (and only) term remaining.
ObamaCare, his signature issue, is dead in the water and Democrats are floating belly up right next to it. Think Corzine, Deeds, Coakley, Dodd, Dorgan, Snyder, Nelson, Lincoln, etc. etc.
If the Democrats do not insist that Obama resign from office ¬ politically unlikely to be sure ¬ they are liable to be dessicated, withered and powerless by 2012. His coattails are just long enough to drag them all under unless they detach themselves immediately if not sooner.
The natives are restless. If I've observed any one thing over time in politics, it's that the only thing that matters to 95% of politicians is getting re-elected. They will sell their soul to anyone who will ensure re-election and abandon any principle and any friend who serves as a drag on their electoral hopes.
The president is now dead weight, an albatross around the neck of every Democrat member of the House and the Senate. They simply cannot afford to be linked to him anymore. He is blindly pursuing policies that the great majority of Americans flatly reject, and yet he soldiers on, oblivious, perhaps through sheer hubris, to the fact that voters aren't buying the swill he is trying to sell as champagne. Congressional Democrats have got to get as far away from him as they can, and they will. Sheer self-interest will dictate separation.
Obama is a disastrous 0-5 on the campaign trail, in his first year after an inauguration attended by unmatched euphoria and expectation. Few in political history, apart from appalling scandal, have fallen so far so fast. He is the Tiger Woods of the political world. He got hosed in Copenhagen, trying the bag the Olympics for Chicago. He got hosed again in Copenhagen, trying to impose economy-destroying carbon caps on the entire world.
And he got hosed in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts when he tried to lend his now vanished charisma to troubled candidates. He's now preparing to make it 0-6 by going to Nevada to prop up the dismal fortunes of the thoroughly unappealing Harry Reid.
Congressional Democrats now can safely ignore their own president, and in fact must do so to preserve any chance of survival. Dick Morris is surely correct when he says that the president will never be able to pass a significant piece of legislation ever again. The American people are watching, they know he cannot be trusted, and they will beat the daylights out of any politician who supports his disastrous agenda.
He has grossly misread the American public, perhaps again because in his insular and self-adulating world he believes he is the smartest person in the room and is sure that his brilliance will inevitably be recognized by the great unwashed. Ain't gonna happen. The American people are a lot smarter than he thinks, maybe even smarter than he is, and surely wiser when it comes to politics. They will never trust him again about anything.
The president is catastrophically weak and naive when it comes to our war against Islamofascism. He is indifferent, desultory, casual, and lacking in seriousness regarding the threat. The American people know this. He waited three days to say anything at all about the Tighty-Whitey Bomber of Christmas Day, his Pentagon whitewashed completely the jihadist attack on Ft. Hood by refusing to use either the word "Islam" or "Muslim" anywhere in its 86-page report, and he nominated a manifestly unqualified man (Erroll Southers) to head the TSA.
If there is another successful Islamic attack on the United States, and a planeload of innocent Americans gets blown up, I believe that will be the last straw for this vain and incompetent president. The American people will hound him out of office. He won't be able to show his face in public because the reaction will be so visceral and angry. He will become as isolated as Dick Nixon became in his last days in office.
He'll crank up the Oval Office thermostat to 72 degrees and hunker down in an effort to ride out the storm.
Hillary Clinton is of course watching, and I have been predicting for months now that she will launch a primary challenge to Obama in 2012. Rush Limbaugh said much the same thing this past week. The campaign of 2012 is her last realistic shot, and she is shrewd enough to see that he is finished as a politician and she'll just be too old in 2016.
Surely the Democrats in the party will see the same thing, and know that if they back Obama in 2012 they will be backing a loser. Believe me, there will be an underground movement among Democrats to plead with Hillary (or somebody) to save what shreds will remain of their party from The One in the next presidential election.
President Obama has no chance at a second term. And eroding chances of completing his first one.
© Bryan Fischer
XXXXXXXXXX
Are you afraid? What is the message? Obama's a loser. As Americans we don't back losers. We like to win. Therefore, you should fear to associate your beliefs with Obama.
My response to my friend was the following:
XXXXXXXXXX
Anytime I hear a commentator use terms like “virtually unanimous” I remember what an old boss of mine told me when I wrote something similar in an analytical piece - “Scott, there are no modifications to unanimous – it is either unanimous or it is not. If it is not, it may be a majority, but it is intellectually dishonest to try to imply something that simply isn’t.” He was one of the smarter guys I worked for over the years – and the best Commander I ever had.
Last time I checked, “Obama-Care” had morphed into “House and Senate Care” – with Obama agreeing only that it was better than doing nothing. It wasn’t “his” plan by the time the Congressional sausage grinders got done with it.
I will agree that Obama has failed – but what he has failed to do is communicate with the people who elect those Congressmen and Senators. Those same people who elected him.
Anytime I hear anyone mention Obama’s “birth status”, I want to puke. The man is President. Every court in the land that this issue has been raised in has rejected it out of hand. But that’s not good enough for politics these days – no, we’ll keep on beating the dead horse because there are still idiots who will believe it and pass it on, whether out of ignorance or out of thinly disguised racial prejudice or undisguised political prejudice.
Think about how far this country has fallen intellectually in the past 40 years. Do you remember, as I do, the Vacuum Tube Testers that used to be in the front of stores like Skaggs or Thrifty Drugs? Where you could pull a tube out of your television or radio at home, bring it in, and plug it in to the tester to see if it worked or not – and if it didn’t, they were right there for you to buy a replacement – that you then could put back into your television by yourself? We can now text 30 words a minute with our thumbs, often while driving, but we can’t change the oil in our own cars because we’ve turned into a nation of idiots – no curiosity, no skills at anything beyond mere existence. How many kids today can tune a carburetor by ear? How many kids can actually make something from nothing to play with? That’s one of the reasons I’m so indulgent with the boys with their Legos – at least they are creating something. I know technology has made vacuum tubes and carburetors obsolete, but it illustrates the point - but what is the modern equivalent? Playing golf under par on the Wii?
I am very suspicious of the motivations for most of these pundits, commentators, etc. Pure and simple, they make their money by counseling “fear” – fear of the evil Democrats, fear of the evil black man, fear of anything “non-Christian”, fear of anything not 100% Republican party – and even then they will turn on each other like sharks if any one of them deviates the slightest degree. Their incomes and livelihoods are based on spreading fear, spreading rumors, walking right up to the line for slander and libel, then hiding behind the very legal system they decry when they are called on their inaccuracies. Their tactics are taken straight from the masters of the game – Goebbels, Stalin, Mao, Castro – repeat a lie often enough and it gains a truth of its own.
Why deal in fear? Manifest the things you fear and you will find things to be afraid of. Why not have faith in our system of government and faith that most of our leaders are doing their best every day to make America better? I’ll give George W. Bush that much credit – I think he was doing what he believed was right, much as I disagreed with the things he did. I can disagree politically, religiously, philosophically, and personally and still respect the individual for who he is, what he attained and how he has dared stand in the arena. Teddy Roosevelt said it best…
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
How many of us can say that we have risked what Obama has risked to pursue what we believe in?
XXXXXXXXXX
I think that many of these commentators, pundits, etc., have forgotten or confused just what the real arena is – they think they are the gladiators out there jeering at Caesar, when in fact, they are mere spectators, often loud ones, but spectators, nonetheless.
As Americans, we can choose to be informed or ignorant - no one makes us pay attention. But apathy is insidious - and ignorance is ripe ground for the practitioners of political or media information warfare.
Next time, we'll talk about how we've failed to apply these similar lessons in Afghanistan. There - a teaser with no fear involved.
Hooah
SLK
FOB Walton, Afghanistan
Retirement
On December 28th, I was ceremoniously retired from the Armed Forces of the United States. I say ceremoniously because, well, that's when the ceremony was. Officially, I retired back on 30 June, but haven't been in the country since then to do the ceremony.
As retirement ceremonies go, I think it was pretty routine. I was awarded several medals and presented with the certificate of retirement and certificates of appreciation. My wife was presented with a certificate of appreciation as well, as is customary.
Then it was my turn. I gave my retirement speech. I hope you enjoy it.
XXXXXXXXXX
Thank you all for coming.
I believe that retirement speeches should serve two purposes. First, they should offer heartfelt thanks to comrades, friends, and family who have also shared the ride that has been this career. The second purpose is to offer one last piece of advice, make one last attempt to achieve immortality, of a sort - to be remembered. So, here it is, my thanks, and my attempt to pass on something of myself so that I might be remembered someday by someone else on this stage. Of course, in the best traditions of an intelligence officer I will be accompanied by a 48 slide presentation and the entire thing will be classified SECRET NOFORN. I will also be reversing the order, saving the thanks for last, as an OPSEC measure.
Michael Shaara, in his book "The Killer Angels" made perhaps the most poignent observation about the military that I have ever come across. He attributed it to Confederate General Robert E. Lee in a conversation with General Longstreet. "To be a good soldier, one must love the Army. But to be a good officer, one must be ready to order the death of the thing he loves. No other profession requires that." All of us have chosen to wear the uniform and swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foregn and domestic, amongst other things. My challenge to you is to live that oath every day.
The challenge is to defend the Constitution against complacency. It must take the form of a constant struggle to make things better, for your subordinates, your peers, and for your superiors as well as for your organization. By constantly seeking to improve your position, you create a culture that embraces change and seeks out ways to capitalize on change, for change is one of only two inevitables in life, the other being death.
As for my career, Wow, what a ride. I've been places I never would have dreamed of; seen things both wonderful and terrible to behold; done things that many just dream of; and best of all, I know I have made a difference.
I cannot imagine a better epitaph to a career. "I made a difference." I wasn't the best officer, the best leader, the best boss, the best husband, or the best father over the past almost 30 years in uniform. But I think it's fair to say that I have become better in all of these roles as time went on. Perfection isn't the standard, learning and improving are the standard by which we should measure ourselves.
So, there it is, my nuggets of wisdom for you all. All I can hope is that they resonate for someone here, makes their path a little clearer from here on out.
The people I owe for this success are legion. First and foremost is my wife Kim. She stood by me through the bad bosses and the long deployments and the 80 hour workweeks and somehow held it all together. Thank you, my dear - I know that today I am as much in love with you as I was in 1982 when I was that JROTC Geek.
I thank my two boys, Preston and Liam for constantly reminding me why this career is important - for if it is not for our children that we make a better planet, who is it for? Thank you both.
I am grateful to my parents who instilled the work ethic to do it right then keep going from there. Dad, you also were one of the best bosses I ever had the privilege to work for - serving as your intelligence officer was the highlight of my career.
I am grateful for my brother, who allows me a peek into the next generation's mindset and who reminds me to have fun in doing the job.
Over the years I had some great bosses and mentors who exemplified professionalism. LTCs Clair Armstrong and Kent Thomas, MAJ John Midgely, and COL James Sfayer from my West Point days. COL G. Pat Ritter, COL Robert M. Williams, COL Mike Altomare, COL Steve Lemons, COL Greg Fontenot, Col. Bill Shawver, COL John Goodale, COL Tim Kelly and COL Rob Lytle are just a few of the great officers and men for whom I have worked for or with and grown from the interaction.
No officer can hope to be a success without the support of his subordinates, and I had some great ones over the years. SGT Larry Halminiak my first gunner and Specialist John Stehley, my first driver were the first of many. Sergeant Major Bill Moore, First Sergeants Dana Sullivan, Mitch Andreasen, and Ric Holmes. Sergeants First Class Sean Kelly, Lonny Grout, Theodore Berryhill, and John Martin and Sergeant Marie Ristow all contributed immensely to my success as an officer over the years. It was a pleasure to serve with them.
Finally, I owe a huge debt of gratitude to my peers all along the way. They were the ones that kept me sane when things were tough and provided the support to keep going. You all, collectively, make up my "Band of Brothers" and I have no doubt that our friendships will last beyond the military. COL Steven Sauter, LTC Dave Dahle, LTC Tony McClure, LTC Albert Gomez, LtCol Bruno Plourde, LtCol Drummond Fraser, Maj Jerry Hager, and Maj Klaus Fisher - I owe you all for doing your jobs so well, which made it so much easier to do mine.
Finally, a Parthian Shot - and for once I won't explain the background as I've been talking too long already. Google it if you care. Perhaps the most important lesson I learned here in Idaho - It's better to know which battles to fight than it is to win all of the battles that you do fight. Choose your causes wisely.
Again, Thank you all for coming. I genuinely wish you all the very happiest of holiday seasons and a joyous and bountiful new year.
XXXXXXXXXX
There it is, short and to the point. The best part is that I truly believe the points I was attempted to convey.
The military is not like any other "job" - and we should continually emphasize that point, to the recruits, to the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines; but most importantly, we need to remind the American People of that - and their elected Representatives and Senators.
Likewise, I see the danger to the Constitution, and by extension America, isn't that of radical change, it's of complacence, somnolence, and apathy. The words in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are not just quaint creative writings - they are the bedrock of what we are as a nation. We must be on guard that we do not chip away around the edges to the point where nothing remains.
Finally, I am proud to say that I HAVE made a difference, however small. I think that that is all that any of us can hope for.
That all being said, I'm glad that my time in uniform is done. It's time to move on to the next chapters in this adventure called life.
BTW - I can't resist - the Parthians were follow-ons to the Persian Empire in what is now Mesopotamia. They successfully resisted the Roman Empire's expansion to the East. One of their favored battle tactics was to conduct a cavalry charge, then at the last minute, wheel about, as if they were going to flee - then turn and fire a volley of arrows over the rumps of their horses - directly into the ranks of the defenders, who, more often than not, had risen and shifted out of position to begin pursuing. As an Armor Officer, we called these "rear deck engagements" - firing the main gun over the back of the vehicle as we displaced from our fighting positions. Same thought, different technology. Hence, the Parthian Shot is a powerful volley fired as one retreats from the battlefield.
Hooah
SLK
FOB Walton, Kandahar, Afghanistan
As retirement ceremonies go, I think it was pretty routine. I was awarded several medals and presented with the certificate of retirement and certificates of appreciation. My wife was presented with a certificate of appreciation as well, as is customary.
Then it was my turn. I gave my retirement speech. I hope you enjoy it.
XXXXXXXXXX
Thank you all for coming.
I believe that retirement speeches should serve two purposes. First, they should offer heartfelt thanks to comrades, friends, and family who have also shared the ride that has been this career. The second purpose is to offer one last piece of advice, make one last attempt to achieve immortality, of a sort - to be remembered. So, here it is, my thanks, and my attempt to pass on something of myself so that I might be remembered someday by someone else on this stage. Of course, in the best traditions of an intelligence officer I will be accompanied by a 48 slide presentation and the entire thing will be classified SECRET NOFORN. I will also be reversing the order, saving the thanks for last, as an OPSEC measure.
Michael Shaara, in his book "The Killer Angels" made perhaps the most poignent observation about the military that I have ever come across. He attributed it to Confederate General Robert E. Lee in a conversation with General Longstreet. "To be a good soldier, one must love the Army. But to be a good officer, one must be ready to order the death of the thing he loves. No other profession requires that." All of us have chosen to wear the uniform and swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foregn and domestic, amongst other things. My challenge to you is to live that oath every day.
The challenge is to defend the Constitution against complacency. It must take the form of a constant struggle to make things better, for your subordinates, your peers, and for your superiors as well as for your organization. By constantly seeking to improve your position, you create a culture that embraces change and seeks out ways to capitalize on change, for change is one of only two inevitables in life, the other being death.
As for my career, Wow, what a ride. I've been places I never would have dreamed of; seen things both wonderful and terrible to behold; done things that many just dream of; and best of all, I know I have made a difference.
I cannot imagine a better epitaph to a career. "I made a difference." I wasn't the best officer, the best leader, the best boss, the best husband, or the best father over the past almost 30 years in uniform. But I think it's fair to say that I have become better in all of these roles as time went on. Perfection isn't the standard, learning and improving are the standard by which we should measure ourselves.
So, there it is, my nuggets of wisdom for you all. All I can hope is that they resonate for someone here, makes their path a little clearer from here on out.
The people I owe for this success are legion. First and foremost is my wife Kim. She stood by me through the bad bosses and the long deployments and the 80 hour workweeks and somehow held it all together. Thank you, my dear - I know that today I am as much in love with you as I was in 1982 when I was that JROTC Geek.
I thank my two boys, Preston and Liam for constantly reminding me why this career is important - for if it is not for our children that we make a better planet, who is it for? Thank you both.
I am grateful to my parents who instilled the work ethic to do it right then keep going from there. Dad, you also were one of the best bosses I ever had the privilege to work for - serving as your intelligence officer was the highlight of my career.
I am grateful for my brother, who allows me a peek into the next generation's mindset and who reminds me to have fun in doing the job.
Over the years I had some great bosses and mentors who exemplified professionalism. LTCs Clair Armstrong and Kent Thomas, MAJ John Midgely, and COL James Sfayer from my West Point days. COL G. Pat Ritter, COL Robert M. Williams, COL Mike Altomare, COL Steve Lemons, COL Greg Fontenot, Col. Bill Shawver, COL John Goodale, COL Tim Kelly and COL Rob Lytle are just a few of the great officers and men for whom I have worked for or with and grown from the interaction.
No officer can hope to be a success without the support of his subordinates, and I had some great ones over the years. SGT Larry Halminiak my first gunner and Specialist John Stehley, my first driver were the first of many. Sergeant Major Bill Moore, First Sergeants Dana Sullivan, Mitch Andreasen, and Ric Holmes. Sergeants First Class Sean Kelly, Lonny Grout, Theodore Berryhill, and John Martin and Sergeant Marie Ristow all contributed immensely to my success as an officer over the years. It was a pleasure to serve with them.
Finally, I owe a huge debt of gratitude to my peers all along the way. They were the ones that kept me sane when things were tough and provided the support to keep going. You all, collectively, make up my "Band of Brothers" and I have no doubt that our friendships will last beyond the military. COL Steven Sauter, LTC Dave Dahle, LTC Tony McClure, LTC Albert Gomez, LtCol Bruno Plourde, LtCol Drummond Fraser, Maj Jerry Hager, and Maj Klaus Fisher - I owe you all for doing your jobs so well, which made it so much easier to do mine.
Finally, a Parthian Shot - and for once I won't explain the background as I've been talking too long already. Google it if you care. Perhaps the most important lesson I learned here in Idaho - It's better to know which battles to fight than it is to win all of the battles that you do fight. Choose your causes wisely.
Again, Thank you all for coming. I genuinely wish you all the very happiest of holiday seasons and a joyous and bountiful new year.
XXXXXXXXXX
There it is, short and to the point. The best part is that I truly believe the points I was attempted to convey.
The military is not like any other "job" - and we should continually emphasize that point, to the recruits, to the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines; but most importantly, we need to remind the American People of that - and their elected Representatives and Senators.
Likewise, I see the danger to the Constitution, and by extension America, isn't that of radical change, it's of complacence, somnolence, and apathy. The words in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are not just quaint creative writings - they are the bedrock of what we are as a nation. We must be on guard that we do not chip away around the edges to the point where nothing remains.
Finally, I am proud to say that I HAVE made a difference, however small. I think that that is all that any of us can hope for.
That all being said, I'm glad that my time in uniform is done. It's time to move on to the next chapters in this adventure called life.
BTW - I can't resist - the Parthians were follow-ons to the Persian Empire in what is now Mesopotamia. They successfully resisted the Roman Empire's expansion to the East. One of their favored battle tactics was to conduct a cavalry charge, then at the last minute, wheel about, as if they were going to flee - then turn and fire a volley of arrows over the rumps of their horses - directly into the ranks of the defenders, who, more often than not, had risen and shifted out of position to begin pursuing. As an Armor Officer, we called these "rear deck engagements" - firing the main gun over the back of the vehicle as we displaced from our fighting positions. Same thought, different technology. Hence, the Parthian Shot is a powerful volley fired as one retreats from the battlefield.
Hooah
SLK
FOB Walton, Kandahar, Afghanistan
Nice Break
Apologies for the long absence - I took a wonderful three week vacation home for the holidays, then have spent the last three weeks here getting myself back in order.
The good news is that my Afghan Adventure is starting to come to a close. As of today, I've got about 43 days left in Afghanistan before I go home for good.
Anyway, lots of things to write about, so stay tuned.
SLK
FOB Walton, Kandahar, Afghanistan
The good news is that my Afghan Adventure is starting to come to a close. As of today, I've got about 43 days left in Afghanistan before I go home for good.
Anyway, lots of things to write about, so stay tuned.
SLK
FOB Walton, Kandahar, Afghanistan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
