31 July 2013 –

 “With an endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals, Washington has taken its eye off the ball,” President Obama said during his 24 July economic speech given at Knox College, Illinois.  What is phony about these scandals: the Benghazi debacle and cover-up; the IRS’s partisan abuse of tax collection authority; the NSA’s rapid expansion of the collection, collation, and storage of Americans’ private phone data; or, Fast ‘n Furious n’ Foolish gun running to Mexican drug cartels?  These are not phony, and they are seriously damaging our republic.         

These “distractions” are riding on a current of government expansion and intrusion flowing out from the White House through many federal agencies.  Whether the president launched these expansions and intrusions deliberately, or whether federal agencies have set their own courses is irrelevant.  The results are murdered Americans, abused First, Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendment rights, and a growing recognition among normal Americans that there are even larger scandals: Partisanship, placing group interests above the common good, and pursuing control for control’s sake—all of which now seem to supercede honest impartiality in cabinet and regulatory agency policy and action.   

Governments accumulate power, and government leaders always find ways to use that power.  The Founders wisely did not trust government, but tragically admitted that is was necessary; they knew that individuals and groups would attempt to control government in order to promote their interests.  Therefore, the Founders devised a governing structure that protected individual rights and prevented one branch of the government—one particular interest group—from first dominating the other two branches and from then dominating the nation.  And, our great democratic experiment began.

How are these checks and balances functioning today?  A big-government liberal as president does not necessarily threaten our democracy or our individual rights; the Founders ensured that Congress and the Court could hobble his attempts at forcing big government into Americans’ lives.  But, for the last century, Congress and the Court have enabled the rise of a massive, permanent, regulatory bureaucracy in the Executive Branch.  Its power to restrict the actions of individual citizens has expanded and intensified as it has pulled away from the restraining controls of the other branches of government.  What has made this a one-sided political force is that the majority of employees in federal agencies have long been liberals whose commitment to impartial, limited government is filtered through their allegiance to their agency and often to the labor unions that ensure their continued livelihood. 

This independent, liberal government within the executive branch is more dangerous to Americans’ personal liberties and to democracy than are any threats from outside our borders.  Sadly, an ensconced, self-serving government agency, such as the IRS, NSA, or any other initialed group that comes with thousands of employees and a funded mission, makes it almost impossible for any president to resist the abuse of power.  Sadly, President Bush’s legacy of Compassionate Conservatism, for example, ultimately expanded the regulatory state and added five trillion more dollars to the federal debt.    

Recent events also show that these agencies actually need little direct guidance from a liberal president to intrude into Americans’ lives.  Their day-to-day work—what gives agency employees an identity and a mission—will almost always tend toward a liberal, big government approach to dealing with the issues of the day.  If many of these employees can intrude into our lives, they will want to do it, and they will find a way to do it.  The fact that so many people in the IRS are being implicated in the targeting of conservative groups for increased scrutiny, for example, tells me that the agency does not honorably or impartially fulfill its charter and that it needs to be overhauled.     

Congress—both houses, both sides of the aisle—must realize that its power as the legislative branch of government is severely diminished by what has become a self-serving, fourth branch of government.   Members of Congress must spatially profile the constitutional situation around them and must reestablish Congress as the preeminent branch of government—the branch representing the people and the states.  They need to run the IRS scandal, the Benghazi scandal, the NSA scandal, and the Fast ‘n Furious scandal down to their bitter ends.  These efforts will help restore individual rights, states’ rights, and limited federal intrusion into our lives.  That is what the Founders, in their pragmatic, tragic view of the world, intended for our safety.  Congress must act now—in our interests and in its own.        

25 July 2013 –

Spatial, Not Racial

The Obama administration continues to promote the message that George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin before killing him in self-defense.  After the verdict, the attorney general announced that his department would apply federal hate crime laws to determine if Trayvon Martin’s civil rights were violated, despite the fact that the FBI had already investigated the case and found no racial profiling or animus by George Zimmerman.  Then, the President interrupted a news conference to talk about how racial profiling continues to blight our society.  

Enough. 

Does racial profiling exist in our society?  Of course it does.  Do Americans regularly racially profile others in their daily dealings in society?  I would say no.    

I suggest that we Americans use spatial profiling, not racial profiling, throughout our day.  In other words, we form our responses to others largely based on the specifics of place and time.  We weigh the when, where, and why we are in particular situations.  We respond to those situations, and to those around us, particularly because of the stress or physical and emotional threat we may feel.  Many a women driver, for example, will position her car at a stop light to stay out of the field-of-view of those in the lane next to her.  Her reasons for doing so relate to her personal space, the amount of time that she is occupying that space, and her desire to limit interaction with people in other cars.  This benign example, executed countless times a day, fits all the criteria of spatial profiling.        

Past experiences in similar situations heavily influence our present spatial profiling.  If we are wise, we apply specific lessons-learned from our prior mistakes to better get through the present situation.  The truly wise even learn from others’ mistakes.   We weigh the odds of where the present situation will fall on a continuum ranging from satisfaction to stress to physical danger, and then we calculate our ability to escape and survive.  We weigh the variables of time, place, and space in all we do, but particularly when we are in unfamiliar circumstances. 

In his remarks this week, the President cited thread-bare examples of past stereotyping, which do not strongly indicate racial profiling in today’s society.  He mentioned the woman in the elevator who “clutches her purse” when a black man enters her space.  But, this white man often enters elevators where a woman is standing alone, and that woman, too, “clutches her purse.”  Why?  Because she spatially profiles the situation as well and “clutches her purse” because I am a man, not because of my race.  Sadly, there may be justification for women to “clutch their purses” when spatially profiling encounters with men in elevators; but, it has less to do with race than with being alone with the opposite sex.     

The President also said that people lock their cars when a black man is near.  I contend, however, that spatial profiling, not racial profiling, determines when and where most people lock their car doors.  In the elite environment of prep school, Ivy League universities, and community organizing—“before [he] was a senator”—he very well might have had other elites lock their car doors as they saw him, a young black man,  approach.    

But, most regular Americans, regardless of our skin color, make a habit of locking our car doors in all circumstances.  In fact, most new cars, based on auto-makers’ analyses of Americans’ spatial profiling, automatically lock all their doors when the transmission is put into drive.  As I mentioned above, we normal Americans immediately spatially profile situations when we drive into an unfamiliar location with unfamiliar people.  We often prudently hit the door-lock button and feel safer when we hear the click.  The skin color of those inside and outside our cars is much less important to us than the location of our cars. 

After working with people in dozens of other countries, I have seen that America is the least racist country on earth.  Tired examples of racism need to be thrown out.  They cloud accurate assessments of the level of racism in society and, just as important, they prevent us from gauging the real reasons we Americans make the decisions we do.      

18 July 2013 –

The Trial of the Century This Is Not!

It has been five days since the not-guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman murder trial.  The news bombarded us throughout the four-week trial and continues to exploit predictable reactions to the verdict. 

I found a counter-message to the news in a course I wrote and taught to senior military officers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  Entitled Senior Officer Leadership Traits in a Counterinsurgency Environment, the course attempted to professionalize the Congolese military and to help stabilize one of the richest, yet most corrupt regions on earth.  The course started with a study of individual and societal attributes, such as loyalty and cohesion.  These attributes are fundamental to forming modern, functioning nations.  The curriculum finished by teaching leadership traits senior military leaders need to successfully “win the hearts and minds” of the diverse peoples of the Congo.  Simply put, the course attempted to answer a profound question: “How does one create a Congolese?”

We should now ask a similar question in America:  When such events as the Zimmerman trial arise, how should our leaders reaffirm and maintain the concept of being Americans?    

Individual loyalties define societies.  People who have things in common form cohesive groups that  have historically coalesced into sovereign nations.  The loyalty flowing from family to clan to tribe to ethnic group often is a powerful source of national cohesion.  Usually, we are more loyal to those who look like us.  Japan, as a modern nation, has stable foundations of common race and ethnicity. 

Another buttress to societal stability is a common language.  The French speak French and expect it of immigrants, future citizens, and even most tourists in Paris.  The Chinese written language has been the base of that civilization for millennia.

Another powerful determiner of loyalty and cohesion is religion.  If we all pray to the same God, in the same way, and for the same reasons, societal cohesion is far stronger than if we don’t.  Modern nations are largely defined by the presence or absence of such common loyalties. 

What about the United States?  What loyalties define us as Americans?  I contend that common ethnicity, language, and religion create enclaves of stability in our vast society; but, they must not define us as Americans.  The rule of law, under a constitution that ensures that these powerful, individual loyalties and rights are protected in society, must define us as Americans.  It is the idea of being an American that must receive our temporal loyalty.  Consequently, the level of our loyalty to the rule of law defines how stable, cohesive, and powerful we Americans are as a nation.  This concept of identity base on principle makes us unique in the world.  This concept creates Americans.   

What do the events around the recent Zimmerman/Martin trial reveal about us as Americans?  First, most Americans probably had only passing interest in the particulars of the killing and the trial.  Most of us were wrapped up in our own lives and loyalties; few Americans missed church, kids’ ball games, or tax deadlines because of the events in Florida.  Most of us who did follow the news also personally accepted the legal results of the trial.  By all expert accounts, the rule of law, i.e., America as it is defined, was justified by the verdict.  Normal life will go on for most Americans, including most Black Americans, because the priority of most Americans’ loyalties was reinforced or not significantly altered by the results of the trial.  That is good.  

     

Second, some leaders with predominantly racial loyalties have flamboyantly questioned the verdict.  Does it do anybody any long-term good when leaders’ racial loyalties dominate their public message?  If what defines us all as Americans is the rule of law, and the rule of law was justified in this case, then should not responsible civil rights leaders mourn the death of Trayvon Martin as a tragedy and not use it as a cause celèbre to ensure that their particular group’s rights, and their personal celebrity, be maintained? 

Another way to ask the question:  Wouldn’t these leaders increase their ethnic group’s members’ strength in society if they stopped encouraging the creation of permanently-hyphenated Americans with such a weak example of wrong-doing?  Will such a group’s loyalties to America continue to diminish when its members react harshly to the next late-night killing of a young black man? 

These leaders seem to want their ethnic group members to be loyal to them more than to the nation whose function it is to protect their rights.  These leaders do little to create Americans and a lot to create divisions.  Perhaps a course on leadership traits in a divided nation would benefit them as well.  

5 July 2013 – Question: In Egypt, when is authoritarianism better than democracy?

5 July 2013 –  

Quiz International Affairs 101:

Question: In Egypt, when is authoritarianism better than democracy? 

A)   Never

B)   When authoritarianism reestablishes stability and economic prosperity out of the chaos of failed democracy

C)   When it serves U.S. interests 

Answer A. Some Americans contend that democracy has the inherent power to build any country and its people into a vibrant and modern nation.  A cursory read of U.S. history shows that our early republic’s leaders delayed for decades a horrific civil war before it admitted that constitutional rights and freedoms extend to all citizens and that the union of the states is paramount to continued peace and prosperity.  It was a long and bloody process for us, with no assurance that it would succeed.  But, our nation survived this painful maturation in no small part because we had unique advantages.  We were geographically isolated from the great powers of the world, were able to expand westward across a vast continent as a means to mitigate economic and population issues, and tolerated each others’ religions fairly well.  We grew up, protected by oceans and deserts. 

Egypt does not have these advantages.  The world carefully watches Egypt’s recurring episodes of violence, often from military bases within hours of Egypt’s borders.  Egypt cannot close these borders and sustain itself during such violence because its economy relies heavily on outside money, e.g., tourism, use of the Suez Canal, and foreign aid.  Tourism in 2013 is down 75% from 2008 levels; political dissidents quickly become rioters when they are broke.  Perhaps Egypt’s most important disadvantage is that being Egyptian is less important to those in Cairo and Alexandria than being American is to a Houstonian or a New Yorker.  Egypt’s population comprises fundamental religious elements that refuse to subordinate themselves to secular rule of law, something that the American model shows is necessary for democracy to thrive.  The Moslem Brotherhood exploited democracy to attain power and to establish a theocratic government, based on its version of Islam.  There is no democratic model in history that has thrived by using such a strategy.  Egypt won’t be the first. 

Answer B is correct.  Authoritarian rule by the Egyptian army probably is necessary at this time to reestablish the stability and economic order required for nascent democracy to take firm root.  Democracies, in order to mature and to assume a premier place in the allegiance of their peoples, need strong economic underpinnings.  Immature economic supports usually collapse during unrest.  It is necessary to resolve the violence, establish order, and allow the people to get back to work.  The Egyptian army can best do that.  For now, Egypt is better off under army rule than it was under Moslem Brotherhood rule.  

Answer C also is correct.  The U.S. should be involved now with Egypt because it is in our strategic interests to do so.  The Suez Canal, an oil artery to Europe, must stay open.  Israel needs to know that its southern border won’t explode with violence and give reason to start another war.  Egypt is the traditional leader in the Arab Moslem world, academically, religiously, and culturally.  Our having a working relationship with Egypt may influence the rest of the Moslem world to work with the U.S. as well.  Finally, keeping Egypt from descending into a poor, fundamentalist state will help keep Islamic fundamentalist terrorism out of U.S. streets.  Order, stability, and prosperity in Egypt are in America’s strategic interests.  It is worth the couple of billion in yearly foreign aid to keep the Egyptian army a professional and supportive force. 

What about tomorrow?  Next month?  Lord Acton best expressed the risk that comes with authoritarian rule: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely in such manner that great men are almost always bad men."   U.S. and other western nations’ influence with the Egyptian army can help prevent another dictatorship in Cairo.  Our outside influence on the great men of the Egyptian army to restore order and to build a workable democracy is much greater than any influence on the great men of the Moslem Brotherhood to do the same.   

I was in Egypt in 1982 for the combined USAF/Egyptian Air Force exercise, PROUD PHANTOM.  From the young Egyptian Air Force officers whom I met, there may still be a few who can rise to the challenge, justly govern, and then step aside when it is time for the people to govern.  It is up to them now to do just that.  

2 July 2013 – A pertinent definition of modern sovereignty:

2 July 2013 –

A pertinent definition of modern sovereignty: A local entity—a king, a government, or a people—that has sufficient, independent power to sustain, govern, and protect itself within a specific geographic area.  Independent power and established borders are the key elements to modern sovereignty.  We also should recognize that sovereignty is an absolute, which a country can approach but probably never attain.  Only a fraction of the 200 or so government entities in the world associated with territory and people have sufficient military, political, economic, and diplomatic power to be considered strongly sovereign.  The United States is the most nearly sovereign country on earth; but, to maintain our strength, we must create and enforce legislation that prioritizes the maintenance of U.S. sovereignty above other, lesser objectives.     

Today’s illegal immigration crisis threatens our nation’s sovereignty.  Our military, political, economic, and diplomatic institutions, our instruments of national power, have the means to resolve the problems caused by illegal immigration.  Sadly, decision-makers for decades have abandoned their obligation to control and protect our borders, which is the fundamental duty of a sovereign state.  This has allowed millions of foreigners to enter and to stay in our country illegally.  The result is that our borders are as porous as those of the late Roman Empire when invading Germanic tribes came to stay.    

Too many U.S. politicians exploit for political gain the influx of illegal immigrants into their jurisdictions.  They abet the creation of protected, foreign enclaves in most of our major cities.  Illegal immigrants, as a group, wield significant political and economic power on local, state, and national levels, boldly representing their native countries’ diplomatic agendas.  This differs little from Roman emperors colluding with Germanic chiefs, then firmly ensconced on empire lands, and increasing their power at the expense of Roman citizens’ rights and liberties. 

For centuries, a state’s sovereignty was connected to its ability to pursue and achieve the sovereign’s best interests.  Originally, in most states, the sovereign was the king or the nobility.  In the United States, the sovereign was and is the people, the citizens.  If our state cannot act in the best interests of its citizens, it cannot be considered a sovereign state.  Following any legitimate definition of national sovereignty, illegal immigration has eroded the United States’ ability to make its own decisions for its own purposes.  This is strikingly similar to the damaging effects of other sovereignty crises in our country.  Are we sovereign, or able to control our own economy, if our enormous national debt is increasingly controlled by other countries’ banks and, therefore, other countries’ politicians?  No.  Are we sovereign, or able to enrich our economy, if countries whose political, cultural, and economic goals are opposed to ours continue to control the sources of a significant percentage of our energy needs?  No.  Following that same logic, are we sovereign if large numbers of foreigners, for their own political, economic, and security needs, enter our country at their will and influence our security, economic, political, and diplomatic decisions?  The answer is the same: No. 

Illegal immigration is a threat to what defines us as a nation.  Immigration law reform first must require that our borders be controlled and that our entry and residency laws be strictly enforced before any legal recognition or relief be given to those illegal immigrants currently breaking our laws by residing within our borders.  This must be our first step to immigration reform because the United States is different from all other countries on earth.  We define ourselves as a cohesive, sovereign people not because we all look the same, worship the same, speak the same language, or submit to the same king.  We are sovereign because we, the people, submit ourselves to the rule of state and national law.  At the same time, we, the people, as responsible citizens of the United States, must monitor our laws in order to maintain our God-given, individual freedoms and our collective security.  Our porous borders and corrupt neglect of immigration laws endanger our sovereignty because they allow illegal foreigners to heavily influence our security, political, economic, and diplomatic policy and, when it is convenient to them, be recognized as part of our body politic.  We might as well be a third-world country that almost no high school graduate can find on a world map. 

Or France.  

25 June 2013 - What About Syria?

25 June 2013 –

What About Syria?  A nineteenth-century power-politician’s statement might apply there today: 

“The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.” – Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck - 1880s

The President is not following one of the fundamental rules of foreign affairs: Never enter into another’s conflict unless your strategic interests are being threatened.  The U.S. cannot gain strategically and will only face additional problems, by arming Syrian rebel groups.  A wiser method of planning and decision-making follows what Robert D. Kaplan wrote in Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos: “I focus on the dark side of every development not because the future will necessarily be bad, but because that is what foreign policy crises have always been about.” 

The dark side: 

If Bashar al-Assad remains in power or if a leader of a particular rebel group emerges from the smoke, it doesn’t significantly affect U.S. strategic interests or those of the region’s other major power players: Iran, Russia, Turkey, or Israel.   

Most Syrian rebel groups have radical Sunni religious and political origins; they want to overthrow the regime controlled by Assad’s minority Shia Alawite sect.  Syria’s civil war is as religious as it is political.  Increased U.S. support for any side wins us no friends, but embroils us in a war controlled by enemies.  This is a bad strategy for a superpower.    

Assad’s major foreign supporters are Iran and Russia.  Iran uses Syria to extend Iranian and Shia power in the region, specifically at the expense of Christians and Sunni Muslims in Syria and Lebanon.  If Sunni rebel groups take over the Syrian government, Iran’s power will be diminished; but, Iran will pursue its strategic interests through increased violence against Christians and Sunni Moslems in the area.   The current Syrian civil war is only the latest round in Islam’s centuries-old Sunni-Shia conflict.  A rebel victory will change very little for outside players like the United States.      

Russia is another outside player.  Its strategic interests in the region haven’t changed since the time of the tsars: naval access to the Mediterranean and allies to the south of Turkey.  The Russian navy has long maintained a repair and resupply facility at the port of Tartus, Syria.  Use of this port enables the Russian navy to sustain forces in the Mediterranean without them having to return through the Turkish-controlled Dardanelle Straits to the Black Sea.  Syria, therefore, is strategically important to Russia, no matter who sits in Damascus.  It is easier for Russia to support Assad than it is to renegotiate with a new government for the use of the Tartus naval facility.  And, a Sunni-controlled Syria would be less inclined to act as a southern counter-weight to a Sunni-dominated Turkey.  Iran and Russia’s strategic interests in the region, therefore, are best-served by keeping Assad in power. 

Turkey’s position on the civil war is a complex one.  Its present government, a Sunni religious resurgence movement under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, would benefit somewhat from a Sunni rebel victory.  But, other influences play heavily as well.  There is a small, but vocal, Shia Alawite minority in southern Turkey who would cause political problems for Erdogan if Assad were to fall.  The refugees now fleeing Northern Syria into Turkey are mostly Sunni Moslems pushed out by Alawite government forces.  They would change to Shia Alawites seeking refuge with their religious compatriots in Southern Turkey if the rebels were to win.   

A rebel victory would force Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan to establish ties with an Arab Syria under new government.  But, the Arab world still regards Turks as Ottomans salivating for a new empire.  A Sunni-controlled, Arab Syria may prove to be as difficult a neighbor to Turkey as the present Shia-controlled, Arab Syria.  It is in Turkey’s strategic interests to contain, not expand, the civil war to the south.  Sending U.S. arms to the rebels will expand the war and damage relations with a critical NATO ally. 

Israel’s strategic concern is simple:  No matter who wins Syria’s civil war, U.S.-provided arms will eventually show up on both sides of the Israeli/Syrian border, in the hands of those who want to kill Israelis.  Israel constantly faces a truth that our president seems to ignore:  Military arms are fungible and usually outlive the current conflict.  The U.S. threatens Israel’s security by giving arms to the Syrian rebels.   

No matter who wins Syria’s civil war, the players in the region will continue to pursue their own interests.  Giving arms to the rebels is simply not in the U.S.’s strategic interests because it damages our relations with our allies and gives murderous options to our adversaries.