tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31473830866316943842024-03-08T04:17:31.979-05:00So little pains..."So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand."
-ThucydidesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147383086631694384.post-67301210244064122082011-03-29T11:55:00.000-04:002011-03-29T11:55:36.275-04:00A Case Not Made<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>President Obama’s speech last night concerning the United States’ intervention in Libya was deeply disturbing. Not only did the president fail to adequately address the lingering questions regarding the situation at hand, but his proposals for the future uses of the American military offer greatly expanded missions without coherent ties to either vital national interests and/or the additional resources necessary to meet broader mandates. Most alarmingly, President Obama’s remarks reinforce a continuing imbalance between the Executive and Legislative branches of government—an imbalance that favors the bureaucratic offices of the Executive branch at the expense of oversight and accountability.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>U.S. policy regarding Libya remains bereft of coherent objectives or endstates. According to President Obama, U.S. military intervention was/is justified by the protection of civilians and the imprimatur of an international coalition. The “conscience of the world” demanded action. Now, assumption of operational command by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and leadership by other partners are not only desirable, but purportedly advance the American interests that were so threatened as to require the commitment of American lives. Unfortunately, every tenet of the president’s Libya policy lacks coherence:</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 38.5pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></span><u>The Responsibility to Protect</u>—President Obama’s claim that the United States has an enduring interest in protecting foreign civilian lives through military intervention opens the United States to either (a) charges of hypocrisy or (b) the quick exhaustion of resources. The president attempted to preempt this argument by saying that the United States would not react to every humanitarian crisis, but he in no way showed how the Libyan case is any more dire or important than other contemporary crises. Why does the protection of Libyans demand the commitment of U.S. armed force, while Ivorians wage bloody street battles, Zimbabweans suffer under the oppressive rule of Mugabe, and Congolese live in a Bermuda Triangle of human misery and conflict? Is the supposed humanitarian crisis of refugee flows to Tunisia and Egypt (two supposedly reforming states) more detrimental than Ivorian refugee flows to the likes of Ghana and Liberia (two of Africa’s most successful nascent democracies)? President Obama’s answers were simply insufficient, as they hinged on justifications of multinational collaboration and an ability to intervene, rather than American interests. Are we to assume that an American conception of the sanctity of civilian life hinges on the importance placed on the same by other collaborative states? Should we really place such interpretations at the mercy of the Italians (steadfast supporters of Qaddafi until the tide was nearly out,) the French, the Chinese, and—even more incredulously—the Arab states? Furthermore, does anyone really believe that the United States military would be less able to successfully conduct operations in other regions of the world, particularly littoral states?</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 2.5pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 38.5pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></span><u>Coalition-building</u>—Since at least the First Gulf War (1990-1991), the United States has attached a specious importance to the acquiescence of large coalitions in justifying U.S. military action. Even worse, since 2001, our government inaccurately portrays the contributions and commitments of such coalition members. Take, for example, President Obama’s references last night to the strong support of Arab states, as exemplified by the Arab League’s support of a no-fly zone and the willingness of countries like Qatar and the United Arab Emirate (UAE) to provide forces. Left unmentioned was the Arab League’s condemnation of the actual implementation of the no-fly zone, and the scarcity of Arab aircraft over Libyan skies. Such reliance on coalitions becomes even more problematic when one considers the partners involved and their competing interests. UAE’s support to protect civilians in the Libyan affair is supposedly noble, but its commitment of ground forces to help the Bahraini monarchy quell popular risings by the country’s majority Shia is (fill in the blank)? Coalitions built on ephemeral concepts like the “responsibility to protect” are inherently more unstable than those built on shared security concerns. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 2.5pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 38.5pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></span><u>NATO</u>—One tenet of the president’s speech justified our Libyan intervention by arguing that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s commitment would allow U.S. intervention to be temporary and limited in nature. Before accepting that premise, observers should revisit the purpose and health of NATO. Lest anyone forget, NATO is a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">defensive</i> alliance chartered primarily to protect continental European security (and, by extension, U.S. security interests) from a Soviet threat. Nowhere does the alliance’s mandate call for it to be the implementing or enforcing arm of United Nations’ decisions. NATO’s commitment of military force (and, by extension, the command of military forces) is predicated on a security threat and the consensus of alliance members that such a threat exists, which then justifies collective action. Neither tenet exists in regard to Libya’s civil war. No case has been made that the security of any alliance member has been threatened by Libyan governmental action. Moreover, allied consensus hardly exists. Key NATO members have expressed significant reservations. Germany, as a current member of the United Nations’ Security Council (UNSC), even abstained from the UNSC resolution that allows intervention.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 2.5pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Apart from the absence of a security threat, NATO is simply a dysfunctional and dying entity. Though the alliance ostensibly focuses on collective security (with an emphasis, at least historically and by number of members, on European security), the overwhelming majority of members consistently fails to meet minimum defense spending goals. Collective defense increasingly means American-provided defense under the guise of collective legitimacy. NATO headquarters elements are dominated by the U.S. military, and one need only compare the vast disparity between U.S. air/missile strikes in Libya compared to all other alliance members <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">combined</i> to support the assertion that NATO, rather than a collective security alliance, is increasingly a tool of legitimization for certain members’ actions.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Beyond the situation in Libya, President Obama’s comments set dangerous new parameters for the commitment of U.S. military forces. According to him, threats to “our common humanity and our common security” (including, but not limited to: responding to natural disasters, preventing genocide, keeping the peace, ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce) are enough to justify American action, to include military action. One wonders, however, to what common humanity or security he refers. Is it one that includes China, Russia, Brazil, India, and Germany—all countries that abstained from the decision to justify military action in Libya? Are citizens of Bahrain, Syria, Ivory Coast, Sudan et al. not entitled to the protections of such common security? If it, in fact, exists, shouldn’t all countries be responsible for protecting “our common humanity”, or do we continue to allow some states to amass vast financial reserves while the United States mires itself in increasing levels of debt and commitment?</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Domestically, the president’s address raises two existential questions: who decides when it is important enough to intervene, and who carries the burden of sacrifice for such interventions? Few Americans would argue that the president, as the commander-in-chief, does not have the authority to commit U.S. military forces to action. In emergency and exigent circumstances, the president may have to act unilaterally. However, in specifically delegating to Congress the power to declare war, one wonders if our Founding Fathers intended to give the Executive branch the power to commit U.S. forces wherever and whenever a single individual (the president) decides it is necessary to save civilians. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such overarching control of a nation’s military reeks of monarchical power more than it reflects the checks and balances demanded in our Constitution. Congress, as both legislators and representatives, has the responsibility to mandate such action. One hopes that future congresses will be less complacent in living-up to such responsibility.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Finally, if our representatives in Congress assembled find that such future actions are in the nation’s interest, a more equitable distribution of the sacrifices are in order. Increasingly, the U.S. military is treated more as a mercenary force that operates solely at the behest of the president, rather than as a profession sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The U.S. Government continually turns to approximately 2% of the population to achieve U.S. military objectives, and a slightly larger percentage (when one includes military family members) to bear the sacrifices associated with U.S. policies. Such a system neglects not only our Founders’ intentions (which held standing militaries extremely suspect), but also neglects the foundation of shared commitment that, theoretically, is one basis of our liberal democracy. In the end, all may not be required to sacrifice equally, but the notion that the overwhelming majority are not called upon to sacrifice at all is unsustainable.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147383086631694384.post-37344701213374405542011-01-26T19:12:00.000-05:002011-01-26T19:12:28.048-05:00History Will Not Treat Us Kindly Current events in the Middle East—most notably in Tunisia, Egypt, and Lebanon—presage not only declining U.S. political influence in the region, but a growing realization that our government has squandered its influence and chosen the wrong side in most of the region’s tensions. Worse yet, our waste of lives, treasure, influence, and their sum (power) comes with far greater strategic liabilities than gains. Stagnation in Washington guarantees that we will have few significant course corrections to our misguided policies. One only hopes that the appeal of the <i>idea</i> of the United States prevents too precipitous a decline in our regional stature.<br />
The Levant is a case study in U.S. foreign policy being captured by special interests (particularly those representing foreign entities) and of our government’s inability to adjust to changing circumstances. Our policies concerning Israel are the most egregious examples. What has been the United States’ strategic gain resulting from our seemingly unquestioning support of Israel since 1973? How, in our present era of crushing national debt and budget deficits, can we justify <a href="http://wrmea.org/component/content/article/245-2008-november/3845-congress-watch-a-conservative-estimate-of-total-direct-us-aid-to-israel-almost-114-billion.html">the billions and billions of dollars we provide Israel annually</a>? After all, the country is no more geostrategically significant than its immediate neighbors, either in terms of access to the eastern Mediterranean Sea, in terms of natural resources, and/or in terms of access to the larger region. However, the strategic liabilities of our blind patronage of Israel are legion. Not only have we damaged—perhaps fatally—our relations with the region’s Arab and Persian populations, but we have <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703374304575622350604500556.html">undermined our military advantages measured against rising competitors</a>. <br />
U.S. policy relative to Lebanon reflects our inability to adjust to changing circumstances. While Lebanon’s political system, domestic actors, and political calculus change, our country’s approach is stuck in the 1980s. The U.S. has legitimate concerns regarding Iran’s Lebanese influence vis-à-vis Hizballah, but we seem unable to recognize that that organization is significantly more developed and powerful than it was as the 1980s’ amalgamation of groups opposing our presence in Lebanon. <a href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/01/155303.htm">The State Department reacts negatively</a> to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12273178">Hizballah’s use of constitutional methods to alter the country’s political dynamic and leadership</a>, but remains silent concerning <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0ee3e152-2861-11e0-bfcc-00144feab49a.html#axzz1CBi84bGd">Saad Hariri’s supporters’ calls for a “day of anger”</a>. Instead of recognizing the possibilities (or at least realities) regarding Lebanon’s multi-confessional and semi-democratic system, we instead bind ourselves to the region’s entrenched autocracies (e.g. Saudi Arabia) that combine repressive tactics and the unrealized expectations and simmering anger of discontented populations.<br />
The follies of our support of regional autocracies will soon come to light regarding North Africa. The Tunisian regime, <a href="http://www.usaid.gov/policy/budget/cbj2011/2011_CBJ_SummaryTables.pdf">which traditionally received more U.S. aid than most of the sub-Saharan African states combined</a>, has already fallen. Mubarak’s regime in Egypt, which is slated to receive its regular dose of <a href="http://www.usaid.gov/policy/budget/cbj2011/2011_CBJ_SummaryTables.pdf">approximately $1.5 billion in U.S. foreign assistance</a>, is tottering. One wonders whether populations that have lived under these autocrats will forgive the United States its long-standing support to dictators, or whether they’ll turn to other regional or global actors for improved relationships and increased support.<br />
International politics may justify the need to align oneself with imperfect and unsavory regimes, but we no longer live in the Cold War era. In fact, our unwavering support of autocratic and anti-democratic regimes in the Middle East does more to strengthen our contemporary <i>salafi jihadi</i> foes than it does to combat them. Better to reduce our presence in the region and our dependence on its natural resources than to continue down our present path.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147383086631694384.post-51857647854641896872010-12-20T22:40:00.000-05:002010-12-20T22:40:22.302-05:00On Congress’ Abrogation of Responsibility Much has been made of Congress’ decision this weekend to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), but little focus has been devoted to the decision’s glaring lack of substance. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the decision, it should be disconcerting to all that the associated social/political questions are to be answered by the unelected bureaucrats of the Department of Defense.<br />
<br />
The brevity of the bill was simultaneously refreshing and disconcerting—refreshing because of the absence of riders and amendments unrelated to the topic at hand, yet disconcerting in Congress’ refusal to address core issues clearly falling within its realm of responsibility. The <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.4023:">bill’s two pages</a> state simply that (1) the Secretary of Defense has ordered a comprehensive review of how his department will implement such a repeal, (2) the President, SECDEF, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must review and forward said implementation plan to the appropriate congressional committees, and (3) repeal will only occur after the aforementioned requirements have been met. A lone clause mandates that repeal not conflict with the <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc1.wais&start=17807&SIZE=744&TYPE=PDF">definitions of “marriage” and/or “spouse” currently found in the U.S. Code</a>.<br />
<br />
Left unanswered in this landmark piece of legislation are the critical questions having ramifications well beyond the realms of the Pentagon and those in uniform. For example, is cohabitation by two homosexual servicemembers not only to be socially accepted within the military, but also to be supported by the military services' housing policies? If so, how will such support provide equity with unmarried, opposite sex servicemembers who are not allowed to cohabitate? What about the question of civil unions? Are the services required to recognize such legal relationships and confer benefits (e.g. medical, insurance, and other privileges) accordingly?<br />
<br />
More important than these individual questions, however, is the issue of decision-making. Many of these questions are deeply divisive, as has been demonstrated not only since DADT’s implementation during the Clinton Administration, but during recent state referendums and judicial decisions regarding same-sex marriage. Given such divisiveness and the fact that DADT’s repeal implementation will inevitably be <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/19/AR2010121903719.html">looked to as federal precedent for other matters regarding the acceptance of homosexuality</a>, what body should be making such decisions? What should be the process? Should U.S. citizens be satisfied with Congress rubber-stamping the findings of the Defense Department’s unelected (and, arguably, inexpert) bureaucrats, or should we demand that our elected officials debate and decide openly the critical issues at hand—and be held accountable for the same?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147383086631694384.post-88620535444629786712010-12-07T15:01:00.000-05:002010-12-07T15:01:23.271-05:00Reckless Endangerment Today, we learned that <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/40545954">President Obama and the Republicans’ Senate leadership have reached a compromise concerning the issues of tax cuts and unemployment benefits</a>. Rather than either side ceding significant ground, both parties agreed that all concerned should get what they seek. As it stands, the political settlement allows for a two-year extension of the Bush era tax cuts, while simultaneously extending unemployment benefits an additional 13 months (beyond the current maximum of 99 weeks of benefits.) For good measure, the parties have also proposed a one-year reduction of the payroll tax (used to fund Social Security) by two percentage points. The deal’s completion is not necessarily assured, as it must still face members of the House of Representatives—some of whom stridently disagree with one or the other of the plan’s major proposals.<br />
<br />
Unaddressed in this short-sighted and ill-conceived political posturing are the ballooning national deficit and debt that will hang around the necks of future American generations. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/"><span id="goog_640288440"></span>Richard Haass and Roger Altman have written persuasively about the national power implications of such ignorance<span id="goog_640288441"></span></a>. In addition to the budgetary effects of interest payments on an increasing national debt (which will require both increased taxes and reductions in non-debt spending,) the United States also faces losing one of its most effective “soft power” tools, i.e. the use of the U.S. dollar as the currency of choice in international business. Already we are seeing <a href="http://cnbusinessnews.com/china-russia-quit-dollar-on-bilateral-trade/">international actors begin to question the sagacity of holding and conducting trade with the American greenback</a>. Should these actions have a cascading effect among other actors, one wonders who will buy the debt instruments (Treasury bills and the like) necessary for the United States and its citizens to live beyond their means.<br />
<br />
What is particularly damning about this bilateral Washington compromise is its refusal to address the fundamental cultural and economic problems undergirding the United States’ weak economic position. While additional short-term government spending may be necessary to prevent an economy’s freefall (an assertion that I am not in complete agreement with, but that seems to be the position of many economists,) it must be targeted spending that builds or buttresses the foundations of sustained growth. For example, targeted programs that (a) improve the country’s crumbling infrastructure, (b) assist training and re-training programs for U.S. workers, and/or (c) fund research and development to increase American productivity would be useful types of such government spending. Across-the-board money in pockets to boost consumption (much of which will inevitably be consumption of imports) hardly seems to pass the common-sense test for improving the long-term economy. <br />
<br />
Additionally, such short-term spending must be paired with a plan to address debt reduction. To date, the latter (and, arguably, more fundamental) requirement remains ignored. Although most long-term analyses have unchanged entitlement/non-discretionary spending (Medicare, Social Security, and the expanding health provisions passed during the Bush II and Obama administrations) and debt servicing crowding-out discretionary spending, our leading politicians fail to coherently address this fundamental weakness. We will soon face (and, some argue, already face) a Ponzi scheme of entitlements that will increasingly tax our children and grandchildren to provide for a growing percentage of graying Americans. Something must give.<br />
<br />
What must be done? Our nation’s long-term health requires immediate initiatives, some of which can be tied to the short-term stimulus spending our politicians desperately desire.<br />
<br />
• First, the United States must have a coherent debate and resolution concerning its entitlement programs. Social Security’s reform can no longer remain the third-rail of Washington politics. Some combination of an increase in retirement age, decrease in benefits, and increase in payroll taxes must be developed and implemented if the program is to remain solvent. Americans’ attachment to the arbitrary retirement age of 65—an age selected <a href="http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html">in 1935 when a far smaller percentage of U.S. adults lived to see that age</a>—is puzzling, as is the idea that all citizens should receive the same Social Security benefits, regardless of their other sources of retirement income.<br />
<br />
• Second, our nation’s long-term productivity is fundamentally tied to the size, quality, and innovative abilities of our labor pool, which will consist of (a) our children and grandchildren as they enter their wage-earning years, and (b) the quality and quantity of immigrants that the United States can attract. Therefore, education reform and immigration reform are priorities of the first order. <br />
<br />
o One possible method of education reform that has not received nearly enough implementation is a voucher system. Such a system would allow students and parents to use market mechanisms to shop for better education opportunities. Given American students’ decreasing academic performances (when compared to students of other countries) over the last two decades, it is hard to imagine that we could do worse with an individual voucher program.<br />
<br />
o Immigration reform remains an important component of bolstering the United States’ labor resources. Increasing percentages of university students studying math, engineering, and the sciences are either foreign nationals or recent immigrants, as are a significant percentage of start-up technology companies’ founders. Our country requires an immigration reform plan that significantly expands the legal opportunities for immigration, not only to take advantage of those at the high-end of the education spectrum, but also to take advantage of the capabilities of hard-working, law-abiding immigrants who seek the better life the American dream promises. Immigration must be tied to socialization that fosters the nationalism and responsibility expected of American citizens.<br />
<br />
• Third, if agreement is reached that short-term economic stimulus is necessary, we must use such resources appropriately. Improve and expand the roads, highways, and railroads that facilitate our domestic trade. Improve the ports that facilitate our international trade. Improve the electrical, telecommunication, and energy grids. Devote more resources to research and development that might have multiple benefits for numerous fields (particularly energy security.) Consider that, in some cases, a modern version of the Civilian Conservation Corps may be more beneficial than simply providing monthly unemployment benefits with little quantifiable gain.<br />
<br />
Most states of these United States have laws prohibiting the reckless endangerment of citizens, particularly of children. With some variations, reckless endangerment is generally defined as <a href="http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter41/Section250.htm">“…recklessly engage[ing] in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person.”</a> I can think of no better example of reckless endangerment at the macro-level than the incoherent policies cobbled together by politicians of all stripes. If we refuse to condone reckless endangerment of one individual by another, why do we allow the United States Government to endanger the health and vitality of entire generations of young and future Americans?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147383086631694384.post-60252292734234419172010-10-15T08:26:00.000-04:002010-10-15T08:26:14.348-04:00Government as Philanthropist? Are U.S. humanitarian assistance and development assistance tools of national power, or are they charity? Should the United States federal government ever “do” charity? Whether as a component of national power or as charity, should the government outsource humanitarian and development assistance to third parties? These fundamental questions (and preconceived answers to the same) underlie <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/08/AR2010100802665.html">a recent Washington Post op-ed</a> that may have received scant attention outside the Beltway. On October 10th, Mr. Samuel Worthington, the President and CEO of <a href="http://www.interaction.org/about-interaction">InterAction</a> (an “alliance of U.S.-based international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) focused on the world’s poor and most vulnerable people”) railed against recent U.S. Government pressure to more directly associate the provision of humanitarian aid with the government that, in part, makes such aid possible. Because of the possible dangers to aid workers and the mission difficulties that such “branding” might cause, Worthington advocates a <em>laissez-faire</em> approach by the federal government; to wit, aid organizations should independently determine the where, when, and degree of association with the United States. His approach, at its core, seems to be that the U.S. Government should cut the checks and step aside, so that NGOs can get on with their business of saving and improving lives.<br />
First, let us be clear that many, if not most, of the NGOs allied with InterAction are doing incredibly valuable work throughout the world, and that their workers breathe life into concepts like bravery and self-sacrifice. I know aid workers who have placed themselves in situations of extreme fragility, instability, and deprivation—situations that few soldiers or marines would venture into without heavy armament. Whether to educate the world’s poorest or to respond to the most devastating natural disasters, humanitarian workers consistently place themselves in environments only a handful of Americans can fathom.<br />
Let us be equally clear, though, that the goals and objectives of humanitarian organizations and the United States Government, while sometimes parallel to each other, are hardly synonymous. The United States Government is charged with preserving, protecting, and defending the United States, its Constitution, and way of life. Organizations like <a href="http://www.worldvision.org/#/home/main/help-change-a-childs-life-today-1-1119">World Vision</a> (to borrow an example from Mr. Worthington) are “dedicated to working with children, families, and their communities worldwide to reach their full potential by tackling the causes of poverty and injustice.” The U.S. federal government should only be supporting such NGO missions and goals to the extent that the missions and goals are directly and explicitly tied to the government’s core mission. Any other expenditure is a misallocation of resources, regardless of its degree of altruism. <br />
Let us also be clear that humanitarian work is big business. NGOs compete with each other, with intergovernmental organizations like the United Nations, and with national governments for funding, recognition, status, and a future. World Vision’s financial records show that, in fiscal year 2009, <a href="http://www.worldvision.org/resources.nsf/Main/annual-review-2009-resources/$FILE/AR_2009AuditedFinancialStatment.pdf">the organization received approximately 23% of its support and revenue from the United States Government</a>. While undertaking its noble work, World Vision is in constant competition with other NGOs for public and private dollars. A safe bet is that it’s far easier (in terms of time and effort) to secure a multi-million dollar grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development than it is to solicit a commensurate amount from hundreds or thousands of private donors. In such an environment, why wouldn’t NGOs pursue U.S. Government grants while attempting to minimize obstacles and requirements concerning their expenditure?<br />
As is so many other instances, we are paying (financially and otherwise) for the inadequacy of our government. If these expenditures in the guises of humanitarian and development assistance are in the national interest, our political leaders and bureaucrats should be tying them to coherent national objectives, should be assessing the progress toward such objectives, and should be modifying expenditures based on the progress/lack thereof to such objectives. Moreover, if these types of assistance are so critical, then the government should develop the manpower, resources, and structures necessary to plan and provide them, rather than relying on third-party NGOs that have their own mandates and missions. Contemporarily, the United States Government confuses assistance with charity. The latter is noble and is the <em>raison d'être</em> for many NGOs, but it is not the purview of a government of free citizens who should decide individually and independently the types, amounts, and degrees of charitable donations they choose to make. American citizens <a href="http://www.hudson.org/files/pdf_upload/Index_of_Global_Philanthropy_and_Remittances_2010.pdf">consistently prove themselves to be some of the world’s most giving persons</a>. We don’t need more government help in giving away our time or money.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147383086631694384.post-29188791214622552152010-09-30T17:18:00.000-04:002010-09-30T17:18:54.101-04:00A Voice in the Wilderness<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11pt;"> Secretary Gates’ <a href="http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1508">call to service yesterday at Duke University</a> should be required reading by not only the nation’s youth, but by the country’s Age of Aquarius decision-making generation that drives us into international quagmires of the first order. His comments echoed many of the sentiments and arguments voiced by a minority over the last decade: that the military is marked by exhaustion; that too few serve in armed forces asked to do far too much; that those who do serve are increasingly becoming a community onto themselves; and that citizenship should bear with it the responsibility and privilege of service. Yet, one wonders if Gates enters the fray too late in the game, if the secretary’s comments serve as a one-off public soliloquy (rather than as the initiation of a sustained campaign for change,) and if the United States will ever confront the basic means-ends mismatch we’ve constructed. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11pt;"> In his speech to the Blue Devils, Secretary Gates went further than any other contemporary political leader in highlighting the multiple dangers inherent in our civil-military environment. The All-Volunteer Force (AVF), which Gates marks as a “remarkable success” (while simultaneously identifying the hallmarks of its failure,) was not built for the types or durations of conflicts in which we’re presently embroiled. Voluntary service, while possibly noble, turns out to be quite expensive, and has the added disadvantage of being either hidden from or ignored by an overwhelming percentage of Americans. In short, for all of his lauding of the AVF, a discerning reader is left at the end of Gates’ speech wondering “Now how exactly is this better than the draft?”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11pt;">History should identify Gates as one of the country’s better secretaries of defense, but his elaboration on the state of American civil-military relations did not go far enough. In the end, we will only begin to correct the deficiencies in our foreign policy and in our civil-military relations when a much greater percentage of the population shoulders the costs of our misadventures; when—as Gates himself highlighted—war is no longer an “abstraction” for the elites and the common folk who return a disengaged political class to Washington every two years. Democracy and disengagement are polar opposites, and with rights come responsibilities. A volunteer force is a fine tool as a standing army during a time of peace, but democracies require national service during times of war. <o:p></o:p></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147383086631694384.post-21411637972144273012010-09-24T11:38:00.002-04:002010-09-24T22:32:01.301-04:00Forgetting Whom They Serve While conducting some research this morning, I stumbled upon a disturbing Israeli press article that hasn’t yet received too much coverage in the American press. Over the last few days, a couple of American press outlets have reported about <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/world/middleeast/21israel.html?_r=1&ref=jonathan_j_pollard">Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s offer to freeze settlement construction in return for Jonathan Pollard’s clemency</a>. What I haven’t seen in the press is the crux of the Israeli Haaretz article—that <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-congressmen-to-obama-free-pollard-to-facilitate-mideast-peace-1.315499">Representative Barney Frank (D, Massachusetts) and colleagues are circulating a petition to President Obama appealing for the same</a>.<br />
Frank’s and friends’ justification for clemency (the body of the press release was provided by Representative Frank's office and is copied below) would be laughable if it wasn’t so disgusting. Representative Frank first justifies such clemency based on “…the vast disparity between Mr. Pollard’s sentence and the sentences given to many others who have been convicted of similar activities,” although the true extent of Pollard’s espionage (mainly for Israel, but also reportedly for South Africa) has never been publicized. Even worse, Representative Frank cites clemency as being needed “…as a strong indication of the goodwill of our nation towards Israel and the Israeli people.” Lest anyone forget, Israel is the recipient of <u>billions</u> of dollars of American taxpayer-provided aid annually, and has been provided overt and tacit American security guarantees since 1973. Israel’s thanks has been the Pollard affair, weapons negotiations with China, and intransigence in the Middle East peace process. (To be fair concerning the latter, however, the Palestinians are hardly the best of negotiating partners.) <br />
One wonders if we, the United States, are getting full-value from our relationship with Israel. More immediately, one wonders whether Representative Frank and company have completely forgotten which country’s interests they are sworn to protect. Pollard is an individual duly convicted of espionage in a court of law. His crimes were so damaging that the judge in question (who was privy to a classified damage assessment provided by the Secretary of Defense) disregarded a plea agreement in the matter, and sentenced Pollard to life in prison. Representative Frank’s petition is unconscionable. <br />
<br />
(c) 2010 Richard Wrona<br />
<br />
Body of Press Release Regarding Representative Frank's letter to President Obama Regarding Jonathan Pollard<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><state w:st="on"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">WASHINGTON</span></state><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> -- Congressman Barney Frank, Congressman Bill Pascrell, <placename w:st="on">Congressman</placename> <placename w:st="on">Edolphus</placename> <placetype w:st="on">Towns</placetype> and Congressman Anthony Weiner announced today that they are circulating a letter in the House of Representatives, seeking other Members to join them in asking President Obama to extend clemency to Jonathan Pollard, the former civilian defense officer who is serving a life sentence for passing classified information to <country-region w:st="on"><place w:st="on">Israel</place></country-region>. <span style="color: #1f497d;"></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The letter notes that they are not questioning Mr. Pollard’s guilt, the process by which he was convicted and sentenced, nor the necessity of punishing those who engage in espionage on behalf of allied countries. Rather, the appeal for clemency is based on the vast disparity between Mr. Pollard’s sentence and the sentences given to many others who have been convicted of similar activities, even with countries that unlike <country-region w:st="on">Israel</country-region> are or have been adversaries of the <place w:st="on"><country-region w:st="on">United States</country-region></place>. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The letter also notes the positive impact that a grant of clemency would have in <country-region w:st="on">Israel</country-region>, as a strong indication of the goodwill of our nation towards <place w:st="on"><country-region w:st="on">Israel</country-region></place> and the Israeli people. This would be particularly helpful at a time when the Israeli nation faces difficult decisions in its long-standing effort to secure peace with its neighbors. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The letter will be circulated in Congress for a period of time, and then sent to President Obama, most likely by the middle of October. </span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147383086631694384.post-10369860109111088632010-09-23T13:40:00.000-04:002010-09-23T13:40:37.752-04:00Storm Clouds on the Distant Horizon Two interesting news articles serve as data points for the increasingly diverging paths and trajectories of the United States and China. While the United States suffers from economic fatigue, domestic political polarization, and war weariness (and its accompanying military exhaustion and lack of innovation,) China marks achievement after achievement in the economic, political, military, and diplomatic spheres. Once more, China’s increasing assertiveness in international politics—particularly regarding East and Southeast Asian issues—bodes ill for the protection and advancement of American national interests.<br />
In an article from yesterday’s <em>New York Times</em> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/business/global/23rare.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=world&adxnnlx=1285244295-gk/bcRUsoZgyDIAWa6fH8Q">(“Amid Tension, China Blocks Vital Exports to Japan,”)</a> we are treated to the most recent example of China’s adherence to the tried-and-true principles of power politics. As a result of an impasse with Japan regarding the detainment of a Chinese fishing captain (which, arguably, acts as a foil for larger Sino-Japanese maritime disputes,) China is leveraging its near-monopolization of rare earth elements to pressure Japan. Rare earths are vital to many high-tech products and absolutely essential to advanced weaponry. China’s near-monopoly of the world’s current rare earth supplies, combined with its <em>de facto</em> embargo of the elements’ export to Japan, serves to not only pressure Japan, but—indirectly and deliberately—the United States.<br />
While Chinese assertiveness and dynamism grow, the United States gets fatter and weaker. Contrasting the NYT’s article is <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/nsa_20100923_5764.php">one by the National Journal</a> highlighting American youths’ inabilities to meet the basic standards of military service. While the Chinese increasingly throw their economic, diplomatic, and military weight around to consolidate the country’s position as East Asia’s dominant player, American teens and twentysomethings can’t seem to get their weight off the couch and from behind the Xbox, in order to meet what would have been once considered laughable standards of physical fitness. Army officials frantically search for innovative ways to make hardy soldiers out of increasingly flabby and brittle young Americans.<br />
Make no mistake—power in terms of political stability, material wealth, economic vitality, favorable geographic position, global access, and military power is still the coin of the realm in international politics. Power gains and maintains influence through persuasion and, if necessary, coercion. Regardless of recent missteps over the last decade, the United States is looked to not only because of the desirability (by some) of its political and cultural characteristics, but because it is the most powerful actor in the global arena. (No offense to our Kiwi brethren or northern neighbors, but few people in the world have the same expectations of New Zealand or Canada, countries with very similar political and social systems to the United States, but exponentially different measures of power.) As we continue to forfeit individual elements of our nation’s power, and as actors like China maintain a near-opposite track, we should be contemplating the ramifications.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147383086631694384.post-69733667034341186532010-09-09T10:45:00.000-04:002010-09-09T10:45:44.831-04:00Misperceptions Abound It is hard to determine whether one should be more concerned by what Secretary Clinton did or did not say during yesterday’s speech at the Council on Foreign Relations (<a href="http://www.cfr.org/publication/22896/conversation_with_us_secretary_of_state_hillary_rodham_clinton.html">http://www.cfr.org/publication/22896/conversation_with_us_secretary_of_state_hillary_rodham_clinton.html</a>.) Clinton, in attempting to build upon tenets found in the administration’s <em>National Security Strategy</em>, displayed a disconcerting disregard for the world as we know it (vice the world as we would like it.) If the points highlighted in her speech are meant to be the foci for American foreign policy, there is little chance that we can hope for anything more than the drift we have experienced over the last two decades. And with drift, American power and influence diminish.<br />
Clinton’s speech revisited two important aspects of the NSS—first, that international power is dependent on U.S. national renewal; second, that international diplomacy matters, and that the way toward international diplomacy is through the reinvigoration, refurbishment, and/or development of international institutions. Few would argue with Point #1, although many might take issue with the current administration’s approach to its accomplishment. Point #2’s focus on international institutions, however, is dangerously misguided. Mrs. Clinton’s emphasis on such institutions relied overwhelmingly on the modifier “shared”—as in “shared problems”, “shared aspirations”, “shared commitments”, and “shared responsibility”. In doing so, she assumes that other countries, even U.S. allies, conceive of problems, goals, and a desired future in the same way that she does. Few things are further from the truth. In fact, while we fund a defense budget that is larger than the next 14-15 largest defense budgets combined, most NATO allies fail to allocate even their self-imposed minimums on defense spending. While we take for granted that individual liberty and democracy motivate nations and leaders (and, therefore, should undergird new and improved international institutions,) other countries hold sacrosanct the concepts of sovereignty, self-determination, and varying interpretations of justice. While we assume a “new American moment” and the necessity of American leadership, other states collaborate to develop new institutions that limit American power and wholly omit an American presence. (Witness, for example, the developments of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation.) <br />
Secretary Clinton saved her most damning comments for the end of her speech. They are worth reading in the original:<br />
<br />
<em> But there's a legitimate question, and some of you have raised it, I know, in print and elsewhere: How can you try to manage or at least address and even try to solve all of these problems? But our response, in this day where there is nothing that doesn't come to the forefront of public awareness: What do we give up on? What do we put on the back burner? Do we sideline development? Do we put some hot conflicts on hold? Do we quit trying to prevent other conflicts from unfreezing and heating up? Do we give up on democracy and human rights? I don't think that's what is either possible or desirable, and it is not what Americans do, but it does require a lot of strategic patience.</em><br />
<br />
This failure—one might even argue refusal—to prioritize American interests and threats is the single biggest indicator of continuing American drift in international politics. Even in the best of times, states must prioritize those efforts fundamental to their interests. In the worst of times (and, given our national economic situation and an overstretched military, we are dangerously close to such times,) prioritization is absolutely essential. As a past post attempted to highlight, what coherent appeal to U.S. national interests possibly supports the prioritization of crises in the Democratic Republic of Congo before Mexico’s instability? What reality prioritizes Albania’s national defense (given that Albania is a NATO member) before the requirement to maintain and advance U.S. freedom of action in the global commons (maritime, space, etc?) I know of none, but it seems that all possibilities, fanciful or not, are equally important to the United States Government.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147383086631694384.post-42952705343928126032010-09-02T14:51:00.000-04:002010-09-02T14:51:33.292-04:00A Better, Bad Choice The Democratic Republic of Congo is a modern-day nightmare. After more than a decade of conflict, the country’s eastern region is known for its seemingly unending human misery. Mass murder, forced displacements, and the horrible distinction of being the world’s “rape capital” embody Thomas Hobbes’ description of life in an anarchic world, (i.e. nasty, brutish, and short.) Reports this week of hundreds of women, girls, and babies being gang-raped by rebels and tribesmen within miles of a United Nations peacekeepers’ camp only serve as the most recent chapters in an epic tragedy. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11162177">(“Congo mass rape numbers rise to 240—UN,” BBC)</a><br />
Yet, policy Realists (and I consider myself one of them) realize that the United States has few national interests threatened by eastern DRC’s horror. Particularly when one considers its importance <em>relative</em> to American global interests and threats to those interests (combating al Qaeda, nuclear weapons proliferation, a rising China, and Mexican instability to name but a few,) eastern DRC legitimately garners little attention. Could any American political leader credibly argue that, in an economic downturn with all of the attributes of a double-dip recession, we have more funds to spend on foreign adventures? Could the President really address the nation and say that even one brigade of U.S. troops (an element of a few thousand servicemembers) would be better allocated to DRC than to Afghanistan or even the United States’ southern border?<br />
Americans, however, are directly addressing the insecurity in DRC, albeit in a way that is completely ineffective. In addition to millions of dollars of aid that we provide to DRC’s thoroughly corrupt government <a href="http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/regional_highlights">(“Corruption Perceptions Index,” Transparency International,)</a> the United States provides over 27% of accessed contributions to the United Nations’ peacekeeping budget. <a href="http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/documents/factsheet.pdf">(“United Nations Peacekeeping,” UN)</a> The United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the DRC (MONUSCO) budget for July 2010-June 2011 is $1.369 <u>billion</u> dollars. <a href="http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/monusco/facts.shtml">(“United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,” UN)</a> This year, whether they know it or not, U.S. citizens will be providing over $371 million to fund MONUSCO peacekeepers.<br />
Unfortunately, we would do just as well to burn the money. MONUSCO and its predecessor, MONUC, have been worse than worthless. In the most recent gang-rape incident, not only were U.N. peacekeepers in the DRC ignorant of and/or unresponsive to atrocities occurring so close to one of their camps, but they may have turned a blind eye to rebels’ construction of road blocks that would fly in the face of the U.N.’s peace enforcement mandate. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11092639">(“UN ‘was not told about DR Congo mass rapes,” BBC)</a> Even worse, previous U.N. peacekeepers in the DRC have actually contributed to greater insecurity in the region through their own sexual abuse of Congolese children. <a href="http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=12990&Cr=democratic&Cr1=congo">(“Peacekeepers’ sexual abuse of local girls continuing in DR of Congo, UN finds,” UN)</a><br />
One reason for MONUSCO’s lack of effectiveness has to do with its composition. MONUSCO, like most U.N. missions, is overwhelmingly manned by militaries unable to provide security even within their own countries’ borders. As an example, Pakistan—although unable to pacify its western regions and address jihadist threats emanating from the same—contributes over 10,000 troops to U.N. peacekeeping missions. One need only list the top five troop-contributing countries (Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Nigeria, and Egypt) and then study said countries’ fragility to see a possible negative correlation between a regime’s competence and its troop contributions.<br />
Given the lack of vital U.S. interests at stake, some might argue that it would be best to ignore the DRC; that close to $400 million could certainly be better spent on reducing the deficit, on education, or on a host of other domestic issues. I am very sympathetic to such arguments. However, advocates and bureaucrats get a vote, and are—in many cases—more influential than appeals to the national interest. The twin themes of “We can’t simply ignore it” and “It’s only…” (as in “It’s only $300 million dollars when the government is spending trillions”) will hold decisive sway.<br />
If one assumes that the United States will continue to fund peacekeeping efforts in the DRC and other unstable regions, American citizens should get a better return on their investments. One possible avenue to improved efficiency and effectiveness may be the employment of private military/security companies in these endeavors. An idea entertained in the past by pundits and policymakers, the employment of PMCs might address insecurity on the ground, and do so in ways that are far cheaper than supplementing the Pakistani and Bangladeshi defense budgets. Examples from the 1990s of PMCs’ employment by Angola and Sierra Leone demonstrated, if nothing else, that such contracts can be effective at bringing about a modicum of stability. Moreover, a scheme by which the United States Government hired PMCs that were then seconded to the United Nations (as an alternative to future peacekeeping budget contributions by the U.S.) might allow for a greater level of legal accountability than presently exists for troops coming from countries with nascent, non-existent, or corrupt judicial systems.<br />
Employing PMCs entails a number of second- and third-order consequences that must be considered and mitigated. Legitimizing the privatization of force is not something to be taken lightly, although the United States seems to have established significant and haphazard precedent with its contracts supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the narrow perspective of increasing security in eastern DRC, and recognizing that the situation is of little <em>relative</em> threat to U.S. national interests, there hardly seems to be a better alternative. PMCs may be the better, bad choice that we need, especially when compared to endless, ineffective, and harmful U.N. missions.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147383086631694384.post-52289413093246079122010-09-01T13:47:00.000-04:002010-09-01T13:47:23.657-04:00The Worst PlatitudePlatitude—a banal, trite, or stale remark (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)<br />
<br />
For almost a decade, we have been informed that we are a “nation at war” by two presidents, scores of legislators, and countless candidates for public office. President Obama’s Oval Office speech last night was simply the most recent refrain in a litany that is not only inaccurate, but pernicious to the health of the American society and—in particular—American civil-military relations.<br />
In fact, as the president’s somewhat schizophrenic talk demonstrated, we are a national population that increasingly sees war as something done by “the other”. While their sacrifices are lauded, military servicemembers seem to be seen as a separate population, a distinct group that does the work of war so that “we” may work “to secure…the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.” Unfortunately, the military as a separate entity is increasingly becoming a reality. It is viewed as noble, honorable, self-sacrificing, but distant. <br />
Fewer and fewer Americans serve in the military, or even know anyone who serves as a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine. While President Obama highlighted “the nearly 1.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq” (one questions whether this number is accurate, or truly accounts for the multiple deployments of many of our servicemembers,) that number pales in comparison to the population eligible to serve who are <u>not</u> serving. Statistics from 2008, the most recent year’s data available on the Census Bureau’s website, prove illustrative. In that year, the American population stood at just under 300 million, 44% of whom—by rough estimates—are of the modern era’s military age. Assuming that President Obama’s 1.5 million number counts individual Americans (rather than individual deployments,) compare 1.5 million in <u>seven</u> years to 131 million Americans possibly eligible in <u>one</u> year. In fact, our military service/participation rate in this country has held steady at less than 2% of the population throughout the duration of conflict since the 9/11 attacks.<br />
Additionally, military members are increasingly distinct geographically, economically, and culturally. Citizens of the Southeast join the military to a disproportionate degree, while citizens from the West and Northeast are far less represented than their percentages of the national population. By one estimate, “nearly half of all Army recruits come from military families.” (“<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703632304575451531529098478.html?KEYWORDS=%22the+military+should+mirror+the+nation%22">The Military Should Mirror the Nation</a>,” <em>The Wall Street Journal</em>.) Numerous studies over the last ten years have highlighted that the military’s officer corps tends to be far more conservative than the general population. Disturbing trends, beginning with President Clinton’s first national campaign and most recently demonstrated in <em>Rolling Stone’s</em> article about General Stanley McCrystal and the antics of his staff, show an increasing political outspokenness by both active and retired officers. <br />
Instead of requiring greater sacrifices by the American population, the government’s answer to wartime demands has been outsourcing, specifically the use of private security and military companies to augment a strained military force. Over the last few years, contractors have outnumbered servicemembers in Iraq, and <em>armed</em> contractors have outnumbered the contingents provided by any of our coalition partners. Reports indicate that contractors are involved in everything from protecting diplomats, to interrogating personnel captured on the battlefield, to participating in covert operations executed by special operations forces. In 2005, one Department of Defense entity even began to refer to contractors as a “fifth force-provider” akin to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. (“<a href="http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA441078.pdf">Institutionalizing Stability Operations Within DoD</a>,” the Defense Science Board.)<br />
Combine an increasingly-distinct military, an overreliance on contractors beholden to shareholders, and a lack of oversight by the legislative branch (“<a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62091/norman-j-ornstein-and-thomas-e-mann/when-congress-checks-out">When Congress Checks Out</a>,” <em>Foreign Affairs</em>,) and we have a recipe that is potentially fatal to key aspects of the American democratic experiment. Our entire system of government is founded upon the necessity of government held accountable to an engaged citizenry, and upon systems of checks-and-balances and separations of power that prevent any one government entity from gaining a disproportionate share of power. When the citizenry and Congress abdicate their responsibilities, giving the executive branch near-exclusive control of a detached military and contractors, we chip away at these very foundations.<br />
We are not a nation at war, but we should be. If we have decided that no threat is so dangerous as to merit such participation, mobilization, and collective sacrifice, then we have already resigned our country to the world’s history rather than its future.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147383086631694384.post-30511339160114295522009-11-04T13:20:00.000-05:002010-08-26T09:45:09.167-04:00American Blood and Chinese Profit<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Here's a perfect example of the lack of vision, strategic thinking, and attention to detail of our "professional" political class. Lest anyone forget, at least 4,357 U.S. military personnel have died in Iraq since the beginning of the war, and the country has spent billions--if not trillions (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/ AR2008030702846.html)--in Iraq. While the historical parallel is certainly not perfect, can anyone imagine the United States allowing a similar economic initiative by the Soviet Union in West Germany in 1951? </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Our elected officials and bureaucrats dishonor our fallen and do a disservice to our future generations. One of the most basic functions of a national government is to plan and implement a foreign policy that adequately represents a country's interests in international politics. Foreign policy is not charity. If our representatives and government professionals can not tie each any every expenditure--qualitatively or quantitatively--to the protection or advancement of American national interests, it is a wasted effort and/or the pursuit of a personal or bureaucratic agenda. The American public deserves better. Until we demand better, however, expect more of the same.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<pre style="white-space: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cfe2f3; font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace;">Iraq signs mega oil deal with BP and CNPC
BAGHDAD, November 3, 2009 (AFP) - Iraq on Tuesday formally signed a deal
worth 14 to 20 billion dollars with Britain's BP and China's CNPC to
almost triple production at a giant southern oilfield, an AFP
correspondent reported.
The venture is expected to boost production at the southern Rumaila
field from the current one million barrels per day to around 2.8 million
bpd over its 20-year duration.
Rumaila is already integral to Iraq's oil output, contributing almost
half of the nation's current production of around 2.5 million bpd, and
is estimated to have further reserves of 17.7 billion barrels.
BP and CNPC are projected to invest 14 to 20 billion dollars between
them and the companies have agreed to accept payment of two dollars per
additional barrel produced at Rumaila.
The Iraqi cabinet approved the contract two weeks ago.</span></pre></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147383086631694384.post-7876143792890484512009-07-12T01:01:00.000-04:002009-07-12T02:16:39.787-04:00Once an Eagle--a must read for allRecently, I had the opportunity to re-read one of my favorite books--Anton Myrer's <em>Once an Eagle</em>. For those not familar with the book, it "is the story of one special man, a soldier named Sam Damon, and his adversary over a lifetime, fellow officer Courtney Massengale. Damon is a professional who puts duty, honor, and the men he commands above self interest. Massengale, however, brilliantly advances by making the right connections behind the lines and in Washington's corridors of power....A study in character and values, courage, nobility, honesty, and selflessness, here is an unforgettable story about a man who embodies the best of our nation--and in us all." (from the bookcover)<br /><br /> You need not be associated with the military to appreciate either the story or the underlying themes. In that vein, I've included some of my favorite quotations from Myrer's incredible work:<br /><br /> "Because once the eminent heads of state in all their infinite wisdom decide that it [war] must be done, once the drums begin to beat--there is nothing ahead but fear and waste and misery and desolation. Nothing else. Once the engine has started it must shudder and rumble to the very end of its hellish course, come what may. And you and I and a few million others are the ones who must cling to the machine as it grinds along. (pg 299)<br /><br /> "Sam, do you honestly believe people are going to stop being greedy and resentful and full of pride and prejudice? Do you think they will quit hating and fearing--do you think the lordly heads of government are going to abandon their methods of seizing and holding power, of gaining advantages over their neighbors? Why should they change? What should cause them to abhor the only rules to the game they know? And even if they were to do so, do you believe for one minute their own citizens would let them get away with it?" (pg 335)<br /><br /> "It seems to be our [American] history: we are indifferent, unprepared--then all of a sudden we're shocked, roaring with righteous wrath, ready to rush off into battle with our pants down..." (pg 337)<br /><br /> "War: war was not an oriflamme-adventure filled with noble deeds and tilts with destiny, as he had believed, but a vast, uncaring universe of butchery and attrition, in which the imaginative, the sensitive were crippled and corrupted, the vulgar and tough-fibered were augmented--and the lucky were lucky and survived, and they alone." (pg 344)<br /><br /> "The businessman goes for his profits and most of the time he doesn't see where it's leading; and things go from bad to worse, you remember how it was, and he pulls the country along with him, the politicians and the churches and the newspapers and everyone else, and finally somebody says the word, the terrible word there's no going back from--and the businessmen go right on piling up their profits, and the politicians rant on and on about that last full measure of devotion...but it's the little guy--the clerk and the farm boy and the carpenter--who's left hanging on the wire with his guts all over his knees." (pg 439)<br /><br /> "I've been detailed for this, honey. That's what it is. Like a soldier who's drawn outpost duty beyond the front lines. He's just drawn the detail, that's all. He didn't ask for it, it was laid on him--maybe because his platoon leader thought he was more alert or competent or careful than the others, or maybe the sergeant had it in for him and stuck him with it, or maybe it was just the luck of the draw. But that doesn't matter--there he is: he's drawn the obligation, he's out there, and what he does during those hours will mean the lives of all the rest. And so he's got to do everything in his power to prepare himself for that moment." (pg 513)<br /><br /> "That's what they know--that some must lead and others must follow, but that leadership is an obligation and not a mark of caste." (pg 644)<br /><br /> "There they lay, far from the fields of home, two crossed sticks and a dogtag, killed in a moment of heroism or cowardice or ignorance or ignominy, but all of them killed in the fragile splendor of their young manhood; and to some heart ten thousand miles away their present moldering was a source of immeasurable grief. And to others--even to many standing here in the still, heavy air--it was nothing at all." (pg 819)<br /><br /> "There, in that outpost, on that three-square-feet of ground, was where the real war was being fought, no matter who denied it; and how that private did tonight--whether he had the hardihood and the craft to resist exhaustion and debility and slumber and kill the weary, sick, resourceful enemy who sought his life--would decide who would win this war, and nothing else." (pg 931)<br /><br /> "If you could bottle it [the smell of the battlefield], Beaupre thought savagely, swallowing, fighting the hot clutch of nausea with all his might, trying not to breathe, trying to look without seeing. This smell. If you could bottle it, store it in some tanks just outside Washington or New York City or Chicago; and then when the drums began to beat, when the eminent statesmen rose in all their righteous choler and the news rags and radio networks started their impassioned chant, if you could release a few dozen carboys on the senate floor, the executive offices of DuPont de Nemours, Boeing and Ford and Firestone, the trading posts on Wall Street; and seal off the exits. Repeat every three hours as needed. Rx. By God, that would take some of the fun out of it" (pg 1074)<br /><br /> "A man was only one man, one meager entity, but he was so many divergent things to other men." (pg 1161)<br /><br /> "No. I don't know. That's not the problem. It's us. Here. It's got to come to a head. Between those who want us to be a democracy--a real one, not a show-window one--and those who want us to be a Great Power. In caps and with all the trimmings." (pg 1172)<br /><br /> "But that's how it goes. People are going to go on being scared and vindictive and greedy and forgetful and everything else they happen to be. And all you can do is keep on going yourself, do what you can, and hope for the best." (pg 1173)<br /><br /> "But I can respect the patriotism of men from other lands--who are every bit as loyal and self-sacrificing and earnest as we are ourselves. They do not happen to believe what we believe; but have we given them irrefutable proof that our way is the only way for all the rest of the world? --a world that is not as much in awe of us as we'd like to think." (pg 1244)<br /><br /> "...the only thing I've learned in sixty-five years, only one: the romantic, spendthrift moral act is ultimately the practical one--the practical, expedient, cozy-dog move is the one that comes to grief. Yes. Remember that. Joey, if it comes to a choice between being a good soldier and a good human being--try to be a good human being..." (pg 1288)<br /><br /> Read the book. It is more than worth the time and effort.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3147383086631694384.post-50942628414306118122009-06-26T16:39:00.000-04:002009-06-26T16:43:06.726-04:00Today A Good Man Died<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial, fantasy;font-size:6;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 19px;"><b>Today a Good Man Died</b></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Today, June 26<sup>th</sup>, 2009, a good man died. He was dedicated to his family, to his God, and to his country. His loss leaves a gaping hole in the hearts of the lives he touched. For those who knew him, his passing was a crushing blow. It will take all of the survivors’ self-discipline and their every resource to remember him while carrying-on with what they need to do. In many ways, he was better than us all, because he was willing to tread where others dared not tread, to undertake hardships from which others shied, and to sacrifice himself for the protection of all. Unfortunately, you’ll never know about this man—a soldier in the United States Army—because his name wasn’t Michael Jackson.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Based on every available media resource, one might think that time stopped on June 26<sup>th</sup>. That the United States was no longer engaged in two wars. That the country no longer faced its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. That Iranians no longer met their oppressors defiantly in the streets of Tehran. That hundreds of Africans no longer died from hunger, disease, and conflict, all because of the passing of one celebrity—a man prolific in song and troubled in spirit; a known child abuser (how else can one characterize a father who hangs his infant over the side of a balcony?) and poor manager of his finances. A man who was, above all else, concerned with himself.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>These words are not meant to be a metaphorical dance on Mr. Jackson’s troubled grave, but, instead, to serve as an alarm to a dangerously misguided American public ill-served by its media and its leaders. Memorialize those who deserve your thanks and praise. Disdain the trivial. Focus on the meaningful. Demonstrate that you are worthy of that soldier’s ultimate sacrifice—that his death, and the deaths of thousands of other service-members sent to prosecute wars for your protection, are not in vain. Most of all, demonstrate that you are worthy of the title “citizen” by leaving succeeding generations a better country than this hollow shell I presently serve.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Arial">-A United States Army Officer<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <!--EndFragment-->Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0