Farewell Mayan Friday of Doom: Now On To The Fiscal Apocalypse

   The Great American Melting Pot is now the mediocre TV dinner served on a segmented tray.  This is not Sooners versus Cowboys on Saturday; demographic groups have been divvied up between the political parties, and have frozen us to inaction.  This administration has not been divisive.  Guillotines, IEDs, and my carving knife are a few other things that are not divisive, at least in the sense that we use “not divisive” in today’s political clime.  When the White House conducts a survey on its website and a participant cannot identify as ‘male,’ ‘white,’ or ‘European,’ that is not screaming "inclusivity", nor is it even stating the collection of demographics.  It is divisive.  It is almost impossible to turn around without somebody being grouped by exclusion, making every other choice its own group.  We may well be about to reap what we have sown as we prepare to plunge into the fiscal abyss.  (You’ll forgive me that I’m not entirely sure of the geography, and cliff just seems over used at this point.)

   There are actually multiple issues at play here which, for obvious reasons Democrats want to obscure, and for unknown reasons, Republicans allow.  The first is the failure to pass a budget since 2009 even though it is required annually by the Constitution.  The second is the Budget Sequestration that was tied to the last continuing resolution.  For those of you that are wondering, a continuing resolution is a budget cop out.  It says we can’t do the job you hired us for so we are just going to use the last budget numbers we passed.  The sequestration brain child said that if a bi-partisan “super” (adjective used very loosely, I assume) committee could not reach a decision in cuts then every government agency would take the same cut across the board, in this case 10%.  Apparently, the GOP thought that was an ultimatum, but brier fox thought the briar patch was a threat.  Finally, there is the debt ceiling that was extended to $16,000,000,000,000.00, or what the VP may consider a big f’ing number.  In fact, numbers that large inspired scientific notation, but were believed to be used for things like the distance between celestial bodies, not the country’s credit card bill.  Maybe some other time we can address how the government steals from the poor when the Fed prints money and inflation occurs, making everyone’s savings virtually worthless.

   The first ones to blame are the Republicans for perhaps the most idiotic ultimatum ever.  The proposal of the automatic cuts they chose are the equivalent of Osama Bin Laden walking up on September 12, 2001, putting a gun to his own head and stating, “if you don’t go against all your core principles right now, I’ll shoot myself.”  Oh gee, let me think.  It might have had some teeth right up until they kicked the whole debt-ceiling can down the road past the election.  And, by the way, that little disaster is back (but that is yet another issue).  Which ones actually thought the Democrats were going to be concerned about Defense cuts, whether they should be or not?  While it should not be a surprise that they jumped at this offer, this was signed into law.  If the Democrats really cared about the middle class that was a good time to bring it up.

   Then you have the revenue oriented Democrats.  They have been carping over tax increases on the wealthy so much that I’m not sure there are any thinking individuals out there that don’t throw up a little when it is mentioned.  They have even been so bold as to define “wealthy” as a combined household income of over $200K or $250K depending on the number of people they want to take from , and how honest they want to be about it..  All of this grousing over slightly more than a week’s worth of funding for this gargantuan government.   One does not have to be a math major to realize that there are still over fifty weeks left to fund.  When the rest of us are faced with this personal dilemma, we have to cut spending.  Seems like a prudent measure.  Wait…where are the Democrats with their spending cut proposals?  The latest argument is that they should not have to since it is the President’s proposal (with NO cuts).  Any spending cut proposed by the GOP will address Social Security, and Medicare and will be instantly rejected.  Which brings us back around on this self-licking ice cream cone; the Democrats are no-shows with spending cut proposals because there is absolutely nothing to motivate them to show up.

   To add to this Shakespearian comedy (or is it a tragedy?), in order to have any maneuver room, many Republicans bullied into signing the Norquist pledge are going to have to back out, opening them up to crucifixion in their next election due to a lack of integrity.  It is beyond being simply obtuse to make an absolute declaration in politics.  Action occurs with compromise which is something both parties have forgotten.  There can be no compromise if you have already sacrificed your integrity on the alter of some superlative pledge.

  So what is going to happen?  Most likely, many republicans will sacrifice their integrity for the maneuver room and hope to fight over that issue another day.  The proverbial can will get kicked down the road with some tax hikes on those households making (combined) more than $250,000 a year.  Which probably includes every married Buffalo NY teacher, unless the plastic surgery bennies don’t count.  Little else will occur.  Yes, that means the debt-ceiling will constantly resurface.

   Now, what should happen?  Elections have consequences and this last one should, as well.  The GOP should go out of their way to wrap this gift up just the way the Democrats want it.  There should be many questions like how it should be wrapped, where it should be delivered, etc.  Give the Democrats exactly what they want, the way they want it and make them OWN it.  For far to long the Democrats have appeared to be the diminutive thug from our elementary days, picking the fight with the biggest stud he can find only to be held back by others while screaming at the top of his lungs, “if they weren’t holding me back, I’d get you!”  You remember the obnoxious guy.  The one that found a couple of sizable friends that could sell, but for their intervention there would have been a blood bath behind the backstop at lunch.  Well, it is time to let him go.  Good luck.  That’s right, we should strap in; I’ll drive and, baby, we should go full throttle over that cliff, and everything else, until we learn to compromise.

   Come on, be reckless!  Nothing will happen.  Here are some strong indicators that nothing can go wrong with my plan.  First, the world has ended, the Mayans were right.  It is the ultimate in hedonism.  Okay, so they did not mean the end of the world per se, they probably just ran out of pin up girls for their calendar.  Before the election, however, not only did the President tell all those companies that sequestration would not happen, but that the taxpayers would pick up the legal bill if it did (remember they have an obligation to tell their employees they are about to get the ax).  If that is not convincing enough, I suspect that there is a vast sea of recently “saved” soft lady parts at the bottom of that cliff that will surely safely arrest our fall.  Finally, it would be outrageously amusing to watch this train wreck, like a Myth Busters explosion finale.  I want some high-speed camera footage of it too!

            

Applying the Rhythm Method to Afghanistan; It's Not Just For Teenage Boys

            In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, a war with Afghanistan was unavoidable unless the Taliban turned over Al Qaeda lock stock and barrel.  Many believed, including the Taliban, that Afghanistan was geographically isolated from any effective attack.  On October 7, 2001, however, that war was officially joined.  The American war effort in that country has suffered at various times from neglect, enduring a variety of strategies being employed, as well as, mission creep (which is the unexpected expansion of objectives).  It is that very mission creep that has kept the United States involved past the culmination point and there is now no hope to win that war.  This loss will ultimately be recorded as a failure of defining objectives, improper application of COIN strategies, and, finally, failing to recognize the culmination point.

            In the immediate aftermath of September 11^th the goals were simple: (1) Osama Bin Laden WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE; and (2) disband his organization.  When the Taliban government of Afghanistan decided to aid and abet Al Qaeda, deposing the Taliban was added to that list of goals.  The first and main objective of capturing or killing Bin Laden would prove difficult, in part, due to his familiarity with the geography, as well as, close personal ties.  The other part was the complicit neighboring government, Pakistan, hiding him in plain sight.  Finally, on  May 2, 2011, a date many of us remember where we were and what we were doing almost as vividly as September 11, Osama Bin Laden was killed.  The second goal was arguably met when Al Qaeda became virtually impotent, and reduced solely to self-preservation.  As time passed, however, Al Qaeda, developed an effective “road show” that has appeared in Iraq, Yemen, and Libya.  Again, as the Taliban take control back in various regions, Al Qaeda gains more places of refuge and freedom of movement.  It is likely the “Al Qaeda Road Show” is enjoying the recent success in Libya, when, on September 11, 2012, they attacked and killed the U.S. Ambassador.  While the Taliban were deposed fairly quickly, the effort has been losing ground ever since due to a failure of the Karzai government to gain legitimacy.   The Taliban influence has been on a slow and steady rise.  Today, the Taliban infiltrate or entice countless insider attacks on our troops.  Bin Laden’s death should have completed the hat trick; time to pack up and leave.  Yet, we are still there.

            So how did we end up with the “building a nation and a democracy” as objectives?  In order to be a principled nation, then it is right and proper to support burgeoning democracies wherever they are.  It is a reach for us, however, to expect that those democracies will mirror image our form of a democratic republic.  It has taken well over 200 years for American democracy to develop, and it certainly was not clear in the beginning that the country would survive.  Perhaps a pause is needed to correct the syntax.  Nation building usually addresses national identity; in other words, it comes from within.  While the U.S. uses it synonymously, often it is used to refer to state building, which address the infrastructure of a country. 

In the aftermath of World War II, the Allies found themselves occupying the devastated remains of the Axis powers.  These were once thriving, industrialized nations, now bombed to ruins.  There was a clear moral obligation, not to mention financial interest, to organize, support and assist in the reconstruction of Germany and Japan.  Afghanistan, however, was hardly industrialized and more closely resembled a Stone Age infrastructure.  Our modern airpower quickly dispensed with the handful of defense sites and runways, leaving it without traditional targets.  The targets of interest became ridges and tunnel entrances…stone targets.  Where is the moral mandate to build infrastructure that was not destroyed and, in fact, never existed?  Why stop there, should we install a science program as well?

In that vein, deposing the Taliban government did “break” their government.  Our desire to spread democracy should have been tempered with an understanding of the culture and the people.  Certainly on principle, democracy, even in its infancy, should be supported and encouraged.   At the start of OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, however, agreements were made, and assistance provided to the Northern Alliance in order to complete the overthrow of the Taliban.  Acknowledgement of a long-standing cultural tradition was embraced through agreements within a tribunal system.  While the concept of installing a democracy is noble, the culture had no attachment to such a government, especially one that takes so much effort.  236 years later, we are still fighting the dismantling of our basic concepts with seemingly antipodal concepts like collective bargaining and open ballots, etc.

            Clausewitz said that “war is politics by other means” (Clausewitz, On War, p87).  War, according to Clausewitz, is simply another tool in a diplomatic toolbox alongside the State dinner, the harshly worded demarche, and embargos.  In that context, the original objectives and even the inclusion of deposing the Taliban are consistent.  Unlike during the Cold War when President Reagan called to “tear down this wall,” the United States has not been engaged in a deliberate political effort to change the form of government in Afghanistan.  The object was of no value to the American people.  Clausewitz’s Trinity also addresses the changing nature of war, but subjugates its outcome to the people, the leadership, and the armed forces (Clausewitz, p89).   Justification for an extremely long term goal of installing a democratic government seems counter to any real understanding of the American people and American politics, which will not tolerate such a long commitment for an object of so little value to the populous.  This is in stark contrast to the length of time it took to kill Bin Laden, where the value of the object was tremendous for the American people.  The people waited patiently, and celebrated triumphantly when Bin Laden was killed.

            In contrast, one could argue that rigid adherence to predefined objectives during Desert Storm forced leaders to the truce table before capitalizing on everything our military was gaining.  It could further be argued that failure greatly contributed to the long No Fly Zone enforcements, numerous truce violations, and a desire to complete the original effort; hence requiring the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  The rigid adherence to pre-stated objectives was largely in response to the history lesson of Vietnam where a decade of mission creep obscured any real objectives.

            If the Bush administration had not been distracted by Iraq to the detriment of Afghanistan it might have all been a footnote.  When the administration did decide to pay attention to Afghanistan again, the nature of the war had seemingly changed.  It now, at least to the COIN advocates in the Marine Corps, had the appearance of Counter-Insurgency.  This more correctly draws a comparison to Vietnam.  Counter-Insurgency efforts have succeeded in places like Malaysia and the Philippines.  In fact, both the US success in the Philippines and the British success in Malaysia were accomplished with a minimum of forces and, therefore, losses.  More importantly, what each of those successes had in common was a legitimate government as an alternative to the insurgent forces.  Ramon Magsaysay was a popular President of the Philippines when the country was confronted with the 1954 Hukbalahap Rebellion.  He was able to seize the opportunity for necessary reforms and crush the communist insurrection within a year.  Hamid Karzai is no Magsaysay.  Like Vietnam, in the absence of a legitimate alternative, the people will favor the insurgency, and victory becomes a virtual impossibility.  The legitimate leadership prevailing is the Taliban.

            Again, Clausewitz advises, “beyond that point the scale turns and the reaction follows with a force that is usually much stronger than that of the original attack.  This is what we mean by the culminating point of the attack (Clausewitz, p 528).”  Napoleon proved the consequences of pressing the attack beyond the culmination point during his invasion of Russia.  While much of detecting the culmination point may be resigned to art, it is fairly clear that on May 2^nd, the United States achieved the original objectives.  In fact, the objective that remained was the establishment of a democracy, which is still a work in progress in our country 236 years later.  Referencing Clausewitz’s Trinity, it is highly doubtful that the American people had even another 10 years, yet alone 236, to see that objective to its conclusion.  While the culminating point may sometimes be hard to see, when you are desperate for an end and one happens along that meets all your original objectives then continued pursuit is clearly wrong.

            We have pressed this war beyond its culmination point by continuing past accomplishing the three original objectives that were of true value to the American people.  This is directly contrary to the advisements of Clausewitz.  The United States utilized a COIN strategy despite missing a dominant feature in order to succeed, that of a legitimate government.  The war in Afghanistan can have no other outcome at this point than defeat.  We can conduct “overtime” into perpetuity, but it will still be a loss.

Ode to the Floater Election Judge

Election Day, 2012

4:30 a.m.: An ungodly hour by anyone’s estimation, made worse by a sinus headache and scratchy throat.  Since it is such an ungodly hour, my inner voice that typically tells me not to “go there,” offers a very depraved thought that is somewhere along the lines of, “Well, if I must be there all day – perhaps I can pass my cold to others.”  Give me a break, we all have these thoughts at some point, and 4:35 a.m. in my bathroom, looking at the dark circles under my eyes, and the twisted, ratty matt that is my hair is when I do it.  Deal with it…

5:15 a.m.:

Travel cup filled – check

Lunch packed – check (hope there is a microwave!)

Medicine for the day – check

Snacks – check

5:32 a.m.:

Bag with all the above items (except coffee- or as I like to call it, “the elixir of life”) – left in vehicle in my haste to get into the building on time – check

Long day ahead virtually assured.

               

The room is filled with approximately 40 other floater judges, as we wait for assignments to come in and send us to various polling places.  So happy I did not leave my coffee in the truck.

8:15 a.m.:  A handful of people have left.  I am now officially awake.  I really hope they have not called my name as I tried to appear fully cognizant reading my book; in all actuality, I was completely zoning out.

9:38 a.m.:  About 1/3 have been assigned.  There are pockets of people striking up conversations and temporary friendships that will last for this day only, and be a mere memory hereafter.  This is one of those moments in time that will be followed with “the woman I sat next to on election day – she was really a nice person – what was her name? Oh, well, no matter” recollections.  Right now, most everyone in the room is engaging in this ritual.  I am possibly the only one who is not.  Well, the guy next to me is not, either.  He has his back to me, using the counter to “do work,” which is what he told someone who tried to engage him in a temporary friendship.  How very non-descript – I expect he is lying (or taking notes about all of us, which is just rude!).  I am at the back of the room, alone, which is odd because I am usually very social and great at the temporary friendship to make the time pass.  Must be the sinus headache.

9:45 a.m.:  Coffee is empty.  All hope is now gone.

10:15 a.m.:  Donuts!  Less excited because there is no coffee – but suffering through like the champ I am in these adverse conditions.

11:09 a.m.:  Meds wearing off.  Am acutely aware that they are sitting in the front seat of my truck, basically ineffective.  Have emailed husband from my iPhone, blaming him.  Later I will claim it was due to  illness. 

The busy man next to me has turned around, apparently done with his “work.”  I discover he is a pastor – not so much from talking to him, but rather the tell-tale collar of the clergy.  Apparently, he was busy.  I endeavor not to judge people in the future, especially ones that seem to have a higher calling, and probably have their calls to the “higher” answered.  Bad juju – probably one step closer to hell. 

11:24 a.m.:  Am in love with a younger man.  He has appeared with two (count them – 2!) boxes of coffee (which is similar to the box o’ wine, but better!). 

Have succumbed to the pastor next to me – we are now temporary buddies.  I am sure I have made a wise decision, as it can only help to have him as a friend, even temporarily, given his occupation, as well as his long-term friends.  He has informed me that if we are not assigned by noon, we are dismissed, but still paid for the entire day.  We are now waiting for noon.

11:58 a.m.:  My new temporary friend keeps looking at the clock, and has informed me we are in the clear, with only two minutes left.  “What could come up in two minutes?”  He is very excited at the prospect of going home to sit, and getting paid for it (because sitting here, doing nothing and getting paid for it is a hardship).

Noon:  Jinxed.  I have broken all temporary friendship ties with the pastor, and will not go to his church.

I head out to my assignment, a 25 minute drive away.  First stop, Starbucks, where I buy two Venti coffees.  Don’t judge me.

Veterans' Day from a Veteran's POV

    This year I actually want something for Veterans Day. I know it has become a day where we all say, "thank you," to a veteran. Either a veteran we know or one we find in uniform. As one in uniform, I want to be the first to say that I sincerely appreciate the consideration displayed when someone thanks me. Not really for myself, but for my family, for my troops, for those that have given more than I have, and especially for those that are not around to receive it. You honor them with your thanks and on this one one small issue I will endeavor to speak for all veterans when I say that the pleasure has been ours to serve you.
    Veterans Day started as Armistice Day by Woodrow Wilson on November 11th, 1919. On June 1st, 1954 by act of Congress, it became known as Veterans Day. It was designed to reflect with solemn pride the victory achieved on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918. It was supposed to mark the end of the war to end all wars, World War I. World War I was especially bloody because it at once recognized a great leap forward in technology and leadership that was unable to change to the new environment. Unfortunately, those that crafted the armistice demanded too great a price in their arrogance and in ignorance set the stage for the next world war.
    Now, we get to the part where I distance myself from my fellow veterans and make a request. It is not the usual request, and many will scratch their heads, and wonder why I would make it. If you value veterans, however, then I want you to thank someone that says something that truly offends you. Shake hands with the friend that opposes your politics. Comment positively on an online article by the journalist that endeavors to expose flaws in the policy you love or the candidate you support. I want you to do it in the same spirit that the veteran serves after someone burns the flag of our great nation; sings loudly over the voice that doesn't know the words to the national anthem; bites his tongue when someone fails to salute the flag properly, or instruct their children not to be disrespectful during the Pledge of Allegiance or America the Beautiful, or bows his head in quiet reflection when someone is censored or jailed for exercising their rights. Nothing that I can think of offends a veteran (or at least this one) more than these actions, yet it is proof positive that our work and sacrifice was successful and not in vain. So after 26 years, I have these simple requests.
    While you are thanking a vet, remember to thank his spouse. They are the forgotten entity in the remembrance of sacrifice, because their sacrifice does not involve placing their lives on the line. Their job requires maintaining the status quo while their spouse fights for your rights. Don't know who they are? They are the people who cannot get a job because their résumé shows that they do do not stay at one position for more than a year or two at most. They are the ones who cannot always be at the PTA meeting because they are the only parent that can drive each child to their respective sporting events, and cheer for each, even if it is for only five minutes before leaving to pick up the other child. They are the ones that will not go to "Girls Night Out" because they may miss a call from their deployed spouse, and may not have another chance for a month. They need thanks also; but mostly they need support.
     So smile at the person who offends you; they are helping to keep you free. Listen attentively and respectfully to your friend that opposes your view; they are keeping the process free. Thank the journalist that reveals things you wish they hadn't before the upcoming election; they have just ensured your vote is of free will and not of ignorant mind. Heartily thank those who offend you, it is what every (or at least, this) veteran does when you thank him. In a time where the lines of civility, friendship and acceptance of others has been blurred, it seems imperative to remember why veterans are needed. Veterans fight the good fight; the fight that must be waged. It is the security, retention and protection of the rights that we all hold so dear. So keep this in mind this Veterans Day - every time a veteran is offended, he knows he has done his job.

The Gore-y Details of Hurricane Sandy and Global Warming

            Grant money!  Every major event is an opportunity to pocket some cash if you are smart about it and position yourself just right.  Hurricane Sandy was bound to break out the moneybags for those that have positioned themselves in the Global Warming apocalypse crowd.  Go to the internet and both sides are speaking “truth” at you (and I choose “at” deliberately.)  So, is there any hope of finding truth?  Not really because this is a well crafted conspiracy theory type argument so either side can argue that it is isolated data or watered down data.  The new fence sitters choose the position of Global Climate Change which is really just the sister sorority of Oxygen Breathers R Us.  We are all now unwitting pawns in a greed struggle.  What the whole argument lacks is a healthy dose of common sense.

            Plenty of evidence exists to support science’s claim that the planet has endured dramatic freezing and thawing cycles.  Apparently, the solid rock beneath our feet that we take for granted is actually hurtling through space at a rather high rate of speed and while on a fairly predictable orbit about the Sun it experiences slight variations and shifts in the tilt of its axis.  There have been at least five major Ice Ages on the planet Earth, the Huronian, the Cryogenian, the Andean-Saharan, the Karoo, and the Quaternary glaciation.  In the Quaternary glaciation one can count as many as eight interglacials, the most recent of which ended 20,000 years ago[i].  20,000 years ago, aren’t we about due for another?  Well, indeed apparently others caught on to that question as well; so starting in the 1940’s we can witness a steady rise in hypotheses of global cooling.

            Remember when most of us were in school and the next Ice Age was coming?  In the 1960’s saw the steady rise of interest in this subject becoming formalized at conferences and in studies.  In 1968, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb, and referenced the “greenhouse effect” created by increases in carbon dioxide that cause global cooling.[ii]  Where have we heard that one recently…oh yeah, that is the alleged cause of global warming.  Do not have one of these people draw your bath water!  This hysteria reached its climax (I resisted using climatic climax) circa 1975.  Newsweek magazine pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968."  The article claimed, "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.[iii]"  Ah, the makings of a conspiracy theory, the evidence is insurmountable and the experts just can’t keep up.  Oh well, this is still a moneymaker for Hollywood into the 80’s.

            Now fast forward, and add the fact that apparently being an ex-Vice President is not a highly sought after or desirable job, which necessitates supplemental income.  If the data fell through on global cooling maybe we can just start from there and call it global warming.  Victory and cash!  Couple of convenient books later and the conspiracy argument is complete and ready to defend against all critics.  If it is exceptionally cold, then global warming causes dramatic vacillations.  If it is a hot summer day, well, then duh.  Have a case of severe weather?  Well, do I have an argument for you.  This brings us eventually to Hurricane Sandy, the most recent and tragically devastating storm to hit the East coast.  In true Saul Alinsky form, never miss an opportunity to capitalize (irony intended) on a catastrophe.  Cue the media to capture the stunned New Jersey resident looking at his flattened house and saying, “this only happens in Missouri.”  Replay and print!

            That’s it, right?  Not everyone is on board.  I know, we have already dealt with those too ignorant to perceive the truth.  But what if unlike most of us who are merely participants in the planets daily weather game, these naysayers were experts?  One is an outspoken chief meteorologist of Accuweather.  Reliable source?  Don’t know; but I do know I determine whether my commute will be by car or by motorcycle everyday based on Accuweather and am rarely disappointed.  In a transcript from a recent radio appearance Joe Bastardi states, “My father used to call it “the shortcut storm.” He said he was confident he would see it before his days were numbered, and he's finally seen it, okay? That's the first thing. Second thing is, get used to it along the East Coast. Maybe not this kind of track, but we are in a perilous time because the Atlantic's warm; the Pacific's cold. It's the 1950s all over again. It has nothing to do with global warming, it has everything to do with nature, and then we'll go back to where we were in the sixties and seventies.[iv]”

            So who is right?  Not sure.  But as long as people are profiting from their version, I choose to be skeptical, especially in the face of dramatic evidence that this planet has endured massive changes long before and I’m sure long after man.  Add to that we are merely riders on an intergalactic baseball subject to odd fluctuations.  If that isn’t enough to give you pause, then spend a little time at sea, weathering a couple of storms out there is good for clarity and reflection.

---

[i] . "Global Cooling." Wikipedia. N.p.. Web. 1 Nov 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling>.

[ii] Ibid

[iii] Peter Gwynne (April 28, 1975). "The Cooling World". Newsweek.

[iv] . "Bastardi: Global Warming Didn't Cause Sandy." Fox Nation. N.p., 30 2012. Web. 1 Nov 2012. <http://nation.foxnews.com/global-warming/2012/10/30/bastardi-global-warming-didnt-cause-sandy>.

We're Here For You...No, Wait...We're Here For Them!

So, I have been silent on the whole New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg’s apparent need to correct the ails of the world, or New York City, at any rate, one Big Gulp at a time.  In a time when New York and New Jersey residents are in need of assistance to make it through another day, however, the Mayor and New York City Marathon Race officials have determined that it is in the best interests to “let the show go on.”

Really?  With thousands of people without power, it is a better use of those massive generators to sit and warm the little toes of the judges as they drink coffee in their heated tent?  The people who are surrounded by salt water, without a single drop to drink should realize that the cases and cases of water being delivered for the race participants is a better use of those resources?

The argument for the race continuing is that it generates a great deal of revenue for the city.  Great.  However, at what cost?  People not only in New York and New Jersey, but across the country are wondering what the heck is going on.  Why have this race when people are trying to figure out where they are going to live now that their houses and all their belongings are either out to sea, or buried under 10 feet of sand?

Mayor Bloomberg is criticizing the critics by stating, "For those who were lost, you've got to believe they would want us to have an economy and have a city go on for those that they left behind."  Not even you, Mayor Bloomberg, could be that arrogant to think that people who lost their lives would support using resources for runners over sending it to their loved ones that are trying to survive on nothing.  The fact that he could even invoke the dead in support of this decision shows how completely out of touch he is with what has actually happened in his city and state.  People have no food, and are resorting to dumpster diving to find something to eat.  People have no water to drink, no gas for their generators, and nowhere to go after the shelter that has been their home for the past week, finally closes up and sends them packing.

Race officials point to post 9/11 New York, and the decision at that time to go forward with the race despite the horrendous terrorist attacks.  Wow, can you compare apples to oranges to bananas?  That is truly – well, BANANAS!  While it is true that the race was a source of pride for New Yorkers post 9/11, and was used as a way to show the world the city’s resilience, there are two major differences between then and now.  First, New York was essentially giving the finger to Bin Laden and his minions through an alliteration of “you can kick us, but you cannot keep us down!”  Exactly whom is Mayor Bloomberg and the NYRR trying to shove the finger at in this situation?  Mother Nature?  Good call…I would not do it, but hey, that’s just me.  I also would not have this race!

Second, New Yorkers supported the race in 2001.  It only works if everyone is behind it.  It is a great idea if it actually inspires people, and makes them say, “yeah, we may be down, but we are not out!”  Instead what you have is people waiting in line for hours on end for gas to fill their generators, only to find that the gas station has been out of gas for the past hour, and now have to find another open station and play the same waiting game.  People will not back an action were they perceive the city is catering to visitors and not taking care of their own.  They do not care that there is the potential of big revenues.  They want heat, and coffee, and water, and a tent!  They want enough power in their neighborhood to charge their cell phones so they can contact people and agencies in order to get help, and start back on the road to recovery.  They don’t want some skinny Kenyan running through the streets to cheers and accolades, they want the skinny Kenyan to bring them his bottle of water and give them his shoes, since they haven’t had a dry pair on in days.

Just as post 9/11 brought the country together, and people donated money, supplies, clothes, whatever they could to help out New Yorkers, we are all doing it again.  We are here for the people of New York and New Jersey.  NYRR, however, stated “These are our private generators.  We are not draining any resources from the city’s plan to recover.”  The City’s plan to recover includes getting resources to all those affected, and includes donations from private individuals and entities to aide in that effort.  So, why not put them to good use?  Take them into a neighborhood, and give people power for a day.  Ask the race participants to forego the race, and help with recovery.  Have them run around passing out water bottles, purification tablets, clothes, shoes, diapers, anything!  Ask them to frequent their favorite restaurants in New York, and then ask them to donate food to a homeless family in a shelter.   

I firmly believe the show must go on…I just don’t agree with the show they have chosen.  It should not be the New York City Marathon; it should be the People of New York and New Jersey – We Will Survive and Be Stronger! 

The News You Need, Not The News You Want

Well, we have no shortage of news channels and websites that fill their time and white space with lots of news.  Exactly whose news, though?  We have been bombarded by non-issues, and much ado has been made over each candidate’s view on Roe v Wade.  Last time I read the Constitution, I missed the part in Article II that gave either the power to overturn a Supreme Court decision, if they won.  You might as well argue which one is going to change the Earth’s orbit around the Sun.  Oh wait, that won’t happen either.  On the other hand, there are a number of stories that seem to be getting little analytical coverage.   You have to search far and wide to find coverage of some very key issues.  Furthermore, analysis, and by that I mean objective analysis, on foreign policy is even harder.  Remember when the problems oversees and, oh by the way, 9-11 (the original) were not because the interest of the United States run contrary to some places, just as theirs run contrary to ours, but it was because we “meddled” and “asked for it.”  Remember in 2009 when President Obama spoke in Cairo.

“…tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations…

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.[i]”

            Problem solved, right?  Well, how could you possibly know? What’s more, some will argue that foreign policy is immaterial and a waste of money.  It did not prove to be immaterial to the United Kingdom when Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Germany in 1938.  It did not prove to be immaterial to the United States and Pearl Harbor after a series of embargos on a small Japanese country seeking global resources.  It was not insignificant or a waste when the Continental Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin as the Minister to France to secure their support.  It has always mattered and it always will.  Here’s another news flash.  It has always been a global economy, which is why navies and trade routes were established, and exist today.  Columbus did not set out to earn the reputation of the first bio warfare specialist; he was searching for trade routes for global goods on a global economy of 1497.  Too often we confuse the speed of transit with globalization.

            There are countless areas of foreign policy that should more than interest us and for various reasons.  South America not only has a potential rising power, Brazil, but also several countries that represent the genesis of drug trafficking.  Mexico’s depressed economy has spawned a wave of illegal immigration, which is exacerbated by providing cover to drug cartels and potential terrorist organizations, both seeking entry into our country.  Let us not forget the rising power of China, the still separate and volatile Koreas, and the nation of Japan that has been rocked by catastrophes.  All of that aside, the intent here is to examine the news out of the Middle East after three years of a new engagement policy.

            There is a school of thought prevalent in America that we deserved the attacks on September 11, 2001.  The innuendos surround the bombardment of countries and commission of war crimes, almost always without specificity, however stating the targets were Muslims.  It can only be assumed that persons of this school of thought specifically mean OPERATION DESERT STORM (Iraq ’91), OPERATION DENY FLIGHT (BOSNIA ’93-’95) and OPERATION NOBLE ANVIL (Kosovo ’99).  While Muslims were the targets, they were also the object of protection.  It is like saying that every death in the American Civil War was an American death.  So, any act of violence in another country is bad and is inviting trouble for us?  In spite of a desire to avoid the appearance of colonization, we have engaged in Libya and Egypt. 

Obviously, this administration inherited two wars, so our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is explicable.  We have, however, engaged remotely controlled pilotless air vehicles to fire missiles into other countries, and at unprecedented levels, since Obama’s 2009 speech.  According to an analysis of US drone strikes in Pakistan, drone attacks have killed between 1100-1800 civilians and militants there.[ii]  Add another 500-1000 mixed militant and civilians killed in Yemen and Somalia[iii].  The news we get of these operations is of the death of a militant leader.  We fail to get a discussion or analysis of the applicability of the War Powers Act, whether it is lawful to target these leaders given their apparent proximity to civilians, and say nothing of the fact that these individuals are in countries where we have no expressed hostilities.   Furthermore, this would seem to run contrary to the cessation of “colonialist” policies that would deny rights and opportunities to Muslims.  In fact, a Twitter post from a Yemeni lawyer stated, “DEAR OBAMA, when a U.S. drone missile kills a child in Yemen, the father will go to war with you, guaranteed. Nothing to do with Al Qaeda.[iv] “  Either we have mischaracterized the nature of the “radical Islamic” problem we face or there seems to have been a conscious decision to maintain the pre-2008 status quo and modus operandi.

            In 2008, it was argued that Iraq was a distraction from the justified effort in Afghanistan.  We are led to believe all is won and the effort should end.   The President spoke in October at a Florida venue saying, “Four years ago, I told you we’d end the war in Iraq, and I did. I said we’d end the war in Afghanistan, and we are. I said we’d refocus on the people who actually attacked us on 9/11—and today, al-Qaeda is on the run and Osama bin Laden is dead.[v]”  The administration announced that the end of the effort in Afghanistan was drawing to a close, and yet deaths from Green on Blue attacks, (Afghanistani Army and Police attack US and Coalition forces) have risen from 2 in 2008 to 55 so far in 2012[vi].  In the midst of this, the administration announced plans to negotiate with the Taliban.  The sticking point appears to be, “the Taliban are internally divided and unwilling to meet Washington’s demands to sever all ties to Al Qaeda, renounce violence and accept the commitments to political and human rights in Afghanistan’s Constitution.[vii][viii]”  When renouncing violence is cause for an impasse, one must question whether we have chosen the correct partner and been consistent with our policies and values.   

There is a raging war in the United States with the government siding to protect women and their “lady parts,” yet there is hardly a peep when a 22-year-old Afghan woman is shot and killed for committing adultery[ix].  Think she had that coming? How about the 20-year-old Afghan woman that was beheaded for refusing to become a prostitute at her mother-in-law’s insistence[x]?  Finally, there are the Taliban in Pakistan, and before one argues that Pakistan is not Afghanistan, ask where Bin Laden was killed?  There the Taliban decide to board a bus of school children and shoot two girls multiple times including a headshot[xi].  Their crime, one advocated for girls education since she was 11 (she is now 14), and the other pointed her out. 

            So it is clear that the attacks of 9/11 were the reason for our action in Afghanistan.  Less clear is our action in Iraq, however, the country seems well rid of a tyrant and he wasn’t our tyrant.  Saddam Hussein prior to OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM was doing as much as he could to bog the US down.  The reasons for our actions with Libya and support in Egypt are less clear.  It should have been evident that while Mubarak was less nice, he maintained a stable and semi-sympathetic government.  It should have also been clear that anything else was an unknown.  Libya, even more astonishingly, had turned to the US after OIF and voluntarily relinquished it WMD programs.  Kaddafi’s reward was US aircraft supporting rebels against his government resulting in another overthrown government with the assistance of our hand.  Our dividend for our investment is a dead Ambassador and three security guards.  Clausewitz advises that if the value of the object is high enough then it is appropriate to conduct politics “by other means.”  Was the value of the object worth the price of 4 dead Americans?

            The deaths of those Americans were unavoidable, right?  Well, many are believers of coincidence when it suits their narrative.  Those of us that have careers where we are held accountable for our decisions, however, might look at this slightly differently.  Here’s an accounting of what led up to the State Department issuing a Travel Warning for Libya on 27 Aug 2012 and the subsequent attack on 11 Sep 2012.

•                      April 10, 2012 - A convoy carrying the head of the UN mission to Libya on a visit to Benghazi is attacked with an improvised bomb. The bomb misses its target by a few meters but leaves "a small hole in the road."

•                      May 22, 2012 - A rocket propelled grenade is fired at the compound of the Red Cross in Benghazi.

•                      June 6, 2012 - A bomb is thrown at the gate outside the US Consulate in Benghazi. This is the same location where the deadly attack that killed four Americans took place on 9/11.

•                      June 11, 2012 - A rocket propelled grenade is fired at a convoy carrying the British ambassador as he approaches his consulate in Benghazi. The ambassador is unharmed but two bodyguards are injured.

•                      July 31, 2012 - Seven Red Crescent officials are kidnapped by a Benghazi militia.

•                      September 2, 2012 - A bomb is placed in the car of a Libyan intelligence official. It explodes on one of the busiest streets in Benghazi, killing him.[xii]

It would seem that there were adequate indications that security problems existed in the region.  Imagine if this was the timeline of a child molester in the days and months leading up to an abduction and murder.  Would we feel that the local authorities had done all they could?  I doubt it.  It would seem that in all likelihood September 11, 2012, and the 4 American deaths were avoidable, if anyone had paid attention.

            Then there was the October 11, 2012 (curious recurring day, Batman) drive-by assassination of a U.S. Embassy security official in Yemen.  “Yemeni officials said the killing bore the hallmarks of an attack by the al-Qaida offshoot in Yemen.[xiii]” Apparently another example of al-Qaida “on the run.”  Perhaps, officials are confusing “running” or “attacking” with “on-the-run.”

While this discussion has centered on countries where the US has taken action, there are two countries where continued inaction may result in an equally negative result; Syria and Iran.  With “the U.S., Israel, European allies, and Gulf States on one side and Iran, China, and Russia on the other – and their efforts to preserve their vital interests, escalation into a conflict with Iran is likely to pit power blocs against each-other in a confrontation reminiscent of 20th century war politics.[xiv]”  Syria due to its resources, location, and politics becomes the focus of a proxy war for influence in a critical region with Iran being a chief ally.  “Syrian society is fraught with cleavages – Alawite vs Sunni, Sunni vs Minorities, Arab vs Kurd, Secular vs Islamist, Rural vs Urban, as well as class divisions.[xv]”  Combine this with the historic support and obvious terrorist population and US interests become far more apparent than they could have been imagined in Libya and Egypt.

            The leadership of Iran makes absolutely no secret of its desire to become the regional hegemony or disguise Anti-Zionist views and statements.  It makes only minimal efforts to veil the goal of not only becoming a nuclear power, but also developing its own nuclear weapons.  But, surely we haven’t faltered here.  Only if you put in context our intervention in Libya, our support in Eygpt, and the likely funneling of weapons to Syria against the 2009 protests in Iran.  Arguably, the first “Arab (well Persian, maybe that was the difference) Spring” and the most significant to our interest, yet there was hardly an acknowledgment.  The event was of course made infamous by the killing of a young woman, Neda Agha-Soltan when it was captured on video and aired on YouTube -  and still the U.S. held tight.[xvi] 

One of the main limitations preventing any Iranian nuclear program from being a direct threat to the continental United States is the lack of a delivery vehicle.  Iran, however, is a country that openly supports terrorists.  Can there really be any doubt that it would use its ties to such organizations to deploy a newly developed nuclear weapon if so provoked, or that it might not take much “provocation” to meet their criteria?  All countries that have developed a nuclear weapon have felt obligated to detonate one, if not their only, in order to prove it to the world.  This usually takes place as a test in a semi-controlled region; but what if it doesn’t?

            If there is a coherent US foreign policy in this region, it is not clear that its principles can be found in the President’s 2009 Cairo speech, or that it has ever been articulated to the American people.  Instead, “we the people” are left to fend for ourselves for news, the more important leads of which seem to be frequently buried.  The result is a smoke and mirrors foreign policy that ebbs and flows more cyclically than the tides.   

---

[i] Obama, Barrack. "Text: Obama’s Speech in Cairo." New York Times Politics. New York Times, 4 2009. Web. 19 Oct 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html?

[ii] "The Year of the Drone: An Analysis of U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2012". New America Foundation. http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones. Retrieved 10 October 2012.  

[iii] Ross, Alice. "Covert War on Terror." The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. N.p., 15 2012. Web. 20 Oct 2012. <http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/10/15/counting-the-bodies-in-the-pakistani-drone-campaign/>.

[iv] Monthana, Ibrahim. "The NYT Opinion Page." The New York Time. N.p., 13 2012. Web. 20 Oct 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/opinion/how-drones-help-al-qaeda.html>.

[v] Dale, Helle. "The Foundry, Trending." Obama Changes Stump Speech: Al-Qaeda No Longer “on the Run”. The Heritage Network, 18 2012. Web. 20 Oct 2012. <http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/obama-changes-stump-speech-al-qaeda-no-longer-on-the-run/>.

[vi] Roggio, Bill, and Lisa Lundquist. "Green-on-blue attacks in Afghanistan: the data." The Long War Journal. N.p., 16 2012. Web. 20 Oct 2012. <http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/08/green-on-blue_attack.php>.

[vii] . "The New York Times Opinion Pages." Peace Talks With the Taliban. N.p., 4 2012. Web. 20 Oct 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion/peace-talks-with-the-taliban.html?_r=0>.

[viii] . "US 'committed to Afghan talks' despite Taliban suspension." BBC News Asia. BBC, 16 2012. Web. 20 Oct 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17393837>.

[ix] . "New York Daily News." Afghans protest public execution of woman, 22. N.p., 11 2012. Web. 20 Oct 2012. <http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-07-11/news/32636536_1_afghan-woman-afghan-advocates-taliban-member>.

[x] "Afghan woman beheaded for refusing to be a prostitute Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/19/afghan-woman-beheaded-for-refusing-sex-with-man-report-says/?test=latestnews

[xi] . "Taliban shoot teenage Pakistani girl activist outside school Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/09/taliban-shoot-teenage-pakistani-girl-activist/

[xii] Sexton, John. "STATE DEPT. ISSUED LIBYA TRAVEL WARNING TWO WEEKS BEFORE ATTACK." Breitbart.com. Breitbart, 18 2012. Web. 31 Oct 2012. <http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/18/State-Dept-Issued-Travel-Warning-for-Libya-2-Weeks-Before-Consulate-Attack>.

[xiii] . "Yemeni security official for US embassy killed in drive-by shooting." The Guardian. N.p., 11 2012. Web. 31 Oct 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/11/yemeni-security-us-embassy-killed>.

[xiv] Geleta, Atkilt. "Syria, Iran, and Israel: tensions and potential consequences." Peace and Conflict Monitor. N.p., 2 2012. Web. 21 Oct 2012. <http://www.monitor.upeace.org/innerpg.cfm?id_article=944>.

[xv] ibid

[xvi] Fathi, Nazila. "In a Death Seen Around the World, a Symbol of Iranian Protests." The New York Times Middle East. The New York Times, 22 2009. Web. 31 Oct 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/world/middleeast/23neda.html>.

Politics from the Playground

          Yesterday at dinner, our youngest daughter reported on how her school had conducted a “Bullying and Bias” assembly.  Well, as usual, my wife and I listened attentively to determine if we were going to have to (1) augment the lesson, (2) re-teach the lesson, (3) or schedule a meeting with the school administration.  Well, no drama there, but I was reminded of it later in the evening during the presidential debate.  To watch the debate and the FB posts that followed, I felt a bit like a 44 year old under “playground rules”.  I have to commend my FB friends though, they either stay completely out of it or they at least made the effort to post logical arguments and counters.  It is clear that FB is not the best place for political debates, and twitter is - flat out - the realm of sound bites.  In the end, most FB debates end with a version of the parental favorite, “because I say so.”  I am perplexed by the shift to “schoolyard politics” and worry that in our haste to get information quickly we have lost the art of the argument and debate.

                To say politics has changed over the years is an understatement.   For starters, both parties embraced television and the notion of the sound bite.  The political parties have undergone a rebranding of sorts, each trying to claim they are the representatives of the majority of citizens.  This has met with very few successes.  The only one that immediately comes to mind is the brilliant achievement the Democrats have had with revising history and stereotyping.  The Democrats have been so successful in this narrative that they are now the party of minority African Americans.  I frequently have to re-read the history books on Jim Crow laws, segregation, and the KKK to ensure that my memory is still correct, and that these were all Democrat initiatives that were then “corrected” by the Republicans.  The coup de grace, however, is the assertion by the Democrats that Republicans are rich, and rich equates to evil.  This was brilliantly executed.  Save that win, however, there have been no true successes in how politics are currently conducted.    Television and the convenience of the internet developing and honing the sound bite have gradually made the general public increasingly ignorant.  Enter the talking heads to explain politics to the ignorant masses, and the sound bite editors to keep it simple for everyone to understand.  The less the masses know about specifics, the less they will actually question the issue.  Somewhere around 2004, people started exercising some of those underutilized recesses of their brains and the electorate starting becoming more educated…well, at least in the arguments that interested them.  Unfortunately, most only go to the sites that mirror their own beliefs, and support their contentions.  They do not actually want information – they want reaffirmation.  Presto!  Instant pundit.

                So maybe with so many pundits we have simply lost the ability to debate.  This is one of many areas that I truly admire and respect my wife.  She loves the anatomy of an argument.  I’m serious.  It may be because of her chosen profession or maybe it is taught in law school, but she loves and studies every aspect of an argument, any argument, from either side.  It makes absolutely no difference to her which side she argues, at least in the beginning.  In contrast to her elegance, as usual, is my more Draconian approach; study the subject, form an opinion, then fight allowing for the occasional regroup.  Again this is possibly a result of training and experience since the majority of my life I have been a uniformed warrior.   Barring the readymade “re-post if you like/believe/care/love/etc” arguments made on those comfortable websites that cater to our desires, most of the arguments poised on Facebook have been provocative and engaging.  To be fair, even some of the readymade re-posts could be worthy, with some fact checking and research.   There is, however, a propensity to resort to the ad hominem.  I’ve seen arguments in the last 12 hours like, “they are slime because I say so,” and “I am against EVERYTHING that man (name withheld) is for.”  So maybe we could use some refinement of our arguments.  Debate and argument are becoming a lost art in a world of sound bites and instant information.  Pundits offer an issue, or criticism, but it is only a tertiary glimpse without any real substance or facts to support.  Relaying, re-tweeting, or reposting only the sound bite opens the door to the hyperbolic argument, since there is no real information available regarding the issue.  The inability to formulate an argument, or effectively debate an issue, leads to the “schoolyard politics” which leads to the ad hominem, name-calling, or personal attacks.   

                The current election has a sense of volatility, with each party making the opposition candidate a virtual blight on humanity.  Is Romney evil?  Is Obama awful?  A closer investigation of these two men and their histories indicates they are both smart men, dedicated to their beliefs.  There is clearly an intense divide between the parties, and it seems unbelievable that there really are “undecided’s” out there.  Perhaps the volatility between the two parties would be marginal if elected officials were held accountable by the masses – not just the opposition.  The President may be on the fast track to re-election if only a few officials had been held answerable along the way.  Certainly the pundits tell us that any show of weakness is bad, but history has shown that it is accountability and responsibility that are the true tests of strength.  The never ending saga of Libya is a good example.  The issue could have been a non-issue within a few days if the President and his Administration would have explained that a mistake was made, rumor was offered as fact unintentionally, and that person will be held responsible.  Done.  Most Americans go to work and are held accountable for the job performed.  It is directly linked, in most cases, with compensation and retention.  It cannot be any real surprise that there is this mess when our elected officials continually get a pass.  It is a misnomer that the power of the electorate is linked to the particular elected officials.   That is an illusion.  The power Americans possess, by virtue of voting, is to hold elected officials accountable.   Shying away from that responsibility results in our abdicating the only power we possess.  When holding our officials liable for their actions becomes the norm, I suspect actual tolerance will increase, and perhaps, there might even be some…dare I say it…satisfaction with the officials that we didn’t vote for.