19 September 2011 –

Invest (in vest`), v.t. 1.to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering profitable returns, esp. interest or income. 7. To infuse or belong to, as a quality or characteristic does: (Webster’s 1989)

I wish there were more words in the already largest vocabulary of any language on earth. Then, I could explain the President’s newest economic proposals more succinctly. Alas, I fail. In simple speak: His proposals quack like a duck and walk like a duck; they sure ain’t the swans he says they are! The GOP controlled House should give them the time they deserve.

I would, however, like to focus on a particular word that the President has overused lately. The verb “invest” and the noun “investment” rarely, if ever, apply to government spending practices, yet he tries to invest each of his proposals with their power. I have heard the word for years in military and government service. Many a lazy proponent has elasticized the word’s meaning to justify continued or increased spending on everything from upgrades to old outmoded weapons systems to new weapons systems that fit neither old nor new strategies to direct aid programs in the world’s latest crisis pest hole to the deployment of troops and their legions of supporting contractors to the same pest holes. None of these uses of tax payers’ money properly fits the concept of investment. Now, the President abuses the concept by range-gate-steal the argument to a familiarly false one. He calls profligate spending targeted at specific groups in society—long a government vice—investment in America at large. He implies strongly, but never shows with accepted economic formula, that this massive increase in spending and concomitant taxation can effect a direct return to the taxpayer of some benefit that he cannot get elsewhere more cheaply or more effectively. Since the government does not do anything well or cheaply, calling such government spending an investment is indeed a sham.

There is a weak and specious correlation between increasing taxation and spending to extend unemployment benefits and to create temporary union jobs and an improved economy that will return a profit to the average, middle-class taxpayer. In economic fact, based on the last 75 years of increasing federal spending, nothing the government does with taxpayers’ money can be defined as a better investment than what the taxpayers can do with that same money if it is left in their pockets.

OK…one way or the other, Mr. President. Call it spending, and try to get the money from the GOP controlled House, which was soundly elected Republican as a result of your failed economic policies. Or, call it investment and try to get the money from the same GOP House. At least in the former case, you would have Webster’s dictionary on your side. It would be a straightforward plea, not a nefarious one. You are going to lose either way, but you would sound more honest quacking honestly.

18 September 2011 –

Webster’s 1989 edition of its Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language defines courage as “the quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., with firmness and without fear”. In the press last week, there were two examples of courageous servicemen. Both are worth examination.

On 15 October, the President presented the Medal of Honor to Marine Sergeant Dakota L. Meyer for his actions on 8 September 2009, in Kunar Province in Eastern Afghanistan. The official citation accompanying the medal was succinct. Then Corporal Meyer exhibited “unwavering courage and steadfast devotion to his U.S. and Afghan comrades in the face of almost certain death” by repeatedly entering a village under attack by Afghan rebel fighters and rescuing 23 Afghan soldiers and border police, 13 Marines, and the bodies of four of his fallen team members. Defying orders to stay at his position at the patrol rally point outside the village of Ganjgal, Cpl. Meyer “seized the initiative” and climbed into the machinegun position atop an armored HUMVEE. With Staff Sergeant Juan Rodriguez-Chavez as the driver—Sergeant Rodriguez-Chavez won the Navy Cross for his actions—they took the fight to the enemy. Five times Corporal Meyer entered the fray. The first three times he was in a solo vehicle, the only focus of enemy gunfire. He rescued comrades and with accurate and deadly gunfire he supported a combined team as it fought its way out of the village. On the fourth and fifth trips, he was accompanied by four other Afghan vehicles. He evacuated wounded while still under enemy fire. On the fifth trip, he dismounted the vehicle and, on foot, located and recovered the bodies of his team members. The battle lasted six hours.

Young Corporal Meyer displayed incredible physical courage. He is the epitome of what keeps America free. Also, what is remarkable about his actions is that they were spread over six hours of combat. His actions were not the reflex of the moment, over in an instant. No, his actions were those of a leader who quickly decided that he had to make a plan, and then stuck to his plan until the job was done. Such physical courage at each moment of a dangerous, six-hour decision chain, is remarkable. I saluted Sergeant Meyer through the television when the medal was draped around his neck. I shall salute him smartly if I ever have the privilege to meet him.

Most Americans romanticize physical courage when they watch it through the separation of a news account, a movie, or a book. From the safety of their couches, they highlight certain, attending elements of a courageous act; by doing so, they vicariously embrace the inspiring aspects of the drama. For example, when reading aloud the account of the events of 8 September 2009, the President chuckled slightly because Corporal Meyer had disobeyed orders by entering the fight. The official citation that accompanied the medal called his actions seizing the initiative. We all know that it is not good to disobey orders or break the rules. But, Americans love the guy who breaks the rules and wins the day! When a courageous hero disobeys and succeeds, his act shines even more brightly on the silver screen in our minds, in the mythology of being American. There is nothing wrong with this thinking. It inspires us to be better. We may even be moved enough to get off the couch and hang a flag off the front porch. There wasn’t music when Corporal Meyer displayed his incredible courage on the battlefield. There won’t be music when we hang our flags. But, the tune is in our minds when we relive the accounts. Thank you, Sergeant Meyer, for taking the initiative.

Displaying another kind of courage requires slightly different heroic attributes. These two types of courage are not mutually exclusive, but moral courage often must be displayed when physical courage is not required. I posit that moral courage is often harder to display than physical courage. As in Corporal Meyer’s six-hour battle, moral courage often requires a lengthy battle with the forces of corruption and vice. Sadly, displaying moral courage also carries the risk of losing status, position, and reputation in life. For those reasons, my experience shows that it is often harder for a man to display moral than physical courage. After all, it is as if he has to enter the fray every day, all day, for some time, before he can rest. And, he may indeed never be brightly heralded on the silver screen of Americans’ minds for his noble actions.

General William L. Shelton, Commander Air Force Space Command, displayed great moral courage recently when he told a classified Congressional hearing that he was pressured by the White House to change his testimony before Congress about what he considered the problems of a private company named LightSquared building a state-of-the art open wireless broadband network, as it may conflict with the effectiveness of our current Global Positioning System (GPS). The White House denied any such pressure, saying that it only wanted to clarify his statements before they go to Congress, as it often is wont to do.

Did the White House use its influence to further the case of a company, LightSquared, whose CEO and owners are heavy contributors to the Democratic Party? Even to the lessening of the effectiveness of a system critical to the defense of the U.S? Will the facts ever be known? What will happen to General Shelton? Was there moral courage in what General Shelton did? I can only address the last two questions.

I posit that General Shelton decided long ago that he would not compromise with right and wrong to effect political or military objectives. If it is wrong, it is wrong. If it is right, it is right. Like Corporal Meyer, he probably made a plan and stuck to it, no matter how much time, adjustment to tactical exigencies, and courage would be required to take the initiative to implement it. When this situation with GPS and LightSquared reared up, he knew what he had to, the consequences to him be damned. That is what I must assume.

Do I know General Shelton? No, not personally. But, I know the Air Force core values. General Ronald Fogleman, Air Force Chief of Staff, set them forth ten years ago: Integrity First; Service Before Self; Excellence In All We Do. General Shelton’s actions, on their face, are courageously consistent with those values. I believe him. He displayed the moral courage to do the right thing when the moment came along.

Did General Shelton do all that courageous a thing, one may counter? Well, I know men of great physical courage and action who have blanched at the thought of standing up in a meeting, in front of superiors—political and military—to defend what they know is right. Yes, it requires great courage to risk prestige, career advancement, a place at the table, etc. Many men would rather risk their lives than their stars, eagles, or stripes.

How great is the temptation to “go along and get along” and to support a boss’s shady deals? It depends on one’s ambition and moral compass. In the play and movie by Robert Bolt, A Man For All Seasons, Richard Rich is an ambitious young man willing to compromise—to go along and get along—in order to advance. He is willingly seduced by Thomas Lord Cromwell, Secretary to Henry VIII’s Council, into telling him false information about Sir Thomas More, which could later be used against More in court. Cromwell’s nefarious words are most telling about our times as well:

Cromwell: “I know a man who wants to change his woman. Normally a matter of small importance; but, in this case, it is our liege Lord, Henry, the Eighth of that name…which is a quaint way of saying that if he wants to change his woman, he will. And, our job as administrators is to minimize the…ah…inconvenience which this is going to cause. That is our only job, Rich, to minimize the inconvenience of things. A harmless occupation, you would say? Oh, but no! We administrators are not liked, Rich, we are not popular. I say we, on the assumption that you accept the post at York I have offered you.

Rich: (looking down with sad reflection) Yes…yes.

Cromwell: (gruffy and imperious) It’s a bad sign when people are depressed by their own good fortune.

Rich: (Looking up and with a slight smile and chuckle) I’m not depressed.

Cromwell: (challenging tone) You look depressed.

Rich: (smiling and chuckling) I was lamenting. I’ve lost my innocence.

Cromwell: (flatly) some time ago, you’ve only just noticed?

Thank you, General Shelton, for being a leader instead of an “administrator”. I wish there were a high enough medal for the courage you displayed. But, you are like Sergeant Meyer: You didn’t do it for a medal.

15 September 2011 –

Governor Rick Perry was in Lynchburg, VA, yesterday (?) to address the students at Liberty University. This is the university that Reverend Jerry Falwell founded. Lawrence O’Donnell used this event last night on his MSNBC show The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell as an opportunity to comment on Governor Perry’s being a Christian. It seems that Mr. O’Donnell commented in a way that infuriated some conservative commentators. Good. Governor Perry is a Christian. Good. Any criticism from the left wing means that Governor Perry must be doing something right. Apparently, Mr. O’Donnell made a comparison or contrast to the Savior’s condemnation and execution by the government to Governor Perry’s use of the death penalty in Texas to execute criminals. To be sure, this criticism is coming from someone who once said in the Huffington Post, "[U]nlike you, I am not a progressive. I am not a liberal who is so afraid of the word that I had to change my name to progressive. Liberals amuse me. I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left, the extreme left of you mere liberals." This is the self-description of the replacement for Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. ‘Nuf said.

In the same vein, I am disturbed by the ever-increasing use of the name of deity in a less-than-respectful way. Actors scream His name in anger or frustration or disgust as their dialogue of choice; commentators and political pundits refer to Him or throw out His name in convoluted or twisted arguments to criticize believers. In fact, it has become so common to talk in such a profane way that the texting acronym OMG certainly does not shorten from Oh My Goodness. By doing so, not only do people denigrate deity, but they denigrate themselves in the eyes of so many Americans who still hesitate slightly when they refer to their God, and only in a sacred setting. Even those who call themselves believers are becoming more common—in the archaic sense of the term—with the use of the name of deity. Not smart politically. Not smart at all.

14 September 2011 –

Mr. ______,

I want to thank you again for taking the time to talk to me after the 8 September meeting of the _____________________. Your comments were spot on about the neocons in Bush’s administration. Their arrogance and resistance to intelligence advice and counsel indeed mirrored the actions of Robert McNamara’s “best and brightest” forty years before. I spent 1979 to 2009 in the Intelligence and policy business, lived on four continents, and worked in nearly eighty countries. I collected, analyzed, and repackaged intelligence to support everything from tactical operations to theater and national level strategic decision making. I saw first-hand that the weakness many smart men succumb to is that of self-confidence that calcifies into hubris. My personal dealings with the gentlemen we mentioned at the meeting—not to mention my dealings with those in the State Department who suffer from the same disease, but on the opposite end of the political spectrum—was painful at best. I learned a life lesson from my dealings with their ilk: a nation can indeed become powerful, but it will never be all-powerful. Nothing human is. Some things simply cannot be achieved at the moment, no matter how much a bright guy thinks it is a good idea.

Another blunt way to say it: The sheer force of one’s will can achieve anything—until it can’t. Painfully, the sheer force of these men’s collective will facilitated the deaths of 1,659 U.S. and 1,000 coalition soldiers. It probably cost a trillion dollars. Friends and compatriots are dead; their wives are widows; their children orphans. Why? Because these men allowed the emotion surrounding the events of 11 September 2001, to cloud their strategic vision. Their all-powerful mentality took over. Even President Bush succumbed to the thinking. The result has been a ten-year war with a failed strategy guiding it.

In President Bush’s book, Decision Points, the chapter on Afghanistan shows clearly the options available to the President and the thinking behind the options to stop terrorist attacks on the U.S. and its interests. On page 184, President Bush’s words are the clearest statement extant on the strategic objective for our initial military actions:

“Removing Al Qaeda’s safe haven in Afghanistan was essential to protecting the American people. We had planned the mission carefully. We were acting out of necessity and self-defense, not revenge.”

We indeed had a clear, narrow, obtainable strategy early in the war. The CIA already had a plan to include the approval to kill or capture Al Qaeda operatives as the operation unfolded (page 186). Military forces would be included as well to attack Al Qaeda sites and personnel. It looked like we were going to focus on pursuing the narrow strategy of eliminating Al Qaeda’s ability to attack the U.S. from Afghanistan.

Alas, by page 191, President Bush shows how clearly he had been herded into a much more difficult strategy. It was one with an open-ended pursuit that only hubris and foolhardiness could sustain:

“This time we would put boots on the ground, and keep them there until the Taliban and Al Qaeda were driven out and a free society could emerge” (italics are mine).

The objective fundamentally shifted from protecting the United States from terrorist attacks to helping Afghanistan become a free society. How does “freedom” in Afghanistan derive from the original objective except through a tangential chimera of hope—especially since freedom to Azaris means something different than freedom to Pashtuns or to any one of the other myriad tribes in the region?

Yup, President Bush thought he could do anything. By page 206, his words show his blunder:

“At the time, I worried about overextending our military by undertaking peacekeeping missions as we had in Bosnia and Somalia. But after 9/11, I changed my mind. Afghanistan was the ultimate nation building mission. We had liberated the country from a primitive dictatorship, and we had a moral mission to leave behind something better. We also had a strategic interest in helping the Afghan people build a free society (again, italics are mine).

May I posit that the temptation to use U.S. national power to achieve something great, in the form of succeeding in the “ultimate nation building mission”, overcame the President and most of the nouveau version of “best and brightest” advisors? May I posit that the President does not have “a moral obligation to leave behind something better” in another country? Instead, may I posit that he only has the narrow, moral obligation as Commander-In –Chief to protect the United States and its vital interests? Such a mission could have been achieved quickly. May I posit that the U.S.’s “strategic interest in helping the Afghan people build a free society” does not stack up well against far more pressing reasons to use national blood and treasure? That is as far as his obligations go as an elected official with the authority to use all instruments of national power.

The military campaign to destroy terrorist camps and infrastructure in Afghanistan fulfilled the immediate goal of eliminating a base of support from which terrorists could attack U.S. interests. We should have stayed focused on that goal. In and out with brutality and a warning that we would suddenly be back if we heard even a hint of a renewed threat to our interests anywhere. But, no. We did what we have so often done in our recent history, we tried to do everything by the sheer force of our American wills. I never thought I would be quoting Bob Dylan: “When will they ever learn. When will they ever learn?”

Sorry, I got carried away. It happens more often now that I have many days free with a keyboard in front of me. Maybe we can have lunch sometime.

Again, good to meet you,

Mac Coleman