28 August 2013 –

I Repeat:  Stay Out of the Fight In Syria! 

Why does President Obama insist on focusing his foreign policy on the predictable atrocity of Syria? Nothing in Syria—including the government’s use of poison gas on its enemies—threatens any U.S. strategic interests in the region.  Israel continues to defend itself.  Turkey still controls its borders and its sovereignty.  Oil still flows from Syria’s neighbors to the south and east.  Russia is still our opponent.  Iran still hates us and will continue to influence Shi’ites in the region to support its stance to destroy Israel.  Therefore, the President’s use of the military instrument of national power in Syria is the wrong action at the wrong place and the wrong time.   Consider the following facts. 

Syria’s is a civil war.  On one side, the oppressive Assad government hates the United States and aligns itself with our international opponents, like Iran and Russia.  On the other side, most of the rebel groups also hate the United States; if these rebels are not the brothers of our violent, Islamist enemies, they are at least their first cousins.  This truly is not our fight. 

The time-proven adage for entering another’s civil war is simple:  Pick a side and then do what it takes to win decisively.  Making a point or militarily punishing the Assad regime for its actions, even to the destruction of all remaining chemical weapons, will make no friends among the combatants nor among any of their outside supporters.  Even more important, it will show us to be naïve and weak.  There may be others who may want our help to resolve their problems, but are now afraid of what they would have to endure to get that help.  Let’s stay out of others’ civil wars unless we are prepared to win.    

To destroy the remaining chemical weapons—even if we could do it with drone and missile attacks—will not satisfy the combatants, their supporters, or even those who demand that the U.S. be the world’s policeman.  U.S. military attacks in Syria will change nothing on the ground there.  The combatants will continue to fight.  Our opponents in the region will continue to support their chosen combatants and continue to condemn us in world fora for their own purposes.  Even worse, after such a failure, the President will be strongly tempted to expand the initial objective of punishing the Assad regime.  The President will feel pressure to “do something more” or be thought of as weak, domestically and internationally.   Is such pressure powerful on a president?  Our gradualism without a strategy in Vietnam, our war of opportunity against the wrong enemy at the wrong time in Kosovo, our misreading of the fractured society in Iraq after the initial victory, and even our decision to nation build in Afghanistan after our quick success in destroying terrorist enclaves should tell us that indeed, “doing something more” is a powerful temptation.     

If the President succumbs to attacking Syria in the near future, he owes the American people a public justification for his present and future actions.  He should identify the compelling U.S. interests for military action, lay out a solid strategy to satisfy that interest, and commit to major operational plans to accomplish the strategy.  The U.S. military knows how to clarify a strategy, build the operational plan, and execute it as well as any military force in the history of civilization.  What the U.S. military can’t create, but must have so it can adapt the strategy and operational plans to overcome fog of war, is a clear, compelling reason to commit violence.  Nothing the President has said to date identifies this compelling interest.  A war is at our door with nothing to fight for. 

The President has plenty of time to work something out since he foolishly laid down the red line of chemical weapons use.  President Assad and his advisors realized that President Obama couldn’t make a good case for U.S. intervention; when the situation demanded it, they used chemical weapons.  President Assad deliberately stepped over the red line.  He called President Obama’s bluff.   President Obama doesn’t have winning cards in this hand; but, that doesn’t mean he won’t lose this hand and then play another, and another, and another, to try to recoup his losses.   Professional card players like to play against guys like that.  They are called losers.

18 August 2013 -

Is Throwing Baseballs Like Throwing Hand Grenades?  Yes.  

Enshrined in baseball’s Hall of Fame are twenty second basemen ­­-- all right-handed.  This is because it is difficult to field a grounder with the mitt on the right hand, and then turn smoothly and throw with the left arm to first base to get the runner out.  It is even more time consuming and difficult for a left-hander to take a relay throw from the shortstop or third baseman, step on the base at second to force the runner coming from first, and then pivot to make the throw to first base in time to complete the double play.  All this has to happen within 3.5 seconds or the batter will already be at first.  The physics and the geometry are immutable.  The game demands right-handed ball players at second base.  It always has.  Coaches, whose job it is to build winning teams, have always steered left-handed ball players to one of the other eight positions on the field.   That is baseball.      

 Some may ask, Isn’t that unfair?  How can baseball continue to claim its preeminent role in society if it baldly discriminates against a significant minority of its players?  Maybe government leaders should create a special commission—comprised of at least 50% left-handed experts—to restructure the rules of the game so lefthanders can exercise their full rights to play baseball.  This should, of course, be accomplished immediately, so the baseball Hall of Fame will reflect all Americans, their talents, and especially their desires.  We don’t want to leave anybody out, and we don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings.

How foolish.  Teams play baseball for one reason, to win.  The most capable players are chosen to use their specific abilities in precise ways.  If you can’t do it, you don’t play. 

The silliness about changing the rules of baseball is not too far afield from recent changes in Department of Defense policy to now allow women to serve in small, special operations combat units.  Servicewomen now can volunteer for and, if they pass the physical and skill requirements, become Rangers, SEALS, Air Force Special Operators, and Marine combat squad members. 

How is this bad? 

First:  The rules and tools of tactical warfare in these small combat units are measured by only one criterion:  Do they win battles?  Nothing else matters.  Indisputably, few men and almost no women can pass the physical requirements for prosecuting this special, tactical warfare.  Just as there is no policy in baseball barring left-handed second basemen, the harsh rules of nature and competition—winning and losing—have dictated the same in barring women from such warfare, with or without a policy change.  

Second:  The motives and methods of those who have pushed for women to serve in small unit combat closely resemble the motives and methods of those fictitious meddlers who would change the geometry of baseball to accommodate left-handed second basemen.  It is foolhardy.  In combat, the score is kept in body counts and surrenders.  Less-than-capable small unit combatants die faster and surrender more often.     

All of the advocates’ arguments avoid addressing the ultimate reason we go to war and then fight tactical battles: to win.  Ignoring the insurmountable differences in physical abilities between men and women, these people contend instead that women must be given the same combat rights and opportunities as men.  They disregard the reality that weaker combatants are a literal drag on their fellow service members and a hindrance to combat readiness as a whole, reducing the probability of winning battles.  Perhaps the “rights” advocates simply want to balance the number of heavily bemedaled women and men in Valhalla by allowing more women to serve in combat. 

Third:   Particularly in insurgencies—where we use our small unit combat forces most often—our combat effectiveness must be the best we can possibly field.  Initially, the enemy controls the tempo and the timing of an insurgency.  Therefore, our combat forces must be so effective—not just effective enough—that the local people will quickly see that a safe future is to be found with us and not with the insurgents.  The best combat force we can field is the best way to “win the hearts and minds of the people.” 

There can be no left-handed second basemen in small unit combat teams if we want to rout the enemy.  This is an immutable law that politicians keep forgetting.   

15 August 2013 –

Is Throwing Baseballs Like Throwing Hand Grenades?  Yup. 

Enshrined in baseball’s Hall of Fame are twenty second basemen, all right-handed.  Why?  Because it difficult to filed a grounder with the mitt on the right hand and then turn smoothly to throw with authority with the left arm to first base to get the runner out.  It is even more time consuming and difficult for a left-hander to take a relay throw from the shortstop or third baseman, step on the base at second to force the runner coming from first, and then pivot to make the throw to first base in time to complete the double play.  All this has to happen within 3.5 seconds or the batter will already be at first.  The physics and the geometry are immutable.  The game demands right-handed ball players at second base.  It always has.  Coaches, whose job it is to build winning teams, have always steered left-handed ball players to one of the other eight positions on the field.   That is baseball.      

Some may say:  Is that not unfair?  Should baseball continue to claim its preeminent role in society if it so baldly discriminates against a significant minority of our people?  Should not our government leaders create a special commission—comprising at least 50% lefthanded experts—to restructure the geometry and the rules of the game so that lefthanders can finally exercise their full rights to play baseball?  Should we not do this immediately?  After all, a baseball Hall of Fame so harshly tilted toward the right side of the spectrum will never be more than a shameful relic of a narrow and bigoted past.  The sooner we implement these progressive improvements, the sooner the baseball Hall of Fame will reflect all Americans, their talents, and their desires. 

Enough.

I use this sarcastic example to make a point about recent Department of Defense policy changes to allow women to serve in small unit, special operations combat.  Servicewomen now can volunteer for and, if they pass the physical and skill requirements, become Rangers, SEALS, Air Force Special Operators, and Marine combat squad members.  How is this bad?

First:  The rules and tools of tactical warfare—the small unit combat in question—are measured by only one criterion:  Do they win battles?  Nothing else matters.  I am sure that if left alone, the new policy to open special ops units to servicewomen will pass into irrelevant obscurity.  It is an immutable fact that few men and almost no women can pass the physical requirements for prosecuting this special, tactical warfare.  Just as there is no policy in baseball barring left-handed second basemen, the harsh rules of nature and competition—winning and losing—have dictated the same in barring women from such warfare, with or without a policy change. 

Second:  The motives and methods of those who have pushed for women to serve in small unit combat closely resemble the motives and methods of those fictitious meddlers who would change the geometry of baseball to accommodate left -handed second basemen.  It is foolhardy.  All of the advocates’ arguments avoid addressing the ultimate reason we go to war and then fight tactical battles: to win.  I fear that the physical standards for entry into small unit combat teams will be lowered in small combat units.  These advocates would contend that we cannot give the same number of medals for heroism to women as we do to men unless women have the same combat opportunities.  They would contend that we need to balance the numbers in Valhalla by getting more women to serve in combat.  It is apparent to me that winning means different things to different people.  Sadly, in combat, the score is kept in body counts and surrenders.  Less-than-capable small unit combatants die faster and surrender more often.     

Third:   Particularly in insurgencies—where we use our small unit combat forces most often—our combat effectiveness must be the best we can possibly field.  Initially, the enemy controls the tempo and the timing of an insurgency.  Therefore, our combat forces must be so effective—not just effective enough—that the people will quickly see that their safe future is to be found with us and not with the insurgents.  The best combat force we can field is the best way to “win the hearts and minds of the people.”  There can be no left-handed second basemen in small unit combat teams if we want to rout the enemy.  These are immutable laws that politicians keep forgetting.  

13 August 2013 –

In This Game We Call Life, Numbers Matter

Yankee third baseman Alex Rodriguez  should be condemned to sports ignominy.  He violated sacred principles of competition by using and encouraging the use of performance enhancing drugs.  He deserves the ultimate punishment:  lifetime banishment from the game of baseball.  Why is this so important?  Because life imitates baseball, and not the other way around.  To find truth and unerring principles, one has to look no farther than to the game of baseball.  Watch the game of baseball, feel how it flows beautifully through an afternoon in the ball park, and you’ll recognize how it has been the backbone of virtue and good sense for generations of Americans.  And, you’ll l know why ballplayers using performance enhancing drugs is such obvious perfidy.    

If you already have gained ultimate insight into life through the clear lens of baseball, no further explanation is necessary.  If you have not, I shall try to explain this crisis in American society using small words and simple sentences.  Football and soccer disciples, try to keep up. 

1) As Fay Vincent, former Commissioner of Baseball, wrote recently, baseball is athletic competition at its purest.  If teams win or lose based on the performance of players taking steroids and other drugs, then baseball becomes nothing more than made-for-television entertainment, nothing more than professional wrestling without the blood and skimpily clad girls (OK, I added that last part about the blood and girls). 

Legitimate athletic competition, however, inspires fans, players, and nations.  It teaches the vanquished that defeat on the playing field may be painful, but it is only temporary.  What is lasting are character and humility in the lessons learned.  It teaches the victors that winning may feel wonderful, but it is only temporary.  What is lasting are character and humility in the lessons learned.  For these lessons to endure, the competition must be pure.      

It is that inspiration that sustained me as a Red Sox fan, from that Saturday in 1960 on the Game of the Week when I first saw Ted Williams swing a bat in Fenway Park, until the final out of the fourth game of the 2004 World Series when the BOSOX finally became again Champeens of Da Woild.  Only uncorrupted competition sustains and inspires this way.    

2) Pure competition over the generations of the game has produced numbers that have meaning beyond the moment.  Ask a baseball fan what the numbers 60 and 61 mean, and she will immediately say Babe Ruth’s home runs in ’27 and Roger Maris’s home runs in ’61.  Their Yankee uniform numbers were 3 and 9 respectively, by the way.  Ask her what the numbers 755, 714, and 660 are, and the answer will come before you finish speaking.  Hank Aaron’s, Babe Ruth’s, and Willie Mays’s career home run totals—all pure numbers in pure competition.  Enlightened fans condemn the heresy of Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and Alex Rodriguez.  Their hyped numbers are meaningless, completely irrelevant to anything of worth in life.  They inspired nothing good to nobody, nowhere, no how.  And, no Hall of Fame. 

What are .367, .344, and .331?  By this time, the enlightened may wonder how anyone functions in life without knowing the answer.  Those are Ty Cobb’s, Ted Williams’s, and Stan Musial’s career batting averages.  I learned how to divide and multiply because I wanted to figure out batting averages.  Numbers tie together eras in the sport—in the history of the USA--as nothing else can.  I learned American history from 1903 to today because I studied baseball and compared it to what else was happening in the USA at the time.  Numbers hold history together.  I can compare Joe Dimaggio to Rod Carew to Rogers Hornsby to Mickey Mantle by comparing their statistics.  Without a valid comparison of the pure numbers of the different eras of baseball, all life is condemned to relativism.  Nothing means anything. 

3) Cheating is cheating.  Alex Rodriguez taught millions of kids to cheat on a grand scale and, thereby, chase success, adulation, and riches.  Many of these kids will cheat as they can and will continue to do so through adulthood.  If they can get away with flouting the rules of baseball, they’ll disregard rules in school, in their homes, and will ultimately snub the rule of law in their communities.  Alex Rodriguez:  You were as magnificent a shortstop as has ever played the game.  Your name was being readied for permanent glory in the Hall of Fame; but, you cheated.  Yer OUT!

6 August 2013 –

Sixty-Eight Years Ago Today

On 6 August 1945, Colonel Paul Tibbets, commander of the 509^th Composite Group flying a B-29 Superfortress, which he named the Enola Gay after his mother, dropped the world’s first operational atom bomb on the city of Hiroshima.  Over 80,000 people were killed that day, with another 70,000 dying in the next few months from radiation poisoning.  The age of nuclear weapons began. 

Three days later, Major Charles W. Sweeney, flying another B-29 named Bockscar, dropped the second atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki.  Another 75,000 were killed that day with hundreds of thousands more dying in the following months.  The age of nuclear weapons in combat ended three days after it started.  Five days later, Japan announced its surrender to allied forces.  World War II stopped. 

In 1997-99, I was the commander of the 315^th Intelligence squadron at Yokota Air Base, Japan.  A civilian in my squadron was an ethnic Japanese, American citizen.  He was born in the United States but spent World War II in Hiroshima.  Gary’s parents were Japanese citizens living in the United States in 1941.  Because of a mix-up, they were thought to be associated with the Japanese consulate in Los Angeles, thereby having diplomatic status.  His family was repatriated to Japan, where they lived on the mountainside outskirts of Hiroshima.

I asked Gary about the war.  His mother worked in the city on a construction gang.  His father worked in a tool factory.  Since Gary was a foreigner with a heavy accent, his school mates ostracized him at first.  But, he soon became a VIP because he had two—that’s right, two—leather baseball gloves.  I finally asked him about 6 August 1945.    

He softly said that his mother had switched work days with another on her gang in the city to be with her sick husband.  That morning, the air raid siren blared.  His mother, sister, and he went to a Shinto shrine further up the hill to wait out the raid.  His father stayed in bed.  It was just another Sunday in Hiroshima. 

Gary said that bombers never attacked Hiroshima itself; they usually focused on the naval facilities nearby.  He expected many bombers in the sky; but, that day, he could only see one, maybe two.  Then, the entire sky lit up with millions of lightning bolts.  Gary saw the blast race across the city and up the hill.  It hit the shrine and nearly toppled it.  The force deafened him for the rest of the day.  His family was unhurt; his father survived the collapse of their house while sleeping under heavy bed covers.  The mushroom cloud of dirt and dead city stayed in the sky for two days.  The rain finally pulled it back to earth.  Gary’s war was over. 

I then reverently asked Gary if he would share his opinion of the US’s decision to drop an atomic bomb on his city.  Was it a moral decision to do so?  Gary quickly said that it absolutely was the moral decision because it shortened the war.  He told me that everybody in southern Japan was being trained to violently resist the impending invasion of the home islands.  Women and children were taught how to sharpen the handles of their rakes and hoes and to use them as weapons against the American soldiers who were sure to come.  They were told that the emperor expected them to fight house by house to ensure that the Americans would not succeed.  Gary expected his entire family to die along with millions of other Japanese to stop the Americans.  Gary said that stopping the war with an atomic bomb saved millions of lives on both sides.   An examination of the invasion plans bears out his projected casualty numbers. 

When American soldiers arrived after the peace treaty, Gary, an American citizen, got a food ration card and much-needed medical attention for his family.  Later, he returned to the U.S., earned a college degree, and then worked for the U.S. government in Japan for forty-five years.  He now lives in Marin County, California, with his wife. 

I believe Gary. America did the right thing—the horribly right thing—sixty years ago today.  No apologies.  As in all wars, lots of remorse.  Our leaders must make the hard decisions for at least another sixty-eighty years so that no one will use nuclear weapons again.    

5 August 2013 –

Treachery and Fame

Trai•tor (trā′tǝr) . n. 1. One who betrays a person, a cause, or any trust.  2. one who betrays his country by violating his allegiance; one guilty of treason.  [ME traitur   < OF <  L trāditōrem, acc. of traditor, betrayer.  See Benedict  Arnold, Bradley Manning,  Edward Snowden]    

   

The US government entrusted Private First Class Bradley Manning and Mr. Edward Snowden with protecting government secrets.  Both volunteered for the job, underwent extensive background investigations, and probably took polygraph tests to verify their trustworthiness.  Private Manning also took an oath of enlistment, swearing to support and defend the Constitution.  In return, these men were privileged to be part of something greater than themselves.

The US government considered Private Manning and Mr. Snowden’s service to be as valuable as the service of those who risk their lives in combat.  In fact, Private Manning’s and Mr. Snowden’s trust was to protect those in combat.  It was to protect our embassies, consulates, and vital concerns throughout the world.  It was to protect our allies, and, following Sun Tzu’s dictum to “know your enemy,” it was to keep our enemies at bay.  These men’s duty was to help their country thrive in a nasty, brutish world.  They failed.  Deliberately.    

  

They abandoned their duty in order to follow personal agendas instead of the law.  Mr. Snowden willfully exposed faults in government intelligence gathering policies; Private Manning attempted to assuage personal feelings of persecution and loneliness.  To make matters worse, both craved fifteen minutes of fame.  These men dishonorably—and illegally—released hundreds of thousands of classified documents to enemies of the United States.  They publicly flaunted their treachery.  Their personal motives mocked the deadly seriousness of the intelligence business and their country’s security.  If that is not traitorous, then nothing is.   

My career in the military intelligence business revealed some crucial facts:  1) You agree to give up certain First Amendment rights when you take the military oath and when you receive a security clearance.  You promise not to speak freely with others about what you do and not to freely associate with proscribed groups of people.  If you choose to break your word, to endanger the lives of your colleagues, you may face similar punishment to that which awaits Mr. Snowden and Private Manning.  

2) The intelligence business—the spy business with all its associated functions—is a dirty business.  I call it doing worldy things—spying—for heavenly purposes—protecting the security of the United States.  If you don’t like it, then quit and work somewhere else.  But, leave your secrets in the vault before you go.   

3) All countries spy on other countries, including their friends; it is in their vital interests to do so.  Only a country’s means and methods limit its spying, no matter what internationalists may purport as the cheery future of mankind.

4) There are no friends among nations, only common interests.  Allies pursue common interests; enemies pursue conflicting interests.  All are potential enemies; few are lasting allies.  For a traitor like Mr. Snowden to think that Russia, Ecuador, or Venezuela will protect him beyond his worth as an intelligence source, as a stick in America’s eye, or as an example to other disgruntled sources to seek asylum, he is even more foolish than he is corrupt.  He should cut a deal with the U.S. now rather than risk being in Russia when his usefulness runs out. 

5) Trust is the coin of the realm in the intelligence community, in the military, and in every other organization that protects this country.  Can you be trusted to do your duty for your country, in spite of your desires to do otherwise?  Are you trustworthy enough to go through proper channels to “blow the whistle” on intrusive, domestic collection programs instead of indulging in illegal grandstanding?  Can your compatriots trust you to keep secrets and thereby protect them as they fulfill their often dangerous intelligence collection duties?  If so, you will join a band of brothers and sisters whose friendship and loyalty will endure a lifetime.  Even when you are out of the business, they will sustain you.  I have friends from my Air Force career that I have not seen in years, but if they called, I would come.  I owe them.  I trust them.

Mr. Snowden and Private Manning, the only thing owed to you is prosecution to the full extent of the law.  And, you will never be trusted again.