Memorial Day 2011

Memorial Day should be a day when we all stop and think. It is not enough to simply set aside a day, attach a label to it, and then return to the grill. A memorial is nothing more then an object that serves as a focus for our memory. But, whether it is a picture, a folded flag, or simply some obscure artifact with a relationship to someone known only to the holder; a memorial requires that we engage our intellect. Every memorial requires that we both know something about the individuals and events that are the focus of the memorial, and that we spend the time to remember, that we dwell on the memory.

So, on Memorial Day, what we should be remembering?

The most obvious – and partially correct – answer is that we should remember those who died in the service of our country. But, this is only a partial answer. To truly appreciate the sacrifice of all that have died for our country, we need to understand two things: first, we need to understand why these soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen, coast guardsmen, and a fair number of civilians (who are often forgotten) gave up their lives?

There is an old – and true – adage that soldiers in foxholes fight for their buddies. But, while true, that is a bit too simplistic. From time immemorial soldiers have fought and died to protect their buddies, whatever side they were on. The riders of the Mongol hordes that ravaged central Asia fought and died for their comrades. But no one remembers them.

There is a thread that runs through every war the US has fought. And whether or not that war was in fact the product of the convoluted logic of cynical politicians who either willfully or inadvertently misled the nation – and those uniform - the thread remains. That thread is this: America fights for right. Their will be the cynical who will deny this, and cite a long list of examples, probably starting in the 1800s, in an attempt to show that this or that war was nothing more than a power grab, a bit of ‘imperialism,’ an act of pure conquest.

But for the soldiers and sailors, for the men who actually fought the nation’s wars, that has never been the case. Since the birth of this nation, the youth of this nation have left home, picked up their weapons and packs and headed to war out of a conviction that what they were doing was the right, the true, the moral thing to do. Yes, certainly, they joined for adventure, for comradeship, even for the pay. But beneath the youthful bravado there remains this thread, this belief that America did not fight for empire but for freedom and justice. The politicians, and many of the generals, may have been bitter, cynical practitioners of ‘realpolitik,’ but that does not and cannot change the fact that the soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines fought for what they believed was right. We honor and remember them for that belief.

Second, it is important to remember what they gave up. No one ever went off to war without a choice. Even when drafted there is almost always some means to avoid the front lines. The fact is that while everyone talks ‘a good game’ of avoiding the dangerous and difficult side of warfare, in the final analysis few act on those words. Rather, they ‘shoulder their pack’ and move ‘towards the sounds of cannons.’ We, as a nation and a people, must be ever grateful that they do. But we need to be mindful of what those that died gave up, so that we might live our lives. They gave up their freedom and all the enjoyment of everyday life – for life in the service is devoid of a wide range of liberties that we all enjoy; they gave up their careers and dreams; they gave up their families and their loves; and in the end they gave up their lives. Everything that they had or were, everything that they might do or become, offered up so that others may enjoy the blessings of freedom.

This great nation of ours is a land filled with nearly infinite possibilities. We can do anything we set our minds to do. But it requires some sacrifice. No achievement comes without sacrifice. We are all charged with using our lives here on earth to improve the world around us, to make use of the gifts we have been given to make things better. That will require some sacrifice. Those that we remember today have given, as Lincoln said, ‘the last full measure of devotion’ to the idea of America. Let us remember them, remember their sacrifice, and awake tomorrow determined that their sacrifice was worth it, that we too will sacrifice a bit, that we will build a new and greater nation, one that will continue to be that ‘city on a hill.’

May they all Rest In Peace.

Whither Israel (and Palestine)?

Winston Churchill once noted that if he had his druthers, every country on earth would be an island. His point, and history continues to prove him right in places as far apart as Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Afghanistan, is that a country must have secure borders if it is to avoid war and survive in the long term.

Geography may not dictate the absolute fate of a nation or a people, but it can’t be ignored. There is no place where that is more obvious then in the ongoing struggle surrounding the state of Israel and its ongoing conflict with the Palestinians. The issue of Israel’s borders has come to the front and center of the news lately with President Obama’s call for Israel to return to its pre-1967 war borders as a starting point for negotiations. But the real center of this struggle is precisely the issue Churchill was addressing: security and secure borders. Yet, despite all the discussions and proposals for peace in the Mid-East, discussions about exchanging land for security, the need to establish proper borders, allow access to this or that city or town, and provide for adequate land for farming and housing, it seems that no one recognizes this issue at its most fundamental level, and therefore they have yet to reach the obvious (and painful) conclusion.

In 1947 the UN Special Committee on Palestine recommended the partition of Palestine into two states: a Jewish state and an Arab state. (The Committee also recommended forming an international state around Jerusalem.)

I must assume that in doing so they wished for those two states to be viable. That they actually established states that were not viable as formed must be attributed to the belief that in the wake of the largest and bloodiest war in history there was hope that simply getting the states started would be such a positive event that the further difficulties might be worked out without resort to bloodshed. The other option is that it was a cynical act by many involved who fully expected a war to follow. In either case, a war did follow, and the existing states of the region (Israel and it’s neighbors and their respective borders) look little like the original UN recommendation. There are many reasons for that, but one underlying issue is that the original states were not, from a geopolitical perspective, viable.

Traditionally, states have been said to be real, viable states when they meet the following criteria:

Raison d’etre: a clear reason why, the ‘thing’ that provides a people an identity as French or Italian or Indonesian. When a people who view themselves as first and foremost this or that religion, then a clan, then a family and only later as inhabitants of this or that nation there is a strong reason to be fearful as to the viability of that nation. In the case of both the Israelis and the Palestinians there is a strong national identity.

Economic viability: there is a real capability to provide a life for its citizens. A putative agricultural state could not exist in the middle of the Sahara irrespective of whatever else might be going on.

Political control and organization: there is real control over the territory and an organization to enforce and regulate that control. Governments that claim control while borders have evaporated and competing armed forces roam the countryside are labeled as failed states. States that are not viable geopolitically, that is, have borders that cannot be guaranteed with reasonable levels of effort, will not – and do not – survive.

Recognized and legitimate government: a functioning government that can carry out the day-to-day operations of a government, and is recognized as the legal representative of the people and area. This is not legitimacy in the absolute sense: dictatorships may not have the support of the people, but they do have control and are dealt with by other nations, whether the other nations like it or not.

Where does this leave the Middle East, specifically, Israel and Palestine?

I recently had the opportunity to spend some time talking with several senior military staff planners about the path ahead for Israel. The contention, shared by many, is that Israel’s security can never be assured until there is a state of Palestine, per the original UN recommendation.

That may be true. But a Palestinian state by itself won’t represent a ‘full and final’ answer. Simply put, it isn’t enough to establish a Palestinian state; the state (nation) of Palestine must be viable – as must Israel. A review of the history from a geopolitical perspective shows that making a viable state is more easily said then done. Unless the intention is to simply construct an international welfare state whose security is guaranteed by others, the borders of any Palestinian state need to be defined with an eye to establishing states – Palestine and Israel – that are viable in the long run, without continued international assistance. But, as with the discussion above about viable states, the usual discussion about Palestine fails to address the critical issue of geography.

Standing in direct opposition to the essence of Churchill’s statement is the idea that a state, any state, can be viable when it (as with the various proposals for Palestine) consists of a patchwork of small plots of land surrounded by another state (Israel), a state with whom relations are likely to remain strained far into the future. That the land itself is also poor agricultural land, with limited water, limited natural resources and few ports only serves to highlight how difficult this solution really will be.

The record for non-contiguous states – states imbedded within another state - throughout history is dismal. The situation currently exists in Azerbaijan, with the autonomous region Naxcivan located between Armenia and Turkey, separated from the bulk of Azerbaijan by roughly 20 mountainous miles. Whether the current boundaries in the Caucus Region will long survive is doubtful. Elsewhere the record has been poor. In the 20th century there were two clear cases: East and West Pakistan (now Bangladesh and Pakistan respectively, and Germany post Versailles, with East Prussia separated from Germany proper by the Danzig Corridor; both were settled by wars. In South Africa one could argue that Bophuthatswana was never really independent, and it too no longer exists, after 22 years of nominal independence. The Enclave of Cabinda, a province of Angola, separated from Angola by the 21-mile coastline of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, has suffered several attempts at secession, but Angola has held on to it – at substantial cost, in large part because Cabinda produces 700,000 barrels of oil per day. That the Angolans can reach Cabinda easily by sea also helps to sustain the political relationship, but it is a strained situation that is sustained because of the oil – that is, Cabinda’s oil pays for its existence.

In short, an independent, but geographically scattered Palestine is not likely to develop into a viable state. This is true irrespective of whatever else happens in the never-ending peace talks. Let me restate that: unless you provide borders that leave both Palestine and Israel as viable geopolitical entities nothing else that is agreed upon in any of these peace talks will provide any enduring peace. Geopolitical viability and stability are the foundation, the sine qua non, upon which any sustained peace talks must be built. This is not to say that viable borders will assure peace; they will not. But it does mean that without viable borders there can be no sustained security and hence no lasting peace. In as much as the peace talks avoid this fundamental fact, they avoid a meaningful solution and these talks amount to nothing more than political theater.

At the same time, ‘simply’ providing the Palestinians a contiguous block of land doesn’t address all the issues. The simple but essential point is that Israel is already a legitimate state; any solution provided to the Palestinians can’t be at the expense of the Israeli people or the viability of their state. Further, from the perspective of the US, Israel has been a consistent ally for six decades. Any course the US chooses must respect the fact that based both on our long-standing relationship and on the simple premise that we shouldn’t solve one problem by making another one worse; Israel’s viability must come first.

So, what then are the givens to any solution set for Israel and Palestine? First, consider the fundamentals:

1) Israel must be secure: physically and militarily, economically, politically; both in the short term and in a sustained and sustainable manner in the long term

2) Palestinians must be allowed to live in a viable state where they can achieve political recognition and establish a viable standard of living

3) Any solution must ensure that all states remain contiguous, that they are economically and politically viable for populations in excess of 4 million, particularly with adequate power, water, and an opportunity for economic development

4) Once a Palestinian state is defined and independent, the Palestinians must give up the right of return

5) Jerusalem must be addressed

Where does that leave us?

We start by recognizing that in the end Palestine must be one whole, contiguous state with the means for a viable economy, and that Israel must be one, whole contiguous state with a means for a viable economy, and since Israel perceives itself surrounded by enemies, Israel must have borders which it considers secure and able to be defended. This means simply that the current options, all of which include both the Gaze strip and the West Bank as parts of Palestine are not viable.

For any Palestinian state to be economically viable as well as geographically contiguous, it must not consist of the seemingly endless number of small pieces of land scattered around the West Bank. There are any number of possible solutions to this, but only two real options: a Palestinian state could be established centered on Gaza, or a Palestinian state could be established centered on the West Bank. In either case the other area would be ceded either back to Israel in order to insure secure borders, or back to Egypt or Jordan. Of course, either approach would require that the Palestinians in the other location be moved.

Unfortunately, a state that consisted of the West Bank would almost to a certainty not be viable. While other land-locked countries exist, none exist in areas with so few natural resources, or surrounded by, at best unfriendly neutral powers. A nation that consisted of the West Bank alone, and inhabited by 4 million plus people, with little fresh water, few other resources, and access to the rest of the world only through or over either Israel or Jordan hardly looks promising. In fact, it would likely become an international security problem overnight. Changing the shape of the West Bank to include access to the sea would require either Jordan ceding its sole port – Aqaba, an unlikely event, or Israel ceding either a corridor across it’s northern half (and creating a bifurcated nation) or ceding its northern end – an equally unlikely event. Nor would either option solve the question of how to make such a nation – one built on the West Bank - economically viable.

A nation of Palestine jammed into the current Gaza Strip would yield a small, resource poor, extremely crowded strip of land – again a recipe for disaster. However, Gaza does represent some options, as it provides access to the sea, hence access to trade as well as some basic industries – fishing and elements of the maritime industry. If the international community really wished to settle the Palestinian question, additional land might be purchased from Egypt (a portion of the Sinai Peninsula) and Gaza expanded into a new Palestine. At the same time, investments in Gaza might provide the opportunity for various industries to take root – one that can exploit access to trade routes, etc.

As for Jerusalem, the truth is that one country or the other must recognize that in the end two countries can’t have the same capital. Perhaps East Jerusalem can be partitioned to the Palestinian state, and an airfield built in the West Bank contiguous to East Jerusalem in such a manner that Palestinians could fly into East Jerusalem without having to enter Israel. Additionally, the formal seat of the Palestinian government – for ceremonial purposes only - might be maintained in East Jerusalem. But the real Palestinian government, to return to the problem of geography, must be located inside the real nation-state. To do otherwise is to place the seat of government in strategic jeopardy.

It is said that geography is destiny. While this may not be true in every case, the fact remains that the Israelis and Palestinians must deal with an extremely difficult piece of terrain, and to do so successfully will require minimizing all the negatives that that land possesses. The above options will please very few people. But they do address the very real issue of the geography of the area. The options that are currently ‘on the table’ fail to do so; and failure to do so simply complicates the issue. ‘Solutions’ that further complicate this already difficult situation with a nation of a dozen or more isolated pieces will not, and cannot lead to peace.

So, to return to the essence of Churchill’s statement above, Palestine will never be viable until it is a single, contiguous state. The never-ending talks on ‘Peace in the Middle East’ can choose to ignore that fact. But doing so means that any solution they do produce will be temporary, and probably short-lived. Creating a single, contiguous Palestine will not by itself produce lasting peace, but it is a necessary first step.

The White House, Usama bin Laden and Bear Bryant

The legendary Alabama Football Coach Bear Bryant used to advise his young players: “When you get in the end-zone, act like you’ve been there before.”

This is pretty good advice for virtually everyone. It is a lesson that has apparently been lost on the currant White House staff. It is common sense that in a war there are many times when it is best to say very little, that anything said may negatively affect ongoing and future operations, that, to use the phrase from an earlier generation, ‘Lose Lips Sink Ships.’

But during the past 12 days we have been ‘treated’ to a seemingly never-ending stream of press conferences, ‘off the record’ briefs and anonymous releases from high sources that have resulted in a significant amount of details about the raid that resulted in Usama bin Laden’s death, about the men and units that executed the raid, about those that supported the raid, about how the intelligence was acquired that led to the raid and about what was discovered as a result of the raid.

And, in true disingenuous Washington DC fashion some of the same people who have taken part in the verbal orgy have lambasted others for saying too much and ‘placing our soldiers and sailors at risk.’

Meanwhile the level of smug hubris at the White House continues to rise. One would suppose that this is normal, that this is the first time that they have had a real victory and it was a significant one – the death of an evil man who was the enemy of our nation. But, in fact, that is no excuse. This isn’t a high school football game. We are still a nation at war and we still have any number of enemies who would like to see our nation destroyed. ‘Celebrating in the end zone’ is not the correct response. In fact, the entire evolution over the past 12 days has been a travesty. Here’s what should have happened:

1) There should have been no announcement until at least the completion of the initial assessment of the material seized in the raid. That would have taken several days, but would have allowed our forces to perhaps act against certain other al Qaeda cells before they were alerted to UBLs death and the possible compromise of their information.

The entire force that conducted the raid is familiar with operating in secret; this would not have been a problem for them. As for the fact that the Pakistanis would find the remains of a helicopter, so what? We could stall for several days, then simply admit that US forces had been there. There would be no need to reveal why – specifically – they had been there until the material seized had been exploited.

When the information had been exploited or we had other information that showed that al Qaeda knew that UBL was dead and that certain information had been compromised, the President could have made his announcement. For the nation at large the result would have been the same, just delayed a few days.

2) The brief statement should have said simply that US forces had raided the compound and that UBL was dead. There should have been no further details and the President should have said: ‘To protect our forces and our capabilities, there will be no further details released as to the forces involved or the tactics and technology involved.’ Unfortunately, like the freshman who has finally scored for the first, the White House wanted to let everyone know about all the ‘cool’ stuff they knew. So they did. And they continue to do so.

3) No details should have been released as to what was found in the compound. Even apparently harmful details such as lewd photos being found with UBL’s data should have been withheld. Unless there was a carefully orchestrated strategic communications plan in place to exploit this fact, such a release will probably backfire in some as yet unanticipated way.

The people who executed the raid, the people who supported the raiders, the intelligence personnel around the world who worked for more than 5 years to grind through a mountain of data to connect one obscure fact after another, all did a magnificent job. And all acted like they had been there before, celebrating quietly and then going back to work to try and get the next guy. That the White House and the President’s national security team benefited from years of effort, effort that really started just a few months after UBL hoofed it out of Tora Bora in December of 2001, is one of the realities of the American political system, and the President did a good job in giving the okay. And we are all glad that UBL is gone.

But since then the President, the VP, SecDef, SecState, and all the other strap hangars, many of them who have spent a career in classified circles inside the Beltway, have all acted like they never heard of Bear Bryant or his words of wisdom, nor have they apparently ever been ‘in the end zone.’ They continue to dance around in the end zone and in doing so they have not only possibly endangered some of the people who executed the mission, they have also revealed things that shouldn’t have been revealed and told our enemies things they should know.

It is an interesting thing that, with very few exceptions, the better someone is at something, the less they talk about it, the less they ‘dance around in the end zone.’ (It is an interesting footnote that Jim Brown, perhaps the greatest football player to date, never spiked the football when he scored at touchdown. Instead, he would simply hand it to the referee. No dance, no weird gyrations, etc.) It is time the President and the rest of the national security team take a cue from such behavior. If your deeds really are significant, they will speak for themselves. If not, all the prattle will in the end only make you look asinine and will hurt our nation.

As Coach Bryant said, try to act like you’ve been there before.