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.