11 November 2014 –

Let’s do it the right way! 

The midterm elections are over.  If you heard the President’s response, only one-third of America has spoken.  But, that one-third’s voice has been loud.  Republicans now control both houses of Congress, over thirty of the governorships, and sixty-seven of the ninety-nine state legislative bodies.   If ever there was a time for Republicans to govern courageously, now is it. 

Since Election Day, the spectrum of political punditry has been predicting various types of future governance.  From The Blaze, National Review, and Fox News to The Huffington Post, National Public Radio, and the major networks, experts and politicians are prioritizing things that Congress and/or the President should do to “get things done” and “help America get back on its feet.” 

The jaded pessimist in me says that such blather is only hides the cyclical electoral battle to control the multi-trillion dollar business called our federal government.  Such talk reminds of me of a similar game we played in the Air Force.  When the Inspector General team regularly showed up on base to delve into, inspect, and grade everything we were doing, they would officially say,”We’re here to help you.”  The local commander would officially respond, ”And, we’re glad that you’re here.”  Save me from those in authority who intrude in my life and call it help. 

   

The naïve optimist in me says that the Republicans’ “bills-to-pass list” for the upcoming session is well thought out and should mitigate the top strategic threats to the safety and prosperity of the United States: our national debt; our porous borders; and our dependence on dubious, foreign energy sources.  The President and top Democrat legislators will see the wisdom of going to the center and will work with the majority to mitigate those threats and get things done.    

The old man in me says that long-term stability does not derive from rapidly passed laws or self-serving executive orders, no matter how pressing political requirements are at the time.  Stability and security result from our keeping the governance process within the strict constraints clearly written in the Constitution.   It’s the U.S. Constitution that makes this country exceptional, not the brilliance, ambition, or popularity of our leaders.  It’s the U.S. Constitution that pragmatically enables the freedoms and natural rights of U.S. citizens—rights and freedoms eloquently expressed in the Declaration of Independence.  Therefore, responsible leaders must operate the mechanisms of governance only under the rules laid out in America’s seminal document.  Right now, neither political party has had a stellar record in that regard.

It takes a lot of focus, faith in our exceptional system, and moral courage to not succumb to the enticements of political power.  Alas, the President, a constitutional lecturer no less, has consistently preferred to get what he wants through unconstitutional executive orders rather than by honoring the articles, sections, and clauses in the Constitution that clearly delineate and limit his power.  Senator Harry Reid, as Senate Majority Leader, has abetted the President’s corruption by refusing to respect the intent, specific duties, and limitations of Senate prerogatives, as outlined in Article I of the Constitution.  Legitimate constitutional governance has ground to a halt in recent years as power flowed into the Executive Branch. 

  

Both Republicans and the President are now in the hot seat.  Controlling the House and the Senate for the next two years gives Republicans the chance to not only to get things done, but also to scour the corruption that has smelled up the Executive Branch and the Senate for the last six years.  For starters, Republicans must pass the first budget in six years and put it and other constitutionally required bills on the President’s desk.  No more continuing resolutions to exacerbate profligate spending.  It then will be up to the President to veto bills or work with Congress to create bipartisan governance.  Congress’s acting within its constitutional limits will coerce the President to do the same.  The President must accept and share in the benefits of Republican-driven governance or officially veto and be solely accountable for rejecting laws that would limit our debt, staunch spending, stop our immigration and border crisis, simplify our tax code, bring trillions of dollars back to the United States, and help us become the world’s top energy producer and exporter. Acting within Constitutional limits will work in the Republicans’ favor, for the benefit of all. 

Finally, the Constitution, who we are as Americans, demands that the process work that way.  Republicans must show the moral courage to trust that our exceptional system will produce stability and strength in society. Governing this way is true reform.  Governing this way is true hope and change.  Governing this way is the exceptional thing to do.  Anything else is politics as usual. 

29 October 2014 –

What we are really thinking

When I was the US Air Force Attaché to China, my wife and I lived in downtown Beijing.  We entertained diplomats from around the world and worked extensively with them and our Chinese hosts on all sorts of diplomatic and military issues.  Because we had information the Chinese government wanted, our apartment was bugged with audio and video sensors, our car had a GPS tracker on it, and I was followed virtually everywhere I went in the country.  My wife and I got used to the environment and  never talked about anything of importance while in the apartment or car, or near any Chinese.  We were there to do our diplomatic job, and we accepted the dictatorial Chinese state as the arena in which we did battle.  

  

The Chinese government’s intrusion extended to all aspects of our lives, including church.  Ours was not one of the country’s officially recognized denominations.  We could not invite Chinese citizens to worship with us, give them pamphlets, or even answer their questions about our faith or Christianity in general.  On a weekly basis, our pastor clearly stated these rules over the pulpit.  We rendered unto Caesar what was Caesar’s.

All the members of our congregation knew our services were electronically monitored to ensure we complied with government rules.  After all, it was a Communist dictatorship with 500,000 people in its security services who did nothing but monitor all communications within its borders.  Only our silent prayers were not subject to government scrutiny. 

There is an old Chinese saying:  Zai lin, chuang hei.  The direct translation is “toward the neighbors, dark windows.”  To the Chinese, whose natural and human rights have been suppressed for millennia by warlords, emperors, and Communist autocrats, it provides sage advice:  “Don’t tell anybody what you’re really thinking.”   In a dictatorship, this often is the only way to survive. 

I rejoice daily that our Constitution protects us from such government intrusion when we worship, speak privately or in the press, when we assemble, or petition the government for redress of wrongs.  The expression of our thoughts is constrained only by our ability to express them, not by the government.  Not by the federal government.  Not by the state government.  Not by the city government.  No government official can use legal mechanisms such as subpoenas to intimidate American religious congregations to quit calling a sin a sin, to quit public or private efforts to redress government wrongs, or to insist we pray only silently and away from others.  That is unconstitutional, and it is wrong. 

Five pastors’ names appeared in the City of Houston’s recent subpoena to turn over sermons which were thought to contain statements about the sins of our city leaders as well as information on how these religious leaders are trying to petition to redress the wrongs of the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO).  Pastors Steve Wriggle, Herman Castano, Khan Huynh, David Welch, and Ms. Magda Hermida spoke out boldly and refused to back down.  They are heroes in my book. 

In a press conference on Tuesday, 28 October, these pastors, including Reverend Bill Owens and others from the Coalition of African American Pastors, declared that this issue is as much about civil rights as were the marches and demonstrations some of them participated in more than four decades ago.  These brave Americans forced a suppressive, local government to honor the Constitution and to respect First Amendment protections for all Americans. 

On Wednesday, 29 October, because of the efforts of the “Houston Five” and others, Mayor Parker’s office withdrew the subpoena. 

These pastors’ moral courage inspires me as much as has any physical courage I saw in my three decades of military service.  May God bless these pastors, their congregations, and all who are willing risk everything to protect Americans’ rights and freedoms.  I echo the “amens” we spoke so freely during the press conference.  We can do that in this country.  We can do that in Texas.  We can do that in Houston. 

After all, we Americans can tell people what we are really thinking.  

16 October 2014 –

An Apology Is In Order

I must apologize for my final statement in yesterday’s column about Houston Mayor Annise Parker.  According to the official City of Houston website, she is only fifty-eight years old.  Therefore, she is not an ”Ole Gay Mayor.” 

Yesterday, I explained my view on how we should use personal passion to express our own rights and reasoned tolerance to examine others’ expression of their rights in the public forum.  This helps create a peaceful, ordered society where legitimate rights can be accommodated. 

Today, I want to posit how Mayor Parker’s personal passion for lesbian, gay, bi-and-transgender (LGBT) causes combined with her lack of reasoned tolerance for others’ rights to create an embarrassment for her as the leader of Houston government. 

Personal passion is essential to define and maintain one’s rights in society.  In that vein, I defend Mayor Parker’s constitutional right to say during the city council debate in June that the now-passed, non-discrimination ordinance was a “personal” matter.  This ordinance contains, among other clauses related to sexuality and gender identity, a statement that would allow self-described, transgender men and women to use any public restroom of their choice.  Public expression of support for such radical change in society is Mayor Parker’s right.   

     

But, when the Mayor, the Executive Officer of the City of Houston, publicly declared that her bill was a reflection of her personal mores, she legitimately invited conservative and religious groups to declare not only her bill, but her personally, as morally offensive.  Those are the rules of the game.  Welcome to the fight, Mayor Parker!

Mayor Parker’s second mistake was to not conduct a clear-headed assessment of others’ rights—the First Amendments rights of people and groups whose opinions are diametrically opposed to hers—when she fought to defend her position.  Mayor Parker should have exercised reasoned tolerance by writing her city ordinance with constrained scope and wording.  I would say that Mayor Parker failed to do so.   

She may still have survived the political storm if she had not tried to subpoena Christian pastors’ sermons on homosexuality, gender identity, or the Mayor herself.  Up to that point in this saga, reasoned and tolerant people may have concluded that Mayor Parker was using the political process to encode her passionately-held view of sexuality in a city ordinance.  In return, Christian-based political groups were using the same political process to produce overwhelmingly large petitions to require the ordinance be put on a city-wide referendum.  The political process was playing out with vigor in the public forum.  But, the game changed when the subpoena was issued.    

Many Houstonians are deeply religious Christians.  They hold traditional views of marriage, sexual relations, and public displays of sexuality.  Many believe that God defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman and that sexual activity is sanctioned only within the bounds of that institution.  To them, all sexual activity outside of such a marriage, including homosexual acts, is a sin.  They also see the public use of restrooms by those who aren’t of the same sex as deeply offensive.  Their views are religious tenets of their faith in God.  Expressing such tenets of faith has been and is fully protected by the First Amendment.  This protection has consistently covered public expression as well as sermons and discussions within a religious congregation. 

Mayor Parker either did not understand the universal legitimacy of the religious, speech, and redress of grievances rights in the First Amendment or she allowed her supporters to intolerantly dismiss them.  Either way, the buck stops with her.

Apparently, the Mayor’s supporters wrote, then made public, a subpoena for some of Houston’s more vocal Christian pastors to turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity, or Mayor Parker herself.  Their response to the obviously illegal subpoena went national within hours.  Pastors publicly refused to comply.  Protestors gathered outside city offices.  Pundits had a field day.  Quickly, city attorneys and the Mayor herself backed off; they said that the subpoena’s wording was obviously too “broad.” 

It seems to me that the Mayor’s passion for LGBT causes clouded her and her supporters’ reasoned tolerance of others’ rights of expression.  This has put her into an embarrassing and politically damaging predicament.  What’s worse—or better, depending on your personal beliefs—is that the subpoena may have condemned her pet ordinance to the dustbin of public opinion and her personal credibility to the narrow hallways of her most ardent supporters. 

A lesson learned. 

15 October 2014  –

Of Course We Disagree. 

I regularly correspond with a friend I met while working together in the US embassy in Beijing, China.  He is passionate and well-reasoned when he expounds on the human condition.  His views occasionally may not line up with mine; but, because of his virtues mentioned above, I associate with and learn from him. 

Recently, my friend sent me a pamphlet by Paul F. Boller, Jr., “To Bigotry No Sanction,” which highlights George Washington’s critical role in “establishing the ideals of religious liberties and freedom for conscience…for Protestants, Catholics, and Jews—and for Deists and free thinkers as well—firmly in the American tradition.”  I recommend its thirty-six pages to anyone who wants to understand constitutionally guaranteed rights as well as to construct a guide to exercise those rights in public forums.   In George Washington’s example—in my friend’s example—I find the keys to protecting our personal rights while sustaining a free and functioning society. 

Examining and expressing our constitutionally guaranteed rights always should be a meditative, thorough process.  Also, we should never lie to ourselves about the rights we have or how to express them; there are plenty who will later to lie in the political arena. 

When we examine, then express, our rights, we must recognize that we almost always do so with passion.  When we pray at our bedside, in the pew, or on a trout stream in the Rockies, we do so with passion.  When we write letters to the editor, talk with friends, and instruct our political leaders, our passion inspires and punctuates the communication.  We instinctively straighten our backs when we demand security in our homes.  Our eyes well up with tears when we confirm in our souls that God, not any government, gave us our rights.  Expressing, defining, and protecting our personal freedoms is an emotional experience.  Without that passion, history shows that personal freedoms—however magnificent they may be—atrophy and are supplanted in the public forum by imposed manifestos on societal governance. 

Fervent advocates of Americans’ personal freedoms are legendary.  Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Paine have emblazoned freedom’s passion in many minds.  Their fiery speeches and actions announce exactly what I have told my children during difficult times in their lives:  Welcome to the Fight!  The passion of the fight defends and sustains what would otherwise be trampled and killed in a godless world.    

But, when and how should I “fight” for my personal rights?  I have learned that it also is my obligation, as a responsible citizen, to ensure that my discourse and my interaction in the public forum—in defense of my rights and liberties—not devolve into acrimony.  Passionate expression of a person’s or a group’s rights well defines the different parts of a pluralistic society.  That said, however, the larger society must function for the benefit of all.  Here is where tolerance and reason, not passion, are the necessary virtues.  In a free, yet ordered, society, a calm, clear-headed assessment of others’ rights, in order to determine how to accommodate all citizens, is just as important as passionate adherence to one’s personal code.  All life’s experiences tell me that such an assessment must be the product of reasoned tolerance. 

I like classic liberalism’s description of tolerance:  My neighbor can do what he wants—as long as it doesn’t scare the horses.  I recognize that most things my neighbors do don’t abridge my rights or detract much from the quality of my life.  But, when their actions do rub against me and mine, my definition of how my neighbors “scare the horses” must be a clear, passionless, assessment.  Reasoned tolerance demands a constrained scope and wording of my conclusions.  Otherwise, opportunistic foes will use my emotion to ridicule my arguments for their advantage.  

   

A reasoned, tolerant approach to others’ views of personal freedoms improves the political process.  Importantly, it impels all to clearly tie their political assertions and demands to constitutional principles and obligations. When discussions of rights and freedoms are so framed, they reveal rather than hide an argument’s constitutional weaknesses.  Only by being tolerant of other, well-delivered opinions can I learn more about who wants and who doesn’t want to sustain individual freedoms in society.  Only by reasonably accommodating others’ rights can we all better protect our rights.  

  

That’s all fine and dandy.  But what about the politicians who abuse others’ constitutional rights and processes in order to maintain their power?  Tomorrow, I will try to follow the philosophy above to contend that Houston’s Ole Gay Mayor “just ain’t what she used to be, ain’t what she used to be, ain’t what she used to be”…not so long ago. 

11 September 2014 –

Thirteen years ago today. 

11 September 2001, Incirlik Air Base, Turkey.  I was the Director of Intelligence for Operation NORTHERN WATCH.  We flew combat missions to enforce the military no-fly zone over Northern Iraq, a hold-over operation from Operation DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM more than ten years before.  Saddam Hussein still ruled Iraq, but we restricted what he could do militarily against opponents in his country and the region. 

Our mission was straightforward, our working conditions and quarters were good, Turkish food was magnificent, and the Brits and Turks we worked with were competent and professional.  In fact, we invited them all to our July 4^th festivities.  In return, the Brits invited us to a Benedict Arnold birthday party.   We flew our mission as was expected of the best air forces in the world.

 

Then, in one day, the world turned upside down. 

I was in the senior staff’s weekly security brief when a sergeant ran into the room, turned on the TV, and yelled that we had to see something.   We watched the airliner fly into the second World Trade Tower.  Everyone in the room went stiff and silent.  Our commander then calmly conducted a contingency planning meeting for what could be our new mission.

The death and destruction in New York, the Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania were horrible; we American Airmen in Turkey didn’t dwell on it.  We immediately got to work to begin again serving our country in a crisis.  We quickly went from patrolling Iraqi airspace to facilitating the movement of thousands of men and women, and billions of dollars of equipment, weapons, and supplies through Turkey to Central Asia in preparation for combat operations in Afghanistan.  We knew who and where the enemy was, and we were fixin’ to kill’em.    

The forces of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, many of whom flowed through Turkey, quickly crushed the Taliban’s and Al-Queda’s ability to export terrorism out of Afghanistan.  In doing so, we lost fewer than thirty Americans in Afghanistan from November 2001 to February 2002.  Flush with success, the Bush administration thought it could also use our military to nation-build on a fault line between civilizations that has never yielded to being a cohesive nation.  Another 530 Americans were killed from March 2002 to the end of 2008 in the Bush administration’s pursuit of an unrealizable goal. 

Since then, in an even more tragic waste of life, the present administration has doubled down in fruitless nation-building.  Since 2009, nearly 1,700 more Americans have been killed in a “country” that looks and acts the way it did in 2001.  All this under the wrong strategy for the wrong place at the wrong time, and using the wrong instruments of national power.    

The administrations’ strategies in Iraq have been a faulty and tragic waste of American lives.  We didn’t have to invade Iraq and topple the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003.  Not because Saddam Hussein was a good guy; no, he truly deserved to die.  But, shouldering the inevitable responsibility for nation-building in a state with artificial borders and intractable cultural and religious divides would be next to impossible with the military forces allocated.  Correctly, our leaders in 2007 bet that a surge of additional forces would establish enough stability in the country’s critical regions and within its governing mechanisms to create potential for future nation-building.  Sadly, that lengthy process cost over 4,200 American military lives and more than 3,400 American civilian contractors’ lives. 

After 2009, the present administration abandoned its responsibilities in Iraq and wasted another 500 American military lives.  Its rejection of prior commitments, inattention, and deficiency in leadership showed the world that it could not be trusted. This has led directly to the burgeoning war with ISIL.   

 A lot has changed since the first 9-11, thirteen years ago.  But as I have mentioned, the more things change, the more they stay the same.  The world is still a bad place.  We still have implacable enemies who kill Americans in horrifying ways.  But, our military men and women still know who the enemy is and know how to kill him.  They continue to stiffen their resolve, train and plan, and then show the moral and physical courage to rise to any occasion. 

Our leaders must display that same decisiveness and courage that they ask of the Americans who execute their plans.  Only then will these “leaders” prove themselves worthy to visit the graves of the fallen.  

8 September 2014 -

1300 years of jihad

History should teach us about the present.  As a ten-year-old, I was mesmerized by the accounts of Lewis and Clark’s 1804-06 expedition back and forth across Montana.  The rest of their epic journey across the continent was largely irrelevant to a boy who viewed Montana alone as God’s country, the center of the universe.  As I grew, I learned that differing historical beliefs, cultures, and geography greatly influenced movements of peoples and civilizations.  I realized I needed to catch up.   

   

As an Air Force intelligence officer, I analyzed the relationships among world events and peoples, their geography, religions, languages, ethnicities, cultures, economies, historical successes and failures, and immediate aspirations.  After thirty-five years of analytic effort, I came to agree with the truism: “The more things change, the more they remain the same.” 

 

The “progressive” belief that modern nations will abandon allegiance to the factors above and embrace a one-world view is fantasy.  Modern civilization has given us vaccines, flush toilets, and a way to check e-mail in a fast-food restaurant in Singapore.  But, it has not changed the way most people identify with something greater than themselves, pray, or sacrifice for family and community.  And, modern “progressive” thought has had little success at all in resolving strife among peoples. 

A 1,300-year war is being waged between Christian and Islamic civilizations.  Since the 8^th century, the history of the Middle East and South Asia, almost all of Europe, and much of Africa, has played itself out in battles between these two sets of ideology.  Of course, within each civilization there have also been wars among different nations, peoples, and religious sects.  And, even in recent times, those intra-civilization struggles have been heavily influenced by the potential intrusion of other civilizations. 

The current fighting in Iraq and Syria is a skirmish in the latest jihadi terrorists’ offensive in this centuries-old war.  A resurgent Islam, modernized and enabled by petrodollars, has taken the initiative in this war between civilizations by paying for the creation of western-based jihadist networks that are attacking the Christian West.  The new twist now is that many of those who align themselves with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the Levant (ISIL) jihadists will return to the western countries they came from, prepared to attack their countrymen in the name of radical Islam. 

The pool of potential killers is large.  Local unrest in, and the withdrawal of European colonizers from, Islamic regions have created significant Moslem minorities within the bulwarks of western civilized nations such as Britain, France, Germany, Canada, and the United States.  It is within these communities that many of the ISIL radicals are being trained, are operating, and will continue to operate.  ISIL is the vanguard of a radical Islamic enemy spreading to other-than Muslim countries, an enemy that is controlling the events of today’s war.  Western leaders must now try to blunt this latest enemy campaign originating in jihadist madrasas and training camps in their own cities.  

   

It is no surprise that we in the West have no solid allies in the Islamic civilization who will help us regain the initiative in this war.   Saudi Arabia, for example, is asking the U.S. to help them squelch the latest version of jihad in Iraq; at the same time it continues to fund the creation of radical jihadists in its worldwide network of fundamental Wahabbist Islam schools.  Iran is allowed to flit in and out of nuclear negotiations with the U.S., at the same time never denying that it wants to destroy the United States and Israel, dominate the region, and establish Shia Islam as the ruling force wherever Moslems live.  Even Turkey, a long-neglected U.S. ally, is fomenting radical Islam.  Turks, Arabs, Persians, and Kurds may all distrust and try to dominate each other, but they all certainly distrust and often hate the West more.  Our strategic enemy is not ISIL; it is the intolerant civilization that spawns and nurtures violent religious movements within itself and then selectively launches these movements against the West in the larger war.    

 

Our leaders must admit that their vision of a let’s-hold-hands-and-sing-kumbaya world ain’t gonna happen.  The world’s religious and cultural history clearly warns otherwise.  Instead, our leaders need to rally western civilizations around an unambiguous message and a well-defined strategy that will protect traditional western interests. 

The message—the vision—is one of protecting individual freedom, religious tolerance, the sanctity of the lives and property of citizens, and the sovereignty of borders. 

The strategy is first to destroy ISIL, Al-Queda, and their fellow henchmen with certainty and decisiveness.  The weapons used and the timing and tempo of the war are operational concerns and do not need to be made public.   Then, our leaders must coerce—militarily, economically, and diplomatically–radical Islamic leaders into stopping their expansionist campaigns. 

Our leaders must regain the initiative in this centuries-old war, a war that will continue long after they are gone from the scene.  They owe that much to the future of our civilization and the people they are part of.  

28 August 2014 -

Inattention or inability; the outcome is the same

During the year I attended Air Force War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, AL,  we discussed how successful national foreign policy strategy must be based on a clear national vision of what America should be in the world, what our compelling interests are, and how determined we are to protect those interests.  Since World War Two, successful presidents have prioritized our compelling national interests based on the circumstances of the era; but because they followed the same general decision-making structure, most of the successes have been bipartisan. 

At War College, we discussed at length how a workable international strategy, to include the military portion, must tie objectives specifically to the presidents’ vision and doctrine.  The military then builds a number of operational plans—campaign plans—to help achieve those objectives if called upon.  Overall military manning, training, and equipment levels are then funded to successfully execute those plans.

   

The national command authority, guided by an engaged president and supported by our intelligence community’s assessments of world events, constantly reviews, adjusts and refines the nation’s vision, doctrine and national strategy.   In turn, our military’s operational plans and structure are adjusted to meet our nation’s response to world events.  The key to success in international affairs is constant engagement in the professional process, and faithful adherence to its proven methods of decision-making.  As they say in the business:  the plan is nothing; planning is everything. 

In the last twenty years, thousands of senior military officers and civilians have been trained in our military and diplomatic strategic-level schools.  Thousands of Americans now in the military and State Department can build a legitimate diplomatic/military/economic strategy to reinvigorate alliances, to defeat Islamic jihadists, to stop Russian and Chinese adventurism in Eastern Europe and the Far East, to stop Iran’s nuclear program, and to coerce despots everywhere to rein in their challenges to U.S. interests.  This high level of expert strategic and operational planning has been the hallmark of U.S. international success since World War Two.  Not to give planners something to base their efforts upon is foolhardy and dangerous, and has been a singular point of failure of a number of administrations. 

Today the failure rests with the President.  In six years, he has not produced a clear vision or any kind of international doctrine that could enable strategic planners to build worthwhile plans.   

No doctrine.  No strategy.  No military or diplomatic focus.  No bipartisan support.  No way to determine success.  

The proof is obvious.  The president half-heartedly led and then abandoned wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Regional peace has completely evaporated and U.S. interests have been quashed in both regions.  Mr. Obama’s  earlier, pointless bombing campaign in Libya was well executed, but the unintended consequence of getting rid of Gadhafi was Islamic power mongers taking over.  The debacle in Benghazi resulted from these jihadists’ rise to power. 

The President’s lifeless leadership in NATO has allowed Turkey to drift toward radicalism and to abandon its role as a moderating influence in the Levant.  He shamelessly abandoned Eastern Europe to its own devices, inviting Russia’s President Putin to seize the Crimea and dominate Eastern Ukraine.  In the Far East, the President’s lack of support for our Asian allies allows China to treat the South China Sea as its sovereign lake.

Finally, the President’s inability to recognize that the massive migration of illegal immigrants across our southern border is a strategic threat to the sovereignty of the United States shows that he simply does not understand what is vital to U.S. long-term interests. 

The President has plenty of expert strategic and operational analysts and planners throughout our military and diplomatic departments to help him succeed on the international level.  They really want to help the President to succeed; it is part of their professional ethos.  Most of his political opponents also want him to succeed as our Commander-in-Chief and as the international representative of our sovereignty.  But, without a clear vision of what national interests need to be protected and why, strategic plans will go unwritten, allies will seek their own counsel and way forward, and determined enemies will rush into the international power vacuum. 

Worst of all, when, without vision, doctrine, or a well-constructed strategic plan, the President decides to hurriedly put “boots on the ground,” our soldiers will die. 

And for what?   

26 August 2014 –

A sad day in Ferguson; a sad day in America. 

Monday was the funeral for 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was shot during a fight with a policeman on 9 August in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Missouri.   Brown was African-American, as are two-thirds of this town’s population of 21,000.  The policeman who shot him, 28 year-old Darren Wilson, is white, as are 50 of the 53 policeman on the local force.  Sadly, these facts seem sufficient for many to promote more turmoil around this tragedy.  What is worse, there appear to be no trustworthy leaders guiding us out of this maelstrom.   

The dead man’s family and many members of the local community have been solid, responsible players through these explosive two weeks.  Mr. Brown’s father immediately asked for calm from all who demonstrated in the streets.  The local NAACP also asked for a calm and resolute response to events.  The requests didn’t work.  Local police were soon overwhelmed and replaced by state police and Army National Guard forces.  These parties, government and private, acted, for the most part, with courage and composure. The rule of law should now play out in an equitable and just manner, right? 

Nope.  Contention and disruption arrived almost immediately in the form of  professional political agitator, Reverend Al Sharpton, who descended upon Ferguson, and with predictable combative fervor, ranted about police brutality .  Juan Williams, a black political commentator, criticized his antics as “monetizing the civil rights movement.”  Sadly, Reverend Sharpton’s eulogy at Mr. Brown’s funeral continued the agitation; apparently, rather than lead, the Reverend had some monetizing to finish.

Also quick on the scene were outside criminals who rioted, looted, and burned Ferguson.  Of the several hundred people arrested for rampaging and looting since 9 August, fewer than twenty have come from Ferguson itself.  The looting has recently subsided, probably because it is no longer profitable. 

Most government leaders have responded poorly to the situation.  Generally, the higher the level of government, the more leaders abused the due process of law and abandoned courageous leadership.        

Local law enforcement’s biggest mistake was the release of a video showing a 6’4” 290 lb. Mr. Brown robbing a convenience store and assaulting a small store clerk just hours before Brown’s death.  That decision exacerbated unrest and seemed like a deliberate way to influence any future jury pool.  The Ferguson district attorney did quickly call a grand jury to determine if any charges should be filed against Officer Wilson, and it is supposed to deliberate until some time in October. Sadly, however, that extends the time for other political monetizers to exploit the process.   

Soon after Mr. Brown’s death, Missouri’s Governor Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency and then cancelled it.  His indecision and political weakness further added to the unrest.  Missouri Highway Patrol Captain Ron Johnson was called to restore security in Ferguson, but the outside criminals continued to loot.  This was probably because Captain Johnson’s efforts focused on calming the members of the Ferguson community, most of whom were already obeying the law.  Johnson’s help was indeed needed, but it was applied poorly. 

The scores of FBI agents sent to Ferguson have been professional and impartial.  They have interviewed witnesses and reviewed local police and legal processes for possible civil rights violations; they have operated well within federal law.  At least they are not the problem. 

Unfortunately, the Department of Justice and President Obama have turned this process on its head.  Attorney General Holder’s personal appearance in Ferguson troubles anyone looking for an impartial leader who could convince all parties that civil rights for everyone would be honored fairly.  His public account of being a black man humiliated by bigoted policemen, and his meeting with Mr. Brown’s family to express his personal regrets, are profound displays of bias that already may have corrupted the local legal process.  

President Obama also showed disregard for the local Ferguson legal process by sending three White House emissaries to Mr. Brown’s funeral.  The President effectively stamped his prejudice on the yet-to-be proven contention that Mr. Brown was the victim of police brutality.  Such pandering to specific support groups should be beneath a president.  

Both the President and his attorney general should stay out of Ferguson.  Without comment they should watch while the facts are established and allow justice to run its course.  That is what the leader of all Americans and his top cop are in office to do.     

15 August 2014 –

Leadership 101! 

The fall general elections are fast approaching.  I appreciate General William Tecumseh Sherman’s blunt opinion of the political process when his name was considered as the Republican candidate for the presidency in 1884: “I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected."   But, Grouch Marx’s humor may be more to the point:  “I would never be a member of a club that would have me as a member.”  Somebody’s gotta take the challenge to clean up the politicians’ club.  There have to be people out there who are smart, tough, and honest enough to serve society in local, state, and federal government.             

As an Air Force officer, I saw the necessity of these attributes as I worked my way through a bureaucracy that sometimes was asked to focus on the wrong thing at the wrong time for the wrong reason.  Those four words: smart, tough, honest, and serve, are the distillation of the requirements for good government leaders.     

First:  Government leaders don’t have to be constitutional experts to fulfill their elected or appointed positions.  However, they must be smart enough to know the legal limits of their positions and the moral requirements of their oath of office.  These legal and moral limits are the essence of what makes our constitutional system exceptional:  the rule of law.  Smart leaders recognize that constitutional rules must always supersede political agenda.  Otherwise, the system gives way to tyranny.  Smart leaders trust the Founders’ tragic brilliance and the people’s sovereignty.  

Second: Government leaders must be tough enough to act according to their oath of office.  Binding one’s self to the limits of our constitutional system shows a leader’s toughness far more than does pursuing a political agenda that promises audacious personal hope for “change.”  The Constitution’s rules for limited governance and separation of powers are not hard to understand, but those who are weak of character may find them difficult to honor.  When elected or appointed officials bend or ignore constitutional rules, they are weak and corrupt.  It’s that simple. 

Third:  Leaders know that once they take the oath of office, they honestly assume all responsibility for the new job.  Society should expect that of its new leaders; after all, they wanted the job, didn’t they?  Specifically, that means that every issue within their job description from that moment on is their personal responsibility, not their predecessors’, not somebody else’s, theirs.  Real leaders know this and quickly respond with honest effort, admit mistakes quickly, and go on. 

As well, honest leaders don’t whine about unwinnable situations they may have inherited from their predecessors; they knew what was going on when they ran for the office.  Whining about the evil state of the world is simply dishonest, bad form.  It is just as dishonest when leaders claim success for operations or programs that were started by their predecessors.  Honest leaders are modest and generous in praising all those responsible for success.  This creates trust and cohesion in society’s body politic—something sorely missing in today’s political environment where a niggardly approach to bipartisan praise is the norm. 

Fourth: Real leaders accept that serving in the public sector requires self-sacrifice for the benefit of the American people.  In the military, the harsh requirement of unlimited liability goes with the oath of office.  Real leaders of all ranks are required to spend years away from home and family, doing difficult or dangerous things, for policy objectives they may not agree with.  And, they are often ordered to take the hill or to die trying.  So how do most respond?  Real leaders already accept that if it ain’t illegal or immoral, they salute smartly and take the hill, or die trying.  After all, they swore an oath.  That’s what being in the service is all about. 

The American people will respond to being led in such a manner.  But, I see no political “band of brothers” that attaches to their oath of office the liability of smart, tough, honest, self-sacrifice—sacrifice of political agenda, of personal wealth, of political advancement—in order to lead our society to peace and prosperity.  Instead, I see today’s America as a Russian officer described the British army in the Crimean War of the 19850s: “Lions commanded by asses!” 

Since braying is mostly what I hear coming from our centers of government, and from vacation homes in Martha’s Vineyard, what else am I supposed to think?

7 August 2014 –

That’s why they call it dope.                       

It’s another hot, muggy morning in Houston.  I should clean the garage and replant some bushes along the fence.  Or, I could cruise the Net and relax.  Or, I could turn to channel 5143 and let classic blues erode the edges of reality.  My son, a musician who poses as a lawyer by day, told me that listening to the blues makes you want to do only one thing: listen to the blues.  You gotta be strong, he said, or your life will slide forever into the key of F. 

Maybe there should be a law against listening to the blues at certain times of the day—for my own good.  But the libertarian in me argues that such laws are classic “nanny” government tactics to control our lives.

What about something more serious:  legalized use of marijuana—especially while listening to the blues?  Even the President, our toker-in-chief, said that smoking weed is no worse than smoking cigarettes.  Dude, we adults should be able to do what we want to our own bodies. 

I like the concept of being a free agent in all things, but the responsible, world-weary adult in me sees the argument for the legalization of marijuana as self-serving and short-sighted.  Our Founders stressed that a society based on individual liberties and rights prospers only if its nation’s citizens act responsibly in their daily lives.  In other words, freedom and prosperity reign when people don’t need numerous laws to coerce them to be good.  That certainly isn’t the case now. 

Sadly, baby boomers’ romantic attachment to the counterculture of “sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll” has spawned the present generation’s embracing of such destructive behavior as the norm.  More or less responsible behavior has given way to license, destructive license.  So most pot heads, of my generation and younger, only want to make legal what they are doing anyway.  Society’s weakness, not strength, is making legalization of recreational marijuana inevitable in most states.    

Local and state government officials also add to the corruption.  They are enticed by the prospects of taxing marijuana’s growth, distribution, and sale.  There is nothing good or praiseworthy about government employees getting into the drug business.  Dollar signs are seducing local and state officials into becoming legal accomplices—pimps, if you will—for Mary Jane.  And all pimps agree: it’s all about the Benjamins.    

We need only look to New York City to see what kind of business our elected officials are getting into.  Because of high local excise taxes, most cigarettes are now purchased on the black market.  New York state and city governments that tax this addictive, health-destroying product in the name of controlling and benefitting from it have created another illegal enterprise in their already corrupt society.  I see no dividends of revenue that can justify such a rise in bureaucratic power and such a drop in moral governance.   But others seem to. 

We need to tip the scales away from another drain on our society’s morals and property.  If idiot pot heads can legally erode the edges of their health and productivity, then our laws should protect responsible adults from paying the huge associated costs.    For example, private health, life, business, and car insurance companies should not be required to insure someone who admits to smoking pot.  Nor should they have to pay benefits if the insured is caught with THC in his system after an accident, health failure, or business setback.  Businesses should be able to deny employment to, or fire someone who smokes dope at work or shows up to work under the influence.  Stores and restaurants should be allowed to deny service to anyone who is under the influence of weed.  Churches, private benevolent organizations, country clubs, private schools, and maybe even property owners’ associations should also be able to dictate membership privileges based on the use of marijuana. 

Limiting marijuana use should come from society, not government, because if left unimpeded, society will do a better job of it.  Society should frame what is acceptable behavior and what isn’t; the government will then follow suit. 

Nothing in the use of marijuana should make it a privileged class under the law.  Too harsh on poor pot puffers?  Tough. 

Remember: Just ‘cuz it’s legal shouldn’t make it acceptable in a responsible, well-mannered society.  

28 July 2014 - 

Don’t Fence Me In!  Bah!

Recently, I drove around Houston without a passport.  I didn’t pass through controlled entry points as I went from downtown Houston City offices to Cleveland, to Crosby, through Kingwood, Atascocita, Humble, Summerwood, Deer Park, and Fall Creek.  After all, I was in Texas, in the United States, north of the Rio Grande.  My travel on public roads was restricted only by the limits of time and gasoline. 

It’s good to be an American. 

I did see a lot of fences, however.  They defined and protected businesses, homes, and government-maintained, collective commons.  When the fences defined property, they often hid their precision with attractive stone, wood, flowers, and shrubbery.  When the fences protected property, they were stark wrought iron or concrete structures, often with spikes or barbed wire; and, security cameras were everywhere. 

Fences punctuate virtually every statement of property in Houston and probably in every town in America. 

It was particularly instructive to see the fences in residential neighborhoods.  In affluent areas, high fences often surrounded entire neighborhoods, with guarded or electronic entry points.  Fences between the large houses were limited in variety to what local home owners’ associations permitted.  Internal fences defined individual property lines, and external fences defined and protected the community as a whole.  These neighborhoods looked like ordered, mini-states protecting themselves from unruly outsiders.       

Less affluent neighborhoods had no defining, outside fences.  Houses were smaller, yards were less scenic.  Nonetheless, many property owners had built fences around their own houses and yards.  High, spiked, metal fences were clearly meant to define and protect sovereign, individual property owners from a larger, unruly neighborhood.  They reminded me of the fence at the end of our cul-de-sac, which we finally convinced our home owners association to help pay for in order to keep feral hogs from continuing to destroying our property and from the real possibility of their attacking our grandchildren. 

It is obvious that no Houstonian or government entity is tearing down fences.  Definition and protection are paramount requirements in a world where people may be good, but not very good. 

Individual property definition and protection, neighborhood and town definition and protection, and state definition and protection are merely graduated assurances of the fundamental American rights of self and property protection.  Ordinary people understand this.  Their actions—their fences—are more eloquent than any politician’s speech on the subject.   

A poll of Houstonians would probably confirm what I have seen: Fence owners span the entire political spectrum.  Democrats, republicans, libertarians, socialists, fascists, criminals, and even illegal immigrants preach a lot of things, but they all directly enjoy the benefits of fences. 

Is it hypocritical to benefit personally from being an American citizen and at the same time to build fences around the nation to restrict illegal immigrants from enjoying those benefits?  No. Defining and protecting our country are fundamental elements of national sovereignty.  Such protective fences are no more hypocritical than the practice of maintaining fences to protect one’s personal in any Houston neighborhood. 

It is hypocritical and illegal, however, for politicians to pander for votes by circumventing existing immigration laws and to thereby enable the current immigration crisis.  America is America because it is ruled by laws, not by fiat.  A legitimate rebellion would ensue if local politicians and supporters mandated the destruction of all personal fences in a neighborhood to deal with a rise in local home break-ins.  So, why is it noble for the President, living in the most securely-fenced house in America, to tell the rest of America that the national fences to their sovereignty must come down?

For political gain, the President is exploiting transnational ties in ethnic communities, the acquiescence of caring people, and the money from businesses who benefit from illegal labor.  His shameless actions reject constitutional law and dilute national sovereignty—far more than does his hapless approach to any current shooting war or international crisis.  Politics are destroying our sovereignty. 

The U.S. government no longer controls our borders.  Illegal foreigners, foreign criminal cartels, and foreign governments now control our southern border.  The President acquiesces, and foreigners define who is and will be American. 

Mr. President!  Enforce existing laws.  Close the border.  Protect, do not tear down, our sovereignty. 

Otherwise, you should find a retirement home in El Salvador along a golf course—with plenty of high fences, of course.  

23 July 2014 - 

Courage:  Moral and Physical

Every Friday morning I meet with friends at McDonalds in a local Walmart.  These old guys are experienced in business and government, and their views span the political spectrum.  They are passionate and compassionate about life.  They are Americans in the finest sense. I feel good about being accepted as one of them.

Thirty years in an Air Force uniform taught me the strength of the concept being “one of us.”  You take an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies.  You exhibit moral courage as you honor rules that may not apply to others, risking punishment including possible banishment from among us if you fail.  With moral and physical courage, you do your duty no matter how dangerous or difficult.  Sacrifice and trust are your currency. They make you one with your compatriots.

Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl is not “one of us” to the soldiers of his unit in Afghanistan. He abandoned his post, broke his comrades’ trust, and chose to morally bankrupt his life.  His fellow soldiers honorably and courageously fulfilled their battlefield duties.  Later, their measured, calm words about Bergdahl’s perfidy were telling counterpoints to the President’s White House homecoming celebration with Bergdahl’s parents.  The President did not see Bergdahl’s battlefield failures as important, and thereby, he displayed his ignorance of military culture.  He may be Commander-In-Chief, but he certainly has not shown that he is “one of us.”   

I trust that the Army, up the chain to the Chief of Staff, will follow their soldiers’ example of moral courage as they adjudicate Sergeant Bergdahl’s case.  The Army must strictly follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice and ignore political pressure from an administration that seems to view Duty, Honor, and Country as obsolete chatter.  I trust that those in charge will do their duty.  They know that if they don’t, they will never again be worthy to be “one of us,” no matter how many medals or stars they may receive.  

Who besides members of our military services take the oath of office to support and defend the Constitution and be servants to their sovereign, i.e., the people?  Who besides those in uniform create a cohesive “one of us” culture, a culture built on trust, personal sacrifice, and strict adherence to constitutional rules?   The President and Congress have taken the government oath of office and have declared their duty to defend the Constitution as it is written, no matter the sacrifice of individual agenda.  Doing their duty requires at least as much moral courage as the oath of military office requires of our men and women in uniform.   

But where in our government’s culture are men and women who display the moral courage to defend the essence of the Constitution: the separation of delineated powers, the defense of our borders, and the maintenance of limited government intrusion into our lives and property?  They are few and far between. 

I struggle to find elected officials and appointed bureaucrats whom I can trust to sacrifice personal and party agenda—to resist picking up the phone and the pen—as they fulfill their versions of constitutional duties.

Who among the majority of today’s politicians is “one of us,” worthy of  the praise of the American people?  Their “club” culture is not one of personal sacrifice and trust.  The President, in between fund-raisers, golf, and vacations, does not inspire the American people with courageous decisions in the face of internal or international crises.

Today’s elected officials seem hardly to care if they display to the American people that correct constitutional principles resonate with them, or that the concepts of Duty, Honor, and Country compel courageous compliance.

So, now what?  If you were in Chicago during this election period, you could vote early and often.  In Houston, thank goodness, you show your ID card and vote your conscience.  You solidify your place as one with American patriots, who, alongside my Friday-morning friends, embrace and implement the Founders’ vision of service and sacrifice—to your country, to your community. 

Meanwhile, the “constitutional scholar” in the White House reminds us daily that fund raising, photo ops, and tee times are more important to him than being one of us.