Philosopher as a soldier

Israeli general as a philosopher-soldier

The Israeli Defense Force’s Brig. Gen. Herzl Halevi is a man after my own heart, it would seem.

You see, I like philosopher-soldiers. They make great leaders in my experience.

I knew one once in the US Army … Gen. Carl Steiner. He was a special warrior in more ways than one (He not only was commander of the XVIII Airborne Corps but also served as commander of US Special Operations Command), but the thing that always impressed me about him was his depth. He was an amazing fellow that knew that once you passed a certain rank in the military you not only had to worry about enemy minefields but the political ones as well.

I interviewed him several times at length during his stint as commander of 18 Corps, including a special one-hour interview with him after Just Cause about how the operation was pulled together and executed under his command.

What is a philosopher-soldier? One who understands the true nature of war, its price and its necessity.

Like Gen. Halevi said, wars and military operations don’t necessarily solve problems, but sometimes they are the price you have to pay.

There are no simple wars, he told the New York Times in the above article. AMEN to that.

And all you can do is hope that the one you are fighting now is decisive enough to deter the next one for as long as possible because there will be a next one, and one after that, and one after that, ad infinitum. It is the human condition and no matter what you do or say, that is not going to change.

So in peace, as more than one brilliant military leader has observed, the best way to preserve that peace is to be prepared to fight, to wage war, better than anyone else.

The Americans have done that for the past 60 years or so, after relearning in 1950 that the era of wars was not over. It still is not over, despite what we might want or hope.

The problem with the American Way of War for the past 60 years (with a couple of minor exceptions) is that we have not come to battle intent on making it decisive. No, that would be too costly or too heavy-handed. We must be proportionate to the threat or some such nonsense.

Understand, I am no warmonger and I doubt any real “professional” soldier – which I was not; I just trained part-time for many years to be able to survive possible combat – is. I do, however, having witnessed the impact of battle first hand appreciate the costs of war. It is not pretty. It is not something to seek glory from. It is not something to enter into lightly.

Having said that, war sometimes is a necessary evil that outweighs the other options. You may not agree, but then we will have to agree to disagree. Some people just don’t or won’t respond to talking or negotiating in good faith. Compromise to them is not an option.

Israel faces that dilemma. An enemy that refuses to take yes for an answer. Unfortunately for Israel, the only solution it seems that is acceptable for those who oppose it is for Israel to cease to exist. And people like Gen. Halevi are not going to let that happen. His roots in Jerusalem go back 15 generations and I think he is entitled to stay there.

The Palestine problem is complex and far beyond my meager views to be able to solve. I do understand both sides wanting the thrice-promised land. Partition has been tried and offered several times, but it is never enough it seems to me.

But isn’t that indicative of the human condition? Are we never satisfied with what we have? Don’t we always want more? Don’t we always expect that we should be given more?

It seems to me that it doesn’t matter what culture or society that you have grown up in, the desire for more is always there. I may be wrong and I expect that you can cite instances where there are social groups where people do not want to improve their lot and those of their offspring. However, I would say those instances either represent very, very small groups of people or are aberrations that either collapsed due to their own internal contradictions or were unable to compete against aggressive neighboring societies.

Still, to me, the soldier who knows and understands philosophy – not just Western philosophy but the philosophes of different cultures (especially those of potential enemies) – is far better equipped and prepared for the next war … and there will be one.

Presidential discretion

Prosecutorial discretion: A definition and discussion

Perils of selective prosecution

The president of the United States, in the context of enforcing various laws passed by Congress and rules and regulations (with the force of law) written by various regulatory agencies of the Executive Branch, has cited “prosecutorial discretion” as the source of his power to basically say: Yes, that is the law, but I don’t like it so I am going to ignore the law and I am going to tell my agents in the executive branch not to enforce it.”

Question: Does prosecutorial discretion really give the president the right to ignore the law?

Where is the justice if the law is selectively enforced? Is it not more fair if the law is applied equally to all citizens, especially the same law?

The problems I have with President Barack Obama’s declaration that segments of his Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare or the ACA) will not be enforced because his allies and administration failed to anticipate a host of unintended consequences (well, we are being generous here and assuming they are unintended) that have accompanied the rollout of the President’s signature legislature are legion.

I won’t go into the convoluted definitions and such that make it constitutional, or the cynical calculations that have gone into exempting this class or that group from the dictates of the Congressional legislation that was passed on a strictly party-line vote (i.e. no attempt at consensus). I am just dealing with the perception that this administration likes to favor one political faction over another. In other words, it is all about votes and maintaining political power for a favored few. That is wrong. The government should be bound to apply the law. The president is not king, nor an elected dictator like Caesar.

I know that is an idealistic view for me to take, but unfortunately, even the evil Wikipedia points out that selective prosecutions based on selective prosecutorial discretion is subject to unbelievable abuse.

Wikidpedia on Selective Discretion

“Selective enforcement is the ability that executors of the law (such as police officers or administrative agencies, in some cases) have to select those against whom they want to enforce the law. The use of enforcement discretion in an arbitrary way is referred to as selective enforcement or selective prosecution.

Selective enforcement in practice

Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates the Rule of Law, allowing those in authority to apply justice only when they choose. Aside from this being inherently unjust, this almost inevitably leads to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those from whom they desire favors.”

Yes, folks, this violates the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution and particularly the 4th, 5th, 6th, 76h, 8th and 14th Amendments.

Now, all you legal beagles out there can argue the picayune minutia of the ins and outs of  its application, but the concept of equal protection and equality before the law is the bedrock of the American concept of the “rule of law.” Without the protection of the rule of law, then what are we left with?

The President, it seems – whether it is enforcement of immigration law, voter intimidation, or his prized Obamacare law – seems to be saying: It doesn’t matter what the law says. It is what I say that matters.

Unfortunately, in many respects, he is correct. He is the one who is charged with enforcing the law, and his minions have a broad discretion as to how to go about it.

Now, I may not like it. You may not like it. A lot of people may not like it. However, it still may be within his power as the chief enforcer of the provisions of the Constitution, the statutory laws passed by Congress and all the administrative rules and regulations (i.e. laws) put in place by all the various governmental agencies to enforce vague laws passed by Congress, to decide how aggressive he will tell the agents of the government to enforce said legal issues.

In the case of Obamacare, he sounds like the fan of a losing sports team: Wait until next year to see anything done.

Deferring enforcement of unpopular laws, and vowing to veto attempts to repeal said laws, rules and regulations, is a way to try to game the system. I think that is wrong. Congress wrote the mess, it needs to correct it. And it can start by repealing the rules and regulations enacted by the regulatory agencies to enforce it.

Unfortunately, the incompetence of this administration all too often is overwhelmed by the incompetence and ineptitude of the loyal opposition. Maybe that is an expression of how truly our house is divided.

For America is a house divided, these days. There are those who see government as the solution and those who see the government as the problem … and never the twain shall meet.

IF one is to take election results at their face value then the divide is almost straight down the middle, give or take 2 or 3 percent on either side. That is why the White House was gained by a slim majority, the Senate is controlled by one party by a majority that can’t steamroll the opposition and the House is controlled by the loyal (or disloyal, depending on how partisan you want to be) opposition.

What the American people seem to be hungering for are consensus solutions to the problems that we are facing. Unfortunately, that consensus is eluding us because those who are in the position to do so have decided that it is not in their interest to compromise. Pox on all their houses.

Consensus maybe needed but the basis of our republic, our union, is that the rule of law shall prevail and that the citizen can expect that it will be enforced without preference or prejudice. It rarely is, but that is the standard we should demand.

This administration, however, apparently seems to be intent on casting away even the fig leaves used by its immediate predecessor, in its bid to establish an imperial presidency that ignores the rule of law in favor of its own interpretations.

Please, will someone stand up and start yelling that the emperor has no clothes on? Will someone inside the beltway at least try to invoke the checks and balances so carefully weighed by those disparate dead white men of property who designed the American constitutional system? It really is an incredible piece of work that we seem to to want to flush away in fit of 21st Century hubris.

Nuff said … I through ranting now (for the moment)

Unbelievably incompetent

Obama "blindsided" by Obamacare problems

Kathleen Sebelius says President Barack Obama didn't hear that there may be problems with the sign-up portal for his signature health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – aka Obamacare - until it went live on October 1.

You have got to be kidding me.

If he didn’t know, then as a leader he was not asking the right questions and that is inexcusable. If he wasn’t told, then he was being served by incompetent subordinates – and that is being charitable.

One basic rule of management: You, the manager, never should be surprised when things go wrong. In fact, a wise manager expects it and prepares for it. By the same token, competent subordinates never, ever, ever, let the boss get blindsided, especially if they are aware that something MIGHT go wrong.

So, President Obama did not know until the web portal for his most important legislative achievement was rolled out to serve the public that it was in deep trouble and had serious problems with it implementation. Ah, that is not the fault of the Tea Party. It is not the fault of Congress. It IS the fault of the man in the Oval Office and his immediate staff. That he didn’t know about it does not absolve him of any of the responsibility for the disaster that has occurred since Oct. 1.

President Obama needs to take note that, as President Harry Truman said in a legendary sign on his desk, the buck stops there, in the president’s office. No where else. It is not the fault of the Health and Human Services secretary, regardless of whether she is willing to fall on her own sword or not. It does not fall on his chief of staff, or the various people on down the government food chain that oversaw the development (at a cost of more than a half-billion dollars) of the program that was supposed to be as easy as booking a flight on Travelocity, the online travel agency (and that is pretty easy. I have used it for more than 15 years).

That Sebelius still has a job is amazing. That people are letting her be the fall guy is appalling. Yes, she bears some responsibility – it was her people who were supposed to get it right and to warn her (which apparently they did) when it looked like there would be problems so she could give the boss the heads up that things were not going to be hunky dory, but the buck does stop with the president and he should be lopping off heads.

Of course, that is not going to happen. You see, it seems (and I may be wrong) that in the progressive/liberal mindset there should be no consequences for failure. No, that would be unfair and inhumane. Because all people are good people and bad things never should happen to such people.

Well, if you buy that, as the old saying goes, I have some oceanfront property to sell you in Arizona.

Now, even good people make mistakes and sometimes even do bad things. The problem we have is there has been a track record of no accountability and it is plaguing our entire social construct in the United States. 

Unfortunately, it appears that our leader is one of the worst offenders in this department.

People, we have a problem in this country and it goes straight to the top. We have a leader who refuses to engage and who seems never to accept that the burden of leadership makes it his fault, not his subordinates, when things go wrong … and when things go dreadfully wrong, it is even more important that the leader step up and assume the mantle of responsibility.

Short of him resigning, which would be the proper thing to do, we will have to put up with three more years (after five already) of this incompetence. Bend over, as the saying goes, and get used to it (if you aren’t already).

Lastly, as a retired newspaper editor, I am deeply saddened by my compatriots in the journalism profession for their failure to pillory this administration for its incompetence. However, I have grown to expect it.

I think Jimmy Carter should stick to building houses

Democracy is not working in US: Jimmy Carter

Former President Jimmy Carter does some pretty amazing work with his wife through his efforts with Habitat for Humanity. I really laud his efforts there.

Unfortunately, when he strays from that he kinda loses me.

For example, I think Habitat for Humanity is an incredible program. It helps build homes for people who otherwise might not have one and those people have to put some sweat-equity into not only their new home, but others as well. It is part of the Habitat contract with the individual. No, these homes are not just given to people gratis. Sorry, that isn’t what the program is about.

In addition, in most places, it is not a government program. I think that is one reason that it works so well. It is a non-governmental effort that makes agreements with families that through donated labor and material a home will be constructed to modern standards as long as the person agrees to put in so many hours working on their own home as well as helping build other homes. I think that is a fair trade.

However, I think President Carter implies a lot more than he bargains for when he starts saying that things like housing, health care and education are “rights.” Yes, they are necessary things and things that one would hope that most people would have at least some access to. 

Having said that, I would start to question where one draws the line on providing necessities to people. It is the old “How much is enough” question and who gets to decide what enough is.

For people like Carter, it seems that government is the answer to who should be doing the providing and begs the question of who decides how much is enough. And of course, if government is not guaranteeing food, housing, health care and education, then obviously democracy is failing.

Sorry, Mr. Carter, but that is a bunch of hokem and you should be old enough and smart enough to realize that it defies human nature. You and the folks with Habitat are smart enough to require a contract from the new homeowners, but it seems that when something becomes a “right” and is provided by the government, then the contract that requires some return from the purchaser (receiver of goods and/or services) gets lost somewhere.

Actually, Mr. Carter, democracy is alive and well in the American republic. Maybe you don’t like the way things are going, but then you had your chance and the American people chose a different course than you were offering some forty years ago. Sorry, but the American people weren’t buying what you were selling. (I remember, because I had to endure double-digit inflation and mortgage rates pushing 20 percent and witnessed double digit unemployment when benefits were far less generous than now.)

I am afraid the President Barack Obama is having to learn the same lesson that President Carter had to learn. Sometimes, a large number of people in the US tend to resent things just being handed to them or someone else. They see the ultimate fairness in exchanges – like the sweat-equity contracts demanded by Habitat for Humanity – for goods and services.

A lot of people look at 99 weeks of extended unemployment benefits and scrunch up their noses and eyebrows and wonder what the heck is going on. They also look at people expecting the government to provide them with housing, healthcare, food and cellphones and wonder whatever happened to the contract where you had to give in order to receive?

Take the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Mr. Carter: Interestingly enough a slim majority of Americans (at least reflected by the people they sent to represent them in the House of Representatives) seem to think it is not working out like it was projected and maybe there should be some changes in the program … like making it apply to everybody and not just those unfortunate not to have the pull to be exempted from its provisions and face fines etc. if they don’t get with the program. So their representatives are using the constitutionally-mandated power given them to rattle a few cages and try to get the attention of the Senate and the Executive Branch to maybe tweak the law some.

You need to put a call in the Mr. Obama, Mr. Carter, and tell him that maybe he should be listening more to the people and less to the media, the pundits and his political cronies.

Just a random thought there.

New Narrative: GOP moves goal posts

CNN: GOP changes demands to resolve impasse

I love politics … because it is so predictable … at least in the US.

Ok, to be out front – the way I see it – the shutdown could be ended today if the SENATE would pass the funding resolutions in its current hopper.

That won’t happen because the SENATE is holding out for one big omnibus continuing resolution to fund ALL government operations. It is either the omnibus spending bill or no bill – the so-called “clean CR” – according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and President Barack Obama.

However, I am seeing others starting to pick up on the point of view that what the House of Representatives is doing is IN FACT just what those silly dead white men 225 years ago wanted it to do in cases like this when they wrote the U.S. Constitution. This is exactly what those evil “framers” or “founders” of our government expected and wanted the House to do. It is performing its role as a check on the Senate and the Executive Branch (the president) by exercising its power over the purse.

Now, there are those, mainly progressives, who see this as a bad thing (although they were busy trying to defund military operations in Iraq just a few years ago), but it really is what people like James Madison and the others who sweated the summer of 1787 out in Philadelphia to contrive a more perfect union meant to happen.

What those less than three-score of gentlemen did really is quite remarkable, when  you look at the diversity (yes, Virginia, they were a diverse cultural lot) of the group and the interests that they represented.

It indeed was a grand compromise, that no one went home 100 percent satisfied with the result (the biggest rift was over the institution of slavery), but it still put in place a formula for governance that pretty well stood the test of time … until we all got complacent about it and for reasons discussed very well by the guru at Strafor (George Friedman) we have let ideologues grab the wheels of power.

(The roots of how we got here)

Still and yet, the government is functioning pretty much within normal designed operating parameters – despite the rather bizarre rhetoric and talking points being distributed by the leadership of the Democrat Party and its supporters.

As I told one person today, it ain’t time to man the barricades just yet.  Her concerns are well grounded, I told her, and not all people are quite as tolerant and generous as she might be but while we may be in the latter stages of the infamous “Cycle of Democracy”, there always is hope. Hope does spring eternal, despite what we might think in moments of despair as we watch/hear/read the news each day from various sources competing to get us to accept their view of world affairs.

That most of them – at least all those people who talk at us via the TV and Internet these days as well as those who we have elected to lead the government - really are being disingenuous (being charitable here) is most distressing and, as Pappy used to say, you just want to knock some heads together to knock some sense in them.

Does it not seem strange that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting can get a chunk of money (some $445 million) while the $100,000 that supposedly goes to the survivors of American service members killed in the line of duty (roughly two dozen since Oct. 1, including four killed in action in Afghanistan) has been suspended because the government can’t afford it?

Or how about a rally on the National Mall by supporters of amnesty for people who have entered the United States without the proper documentation or have overstayed the visits they said they were going to have when groups of aged veterans from World War II are denied access to the open-air memorial on the same mall and threatened with arrest if they come back?

How about people being denied access to their privately owned homes and businesses that happen to have ended up on property owned by the federal government in the creation of various national parks?

Or the National Institutes of Health enrolling a half-dozen or so sick children in special treatment programs even though they have been forbidden to do so by the Office of Management and Budget in the Executive Office Building next to the White House?

If that does not sound to you like misplaced priorities, then I would question whether you should reexamine those priorities. I definitely think there is some serious misrepresentation of issues going on here.

And no, the federal government is not going to default on its debt payments, unless someone in the executive branch really screws things up.

A) Under existing funding legislation (and that already passed by the House) funds are available to pay the interest on the national debt … hence, no need for a default because that is what is required. It is when you don’t make those payments that you default. It is a bit like paying your mortgage (even in the worst of times, if all you can do is pay the interest portion, the lender probably will not give you too much of a bad time).

B) The federal government does not need to raise the debt ceiling in order to make these payments, because it takes in enough money in taxes, tariffs, duties, etc., to cover the interest due along with a whole bunch of other things.

The debt ceiling debate is sort of like arguing over which credit cards you are going to try to pay this month, with one side let’s just raise the credit limit and the other side saying that it might be a good idea to start cut back on how much we are spending.

Unfortunately, what we are being treated to daily by those we have hired to run our government is a whole lot less than the truth and a whole lot of stuff to try to scare us into demanding that one political party’s viewpoint is the only acceptable one.

I don’t think so.

But that is enough of my random thoughts for this go around.

Nuff said.

Abdication of responsibility

Reid tells Obama not to wait for Congressional OK to raise debt

Did I miss something, or has the Senate been out to lunch for a few years now.

Ok, Congress is split between the Republicans holding the House and the Democrats controlling the Senate. It has been a recipe for gridlock (which really isn’t all bad) but it supposed to be a recipe for compromise. Unfortunately, it seems, under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, compromise with the House is beneath the Senate under his watch.

Note that the Senate has not passed an actual budget in more than three years, and now Reid is telling the president that he can raise the congressionally mandated debt ceiling by executive fiat and to ignore those idiots in the House who are demanding some cuts to federal expenditures as the price for raising the debt ceiling.

It matters not that the federal government already owes $15 trillion (yes, that is TRILLION as in 15,000,000,000,000 – yeah … with 12 zeros). It will run into a problem, because it is borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar it spends these days. Of course, it is all in the name of stimulating the economy.

However, it is Congress, not the Executive Branch, which controls the federal government’s purse strings according to that document nobody seems to want to remember these days called the Constitution. You know the basic law and charter that underpins who does what in the federal government and what the federal government can and cannot do. Yeah, that obscure document.

Well, it seems to me that Sen. Reid and his cohorts have pretty much punted and have abdicated their responsibility for the last three years. Now, it seems they want to give up even more responsibility to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

You know, just how modern American is that. Nobody seems to what to take responsibility for what they are supposed to do, society-wide, it seems. Okay, I am being a bit harsh on a goodly chunk of Americans, but it does seem that the mindset of let the other guy (i.e. government) take care of what needs to be done is carrying the day.

Washington Post political columnist George Will recently pointed how just how much the Democrats have basically given up on ever balancing the federal budget. Time for a balanced budget

It really is sad, when the people who are supposed to be representing the states can’t seem to do their jobs. But then again, I remind myself, this is what 52 percent or so of the country voted for back in November.

Just remember two things when the train wreck hits.

1. It is all the Republicans fault.

2. The federal government can spend all the money it wants because the “rich” will pay for it.

But that is the way it is in America … instead of a nation of industrious ants, we have become a nation of grasshoppers as per the ancient fable.

What was it the poet laureate of my generation used to say?

“What? Me worry?”   – Alfred E. Neuman.

Off the deep end

I love it when American politicians use rhetoric to describe their foes that probably are merely self-reflections.



Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, assails the speaker of the House, his Republican counterpart, Rep. John Bohner of Ohio, as a dictator because he can't seem to get is fractious body to pass legislation that either the Senate or the President will approve. Ah, Sen. Reid, when was the last time the Senate passed a budget bill (rather than merely a continuing resolution which doesn’t really qualify).  Come to think of it, how many major bills the House have been voted on in the Senate?



Then Clinton’s Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, thinks all Republicans are freaky fanatics, or so he said in a Huffington Post piece. Heck, I could say that about a lot of the Democrats and progressives I know. Especially those who seem to freak out about guns.



I would like to point out to the latter the Second Amendment is not about hunting or shooting at targets. It is about giving the people the means to resist tyranny of the federal government. That is why the acts concerning the unorganized militia (the organized ones being the Reserves and National Guards) stipulate that the folks in the unorganized militias arm themselves with military caliber weapons (which right now means Remington’s .223 caliber and the Winchester .308 caliber, with 9mm being the choice for pistols – except for the Marines who may be going back to the .45 caliber ACP)


And whilst we toddle off the fiscal cliff, whatever that may be, it is comforting to see out president doing what he does best, it seems, leading from behind.

Oh, well, Doomsday didn’t happen and it won’t happen Jan 1, 2013, despite what the media pundits and politicians tell us.

Not such an old problem

Pentagon’s fiscal bath
Assuming the President and Congress don’t come up with a some sort of deal by Dec. 31, 2012, the fiscal crunch facing the government really is going to bite … especially at the Defense Department.
The DOD is going to take, supposedly, about a $1 trillion hit over the next five years, or about $200 billion per year. That is from its regular budget and not including the “war” supplementals that have funded Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. With the U.S. basically out of Iraq and in the process of pulling out of Afghanistan by the end of 2114, then it would seem that there should be a nice little “peace dividend” to be had.
Unfortunately, as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta points out, the need for bodies to fill out the necessary ranks is going to bump up against any efforts to continue to modernize the capabilities of the military service, with either the size of the force having to be drastically reduced or modernization and future procurements deferred. Why is this? It is because the cost of maintaining the individual service member is rising and has been since the advent of the all-volunteer force.
It is funny, because I predicted this situation way back in 1971 in a paper I wrote for a political science class on adopting the all-volunteer force (even had a nifty graph that went with it). Be that as it may, the problem is that housing, feeding and providing medical care for volunteers, an increasing number of whom are married and bring with them the obligation to provide dependent care, has eaten a larger and larger component of the military’s budget each year and that is not going to stop unless the situation can be changed.
There is a way to change the calculus, but I doubt the Pentagon or Congress would ever go for it. The Pentagon, for instance, would not like it because it probably would reduce the number of flag officers (generals and admirals) on active duty and that definitely is a non-starter. As for Congress, well, let it suffice to say that it might hamper its irresponsibility.
Anyway, my plan – which actually was printed in the Congressional Record many years ago courtesy of  South Carolina Sen. Fritz Hollings (D) – would replace each reduction in active service members by increasing the number in the reserves by 2 or three times the reduction. This is sort of a return to the pre-World War II model of military force manning that depended far more than today on the Reserves and National Guard (militias).
In addition, the military could – but it is not likely – return to service rank structures that existed before 1970, when pay grade inflation hit to make up for the lack of pay increases as inflation racked the military pay scales. In other words, instead of paying soldiers more at their current rank, they allowed promotions to higher rank to compensate for the low pay. Hence, the job once done by a corporal was now assigned to a sergeant; and what was done by a staff sergeant was done by a sergeant first class; and jobs that were usually done by first lieutenants was now being done by captains, jobs done by majors was now done by lieutenant colonels, etc.
Now, the key is increasing the size of the Reserves – such as the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard. Currently the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard combined have about the same number of members as the active component of the Army. It is a figure that according my research even 40 years ago provides a really inadequate 1:1 ratio. The ratio should be closer to three or four reservists for every active duty service member (and is in most countries).
The best benefit of such an approach, from a budgetary standpoint, is that is costs about 30 to 40 cents to fund a reservist for every $1 it costs to maintain an active component member. So, assuming that you increase the ration to 2:1, you still can cut up to 20 percent of the personnel costs for the active component. That sure would make the progressives happy, but I doubt that many of them would be volunteering to fill the additional ranks of needed in the reserves.
And that is the problem with the reserves: Manning. I only once served in a reserve unit (in the 18 years I served in the Naval Reserve and Army National Guard) that was at full strength (and it didn’t have enough officers and included only 13 people of all ranks). The problem being is that (a) being in the Reserves does impose some sacrifices on what is essentially a civilian lifestyle and (b) as the last 15 years have pointed out, there always is the probability that you might be mobilized for up to two years out of every six. That really puts a damper on motivating people to join up.
But a political upside is that such a ratio would put a damper on the political leadership haring off on military adventures. It is one thing to send in off-the-radar active component people, but when you start calling up people’s neighbors, the political cost starts to climb … which really is a good thing, when you think about it.
Anyway, don’t look for Congress or the Pentagon or even the President to come out and endorse such economizing in the defense budget. It makes too much sense. It is too logical and therefore definitely is not among those things that should be considered.
Besides, it is too restraining on presidential options, and the options the generals and admirals can offer to a president.

Global leadership

Realistic prism of the cost of global leadership
Interesting article linked above … and the author probably is right. You know, it is expensive being the world’s policeman … even if you aren’t really elected to do it.
He may have a point. Maybe the time has come for the United States to stand down and let China take a larger role. I mean, for sure, nobody else will or is in the position to do anything about it.
Of course, it would help if the United States was totally independent of the world energy market, and definitely not dependent on Chinese imports to supply our consumer economy and Chinese investments in Federal Treasury Bonds to keep the federal government afloat with all its deficit pump-priming (that sure doesn’t seem to be working all that well).
Of course, we could hope that everyone is going to bury their swords and pick up plowshares and peace will rule the planet. Who knows, stranger things have happened … or have they?
Nope, just look at the world today (and don’t blame the US for all the conflicts, they would be there whether or not the US did or does anything). Seriously, look where there are conflicts: Across Asia, Africa, South America, North America, even Europe. About the only continent that doesn’t have an active conflict going is Australia (We won’t count the Whale Wars down south of it).
And if it is not wars, conflicts, then how about riots and demonstrations that routinely turn into fiery melees with burning cars and people getting their heads busted.
Nope, sorry, try all you want, you can’t blame the Americans for all that violence. It ain’t our fault. I know our progressives take their cues from various and sundry demagogues in this culture and that who claim if it wasn’t for “Western” influences – particularly those of the Great Satan that is America – that all would be peace, tranquility and happiness throughout the world, but if you believe that … well, I am afraid you may have serious problems.
As I have often pointed out: The Americans are powerful in many ways, but they neither are omnipotent nor omniscient. Besides, people in other countries always have a vote in how things go, whether they are in power or not.
The problem I have with the Americans stepping back behind our moats of the Atlantic and the Pacific and erecting our own castle walls along the Rio Grande and parts west, as well as from Puget Sound to the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, is that would be an exercise in futility. We just can’t wall ourselves off from the rest of the world, however attractive that might seem.
Yes, folks, I am just as frustrated with the turn of events around the world as probably anybody else. I feel like screaming Rodney King’s famous line: Can’t we just get along?
But, unfortunately, people, man is not like that. I wish we were, but we aren’t.
In the end, somebody has to step up and lead … or as we used to say when I was in uniform: Lead, follow or get the heck out of the way!
Leading ain’t fun. It ain’t easy. It ain’t cheap. However, sometimes, in the long run, it turns out to be in your best self-interest.
In the end, I guess, what price do we want to put on our liberty, our freedoms, our way of life … as well as those of others?

Boy, the Democrats must be getting desperate

Hillary says it is all her fault in Benghazi
Clinton falls on her sword claiming responsibility for failures in Benghazi
I guess President Barack Obama’s campaign handlers are panicking. Somehow they talked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to take the fall for the lack of security at the diplomatic facility (I won’t elevate it to the level of a real consulate) in Benghazi last month.
It took a month, but Clinton finally said, in this, the buck stops with me. Nice try, Ms. Rodham, but your credibility was shot back with Monica and the other girls.
Look, Clinton wants to run in 2116, so Bill and she can be co-presidents again. To do that, she has to smooth the waters with the wheels in smoke-filled rooms (ok, they aren’t smoke filled any more) out back so they will help her get the nomination. This is the price she pays: Get Barry re-elected. Deflect any and all criticism from him.
Fall on your sword, woman.
Well, I am sorry, Mrs. Clinton, but President Obama, and his invisible National Security Council advisor are responsible. If you didn’t coordinate your actions with them, then they screwed you over and let you take the fall. You should have coordinated those types of requests with the White House because, as you know very well, they have very large foreign policy implications. And while you are delegated the task of executing the foreign policy of the United States, if you go free-lancing it without discussing it with the boss, then you will find yourself in a very deep pile of horse manure.
You see, because that is the way things work. When you work for someone, you don’t free-lance the big stuff … and when it comes to terrorist attacks, it is all big stuff.
So, it would seem that logic would dictate the reason, the day before the second presidential debate of the season, that somebody, anybody, takes a sword for the embarrassing debacle that is Libya and the ambassador’s death. Vice President Biden tried to blame the intelligence people, and the DNI tried falling on his sword, but it seems that no one bought that. So, now it is Miss Hillary’s turn.
Please, Mister President, step up to the plate and do your mea culpa. It would make you look much more presidential and prop up your leadership image. To do anything else, merely mocks it. (And it makes Hillary look presidential and you look like a jerk)

Comparative militaries

Numbers in the military

Money spent on the military

Ok, I get it: The U.S. spends a whole lot more money on its military capabilities than anybody else. Doesn’t necessarily mean its military is all that much larger than anybody else’s, because it isn’t. There are any numbers of countries that field armies that are larger per capita than the U.S. counterparts or spend more money per capita or as a portion of their gross domestic product (also known as GDP) than the US does.

In fact, there even a few countries whose military establishment is even larger than that of the U.S., as shocking as that might seem.

Still, the U.S. military remains, arguably, the best trained, best equipped, most powerful force in the world.

Well, part of it is that the U.S. does put more bucks into its military might than anybody else (in aggregate). The old saying is that you get what you pay for.

However, as the world shows us time and again, you can spend big bucks on the gadgets and toys and other things (like paying the troops, their medical care, housing their families, giving them a fairly nice retirement plan), and still find yourself stretched to meet the challenges of much more frugally funded and equipped forces in the world.

What was that line by Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge: Adapt, improvise and overcome.

As an American, I sometimes am dismayed by the amounts we spend on our military forces. But then I step back and look at the reality of it. For its size, we do have the most professional corps of troops in our military services. I suppose that comes from the fact that it also is the best paid, nation-state funded military in the world, with – again arguably – the best benefits for the individual soldier that the world has to offer.

It is among the best trained forces in the world, so that is a good thing. I am a big believer it training troops. The better trained they are, the better prepared they are for the reality of conflict. The better prepared they are, the more likely they will survive in combat.

I also realize that like it or not America is called upon to be the “global cop”. You may not like it. I might not like it. Unfortunately, it is the way that things are. When bad things go down, everyone starts asking: Where is the nearest U.S. carrier task force or amphibious ready group? Why aren’t the Americans doing something about this?

Not that the Americans should be doing something about these things, but it seems that a large number of people look to the Americans to lead and  do something about them. Good, bad, indifferent, it still is the case.

For example, Syria: Our “friends” in the area are looking to the U.S. to at least support, if not provide leadership, to them. Hence, there is a military planning task force of 150 Americans in Jordan today … just to help the Jordanians prepare for any untoward consequences of the civil war in Syria.

And don’t be surprised if there aren’t a bunch of NATO planners (with a substantial contingent of Americans) talking with their brethren in Turkey about potential needs the Turks may have if the rumbles on its border with Syria continue to worsen.

The problem with the American military is that it is well-paid and very well equipped. Those things don’t come cheap. Oh, we could have a much larger military establishment, with lot cheaper weapons, but then that would come with a much higher human cost, which Americans are much more averse to seeing.

For example: Iraq, over eight years, cost the Americans about 6,000 dead. The British, in the 1920s, lost 1,200 in one battle. If that had happened in the latest Iraq war, it would have been over, right there.

Still, does the U.S. need such a powerful military? That is a good question and one I know Americans are quite divided about. Actually, one will find that Americans are quite happy holding contrary thoughts.

Americans always have looked askance upon a large standing military force. It smacks too much of opportunities for military coups and tyrannies. For that reason, there is such a strong tradition in the U.S. for civilian control of the military and for its members, particularly its officer corps, to remain as much as possible non-political and non-partisan.

On the other hand, particularly since World War II and the Cold War, Americans have been – and rightly so, to my estimation – almost terrified of a surprise attack catching the U.S. unawares and unprepared … sort of like 9-11 did.

In addition, Americans have this intense desire – not all that different than anyone else - to be respected (despite what you think, Americans still have somewhat of an inferiority complex toward the older and more established nations and cultures in the world … we are a bit like the nouveau riche), but not only respected, but also loved. We can’t seem to understand why everybody just doesn’t love us and respect us. I mean we have pretty much the most affluent society and our political system pays so much homage to the individual and individual rights, what is not to like and love? And we have this wonderful, almost Star Wars-like, military that is the envy of just about every military commander in the world (If we had just had half the weapons and gadgets at our command, they think)

For most Americans, we just don’t understand that being respected and being loved are two entirely different things and what makes you respected often does not lead to you being loved, and vice versa.

Americans don’t like to think of themselves as imperialists, and in the traditional sense, we are not (we don’t usually take over land; we merely try to get the people there to act like we do). We do not make good imperials. We are not ruthless enough or willing to pay the price to be imperials.

Ironically, I suspect, there is a reason that none of the First World powers have used their military forces to settle their disputes in recent memory and that is directly related to the power of the United States, and to a lesser extent to the power of the former Soviet Union. It was not in the interest of the US or USSR to fight a large scale conflict (even in conventional terms) involving First World technologies. It would have been a bloody mess, literally. That “peace” is the result of each playing “cop” in their respective spheres of influence and basically helping each other in the other areas. (You may not agree with this analysis, but I think if you examine it from a historical perspective, you will find it has a certain modicum of support) This not to say that there were not any “proxy” wars, because there were, but the two big guys kept a leash on the participants to keep them from going global.

So, when you look at the military “might” of America, you need to keep it in perspective: What is it there for?

Answer that question, and you have a better understanding of why the U.S. spends so much on its military and why, probably, it should continue to spend big bucks on it.

Leadership? Is it lacking?

At war with no leader

Once again, someone much more articulate than I am summarizes my feelings quite well.

One of the things that distress me about the current American administration is the lack of the elusive thing called “Leadership.” Unfortunately, neither President Barack Obama nor his cadre of senior leaders seem to know what that is.

It is, as President Harry Truman once put it, an attitude that “the buck stops here.”

Even if subordinate staff fails at their jobs, the responsibility still lies with the leader. That, apparently, is something that the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, the UN ambassador and others fail to grasp. Just look at who is getting blamed for the ever changing narrative about the assassination of the American ambassador to Libya.

It is becoming increasing obvious that the Global War on Islamic Terrorism has not ended, nor is it really winding down. It is, however, shifting to new theaters of operation while in the old theaters of operation seems to be finding new life as the forces of Islamic Terrorism regroup, reassess, adapt, innovate and overcome.

This is what always happens in the ebb and flow of war and, yes folks, we are engaged in a “war”, even if it remains “undeclared” and most people wish it would just go away. It won’t.

The Americans do not like wars. Honest, they don’t. They are taxing, dirty, ugly affairs that disrupt the tranquility of their existence, which to most mean being allowed to do their business in relative peace and harmony. As some political wag in the past said, the business of the US is business … and war disrupts business so it becomes an annoying bother.

However, conflict is endemic to human relations and war is conflict writ on a large scale. I wish people would realize that, but I am very aware that most people would rather ignore that little aspect of human relations.

That is where leadership comes in. Leaders help followers understand those things that the followers don’t want to face. Leaders help followers see what needs to be done and why, and inspire them to do the work necessary to accomplish whatever needs to be done.

Our leaders are not doing that right now. They are failing us.

No budget

Fiscal cliff?

Continuing resolution

Ok, I guess it covers it. The federal government is supposed to be operating on a budget that goes into effect on Oct. 1 every year. However, this session of Congress, like the session in 2010 and 2011, didn’t really pass a budget. It passed what is known as a “continuing resolution” which basically is kicking the can down the road, as one politician put it.

Being a product of political grid lock, such resolutions basically permit the government to continue functioning on the basis of previous budget authorization and spending laws. In this case, it seems that while the House did pass a budget (meeting its constitutional responsibility), the Senate as it has done every year since 2009 has found it  politically inexpedient to pass the budget, opting instead to authorize the government’s various agencies to continue spending for the next six months while a compromise is sorted out.

Unfortunately, apparently, the grand compromise from 2011 has to have a “budget” passed and not a continuing resolution or the great sequestration goes into effect.

Not bad politics, if you think about it. It is not like the Senate could not have passed a budget. It could have, and it could have been substantially different than the House-passed version. Then, however, the good senators would have had to have been on “the record” so to speak about what their budget priorities were. Not good.

So, the House has gone on record – and being controlled by Republicans – and that gives the Democrats a good foil to use during this election year … and relieves them of any responsibility for the fiscal affairs of the nation.

Personally, I think it is all porcine scatology. Well, even more than that: It is about “transforming” the country, as President Obama says. I may not approve the way the Obama Administration is going about this transformation, but it is getting a lot of help from the Senate, which is depressing. I also may not approve of the nature of the transformation, but until more people vote against it than for it, I will be in the minority and, therefore, must accept the results. That, folks, is what you do in a democratic republic.

Of course, that course may change … and I hope it does.

A hypothetical situation

I am not going to source this one, like I do, because it is merely speculation on my part and not necessarily based on what I expect or what I think is true (at least I hope not).

As I pointed out in a previous blog, it seems that the Democrats are going to great lengths to level the charge that the Republicans are trying to suppress the vote of their supporters. Whether it is attempts to remove illegals, dead people, people in prison, people no longer living in a district (we are a republic, remember) from voter rolls or the whole discourse over how unfair it is to require someone to have a valid photo identification in order to vote, it seems that Democrats are really flogging the voter suppression issue, or at least it seems that way in the online national news media web sites.

Another thing, there is a huge debate on the accuracy of various media polls that are published it seems daily on how much support the Democratic and Republican party candidates have. Conservative sites trumpet how close the race seems, while progressive and what I used to call liberal (apparently the term is passé) sites trumpet how far ahead President Obama is and how seemingly unpopular former Massachusetts Gov. Romney is.

Given this drumbeat, I pose some what-ifs:

What if, despite the polls, Romney wins not only the Electoral College vote, but also the popular vote, by a substantially clear margin?

What if, Romney wins the Electoral College but not the popular vote?

What if, Romney actually wins the popular vote, but not the Electoral College vote? (Ok, that is not likely but it could happen)

Given the polarization being advanced by the new media as well as the old media, what is going to happen?

What if, God forbid, there is a Republican surge and the party sweeps a whole bunch of Senate races unexpectedly?

On the flip side:

Will the right really revolt if Obama wins re-election, especially by a sizeable margin?

In either case, will Americans accept the results of Nov. 6 or will they reject them?

That is what is concerning me. It almost seems as if someone wants to have a self-fulfilling prophecy that will make the Mayan calendar “prediction” of the “end time” come true.

I don’t know what will happen in any of the above scenarios. I do know enough, however, to ask questions and seek answers.

I also have considerable hope that all the hyperbole that is being spouted in the new media, internet and traditional media is merely information overload and not really reflective of reality.

I may be wrong, but I have this belief in our ability to face reality and cope with it, however harsh it may be. The next six weeks will be ugly in a political sense in the United States … and maybe throughout the world, the way things are looking. It may get even uglier as Dec. 21 comes (the end of the Mayan Calendar) but I fully expect that this time next year, we will all look back and say:

“WHAT THE HECK WAS I THINKING BACK THEN?”

Libertarian view

Libertarian candidate proposes withdrawal from the Middle East
John Stossel likes Libertarian candidate
Neal Boortz likes Johnson but is going to vote for Romney
Ok, surprise, surprise, my admittedly progressive friend out west likes the Libertarian Party candidate, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. Hey, I guess, what’s not to like? … He is a libertarian.
All right, I admittedly call myself a libertarian at times, but that is because I really can’t categorize myself as much else. The thing I do like about Libertarians is the philosophy that the government should, basically, just butt out of people’s lives and let them get on by themselves. Unfortunately, that sounds awfully hard-hearted to the progressives and what used to be known as liberals, but what the heck? What do I care? I’ve run my race, did my bit for God, King (or is that “President”) and Country, paid into the system like a good troll and whatever. Unfortunately, I do care.
However, I part company with the Libertarians when they start spouting what, for the lack of a better term, is isolationism. Sorry, guys, but that ain’t gonna work, no matter how we try. We tried that back in the 1930s and we got burned big time.
Now, I am not a big fan of the current binges toward nation building either. Americans, ala the Ugly American book from the 1950s, have a long track record of mucking that up. Nor am I big on intervening in every little conflict that comes along … at least not with American troops. I guess we could pay some mercenaries, but the progressives would have a hissy fit on that (I just finished a sci-fi book on just such a concept, well sort of … it was nakedly based on the past 10 years, but transferred to another world for literary license … it was not kind to liberals and progressives … and definitely not Islamic jihadists).
Still, one does have to face reality and that reality is that the U.S., regardless of whether you like it or not, has the most capable military in the world as well as the military that is most capable of functioning efficiently forward deployed. While that is great, in one sense, it also has a downside and that downside is that other nations look to all that power and ask, nay beg, for help with the pirates, bandits, thieves and other assorted tyrants and bad guys out there.
Unfortunately, something that Mr. Johnson and other Libertarians rarely recognize is that in our interdependent global marketplace, it is in our own enlightened self-interest to quell certain disturbances and restrain some parties from acting on their darker designs. In other words, the U.S. is repeatedly called upon and needs to use its strength to act as global constable and fire brigade.
Not that we asked for the job, per se, but unless we want to hand the world over to those who want to have total chaos so they can prey on others, or turn the reins over to Chinese, who at the moment seem to be waiting in the wings – although they have a way to go on their capabilities of projecting power, given another 10 or 15 years, they probably will get there, then the “we are going to pull out of everywhere and tend to our own knitting here in North America” attitude really isn’t going to work.
I suppose that it could work, for a little while, assuming that we could find the resources we need inside our borders (like that is going to happen) and borrow enough money to reestablish the industrial base that would keep our military at the pinnacle of today’s war-fighting food chain. However, I doubt that either of those conditions could ever be met. AND our standard of living would take a major hit without imports.
However, it is a very seductive fantasy, but – I hate to even draw this parallel – but the world economy is a bit like a row of dominoes. Knock one or two over and you get a cascade effect. You don’t think so? Then you need to really take a much better look at the events of the past four or five years.
The question, of course, is how you keep those dominoes from falling? Unfortunately, withdrawing back into your castle is not the answer nor is trying to please everybody and yayhoo in the neighborhood. Maybe someday, the world will be like that, but I doubt even my grandchildren will see a world like that.
Which brings me back to my usual solution: We have to find ways to convince very self-centered, greedy and power-hungry individuals and nations how it is in their own enlightened self-interest to act like civilized people, rather than raving maniacs.
Anybody got any good ideas? Nobody seems to like mine.
Oh, and my current view on the current presidential race: Definitely undecided.
Obama is a walking disaster in so many ways.
Romney can’t seem to get his act together, so he is not much better.
Johnson, ain’t no way on God’s green earth that he will win … whether you like him or love him … and a vote for him probably will help get the disaster re-elected.

Domestic terror v. Islamic: Moral Equivalence

US “terrorist” incidents

Islamic “terrorist” incidents

Domestic “terrorism” in the U.S.

It seems interesting to me that some people try to draw a moral equivalence between the actions of Islamic terrorist and U.S. “terrorists”; to draw a similarity between U.S. religious fundamentalists/evangelicals and Islamic fundamentalists/evangelists/jihadiis.

One of my daughters is one; my progressive friend out west is another. To me, there seems to be at least an order of magnitude, if not two, three or four or more, between the two.

Take the “domestic” terrorist incidents that actually caused casualties in the United States. You can add it in the incident at the Colorado movie theater, the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin and the Virginia Tech campus shooting spree. What the heck we will also add in the DC sniper attacks from a few years back. I, for one, say: Let’s add in the Occupy protests of the last year.

Compare that to the casualties caused by Islamic terrorists and Islamic violence related to demonstrations. Please, start counting the casualties. Count the number of incidents.

Please, tell me where the moral equivalence is there now. There isn’t. There can’t be, unless you say causing hundreds, if not thousands of deaths, is equal to the number of deaths caused by the Unibomber, or the guy who bombed Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Olympics, or even Timothy McVeigh and his sidekick Terry Nichols who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City.

Ok, the “experts” will tell you that terrorism on the “right” is as big a threat or more to the US than those from Islamic fundamentalists and Jihadists.

CNN story on domestic terrorism threat from back in July 2012

After watching the events of the past week, I am not so sure. Sure, we have our share of idiots in the U.S., left and right, who are crackpot enough to kill people, damage or destroy property or just cause chaos because they can. But, my point is, that those efforts pale in comparison to the violence and chaos we see and read about coming out of countries where Islamic – you can’t deny these people are not Muslims, but with 1.6 billion Muslims, they obviously are not in the majority (I think) – mobs, terrorists, etc. have resulted in the deaths of tens of people, so far, hundreds more injured and an untold amount of property damaged or destroyed. And to what end?

Note, that the violence against a stupid YouTube video has spread halfway around the world, with accompanying bloodied heads and burning and smashed vehicles.

Give me a break. There is no moral equivalence here. It is not even close.

In addition, we have leaders of countries and religious groups blaming not the mobs for their excesses, or the terrorists for their attacks, but the victims for not punishing someone whose speech happens to be protected by law.

Again, we might not like this film … heck, like a lot of people, I don’t like very many films – big budget or low budget – these days … but like those big budget movie makers and those makers of the porn movies – soft core and otherwise, they have a right to do that in the United States. Sorry, you don’t like that, then get over it. Don’t look at the crap, or at least don’t buy it or rent it from a video store.

It really amazes me sometimes that there are those in the U.S. that go into hyperdrive over our lunatic fringe. I may be blind, and probably am, but I am sorry, but I don’t see them as much as a threat as people who have sworn their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to crush the United States. I believe them. I wonder about those who don’t believe that among 1.6 billion people, that a substantial minority (far larger than any of the fringe groups in the U.S.) don’t pose a clear and present danger to the people of the United States.

Not until I see the leading ayatollahs, and the leaders of Islamic countries, using their bully pulpits to denounce the violence and chaos – ala the Pope currently in Lebanon – and calling on their followers to reject it, to contest it, to resist it, will I believe that the Islamic faith has turned a corner and is willing to coexist with people who don’t agree with them.

May be life yet in the War Powers Act

President sends letter to Congress

Hallelujah! President Obama this week sent a letter to Congress, as required by the 1970s War Powers Act, to inform it that he had dispatched troops to Libya who might face combat.

The President at least is observing the letter of the law this time. Last year, when U.S. Special Operations troops were on the ground in Libya and in planes either over or near the embattled country, he thought it was not necessary to follow the law.

Of course, given the nature of the current crisis in the Muslim world, he probably should crank up the copy machine and just change the country to announce where he is sending the next group of Marines, since another two such fleet security teams reportedly have been dispatched to different embassies.

It might be that it is election season, but I am glad to see the President at least telling Congress what is going on. Now, if his administration would be a little more open about what happened in Libya, and other countries where U.S. embassies have been under siege. Hiding behind the supposed FBI investigation into the deaths illustrates a law-enforcement mindset and not a combat mindset. That, unfortunately, is unfortunate because it seems to ignore the fact that Islamic terrorists have declared global war on America.

Too bad Congress can’t just declare war on the Islamic terrorists, only they don’t have a state, per se; they don’t have a government; they don’t really claim sovereign control over any land. They do, however, have a flag … I wonder if that is enough?

Anyway, kudos to President Obama. You did the right thing.

Hazardous duty

Taliban threaten to kill Price Harry/aka Capt. Wales

Capt. Harry Wales, British Army, AKA Prince Harry, is doing his bit for Queen and Country in Afghanistan and once more is clambering into the breach and the local bad guys there are not happy. In fact, they either are going to run him out of the country in fear for his life, take him captive or kill him, if they have their way.

Well, this is where the rubber meets the road, as we used to say back in my armored days. Will the good captain do what he obviously wants to do and show all those doubters that even if he is currently the third in line to the British throne, that he can serve his country as well as any other Briton in a very dangerous place? Two points, for Harry for at least talking somebody in the British hierarchy into letting him do the job he trained to do.

Yes, it makes him a high-value target to some people, but it also shows that the monarchy is willing to put its own on the line in support of its government’s policies. I just hope they have the intestinal fortitude to stay the course.

You all may not agree, but Capt. Wales life was never meant to be simple or easy. That comes from living in the fishbowl as a member of the royal house. Grant him his due in that he has tried to be what any second or third son of British gentry has done throughout its history and that is make a place for himself by serving the nation in the military.

The history buff in me remembers there is an old saying about noble families in Great Britain: To the manor goes the first born (i.e. he inherits the family wealth), to the church goes the second (not so much anymore, especially with royals), and the third son goes into the military (Army/Navy, it doesn’t matter) to make his own fortune.

Being a royal makes him a target, but that has always been the case for royals on the battlefield. It was the reason he was pulled from his first tour in Afghanistan a few years back because his highers got cold feet about exposing him. Maybe they will show a bit more of the heralded stiff upper lip, the Brits allegedly are known for, this time.

My hat (Kevlar, if I still had one) is off to the young prince and I wish him well for he definitely is going in harm’s way. May God grant him a good ship, and a good crew to take care of him and it, and may he always find a fair wind to guide him back to base.

At this point, I am not going to debate whether his presence is something that should be happening. I only hope that he and his fellow tommies, as well as all the other members of the ISAF force in Afghanistan will do their best to keep each other alive and do what they can to defeat the Taliban and its allies … or at least convince them that after more than 30 years of warfare, maybe it is time for the tribes to stand down and let the villagers live in some sort of peace.

I don’t look for that to happen, because as the Brits learned a century and more ago, the Afghans are tough fighters and they never seem to give up or surrender to anybody - regardless of what flag they carry.

As for Harry, he is going to earn his hazardous duty – aka combat – pay this go around, as well as his spurs as an airmobile cavalry trooper with his AH-64.

Redefining freedom?

Travis Smiley on redefining Freedom in America
I read this commentary by Travis Smiley and immediately some warning bells went off in the old brain.
First, we need to be careful when we start to redefine what “freedom” and “liberty” mean. It puts us on a tricky slope that could get dangerous really fast.
Second, while President Franklin D. Roosevelt was a really smart politician and a first-class statesman, he also was a propagandist. His four freedoms are an example of his skill at the latter. If you want another example, view Frank Capra’s “Why We Fight” series of films from World War II (they are the epitome of the art). Trying to appeal to the higher feelings of people, FDR framed the fight in World War II as the fight for the Four Freedoms:
Freedom of Expression
Freedom of Religion
Freedom from Fear
Freedom from Want
Well, two out of four is not bad. You can have freedom OF things, but you never really can promise anyone freedom FROM anything. Too many people also think that because you should have a freedom that means it is a right given by our Creator and that freedom is absolute. Wrong answer.
Our Creator granted us only freedoms of, not freedoms from. Freedoms from are really a secular concept that has nothing to do with rights.
We don’t have any freedom from fear, and never will. Sorry, but I am afraid of spiders sometimes (like the one that just crawled out from behind my monitor on the wall – oops, bad move spider, you’re dead now)  … nobody is going to grant me a freedom from that fear. There are too many fears and fear is a part of human existence. Now, I would agree that we should be as free as possible from the fear of government running our lives or banging on our doors, but we should always be afraid of government’s ability to do just those things and attempt to restrain it at every opportunity.
We will never be free from want because “want” is an elastic concept that defies definition. IF you cannot define something, then you can never be free of it.
When you call something a freedom, then that implies it is a right, but rights, unlike Mister Smiley’s position, do not come from government. What government gives, government can take away and rights are not like that. You either have rights or you don’t have rights, at least in country that professes that its government strives to treat each of its citizens equally and that they are equal under and before the law.
Of course, government can grant you some legal rights, but remember the government can take away those rights just as fast or slow as it granted them.
Even then, it is wise to remember that all freedoms are not unlimited. Sorry, but even freedom and liberty cannot be unrestricted. Unrestricted would mean anarchy and unfortunately, we have to have some social order. It would be nice if people would without prompting interact with each other with respect and dignity, as well as respect individuals’ rights to own property, including their own labor. However, people are not that way and so we, as a society (in every society in every country), implement rules and taboos that we delegate to our government to enforce. Note that government’s power comes from the consent of the governed and not the other way around.
We have freedom of expression, but that freedom is not absolute. There are some things you can’t say or do (as I outlined in an earlier post) and you do have a responsibility for what you say and do. There are consequences and you need always to bear that idea in mind.
We have freedom of religion or of conscience, but even that is not absolute. For example, in our society, the use of human sacrifice is not included among the freedoms for a religion’s adherents. Sorry, can’t go chopping people up to appeal to your God. In some areas, even animal sacrifices will run you afoul of animal abuse laws. Usually, the use of mind-altering drugs is not protected by religious freedom, although there are some exceptions to that.
Now, Mister Travis wants to redefine what freedom means. If it means freedoms of choices (even there, there are some tough calls and freedom of choice is never absolute – without consequences), I will be right there with him. However, if he means freedom from things, then he is barking up the wrong tree and I would hope you would agree with me on this and not him.

Initial reaction

I watched President Obama’s speech to the Democratic National Convention and I was impressed. He is a very good speaker and I should hope that he really believes in the things he said.
Having said that, I was left with my doubts. Why would I doubt? There was a dichotomy in his speech that left me wondering, “Does he really believe in what he saying?” because his rhetoric is not consistent, either within his speech or in his actions.
My question is this: Does he really believe in the law? Does he really believe in equality before the law? Does he really believe in contracts?
Unfortunately, both his rhetoric and his actions over the past few years lead me to question whether he really believes in the law, or that it be applied equally to all that come before it.
For example, if he really believed in equality before government, then all would pay the same rate of taxes to the government on the same kinds of income and wealth. That is not the case now. If you think it is, then you would be wrong.
No, we have decided to have a “progressive” system of taxation that increases the rate of your taxes as your income increases. We have decided to encourage certain behaviors by rewarding those who comply with our wishes with exemptions and deductions from their tax burden.
In addition, those who for whatever reason fail to achieve a certain income level, we have exempted them not only from paying federal income taxes, but we have agreed to give them other benefits and subsidies. That is not equality. That is discrimination, no matter how you describe it. Government is not in any way treating all citizens either fairly or equally.
Another example: I have no problem paying for education of young people or law enforcement or fire protection, but it is not the role of the federal government to provide those services.
Another example: This country has a law, called the bankruptcy code, and it applies to private companies – no matter what industry, no matter what size – the same. The president ignored that law because he said he wanted to save jobs. What gave him that right to ignore that law?
You see, I opposed the bailouts of Wall Street and Detroit. I thought at the time it was beyond the powers of the federal government to do what it did. I still think that is the case. Granted, it would have been a very serious situation and possibly thousands or millions would have been hurt. Guess what, thousands and millions of people were hurt. But, we would have survived it, just like America did in the Great Depression.
Note, Franklin Roosevelt did not end the Great Depression; World War II ended it. FDR did do some things, most notably restoring the outlook of the American people. It was not what he did that was right, but his positive outlook that was right. You can do wrong things with the right outlook and you will be surprised that things actually turn out better than you expected.
I agree that we should often act as a team, because in synergy there often is greater strength, but it should be a coalition of the willing and not the coerced. If we punish those for doing better than others then we discourage them from doing better.
Then there are contracts. Yes, I think all parties should abide by the articles of their contracts. Yes, often times groups try to shave those articles to their own benefit. That not only is to be expected but will happen, every time, all the time, no matter who is involved.
Yes, I think greed is wrong, but what one person defines as greed others define as righteous reward. Who has the right to define greed because it has to be defined before it can be punished. I am not qualified, and I know no one alive who is qualified to say what greed, or need or enough is.
I understand the rationale that the law should not apply to some people, particularly if they were not responsible for the circumstances they are in, but that is not my decision to make. It is not the federal government’s decision to make. Its job is to apply the laws as equally and equitably as humanly possible. If it doesn’t, then the law no longer reigns and we become a nation of men, governed by men and not by the principles that made this nation what it is and can be.
I don’t know how I am going to vote in November. I really don’t. There is a lot that can happen in the next two months. I do know that the Democrats have not sold me on their view of the world … but then again, neither have the Republicans, for that matter.