20 November 2013  - 

         

A Military Commander Would Be Fired By Now 

The President’s attempts to sell his Affordable Care Act to the public remind me of Robert F. Brunner’s delicious lyrics in “The Merchants’ Song” from the 1978 Disney movie, “The Small One.”   

“Oh, clink, clink, clank, clank, get your money to the bank,

“Telling little stories you can trust. 

“We never ever fail when we go to make a sale,  

“We simply cheat a little if we must!”  

The President told stories we could trust and made the sale.  But, did he cheat a little to get his signature legislation passed and protected from repeal?  Can he be trusted?  Let’s examine those questions in light of leadership principles I relied on in my Air Force career. 

First, when I led Air Force units, I learned that the commander’s standards dictate how the rest of the organization works.  The commander leads her people to success or leads them to failure.  The airmen in the organization expect to be led.  The commander must deliberately adhere to regulations and communicate honestly and openly to all in her organization, something President Obama famously promised he would do.  If some of the people mess up—and people always do—or if the commander personally does something wrong, she should take the blame.  If the bad actions are severe enough, she should expect to be relieved of command. 

Next, to ensure that the organization accomplishes its mission, the commander must entrust his deputy and division heads with power to run their operations according to the clear, open policies he establishes as commander.  He also expects that they will continually inform him about what they are doing, how those actions apply to the organization’s overall goals, and on potential or actual problems with the implementation of the organization’s operational plan.  This style of leadership demands regular, two-way communication between upper and lower levels of the organization.  This process instills in leaders on all lower levels a sense of loyalty to their bosses.  More importantly, it demands loyalty to honest principles and to the organization’s mission.  It is a time-consuming and difficult leadership approach, but it ties an organization together.  

  

Finally, the commander works harder than anyone in her organization.  She wears herself out in the job because she instinctively “goes to the sound of the guns.”  Her orders are executed faithfully because she is as dedicated to the mission as anyone working for her.   She does not expect anything of her subordinates that she wouldn’t do herself.  This creates an unswerving loyalty up and down the chain of command, loyalty based on lawful and honest principles, not on cronyism.  

    

President Obama either told deliberate lies about the effects of the Affordable Care Act or he was woefully uninformed by his White House staff, by the applicable agencies in the Executive Branch of government, and by those who wrote the law.   

    

If President Obama has lied, then he and his organization—his staff and the agency heads in his executive branch—are corrupt and should not be trusted.  He shows that he uses self-serving designs to deceive and to acquire power; he does not serve the public.  His team also shows that it follows his lead.  No one who had daily contact with the development and execution of the Affordable Care Act blew the whistle on the President.  They protected themselves and their corrupt boss.    

If President Obama has been misinformed for the last 3 ½ years, then he is incompetent as a leader and should not be trusted.  If he ignores his staff and agency heads, those within his immediate span of control who brief him on the Affordable Care Act’s problems, then the President shows himself incapable of running any organization, let alone the executive branch of the US government.  If his staff withheld information from him for years and he does not fire them for the deception, then the President shows he is incapable of selecting and inspiring subordinates to serve the American public. 

Why does the President find himself in this no-win leadership crisis?  One of the biggest reasons, I would say, is because he doesn’t work very hard.  His public remarks show only a vague understanding of events, suggesting a lack of preparation; so of course, he doesn’t inspire confidence.  It’s easy to talk about open, honest conduct and communication when trying to get elected, but establishing and maintaining such standards requires hard work.  He shows by all measures that he is simply unwilling to work hard enough to do that. 

Whatever crises in confidence, loyalty and trust that result from the President’s lies, incompetence, or inaction, he deserves.  As does any poor commander. 

14 November 2013 -

Heroes and veterans, old and young

I’ve spent the last two weeks in a Veterans’ Day frame of mind.  Throughout my military career in many countries I have contemplated the significance of the 11^th hour of the 11^th day of the 11^th month of every year. Now, several years out of uniform, a series of events has caused me to reflect deeply on the role of today’s veterans in this great country.  

Two weeks ago, William Howard Fotheringham, the most nearly perfect man I have ever known, died at the age of 93.  His funeral was a small, mostly-family event.  It seems he outlived all his friends. 

“Deacon” Fotheringham was a World War II veteran.  He enlisted in 1942, was commissioned a second lieutenant after graduating flight school, and was shipped off to fly P-38 Lightnings out of New Guinea as a member of the storied 80^th Fighter Squadron.  He was credited with killing one Japanese aircraft on 23 June 1943.  In 1944, after he was shipped back to the US to serve as an instructor pilot, he met Wylene Hunter in Oakland, CA.  He always said it was love at first sight.  They married on 11/22/44, and Howard was a devoted husband throughout their 64 years of married life.  Wylene preceded him in death in April, 2009. 

Lieutenant Fotheringham came home after the war and built this country.  He returned to college and earned a master’s degree and a counseling certificate.  For the next 37 years, he worked for the Salt Lake Board of Education.  He was a quiet, deeply religious man who took care of his family, paid his bills on time, and provided a great example of manhood to young men like me.   In 1977, when I told him I was going into the Air Force, I saw a glint in his eyes that I have since seen only in the eyes of great warriors.  He knew what it meant because he had fought.  He had won.  And then he returned and worked hard and honorably until he died.  He was the best of America.  Howard, Veteran’s Day is for you.  Forever. 

 On Veteran’s Day morning, I drove to visit a friend on his 400 acres south of Three Rivers, Texas.  We drove around his land, talked about how to work an honest day, enjoyed watching deer graze, and moved a bull from one pasture to another.  My friend knows how to work.  When I left the next day, I drove through Victoria, Texas, on the way back to Houston.  For some reason, I stopped at the town’s Memorial Square Park, pulled out my harmonica, and played the songs, “Lorena,” and “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” for the veterans buried there.  No one else, no veterans or their families were in the cemetery on a Tuesday afternoon.  They probably were all at work. 

  

Wednesday, my wife and I attended a lunch honoring veterans hosted by a local women’s political group.  We had delightful conversation and good food on a local country club’s beautiful golf course.  The speaker was a 26-year Army veteran.  I told him afterward that for an Army officer, he used a lot of big words.  He laughed and told me that if he had known an Air Force officer was in the audience, he would have talked a lot more with his hands.  We played our parts well. 

    

About twenty old men were honored.  Heroes. Three were World War II veterans, two were Korean War veterans, and most of the rest were Vietnam War era veterans.  In fact, at sixty years of age, I was the youngest vet there.   It bothered me when I saw that no younger veterans came.  And then I realized that on a Wednesday morning, the young veterans of the last few wars were probably at work.  At that moment, at that Veterans’ celebration, something became very clear.

   

I realized that today’s veterans are following in the steps of their predecessors.  They have returned from war.  They have gone to work.  They are raising their families and paying their bills on time.  They are the very muscle and sinew of this country.  I salute them as I saluted their compatriots from previous generations.  In them, I place hope and expectations for our future.   They have proven worthy and capable of the work that is ahead of them.  They are the examples to another rising generation real Americans.  Veterans’ Day is also theirs.  Forever.  

7 November  2013

Range Gate Stealing: [A metaphor for] changing the message and distorting the truth.

Mark Twain famously said: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”  A fourth lie we often don’t recognize is when the truth has gradually been distorted and changed.   We find this latter type of lie in politics, in law, and in every day conversations. 

The air combat technique known as Range Gate Stealing perfectly illustrates this kind of deception:

An aircraft loaded with missiles flies over enemy territory.  It is charged with destroying the enemy’s air defenses so more bombers can come and destroy other enemy targets and return home safely.  This first aircraft is immediately “painted” by enemy ground-based radars, which emit an electronic signal that hits the aircraft and bounces back to the radar dish to determine the aircraft’s location in the sky.  This tracking data then is sent to a missile battery that fires at the aircraft.  From the time the aircraft is detected by the radar to the time a missile is fired may be only ten seconds.  Death comes quickly to the unprepared.  

But the attack aircraft can survive by using electronic countermeasures—ECM—to deceive the ground radar.  ECM slows down the radar’s response and gives the attacker enough time to bomb the radar site and eliminate threats to the follow-on attackers. 

Here’s how it works: every electronic emitter, from radio stations to radars, operates at a specific frequency.  But they are never exact; they actually vacillate within a narrow band on the electromagnetic spectrum.  Remember turning the dial on an old radio to “lock on” a station?   As the dial approaches the assigned frequency—the center of the station’s narrow frequency range—the music becomes clearer.  This wiggle room in the spectrum, however narrow it may be, is what range gate stealing exploits.   

The attacking aircraft detects when the ground radar’s signal hits it, and immediately identifies the radar’s frequency.  The aircraft then sends back a signal from the center of identified frequency range to the ground radar, but one more powerful than the radar’s original signal.  The ground radar then locks onto the more powerful return signal within its frequency range.  The attacker then moves the center of its deceptive signal’s frequency slightly closer to the edge of the ground radar’s original frequency range.  The ground radar will follow the deceptive signal because it’s the strongest one in the acceptable range.  The attacker then moves its strong, deceptive, return signal to the edge of the ground radar’s frequency range, showing the attacking aircraft in a false position in the sky.

Finally, the aircraft moves the deceptive return signal beyond the ground radar’s frequency range and turns it off.  The radar on the ground now “loses lock” on the deceptive signal.  It must reacquire its original signal and find the attacker all over again.  This process gives the attacker time to fire on the radar, kill it, and return safely home. 

This is range gate stealing.  It works in war, it works in our lives.

Consider the prosecutor who range gate steals a domestic situation, completely changing it while questioning a defendant:

Prosecutor:  What were you and your wife doing before the police arrived?

Defendant:  We were arguing.

Prosecutor:  And while you were yelling, your son came home?

Defendant:  Yes.

Prosecutor:  And he saw you screaming at your wife? 

Defendant:  Well...

Prosecutor:  And while you were threatening your wife, the police arrived.  No further questions.

Many of our elected officials also are adept at political range gate stealing.  They declare something clearly and plainly, reiterate it with slightly different words and meanings each succeeding time, and then, in our confusion or complacency, execute something well beyond the scope of what they originally declared they would do.  They lie faster than most people can prepare a response.   

   

To defend ourselves against such perfidy we must focus on the substance of our position, and not allow even seemingly innocuous changes to our original message.  We must not allow our opponents to change the vocabulary, the names, or the rules of our argument.

And if our elected officials try to move us from our core, we cut them off. Period.  If they strengthen their rhetoric by shifting from the original message, we demand that they return to the real issue.  Period.  If they change their promises, falsely declaring that the new information was really the essence of the old information; if they pretend that what they have said is not what they meant; and, if they change the objectives of their own promises, we stop their monologue and hold them accountable for their lies. Period. 

Aircraft that practice range gate stealing win the day.  Politicians who practice range gate stealing must be stopped.   Anything less is deadly.   

31 October 2013 -

The Worthy Politician’s Blueprint:  Verities, Virtues, and Values 

How can we determine which politicians will best serve the people of the United States?  I offer the following suggestions for your consideration as we approach the 2014 national elections:

First, list the fundamental principles of life that you hold to be undeniably true.  These are verities.  Whether religious or secular, they should apply to political issues of the day.  For example, a fundamental principle of truth for me is that the Founders of the United States were unique and inspired men.  They lived in a world of rigid autocracy, political/religious melding, and slavery, which they openly defied when they codified the freedoms we take for granted today. 

Another verity, or principle of truth, is that the products of their rebellion, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, are the greatest expressions of political freedom and governance in the history of the world, breathtaking in their scope.  An accompanying fundamental principle of truth is that the United States of America is exceptional.  Its physical location in the world, its resources, its people, the idea that opportunity is based on individual freedom and not on genealogy — all were unique in the late 1700s and inspire us today. 

Finally, the government was formed to be limited in its scope and responsibilities.  Sovereignty rested with the people and the society we formed. 

These principles are among the applicable verities, the fundamentally true principles that should be the basis of political decision-making.    

       

The next step is to act on these principles.  Over time, we form and refine our character traits--our virtues—as we act upon principles we hold to be true.  For example, the virtue of tolerating others’ beliefs comes from maintaining that the rights in our founding documents are as applicable and necessary today as they were 237 years ago.  But how far should we go in tolerating the inflation of freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly in society?  One classic answer: you should be able to do anything you want as long as it doesn’t scare the horses.   What constitutes scaring the horses, i.e., eroding society’s cohesion and wearing away the nation’s sovereignty, is a compelling issue of our day.  I suggest that our elected officials do not need progressive principles to help decide these issues; they can apply the inspired, durable ideals laid out more than two centuries ago.   

Another key virtue is courage.  Courage to defend individual rights against those who would abridge them for their own purposes, and courage to defend the Constitution itself against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  The freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, bearing arms, and the inviolability of home and property, among others, are critical to a free society; it takes courage to defend them.  Elected officials should be courageous enough to risk their political lives to defend our rights, especially when other politicians want to abridge them in order to “help and protect us” in times of so-called crisis.  Pledging life, fortune, and sacred honor in the maintenance of such rights is as necessary today as it ever was. 

  

An accompanying national virtue is thrift, which results from preserving the principle of limited government and respect for other peoples’ property.  Most of what our government spends money on today is not the government’s business.  Nothing corrupts government officials more than perpetually centralizing power and spending other peoples’ money.   Property rights were sacred to our Founders; they are sacred to me.   Our elected officials should spend our money judiciously and only on those programs set forth in the Constitution.  Other social spending should rest on us and on private organizations.

   

Finally, our values are what we are willing to pay for—what we spend time, money, and effort to acquire.  They are the visible results of what we believe and how we act.  If an elected official’s values are to spend money, raise taxes, and go into debt in the name of every cause du jour, then I know his standards are not in line with the virtue of thrift.  I know that his fundamental views of truth bear little resemblance to those of our nation’s Founders.   And there is no reason to believe he is courageous if he does not stand against the continuing hemorrhage of our national capital.

Verities at one’s foundation.  Virtues in one’s character.  Appropriate values for one’s efforts.  When our elected officials show themselves that clearly, you will see the rarest virtue in politics:  trustworthiness.  What is that worth?  “…a merchant man seeking goodly pearls:  Who when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.”  (Matthew 13: 45, 46).  Trustworthiness is worth that much.