They Should be Ashamed

Let's begin with a disclaimer: I know a fair number of SEALs and I think they are some of the most profound professionals, and some of the most committed patriots, I have ever had the privilege of meeting. My time spent with them and working with them were, have been, are, and I trust will continue to be some of the most personally and professionally rewarding of my life.

That being said, I think I can in all honesty assert that the operation that ended with the death of Usama bin Laden last year was well executed, but in no way can it be called the ‘most audacious’ act of the last 500 years. I would, in fact, go so far as to say it probably is not the most audacious act of the last 6 months.

Consider the raid – about which I was as uninvolved as any human can be. But I know a little bit about the military, the Middle East and generally how decision-making takes place in Washington and so I can make a few assertions.

Was the raid risky? Sure. Every time you get a bunch of guys in helicopters at night, flying into someone’s compound, and you know they – the bad guys - are armed, there is risk. But what was the level of risk here? We all have visions (even if in some cases more the fruit of Hollywood then history) of two of the more prominent Special Forces raids of the last four decades (and most forget the third). Let me recap them very briefly. (There are lots of other raids, but as I said, these are fairly well known.)

The Raid on Entebbe (Operation Thunderbolt): Israeli commandos, flying out of Israel, made their way to Uganda – a country friendly to the terrorists, but not terribly sophisticated in air defenses – and snatched the hostages (passengers and crew from an Air France flight) held by PFLP terrorists. The raid (on July 4th, 1976) was against well-armed and fully alerted terrorists. Results: 245 hostages freed, three hostages, all the terrorists, and 40 or so Ugandan soldiers – who were providing security – were killed. One Israeli Special Forces soldier was killed – the strike commander, LtCol Yoni Netanyahu. He is the older brother of Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Desert One (Operation Eagle Claw): the attempt (on April 24, 1980) to recover the 55 US embassy personnel held in Tehran. We all remember how this went, a very complex operation, flying off of US aircraft carriers and out of several airfields in the mid-east, landing at a field in a desert in Iran, caught in a sand-storm, etc. There was a collision during refueling, two aircraft were destroyed immediately, 8 US personnel died, the raid was aborted. For range and complexity this may have been the most complex of the bunch.

The Son Tay Raid (Operation Ivory Coast): A raid conducted by US special forces to rescue prisoners held at the North Vietnamese prison at Son Tay (November 20-21, 1970). The raid was a failure in that the North Vietnamese had moved the prisoners out of the camp shortly before the raid – a failure of both intelligence and perhaps of operational security. Of note, US forces got into the camp – located about 20 miles west of Hanoi – and out with only two men wounded.

Compare these operational environments to Pakistan. Pakistan is an ally of the US; as much as some might want to question that, there is not only a US Embassy in Pakistan and a Pakistani Embassy in Washington, we have US military facilities in Pakistan, we routinely – daily - fly over their country (how do US Navy F-18s get to Afghanistan from carriers in the North Arabian Sea? They file a flight plan with the Pakistani government and then fly over Pakistan). And no one on either side of the border, when seeing an airplane approach the border from the other side considers that they are about to be attacked or invaded. Further, if something disastrous had happened at the compound, and all the aircraft were down and the men could no longer depart, would we anticipate that the Pakistani army would assault the compound and fight the SEALs? There might have been some confusion, but the Pakistanis – as much as the Americans – would not and do not want a fight of that kind. It is reasonable to suspect that if something untoward like that had happened that the SEALs would have been taken into ‘custody’ held briefly, and then driven to the nearest airfield and flown home. There might have been some political posturing, but the SEALs would have been ok.

And let’s consider the threat. Is it likely that the Pakistanis would fire on an aircraft that came from the general direction of Afghanistan? The Pakistani Air Force (a capable and professional force) knows who is in Afghanistan. I suspect they see US aircraft (those pesky drones) fly over the border every day and night. They do not try to shoot them down. How does this compare to the raid on Son Tay? At the time the area around Hanoi was the most heavily defended terrain on the planet. As for Iran, Tehran was also heavily defended in 1980, with a good deal of then new US technology. In both cases Americans who might be captured by the locals would expect VERY unpleasant treatment. And Entebbe? While Uganda’s air defenses were not as sophisticated as either North Vietnam’s or Iran’s, Idi Amin – the dictator – was a vicious individual who had made clear his friendship with groups such as the PFLP, and the Israeli commandos could be quite sure that any reception they received would be unpleasant to say the least.

And there are scores of more audacious events if we want to push back in time just a bit (the ones everyone will mention: Washington at Trenton, Dewey steaming into Manila Bay, the Doolittle Raid, anything associated with Merrill’s Marauders, Guadalcanal (the whole bloody thing), the landings at Normandy, the landing at Inchon), as well as ones that really haven’t seen much coverage, whether recent operations in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, or various operations in the Balkans during the 90s, etc. And these are just the US operations. What about the long list of SAS and SBS operations over the last 70 years? Or the Aussie SAS? If you don’t believe me, just start searching through the net, there is a mountain of stuff out there.

Even the guys we didn’t like did some pretty amazing stuff: dig around on the Russians (Soviets) during their war in Afghanistan, or the Germans during World War II or some of the Japanese operations during the early days of the war. All of which leads to the conclusion that the Vice President’s comment was absurd.

But there is more to it than that.

What is more disturbing in all this is ‘simply’ that the Vice President is perfectly comfortable couching the decision-making that led to the raid in terms of politics, not duty, not the nation’s interest, not the lives of the men on the raid. To quote the Vice President:

"Do any one of you have a doubt that if that raid failed that this guy would be a one-term President?" Biden asked, according to the media pool report from the event. "This guy is willing to do the right thing and risk losing."

What that comment suggests to me is precisely the opposite; that, in fact, the issue of re-election was considered before they made the decision, for as certain as the night follows the day that line of conversation would not occur to the Vice President if it hadn’t taken place. And I would suspect that the real calculus in the White House – long after the Admirals and Generals finished talking - was along the lines of:

“We are pretty sure he is there; if we don’t go, and the intelligence gets out, you’ll look weak. If we go and it goes bad, you will at least look strong, and you can always blame intelligence and the generals. And if we get him you are a hero. And that will help in your re-election.”

And that’s not real leadership, and it’s not audacious and it’s not virtuous; it’s shameful.

Washington DC's New Math

Last night (March 20th, 2012) David Axelrod stated that “the President has reduced discretionary domestic spending by $1.2 trillion.”

WOW! That’s amazing! Considering that total discretionary domestic spending for 2011 was $600 billion, that is really some feat!

Of course, like much of what comes out of Washington, this takes a little explaining. First, you have to understand that when the White House talks about budgets they are talking about ten years worth of budgets. So, the statement above should be that “the President has reduced discretionary domestic spending over the next ten years by $1.2 trillion.”

Unfortunately, that isn’t quite accurate either. Let me explain. In 2011 domestic discretionary spending was $600 billion. Now, for those not familiar with Washington math, I would suppose you would think that the President and his staff had done something like this: “If we continue to spend $600 billion each year for ten years, we will spend $6 trillion. But we need to cut the budget. Let’s get that total down to $4.8 trillion. That will save the American people $1.2 trillion.” Sounds good!

But, here’s what the President’s budget looks like for Domestic Discretionary Spending, by year, 2013 through 2022: (in billions of dollars):

565, 546, 543, 546, 553, 561, 573, 585, 597, 611 – for a total of $5,680

The President’s budget notes this total as $5,682 – they obviously have some decimal points that we can’t see. So, where did we get $1.2 trillion? The $1.2 trillion comes from subtracting 5,680 from 6,800. But where did the 6,800 come from? Well, that is the amount of money in Domestic Discretionary Spending IF the government had continued spending at a rate that increased spending at about 3% per year for each of the next ten years. For budgets that didn’t exist yet. This is analogous to the average household looking at expenses for the year, noting that you had spent $500 cutting the grass and shoveling the driveway and walk way last year ($20 to the neighbor’s kid each time), spent $515 this year for the same thing, deciding you will forego one mowing this year – saving $20) and then announcing you reduced household expenses $200.)

So, what Mr. Axelrod should have said is this: “[t]he President has reduced discretionary domestic spending over the next ten years - when compared to possible future budgets that assumed no change in spending behavior despite any economic slow-downs - by $1.2 trillion.”

That sounds pretty weak doesn’t it? Except we’re not done yet. What Mr. Axelrod failed to mention was that part of the reduction in spending included redefining domestic discretionary spending, and removed $627 billion from discretionary spending and redefined it as mandatory spending. So, if that number is added back into domestic discretionary spending, so we can see how much money the nation saved, we find that those categories that were labeled as ‘Domestic Discretionary Spending’ in 2011 will entail the total spending of $6.309 trillion over the next ten years, which is more than if we simply froze all spending at current levels. Some simple math shows that we are spending more than $300 billion 1% increase in spending per year. No savings, an increase.

So where are the savings? There aren’t any. Let me repeat that: there aren’t any. So, now we are left with what Mr. Axelrod might have meant to say: “[t]he President has redefined discretionary domestic spending so that we can categorically state that over the next ten years - when compared to possible future budgets that assumed no change in spending behavior despite any economic slow-downs – spending as we define it will be reduced by $1.2 trillion.”

And what happens to the debt as these linguistic and actuarial gymnastics take place? The total national debt will grow by another $7.3 trillion dollars. (Of course, that assumes those numbers are right, and we already know the estimates for 2012 are low by several hundred billion dollars).

So, if Mr. Axelrod had meant to be accurate, he would have said something like this:

“[t]he President has redefined discretionary domestic spending so that we can categorically state that over the next ten years - when compared to possible future budgets that assumed no change in spending behavior despite any economic slow-downs – spending as we define it will be reduced by $1.2 trillion, while the national debt will continue to climb.”

Glad we got that straight.

Would You Buy a Car From These Guys?

We've all been there: you fell for the add and are now standing in the middle of car-dealers parking lot and the price that was advertised on the TV or in the paper is nowhere to be seen.

Except this time it’s our government - once more.

By now you have seen that the price tag for ‘Obamacare’ has inched up a tiny bit above the ‘advertised price,’ from $900 billion over the next ten years to $1,740 billion. Several thoughts should be drawn from that.

1) Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates aren't worth much, except to point out that things are much more expensive then government says they will be – CBO’s record is not exactly exemplary, and while they have been closer then this in the past, they regularly 'under-guess' costs. (There is no way I will lend credence to a product that is nearly 100% off by calling this something that sounds pseudo-scientific by calling it an estimate. This was no better then a bad guess.)

2) While virtually every single reasonable outside authority said ‘Obamacare’ was going to mean excessive costs, the White House insisted it would not. Either the people putting the figures together for the White House (remember, they came up with their own numbers before the CBO did) are as equally incompetent as the ones at the CBO, or they were not telling the truth. While it might seem to be worth noting that the administration actually thought it would cost less then the CBO, it’s not worth a lot. That the administration was ‘gun-decking’ the books is assumed. Take your pick: incompetent or not telling us the truth.

3) We aren't done yet. If we can already say, at the end of the first year, that the cost is twice as much as first thought, we can only image what the total cost will be in another 3 or 4 years. If you don't agree, name a major federal entitlement program that has regularly decreased in cost over time. Just to rewind the clock, ‘Obamacare’ was supposed to provide healthcare for an additional 30 - 35 million Americans (without increasing supply - how? Who knows?) Currently, comprehensive health care costs between $8 - 9,000 per person per year. 8 x 30 = 240 What that means is the likely cost of ‘Obamacare’ is going to be not the currently projected $174 billion per year, but probably $240 billion or more per year. That would mean the program over the first ten years of its life would be considerably above $2 trillion, not the $900 billion the administration and the CBO first claimed, or the $1,740 billion the CBO is now trumpeting. And I would guess my estimate is low. It could easily be more than $3 trillion. Remember, this was supposed to not only provide better health care to more people, it was also supposed to 'control' medical costs.

4) This says something about government in general. Every month we have another story about a DOD weapons systems procurement that is well over budget, every year we have multiple tales of government waste and abuse of taxpayers' money, and every year we have reports from CBO that tell about government programs that cost more than originally estimated, and then CBO is found to be lowballing the numbers AND the programs and weapon systems don't work as well as planned or provide the level of service or care as intended AND then we are asked to fund even more programs and then we are told that the only solution is even bigger programs, and this time - BY GOD – we are going to get it right, not like the last bunch of folks who promised you all this and a Hershey’s Bar.

Here's the hint: governments are not efficient and they are only rarely effective. But they do take our money, and then take our freedoms, slowly, incrementally, by controlling more and more aspects of each and every industry and sector of our economy and our polity. I suppose it might make some sense to some people to surrender freedom if you were getting something for it. But we can't even claim that in most cases. Instead, the money goes into the big mill, it gets churned around, and then we are told to put more in.

Enough.

You Have to Plant a Tree if You Want Any Fruit (Or Why the President Needs to Drill Now)

There is an old Italian saying that young men don't have time to plant fruit trees, only old men have time to plant fruit trees. (I think it's Italian. In any case, I'm giving them the credit - because I love Italy and I like the saying).

The point is this: young men don't have the sense to realize that the four or five years it will take for the trees to yield fruit will pass soon enough. But you need to start. If you don't, five years will pass and you will still have no fruit. Old men (that is, wise men) know that you need to think - AND ACT - in the long term.

Unfortunately for us, the President, and his liberal minions in the Senate and House, are, like the young men, in too much of a hurry about the wrong things, and unwilling to either act wise or follow the advice of the wise. For many years a wide range of people have shown that the US: 1) needs cheaper energy, 2) needs to increase its refinery capacity, and 3) can solve both those problems internally.

First, there is a super-abundance of oil and natural gas in the US - at current consumption levels literally centuries worth of these precious materials. The oil and gas present in shale and tar sands and other relatively untouched assets would allow the US to be both the largest producer and a major exporter of oil and gas in less then a decade if properly developed. And to sustain that production for at least a century and probably several centuries.

Second, we need to increase our refinery capacity - and continue to rehab our current refineries. It doesn’t matter how much oil you have if you don’t have adequate refining capacity. And refineries are expensive - one project to rehab a refinery in Texas will cost something on the order of $4 or 5 billion. That's routine. We need to expand existing refineries and build new ones. One of the central reasons gasoline and fuel oil prices fluctuate is that they are refined in the same facilities, which means the oil companies need to stop making the one and start making the other, twice a year. This leads to short-term fluctuations in stocks that cause price spikes. If you want to get rid of those price spikes you need to build more refineries. But Congress and the President keep blocking such efforts.

Now the President says 'he can't do anything right away, but we have algae, and that may work.' Here's a hint: it won't. The simple truth is that gasoline (and jet fuel) is a superb fuel because of one thing: energy density. The amount of energy that I can get out of a pound of gasoline, easily, is unmatched by anything else on the planet. We all need to remember that if we want to understand the energy issue. Bringing into the picture something that does not have the energy density of petroleum, such as algae means that you are adding cost and complexity to the economy for little return. There are a few fuels that have greater energy density then oil, the obvious one being uranium (which far exceeds petroleum). But extracting energy from uranium involves much greater complexity. That is why we don’t have nuclear reactors in our garages, but we do have gas-powered generators.

The fact of the matter is that the President can do something. And it is more than simply getting out of the way of private industry and letting bright, creative people develop the various resources here in the US. Clearly, he needs to do that. But he also needs to make it clear that he IS doing that. The price of gasoline is rising right now based on several factors: the actual supply of gasoline (again a function of total refinery capacity in the US), upward pressure on the price of crude oil from ‘hoarders’ as fear of a possible confrontation with Iran continues to permeate the market, and speculation by commodity traders who are buying oil futures as they react to those fears. By taking a position that the US is going to act now to ensure expanded long-term production of oil and gas in the US (and economically and politically it would spill over into Canada), the US would send a positive signal to the international community and would help to tamp down market speculation.

Would it produce instant oil? No. But if he acts now the first oil would in fact be flowing much sooner than he or his policy experts suspect.

About a week after the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001 I received a note from an admiral asking for ideas on what we (the intelligence community) needed to do. I responded with a fairly detailed plan (one that, truth be known, I had submitted up the chain of command nearly every year since 1991 - to resounding silence) on how to fix and/or reorganize certain elements of our intelligence effort. The response I received - which led eventually to several shouting phone calls - was that 'those are good ideas, but they would take 5 years or more to implement. We need something now.' Well, it doesn't take a clairvoyant to know where this story is headed. As of perhaps a few months ago, that is, later 2011, (I haven't really checked since before New Years - I've been busy) the problems which I had identified remain essentially ‘unfixed,’ and no serious effort is in play to address them - more than 11 years later.

It is an unfortunate truth that governments, and most political figures, cannot and will not think beyond the next election. Perhaps the President truly believes that taking moves now to increase the domestic production of oil and gas will not lead to any real change in our energy situation. If so, he is clearly not on the side of any of the experts in the field. Or perhaps he is simply playing politics, and everyone will have to suffer through a possible oil and energy crisis. As with the young men who refuse to plant the fruit tree, it doesn’t really matter why, what matters is that in the end there will be no more oil, just as there will be no fruit. Either way, it’s not the way the wise men would act.

It's NOT the Economy!

"It's the Economy, Stupid!"

A number of years ago the above was political tag line for a presidential campaign.  The point of the slogan was that the real foundation of all the issues being discussed was simply the stability and security of our economy. Everything else either fell in line after the economy rebounded, or was simply irrelevant. It was, as far as bumper stickers go, a pretty good one.

Unfortunately, it wasn't really correct. In as much as a healthy, growing economy is important, it was correct. But the real issue then was what role the government was playing and should play in the economy, via all the means at hand: tax policies, spending policies, regulations, industry subsidies, union subsidies, etc., etc. And the use of national assets - bolstered by a stronger economy - to promote US interests. And those issues really are about power, the power of the government to act, or not act, via laws, regulations and policies, to create or block certain effects.

And the same true today.

When we look at the arguments about health care, or energy, or jobs, the questions almost immediately move beyond such simple issues as cost, profits, income, return on investment, tax revenue, jobs created or destroyed, and even quality of life, and gravitate to issues of authorities. (Worth noting is that throughout the entire discussion on the current administration’s efforts to wrest greater control over health care and the health care industry in this country, virtually no discussion took place as to how to actually increase the supply of health care, that is, the numbers of doctors, nurses, and beds in hospitals and clinics. In short, it really wasn’t about the economics of health care.) Authority is the real language of government. Though it is a commonplace to talk of budgets, what is really the issue at hand, in virtually every case, is budget authorities, that is, who has the power to say what happens, what gets bought, what is mothballed, where people are added, where they are taken away, who will 'drive the bus.' The money is a means, but the issue - the end-game - is power.

Power is the key. Money is nothing but a second rate substitute, the weak man's substitute, for power.

In the US, per the US Constitution, the power of the government - federal and state - is limited. (States are not allowed their own (state) constitutions that accrue to the state government powers that infringe the rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution. The US Constitution thereby provides an 'upper-boundary' for the considerations of state constitutions.) Power of government is, or is supposed to be, limited. But the real issues we are facing, when we discuss the huge economic issues facing us today - both within our own economy, as well as the various bureaucratic efforts of our federal (and state) government to regulate our lives, and to control our economy, as well as the efforts by various international bodies, to include the UN and various other organizations, as well as key trading partners, such as the EU and China - are all issue of power, camouflaged with money.

There is a concept, which used to be discussed in detail in US history classes because it had been a topic of frequent discussion among the Founding Fathers, and that was: tyranny of the majority. It was and is the concept behind many of the limitations in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the simple but important idea that certain rights and principles need to be protected even if more than half of the people object. Thus the freedom, no matter how repugnant, for groups like the Nazis to hold rallies. We may all (or 99.9% of us) find them to be disgusting, but the rights of free speech and press, and to peacefully assemble, and to petition all mean that not only can they or similar groups hold public meetings, but that they must be given protection if another group tries to disrupt the meeting.

Tyranny of the majority is a terrible thing, and governments of limited powers, and a system of guaranteed rights, are essential to prevent such tyranny from taking control. In short, it is once again about power.

Today, in the US, in Europe, in fact all around the world there are a series of debates on the economy, on standards of living, on jobs and unemployment, etc. In the end, what these debates turn on - in the US, in the EU, in Asia, in Africa, in the Mid-East, everywhere, is this: where does the power lie?

The argument in nations like Greece is really very simple: does one-half of the population (actually, a bit more than one half), acting in concert with legislatures who have enacted the law, have the authority - the power - to bankrupt the country and in the end destroy the wealth of the rest of the country? It is an example of tyranny of the majority.

The US is struggling with similar issues right now, particularly in the form of extension of health care coverage, the constitutionality of government ordering citizens to buy health care, and the impact of the associated government spending on the health care sector, the level of government control and the impact on all the other sectors of our economy and our society as a whole. This is well beyond arguments about economy. As the political slogan did not say:

It's NOT the Economy. It's about power.

China 2012

China is important to the US because China is not only one of our major economic partners, it is also one of our strategic competitors. Of course, that doesn’t mean we will go to war with China, but it does mean we need to recognize that reality, that simply put, there are vital Chinese interests that are at odds with our some of our vital interests and vice versa. And, being an American, I insist that we win. Again, it doesn’t require warfare, but it does require thought and effort and action.

Thought begins with collecting information. And some important information came to light yesterday. Yesterday, Bo Xilai, the communist party chief of Chongqing (the largest metropolitan area in China) was fired following a scandal with his police chief and close associate apparently seeking asylum in the US. This is significant because Bo Xilai was been the darling of the new China for the last several years and considered a virtual ‘shoe-in’ to the ‘Standing Committee of the Politburo’ at the Party Convention this coming fall. The nine members of the Standing Committee are the real power in China, and there are seven spots opening up this year.

Despite what some might think, all is not sweetness and light in China, which suffers from several very dramatic problems: a huge real estate and credit bubble that is the result of trying to maintain 10% growth for 20 years, a growing demand for energy (they are net importers of oil (and energy), to the tune of 7 million barrels of oil per day, a growing demand for food (net importers of food – to include rice), and a serious unemployment/underemployment problem that includes perhaps 100 million young men. Add to this a central government that has tried to manage the economy and in so doing has not allowed market forces to balance demands for land and water for urban development with the needs of farmers for land and water for rice and other crops and you end up with some very serious problems.

These are the issues that the Chinese leadership is ‘dropping’ on the Standing Committee and the need for continued exceptional talent in the committee is obvious. Of course, everyone is free to believe that the Chinese can continue to successfully ‘manage’ an economy, though history is not on their side. There are signs (see above) that it is already getting out of control. In any case, the need for talented people is obvious. But whether they can actually get such talent remains to be seen. Some of the likely candidates are:

Wang Yang - turns 57 this month, party chief of Guangdong, protégé of President Hu

Wang Qishan - currently the most junior of four vice premiers

Liu Yunshan – 64 - propaganda minister, has tried to control China’s internet

Li Yuanchao – 61 – Head of the party’s ‘organization department’ which oversees appointments of senior party, government and military positions

Zhang Dejiang - 65 – Vice Premier, chosen on Thursday to replace Bo Xilai

Zhang Gaoli – 65 - party chief of Tianjin

Yu Zhengsheng – party chief Shanghai 

A Man of Virtue

They say there are no more heroes, that the age of heroes is long dead. They are wrong. I grew up surrounded by heroes, real heroes, men who you not only could trust with, as one of my heroes sometimes says ‘with your wallet or your wife,’ but men who had lived their lives for great causes, for their families and their friends and their nation, and not for themselves.

Paul, Robert, Bill, Red, John, Reed, Robert, Ted, Roger

And then I ran into more as I grew up – Fr. John, Fr. Joe, Jan – men who lived their lives for others, and with honor, who didn’t expect to make money off their efforts, or have fame, who valued doing the right thing, who really never worried about cost. As I grew older the list got longer.

Vulcan, Bulldog, Indian, Careless, Fast Eddie, Spine-Ripper, Rooster, Heater, Bob, Agent, Snail, Sid

Many, actually all, of them helped me, whether in making me a better officer or man, or getting me out of trouble – some mundane (like carrying me out of bar), some more serious. Never did I see any of them stop and wonder what the cost would be to them, they just did what needed to be done.

Jabber, Bud, BB, Moose, Rocko, Snake, Groper, Scooter, Wizard, Benny, Gary, Harry

I’ve learned to thank God that I was born in the US, that I was graced with a wonderful family, that I have been given health, and that I have traveled with men of real virtue.

Turkey, PD, Booseman, Mike, Mike, Pete, Pete, Mike, Brian, Hawk, Joe, Vince, Jim, J.R., Flex, Vito

I saw some die, go away and not come back

Dave, Mike, Frank, Skates, Bull, Jet, Bug, Scott, and recently Boomer

Many I failed to keep in touch, forgetting to answer letters or e-mails, losing addresses and phone-numbers. Yet, when we would meet serendipitously, passing through an airport or, as was often the case, in some spot on the far side of the planet, we would stop and catch up, whether it had been 10 days or 10 years since we last spoke to each other.

John, John jr., Mike, Harry, Chuck, Tony, John, Pete, Mark, Kent, Duane, Matt, Al, Keith, Jim, Bryan

Two days ago, on the 6th, Lex died, in a training crash out in Nevada. Lex was another one, another one of the men of real virtue that I have been lucky enough - blessed – with knowing. Like every man mentioned here, and many that I have not mentioned, though they are all on my list, Lex was a good man, in the real sense of that word. He believed in doing the right thing, of standing by his family and friends, his shipmates and his nation. He did it without concern about cost, and he did it with joy, with a twinkle in his eye. He lived a life of courage and virtue. We should all strive to do the same.

God Speed, Lex. RIP