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.