27 December 2011 –

Bumper Sticker Of The Day – If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

I like the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

How one reads this amendment is as powerful a descriptor of one’s culture and politics as any twenty-seven words in the American lexicon. One’s reading of this amendment says more about one’s view of the role of all levels of government in our lives than even the rights ensconced in the First Amendment. If I want to know about someone’s view of him or herself in the scheme of governance, authority, and personal responsibilities, I ask how that person reads the Second Amendment.

Perhaps, I grew up watching too many cowboy westerns. I know that my career in the management of violence and every history book I have ever read have reinforced my contention that when the bad guys ride into town to rob the bank or free their henchman from jail, they face only two kinds of townspeople: those who wring their hands, hide, and leave their peace and security in the hands of the outgunned sheriff; and, me. Can you guess how I read the Second Amendment?

As a challenge to the educated liberals who torture the phrases of any legal statement to admit to uncommitted sins, I include the following rendition of what the Second Amendment means. It is written by Robert A. Levy and William Mellor, authors of the book, The Dirty Dozen, How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom, published in paperback by the Cato Institute in 2009, pages 113-114.

“Correctly interpreted, the main clause of the Second Amendment (“the right

of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”) defines and

secures the right. The subordinate clause (“A well regulated Militia, being

necessary to the security of a free State”) helps explain why we have the right.

Thus, membership in a well-regulated militia is a sufficient but not necessary

condition to the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms. Imagine if the

Second Amendment said, “A well-educated Electorate, being necessary to

self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books,

shall not be infringed.” Surely, no one would suggest that only registered voters

(that is, members of the electorate) would have the right to read. Yet that is

precisely the effect if the Second Amendment is interpreted to apply to members

of a militia….

“Second Amendment protections were not intended for the state but for each

individual against the state—a deterrent to government tyranny. “

Thank you Messrs. Levy and Mellor. You contend rightly that individuals in the United States have the right to bear arms—to own weapons for the protection of free individuals in a free state. But, now I ask, what is free? I refer to Lee Congdon’s book, “Baseball and Memory, Winning, Losing, and the Remembrance of Things Past.” St. Augustine’s Press, 2011, pages 116-117. In this book, Mr. Congdon makes a brilliant point about how the loss of an historical, collective memory has been horrible for our country, and that a collective memory of baseball, particularly the baseball of the 1950s, bound us together as few other things ever could. I agree completely with Mr. Congdon—even though he was cursed by being a Cubs fan and I was blessed by being a Red Sox fan. I have often made the point that life imitates baseball and not the other way around. But, I am moving off today’s point. Mister Congdon eloquently reinforces his thesis in a way that applies strongly to how I think the Founders defined freedom and how we should define it today.

“Those of us who came of age in the 1950s did not invariably turn our thoughts

to the permanent things, but our lives did not revolve around the world of politics

and social protest. We did not look to the federal government to cure our every

ill or to protect us from our own folly. We wanted to be free—this is, morally

responsible—beings….

“Remembering the fifties is not an exercise in nostalgia; it is effort to take stock

of what America once was and what it has now become. It is an opportunity to

stop a moment to reflect upon what has been gained and what has been lost. One

of our greatest losses is of historical memory itself. Without that memory a nation

can never achieve self-knowledge.”

I am convinced the Founders wanted us to be free, morally responsible beings, able and willing to defend ourselves when the outlaw gang come to shoot up the town. Have we deliberately forgotten that? Yes. I think we abandon critical historical continuity because it is hard to be free. It is easier to be ruled than to be morally responsible.

I end with Samuel Adams’s words. I don’t expect to convince any townspeople to come out of hiding , but I do expect to stir real men and women’s blood.

“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, ‘What

should be the reward of such sacrifices?” Bid us and our posterity bow the

knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the

avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our

blood and hunt us from the face of the earth?

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the

animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels

or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains

sit lightly upon you, and my posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

23 December 2011 –

Bumper Sticker of the Day – Regime change and nation building start at home.

The latest in a long line of politically-motivated, government tiffs ended today as the President and Senate succeeded in convincing the House to agree to a bill extending payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits for two months. The President then exhorted Congress to keep working to extend the cuts through 2012, quickly hopped on Air Force One, and hightailed it to Hawaii for his fourth vacation there since 2008. Congress skeedaddled as well. The giant whoosh everybody heard in Northern Virginia and Southern Maryland were the limos delivering their passengers to National and Dulles airports in time to get home for Christmas. Some people would say that everything is all right with the world now.

But it ain’t all right with the world. In fact, this latest windy Washington harrumphing does NOT deflect the hurricane that will rip through that town if our Congressional leaders do not immediately restructure our national debt and its causes. Today, our national debt is greater than our nation’s gross domestic product. Our government owes more than our society makes every year, with the GDP growth lagging well behind debt growth. I wouldn’t lend money to anybody with that kind of personal debt and undisciplined, irresponsible behavior. What is painfully criminal about our lawmakers and president’s latest fiddling while our fiscal house burns is that cutting payroll taxes actually deepens the abyss the Social Security Trust Fund—trust?—finds itself in. Extending unemployment benefits simply throws more tax purchased bread to the masses, who then use it to supply their own circuses of holiday football games on widescreen TVs and violent video games on their hand held players. And, the bill’s changes to Medicare do nothing to close the other gaping money maw that threatens the fiscal foundation of our country? In fact, the 27.4 percent cut in Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors is not reform, it is making it harder for people to find doctors who will take Medicare patients. Thanks, guys, for the help. It hurts when you don't do your job. It hurts even more when you do.

I guess we shouldn’t expect much from a Senate who hasn’t passed a budget in three years. Three years! Grown adults who act like selfish teenagers have spent the equivalent of their entire high school careers using dad’s credit card to purchase everything, with no guidelines or budgets to restrain wild urges. Of course, the democrat Senate doesn’t like the republican House’s latest budget bills. But, what about when Democrats controlled both houses in 2009/10? Did the Senate fulfill then its constitutionally required duties to pass a budget? Nope! I guess it is easier to spend like a spoiled teenager with high verbal skills than it is to act like a disciplined body of conscientious lawmakers.

We are heading for disaster. This is not hyperbole. We are destroying our nation’s finances. We are heading for disaster. Where are our leaders? The self-styled, pampered emperor is heading for a vacation in Hawaii, and the others are wherever limp, toothless, wimp solons go when they no longer are needed at court. I hope the place is as dark, cold, and lifeless as the Senate is when they are there.

18 December 2011 –

Kim Jong-Il died this morning. Or yesterday. Or last week. The People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, North Korea, is such a closed country, that he could have been a hologram for the last six months and nobody, even most North Koreans, would have been the wiser. The dear leader succeeded the great leader, his father Kim Il-Sung, and will be succeeded by his son, Kim Jong-Un. I wonder what heraldic moniker the young despot will assume—provided he lives long enough to decide on one. The world looks on as the great game of Northeast Asia requires a strategic adjustment by all the players.

I have been to the Republic of Korea, South Korea, so many times, I have lost count. Exercises TEAM SPIRIT and ULCHI FOCUS LENS multiple times. At least five Pre-H-Hour Scenario planning conferences. Assorted conferences, other exercises, and a three hundred sixty-six day, seven hour and fourteen minute unaccompanied tour; it was a leap year, and I had to serve an extra day. I also remember standing on the beach of a South Korean controlled island about twelve miles off the coast of North Korea. I was looking through binoculars at North Korean artillery positions well within range of hitting me. The airplane that was going to pick me up had to land on the beach at low tide and then take off within five minutes or risk being a target for the artillery. It was real.

I have watched South Korea transform from poverty and military dictatorship to widespread WI-FI and a functioning democracy. Thank you, US Forces Korea, particularly the U.S. 2^nd Infantry Division—Second to None—the USAF 51^st Wing and the 8^th Fighter Wing—Wolf Pack—and the US Seventh Fleet. You have kept the North out of the South and the South out of the North for nearly six decades. In many minds, the 1950-53 war was an unnecessary war. But, what exists now south of the 38^th parallel on that peninsula was worth your sacrifice over the years. The Republic of Korea is well within US compelling strategic interests to defend.

I also have watched North Korea scream ridiculously dangerous dogma, belch missiles and nukes, and starve. I have watched a people live a modern version of the deconstruction of normal society that followed such events as the Great Plague. The same powers who have vital interests in maintaining the status quo on the peninsula are the same powers who will largely determine how long North Korea will last as an entity and if there will be violence on the peninsula in the near future.

Strategically, North Korea is a buffer between Democratic South Korea and Chinese Manchuria. Its importance as a buffer has not diminished since MacArthur’s forces pushed all the way to the border of China on the Yalu River in the fall and winter of 1950. Mao Ze Dong then decided that it was strategically important enough to divert his focus from invading Taiwan/Formosa to keeping Americans and others off his borders. In one of the greatest intelligence failures in history, UN and US force commanders did not predict or then see the Chinese divisions pour across the Yalu, changing the war into a vicious stalemate that lasted another three years. Nothing has changed strategically for China since then. China wants it border with North Korea to be closed to refugees and far from any foreign forces. North Korea is a buffer zone that still is a strategic imperative to Communist China.

In 1992, I played in an executive table-top exercise where a war erupted on the Korean peninsula. Allied forces were pushed back some, then we counterattacked with a massive offensive air campaign and an offensive of allied ground forces through the main invasion corridors into North Korea. Everything followed the predicted computer plans. What made the exercise fun was my decision, as my team lead, to stop offensive air operations 30 miles north of the capital of Pyongyang and to consolidate all ground forces on an east-west line crossing the peninsula at the same point. This was accompanied by a message to the Chinese that we would not go any further north. We proposed to treat the rest of North Korea as a demilitarized buffer zone, which would be administered by Allied governments and the Chinese government. My intent was to allow the Chinese to maintain the strategically important buffer zone in a way that did not force them to enter the war. The iron, gold, and other mineral deposits in the rugged mountains between the Pyongyang-Wonsan Line and the northern border could still be exploited, but didn’t have to be fought over. Russia also would have its buffer zone in the far northeast as well as close access to mineral deposit exploitation. In exchange for the use of Japanese bases for the throughput of logistics and as bases for our aircraft, Japan would not have to compete economically or diplomatically with a burgeoning Korea that would have otherwise controlled all the peninsula. All the strategically important reasons to keep Korea divided would be met, and the threat of North Korea would be eliminated. I liked the solution. I still like a similar solution today.

China, Japan, Russia, and the Republic of Korea’s strategic interests still have to be met in this episode of leadership change in North Korea. Every country mentioned still has its own reasons for keeping North Korea alive—just barely alive (If North Korea were the neighborhood horse, its neighbors would be arrested for animal abuse). But, donated food, fuel, and medicine and diplomatic niceties to prop up the regime are cheap compared to the costs of five powerful countries each pursuing its own interests if North Korea were to implode in the near future. Later on, I wouldn’t care if the latest Kim died a horrible death at the hands of his people or his generals as long as we didn’t return to the mistakes of the last Korean War and have to fight it out again. Does such a cold carving up of the corpse of North Korea reflect the will of the Korean People? Not yet, I suppose. Satisfying them will have to be a future adjustment in this Great Game.

18 December 2011 –

Expanding on my 15 December entry: we must fight a war against radical, jihadist Islam’s proponents. We must build a better grand strategy, one that would use our military instrument of national power, in close conjunction with our economic, internal political, and external diplomatic instruments, to defeat those who would attack U.S. territory and interests and try to subvert our constitutional form of government. We must win this war and keep our country safe from such threats. Unlike so many of the conflicts we have entered in the last several decades, this conflict does pose a major threat to U.S. security. This war should not be captured in soundbites like “expanding democracy,” or “pursuing important U.S. interests.” The soundbites should reflect danger to U.S. streets, malls, and homes and to U.S. sovereignty.

That said, our nation has increasingly capable weapons and intelligence collection equipment with which to prosecute this or any war. We have killed Al Qaeda operatives and leaders using the heat, ballast, and frag of standard explosives; but, those explosives were delivered on incredibly accurate missiles fired from drones flown by pilots sitting as far as satellite communications and the curvature of the earth will allow them to be from the actual battlefield. The main reason we are using more drones to prosecute the war against jihadist terrorists now than we did in 2008, is because we finally have more of them. Four years ago, we didn’t have all that many, probably less than one hundred in the inventory. Now, we have hundreds, and they are deployed on a well-established logistics network. I applaud the President’s policies to use such appropriate and available weaponry to send our enemies to Hell with alacrity. He is reaping the benefits of decisions made by his predecessor to build and deploy these sophisticated weapons in the numbers we have now. Thank you, Presidents Bush and Obama.

The same is true for the intelligence collection, collation, analysis, and subsequent decision-making that prepare the battlefield for the killers. Without such capability, we might as well go back to fighting each other with swords and pikes when our armies happen to stumble upon each other. For some time, it has been a truism that if a target creates heat, moves, talks, or emits electrons in any way, we can eventually pinpoint it so that the heat, blast, and frag guys can do their job. Never in the history of world has a country had such incredible weapons and the Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I) to use them with. This generation of video game players may never appreciate how far the art of intelligence preparation of the battlefield and warfare has progressed in one generation.

The enemy also uses the new technology and concepts as well as anybody. They may not have the same weapons, but they do have extensive intelligence collection networks and use the world-wide net of instantaneous data and communication processing and transfer to be credible and lethal opponents in this new age of warfare. They often control the initiative and tempo of the conflict, making our C3I effort a difficult one. It is indeed a game of spy vs spy with rules for us and few rules for them.

We can win this war because, if we properly prosecute the war, the initiative and tempo will switch to our control, just as it did when we mobilized for hot and cold wars against totalitarian movements of the 20^th century. The the lonely roads in Yemen and the caves of Afghanistan are only the obvious battlefield. We must strike the more decisive blows in the economic boardrooms and laboratories of western businesses and entrepreneurs. From such politically friendly sources, economically viable replacements for oil and natural gas can emerge. Their use will wither the Islamic economic base of South Asia, the Middle East, and the Maghreb that fuels the jihadists’ engines. Can we do this? Yes, we can. But, it will require that U.S. government stop addicting businesses on the subsidies of economically unviable “green” energy and let them pursue the real economic bonanza: increased energy production in the United States and North America and the eventual replacement of oil and natural gas with another equally friendly source. Unless we create and vigorously pursue a legitimate national strategy that includes the effective use of all our instruments of national power, our victories will be tactical only, and the control of the timing and tempo of the war will continue to reside with the flexible, stateless, ideologically driven enemy.

Since we have not chosen to isolate and defang our enemies economically and diplomatically, people from all political camps lament loudly our tactical failures and try to find other ways for us to be decisive without changing our faulty strategy. With this limited thinking, some on the right say that it is difficult to isolate our jihadist enemies and destroy them militarily because our hands are tied by our not looking at the entire world, including the United States, as a theater of war. Some on the left are limited by their fixation on eliminating the use of military mechanisms to execute “due process” in capturing or killing the bad guys and aggressively look for ways to take the entire process out of military hands and to handle it as a domestic, criminal matter, under civilian court systems. Ouch! Without a clear strategy, everybody is swinging in the dark.

One danger here is that as the French would say it, les extremes se touchent. The extreme ends of the political spectrum are curving around to join on a single, bad solution: regular use by state and local police agencies of advanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance technology within the United States. The right would be placated because this world-wide war could be prosecuted everywhere, with information collected in the U.S. shared with the military, of course. The left would be satisfied because the “war” would now be a local, criminal matter with the military no longer in charge. Does this sound crazy? Not to a career intelligence puke who understands the temptation for corruption that always exists in the opportunity to amass, collate, and use information about anybody. Reading other people’s mail is an incredible rush.

How tempting is it to convince yourself that you are doing something patriotic and noble by using existing technology that can detect munitions, drugs, weapons, facial characteristics, or body temperature on a person from five thousand feet above the street and then instantaneously transmitting that information to a decision-maker who can arrest or attack that person based on collating that information with other information collected by previous, equally catholic collection techniques? Dress it up any way your political bent tells you to; but, you will have a deliberate abuse of power unknown in the history of totalitarianism. The end of the political spectrum that governs at the moment would be irrelevant because such power will always corrupt the state into totalitarianism.

Is this an overreaction? Ask yourself that when you now get spam from a company whose e-mail advertisement you opened and quickly deleted without responding. Ask yourself that when you hear advertisements on the radio that sell a company’s ability to fix your computer remotely, on WI-FI even, by entering its operating system through the internet and altering, deleting, and adding programs. Ask yourself that when you see the cameras in the mall, on the main intersection near your apartment, and in all businesses. Ask yourself that when the new car you just bought transmits to a satellite where you are, how fast you are going, and what your predicted route will be, based on previous vehicle use. Ask yourself that when you are wanded then frisked then run through a fancy imaging machine at the airport before you take off. When you deplane, you then pass through a control point where a camera records your facial features and compares them to a data base of potential bad guys. If the technology exists, someone will try to figure out a way to use it to control you. Some due process, heh?

I am concerned that we are not fighting this war with the proper strategy and instruments of national power. Because of that, the results of the war may well mimic what the enemy wanted to do anyway. Who would be controlling us then? Would it matter?