27 March 2014 –

Is Anyone In Charge Around Here?

From 1992 to 1996, I was stationed at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, in Mons, Belgium.  It was the military headquarters for NATO in Europe.  I was the Military Assistant and Speechwriter to NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General George A. Joulwan.  It was an exciting time to be in uniform in Europe.  In the three previous years, the Berlin Wall had fallen, the Soviet Union had dissolved, the Warsaw Pact had collapsed, diverse ethnic groups in the Former Yugoslavia were fomenting horrific genocide, and against Iraq in DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM, the finest military the world had ever seen had laid waste to the enemy.  Indeed, the world’s power structures were changing.  The United States needed a grand strategy to ensure that what would emerge would be in our best political, diplomatic, economic, and military interests. 

NATO’s leadership responded with the “New NATO” strategy.  Despite the collapse of the “Evil Empire”, the “New NATO” would reduce neither in membership nor in span of influence.  In fact, newe programs would eventually offer NATO’s proven formula of collective security and the prosperity it engendered to the newly liberated countries of Eastern Europe.  As well, to stop the ethnic-based massacres in the Balkans, NATO would carefully execute its first-ever out-of-area military operations.  The “New NATO” concept was a dynamic response to huge strategic challenges.  Strong U.S. leadership was needed to lead this, the U.S.’s most important alliance, into the future.

I wrote over 600 speeches, toasts, book chapters, position and background papers, and talking point outlines to stress that the “New NATO” would build on the strengths of the old NATO as it responded to the new challenges of Europe’s collective security.  Those strengths were simple to express and apply today as they did twenty years ago: committed U.S. leadership in the military and diplomatic arms of the alliance; continued presence of strong U.S. military forces in Europe; and, firm assurance by all NATO members to commit diplomatic and military resources if any NATO member were threatened by outside forces.  The eastern border of NATO would no longer run through a divided Germany and may someday be on the eastern border of the Baltic state of Estonia, but the mission of the alliance would  not change.  A strong NATO would ensure the peace and prosperity of its members through the coordinated and strong military capability of its members.  No economic, political, or diplomatic, mechanism such as the G-7, the European Union, or the UN could provide such peace.  NATO succeeded.  The New NATO also succeeded.    

Is today’s NATO working?  No.  It is failing because the United States has not fulfilled its continued role of strong and committed military leader.  Given Europe’s location on the map, what peoples inhabit and dominate that small continent, and where the strategic resources of the world are found, Europe will always need its U.S. cousins to be vitally involved in its strategic decision-making and in its day-to-day defense.  The American translation: it is in the United States’ compelling strategic interests to keep Europe peaceful and prosperous.  There always will be truth in the statement that NATO’s mission is to keep the United States in, Russia out, and Germany down. 

Dangerously, our current administration in particular cut back our deployed conventional forces and cancelled the deployment of a strategic missile defense capability in NATO.  They justify this by saying that we are now living in a post-cold-war world.  That statement shows that neither President Obama nor his advisors understand much about historic ethnic, cultural, and economic forces and their currency in today’s world.  The forces that caused most European conflicts from the 19^th into the 21^st century are stolidly grinding away at the European peace and security in places such as the Ukraine, the Balkans, and Turkey.  Europe’s instability threatens U.S. strategic interests, and, if left unanswered, our sovereignty. 

Are we too late to recover from our neglect of this most important responsibility?  No.  But, the President must declare now that our strategic interests in Europe are threatened, that we must immediately bolster our military commitment to the NATO alliance, and that our friends and allies in Europe extend to the Baltic, the Black Sea, and deep into the plains of Eastern Europe.  He must say it so that our allies will believe it and stand with us.  Russian leader Vladimir Putin understands only such strength.  Leading from behind is not an option for today’s Commander-in-Chief.  NATO’s challenges have always demanded more than that.  

20 March 2014 - 

Who’s in charge around here, anyway?  Part II

“Sovereignty: supreme and independent power or authority in government, as possessed or claimed by a state or community. “  -- Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.

For at least a generation, the U.S. has not adequately controlled its borders.  The resulting unfettered movement of foreigners in and out of the United States has become a pressing threat to our sovereignty.  

In the absence of decisive lawmakers making sensible U.S. law and policy, foreign authorities, powers, and peoples are wielding increasing influence over what should be the exclusive domain of the citizens of the United States.   The power to ensure that the rule of law reflects our, the citizens’, wishes – i.e., our very sovereignty -- has seriously diminished because of our refusal to see this as something other than an economic or political issue. 

       

I have observed throughout the world that if someone enters a country illegally, his expectations to thrive there will depend on continued illegal activity.  His subsequent actions will include nonpayment of taxes, driving without a license, using false identity papers, bribing officials, moving around the country illegally, etc. Such acts eventually infect surrounding citizens as well, and the nation’s sovereignty and its rule of law begin to erode.

How do we impress upon our citizenry the importance of sovereignty and responsibility?  Our leaders could start by implementing a sensible policy of vigorously enforcing existing immigration laws and then of selectively changing those laws that wear away our sovereignty.  

Obviously, few politicians seem to be in a pressing hurry to implement such straightforward immigration reform.  Therefore, I suggest a slightly different approach. 

Perhaps, English language classes, including English as a Second Language (ESL), in our high schools, junior colleges, and community education programs would be a good venue to precisely present the facts of illegal immigration.  For example, teaching the twelve English verb tenses would be very useful in presenting this information. 

        

Simple Present. Many of my compadres and I enter the U.S. illegally.

Simple Past. Because I needed work and my home country was in such horrible straits, I entered the U.S. illegally.

Simple Future. If I am ever deported again, I will enter the U.S. again illegally. 

Present Progressive. Because the U.S. government insists that its southern border stay so open, I am reentering the U.S. illegally today.

Past Progressive. The border is porous and U.S. border patrol forces are bound by restrictive rules of engagement; therefore, I threw rocks at the border guards last week so they would leave me alone when I was entering the U.S. illegally. 

Future Progressive. Because your country can neither get its laws in order nor enforce them, my friends and family have been crossing U.S. borders illegally for many years. 

Present Perfect. This is a sanctuary city, so it doesn’t matter that I have entered the U.S. illegally.

Past Perfect, Is my son an American or an “anchor baby” because my wife and I had entered the U.S. illegally before he was born? 

Future Perfect.  Before the U.S. government finally commits itself to enforcing legitimate forms of sovereignty, millions more people will have entered the U.S. illegally. 

Present Perfect Progressive. Although it might be painful for those who consider the rule of law and sovereignty essential to the nation’s security, I will have been living illegally in the U.S. for most of my life before immigration reforms are finally enacted and enforced. 

Past Perfect Progressive.  Other people had been entering the U.S. illegally long before I did.  Today, if my fellow 11.7 million illegal immigrants lived together, we would make the seventh largest state in the union.  That would be a lot of electoral votes, especially if amnesty were the heart of immigration reform. 

Future Perfect Progressive.  By 2020, some estimate that sufficient numbers of illegal immigrants will have been entering the United States to push our total to over twenty million. 

Review. By 2020, most illegal immigrants will have come from Latin America.  This influx of illegal immigrants is a regional phenomenon that has little to do with language, culture, or ethnicity, but has everything to do with proximity. 

Millions of people from other countries want to live in the United States.  They would come here any way they could, legally or illegally.  Probably the only reason there aren’t tens of millions of illegal Africans streaming here is because the Atlantic Ocean is a lot wider than the Rio Grande River. 

Comment at mac.coleman.colonel@gmail.com.

10 March 2014 –

Who’s in charge around here, anyway? 

“Sovereignty: supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community. “  -- Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.

The current crisis in the Ukraine highlights Russia’s efforts to dominate Eastern Europe.  Russia is exploiting our administration’s fundamental neglect of its primary duty to safeguard the U.S.’s interests in the world.  Our administration has no viable strategy to use its instruments of national power—economic, military, and diplomatic—to maintain the U.S.’s sovereignty and our influence and security in the world.  Power abhors such a vacuum of intent and action, and the lesser power mongers of the world are exhibiting their plans to exploit that space.

Deploying troops to the Crimea is Russia’s latest step in taking advantage of local instability in order to dominate the vassal states of the former Soviet Union.  Since the early 1990s, Russia has supported separatist movements in surrounding countries in an attempt to place subservient governments in power to be dominated in the future.  In 2008, Russian troops entered rebellious regions in Georgia to fight alongside separatists against government troops.  The Bush administration did little to help Georgia or to dissuade Russia’s aggression.  Russia paid no penalty for its expansion of regional dominance, and Georgia’s aspirations to enter NATO died.  My military and diplomatic contacts from the region expressed dismay, but then pragmatically accepted that Georgia would remain beyond the U.S.’s attainable interests in Europe.  Our influence withered on the outer edges of Europe, and Russia’s dominance grew.  Our sovereignty weakened.

President Obama then announced in 2009 the scrapping of a proposed Bush-era antiballistic missile shield system in Poland and the Czech Republic.  My Eastern European contacts were unanimous in their assessments:  the U.S. gave Russia carte blanche to again dominate Eastern Europe economically, militarily, and diplomatically.  My friends were specifically concerned that the expansion of NATO deep into Eastern Europe, while welcome, would not have the deterrent power it had during the Cold War because the U.S. did not show sufficient military commitment.  One officer had hoped that the ethnic Poles and Czechs in President Obama’s home city, Chicago, would have protested more loudly against his abandonment of their relatives.  My friend had hoped that the U.S. would be exceptional in the world.  Alas, he said, our President is ordinary. 

Our unilateral dismantlement of military and diplomatic power has made it harder to wield U. S. influence, particularly in Eastern Europe.  The edge of our sovereignty has withered even further west, snubbing many of our allies and friends. 

So, Russia has reentered the power vacuum.  Russia assessed it was worth the risk to militarily occupy what international treaty had declared to be Ukrainian territory.  The Crimea, with its Russian naval and air bases, is critical to Russia’s dominance of the Black Sea and to Russia’s influence on Turkey for naval access to the Mediterranean.  Russia will soon control the peninsula under a Russian flag.  Russia’s sovereignty, concentrated in strongman Vladimir Putin, is ascending.  The U.S.’s sovereignty, weakly expressed by the executive and legislative branches of government, is descending.

What instruments of national power can we bolster to stop this strategically erosive trend?  

First, we should expand domestic energy production, particularly natural gas.  We can soon become a legitimate competitor with Russia in the European market, increasing our influence and decreasing Russia’s.  To do this, President Obama must lift his moratorium on exercising drilling leases on federal lands.   He should approve the Keystone pipeline immediately.  The subsequent, strategic shift in the energy market would benefit the U.S. more than any other country.  Our bolstered economic instrument of national power would greatly strengthen U.S. sovereignty at home and U.S. influence abroad.

We also should invigorate our military ties with our allies and increase our military capability in the regions surrounding Russia.  Our existing treaty mechanisms are rusty, but they’re not corroded beyond repair.  We should give Eastern Europeans a reason to contribute to and feel protected by NATO.  We should give countries a reason to aspire to join with the U.S. and her allies in the common defense of borders and economies.  With a dwindling military, we can’t do this. 

A strong economy and effective military best protect our vital interests in the world when they operate under a clear and grand strategy to maintain US. sovereignty.  We can then wield our diplomatic instrument of national power with strength.  Our diplomats can then be polite and soft-spoken because our opponents will hear a clear message:  we have set the edges of our interests and we will protect them well.  Until then, it’s President Putin’s game, and he will continue to play it well.