Napoleon Bonaparte, Betty Davis, and the New President

November 6th, 2016

By the time most read this the election will be over, a new president will have been elected, and everyone, particularly the media pundits, will be in full throat, telling us what happens next.

In that light, a little history to provide some context…

On November 6^th, 1812, the first snow of the year fell on the Russian steppes. Winter 1812 turned out to be a severe winter. It helped change the course of history.

In the spring of 1812 Napoleon Bonaparte, determined to provide the final stroke that would give him rule over all of Europe, decided Russia must be destroyed. He assembled a huge army, nearly 700,000 soldiers, and headed east on June 24th.

The Russians chose a different set of tactics then he expected and as the huge army moved east, Cossack units forced evacuations and then burned everything: crops, farms, villages, towns. The French army advanced over barren land. Supplies dwindled. When Napoleon finally brought the Russian army to fight at Borodino (75 – 80 miles west of Moscow), on September 7^th, the fight was bloody (70,000 casualties on both sides) but inconclusive. Marshal Kutozov, the Russian commander, managed, despite his losses, to keep his army together, and withdrew eastward past Moscow. Napoleon advanced on Moscow to find it abandoned, supplies destroyed, and parts of the city burned. Napoleon thought that with Russian troop losses, and the ‘loss’ of Moscow, Tsar Alexander I would sue for peace; the Tsar had other plans.

After a month in Moscow (but no new supplies), Napoleon decided to chase down the Russian army. The French departed Moscow on October 19^th and met a smaller Russian army on the 24^th near Maloyaroslavets, southwest of Moscow. It was a ‘sharp’ engagement but was again inconclusive, the Russians withdrawing rather than fight a pitched battle. Napoleon realized the Russians wouldn’t engage; as Tolstoy said, they would let ‘General Winter’ fight the French. Napoleon turned west.

By the time Napoleon crossed the Berezina River in November, nearly 400,000 men in his army were dead, more than 100,000 had been captured by the Russians, more than 100,000 had deserted, and less than 30,000 remained as effective soldiers.

What lessons might we learn?

1)    Things seldom work out exactly as planned. Napoleon was one of history’s great “Geniuses of War.” He thought this was a sure thing. His army didn’t even bring winter clothing.

2)    The other side (and there are always other sides) “gets a vote.” And they will always do something different then you expect. How different is really the question. Burn their own crops?

3)    Something else will always pop up (the severe winter of 1812, for example).

And so what does this have to do with the new president?

1)    We have a huge and growing national debt. There are a host of economic fundamentals that need to be addressed, such as work-force participation. Make all the plans you want, but if you don’t deal with economic fundamentals, your plans will fail. It’s our “winter.”

2)    Every other nation is pursuing its own interests; some of those interests directly conflict with critical US national interests. And their actions won’t necessarily provide us “cheap and easy” means to counter them.

3)    There are any number of “wild cards” that are lurking “on the horizon;” solar minimum for example. If the astrophysicists are right, earth should enter a mini ice-age some time in the next 5 - 10 years. Shorter growing seasons, less rain, lower crop yields. Anyone planning for that? And that’s just one possibility.

Point is, the candidates had all sorts of wonderful sales pitches about this or that. If you remember, President Bush ran on the platform of reforming education. September 11^th changed that just a tiny bit. The campaign shenanigans are now behind us. Various reporters will wax poetic about “the honeymoon period” with the new president. Nonsense. The romance is over; now we’re stuck with whomever.

And the real problems will grow in scope every day.

As Betty Davis observed: “Fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy night.”

Indeed.

The president works for us. The new president needs to start making real sense and producing real answers – real fast. And We The People need to hold them to that.

Our Unraveling Security

 October 30th, 2016

Shia radicals launch missiles at a US Navy destroyer, missiles provided by Iran, probably made in China.

North Korea continues development of a nuclear weapon and an ICBM.

Russia bombs insurgents in Syria; Russian naval forces return to the Mediterranean; Russian intelligence personnel return to Cuba.

China pressures Japan on islands in the East China Sea.

In the midst of even a routine presidential election, it can be difficult to keep up with what is happening elsewhere. This year, well… Yet, there are things happening around the world that we not only should be watching, we might want to consider before we vote.

The Syrian civil war grinds on, with Russian forces providing substantial support to President Assad. Russian aircraft have been giving the city of Aleppo a working over, despite protests from the international community, and it’s clear Russia is going to insure Assad remains in power. Turkey, a NATO ally, has read the writing on the wall and is talking with the Russians. In Iraq, the long awaited and much publicized offensive against ISIS forces in Mosul is pressing forward, with US help. Mosul will be retaken and ISIS pushed out, but the city will suffer a great deal. Iraq will be the nominal winner and ISIS will shrink back towards Syria.

The real winners will be Russia, Iran and Syria. The Shia-leaning government of Iraq, and the Iraqi Shia militias that are found on the battlefields of northern Iraq, will not become US allies when Mosul is cleared of ISIS. Iran’s position will likely grow stronger and the US position will grow weaker.

In Yemen, the Houthi insurgency, backed by Iran, continues fighting for a radical Shia state. The Saudi – UAE – Yemeni coalition has bogged down, while Iran provides advanced weapons to the Houthis; there’s little indication the coalition has a comprehensive strategy that will produce anything approaching victory.

The Afghanistan war grinds on. Technically, the US is no longer at war there. The Taliban, however, are. Nothing suggests this is going to end soon. Or well.

In the South China Sea, Chinese muscle flexing increases every week, with more aggressive naval patrols; and more aggressive aerial patrols near Japanese islands in the East China Sea; and more aggressive political and economic diplomacy among former US allies. The Philippines moves steadily in the direction of China, Thailand too. Meanwhile, North Korea continues testing its missile force, and continues its nuclear weapon development program. It’s only a matter of time before they have a nuclear weapon and a missile capable of carrying it to the US.

In Europe, Russia continues flexing its muscles. Is it going to attack into Europe? Probably not. But it doesn’t need to, everyone in Europe knows “the score.” Russia controls the oil and gas pipelines that lead to Europe. And Russia, with its once-more-robust alliance with Syria, sits astride any future pipeline from the Middle East to Europe. A recent well-publicized study by the Rand Institute noted that in any conventional Russian assault into Eastern Europe the fighting would be over before the US could move any significant forces into theater.

So?

First, much of what we’re witnessing is other countries flowing into the vacuum left by the US as it has backed out of the Middle East, Asia and Europe. The Obama – Clinton – Kerry legacy is that they’ve accentuated and highlighted the power vacuum. Their decisions have consequences and we’ll be paying for them for years to come.

Second, the problems associated with all this muscle-flexing are just starting. We can anticipate more problems; for example, between India and Pakistan (both with substantial nuclear arsenals), as well as a whole host of possibilities as China, Japan and North and South Korea confront each other in the next few years. The possibility of Japan and South Korea deciding that, absent a clear US nuclear umbrella they will need their own nuclear arsenals is now, incredibly, a real possibility.

Third, any hope that Mrs. Clinton will somehow reverse what she helped engineer is ludicrous.

The Obama administration (and the progressives) has gotten what it wanted; the administration spent 8 years focused on internal political maneuvering and expansion of entitlement programs, with no real focus on the broader aspects of US national security. Now, the global security picture is unraveling and the next president must try to restore some stability. We’ll be living with legacy for a long time to come.

Alienable Rights

October 23rd, 2016
 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – Preamble to the Declaration of Independence

It’s time to choose. Despite all the noise, the choice between the two major candidates can be reduced to a discussion about the Constitution. And that Constitutional discussion can be further distilled down to one issue: abortion. This is true whether you’re a conservative Christian, a liberal atheist, or anything in between.

But this isn’t “simply” an issue of reproductive rights; this is more fundamental than that; the issue is where our rights come from.

Prior to Roe v. Wade (1973) William F. Buckley devoted an issue of his magazine to the implications of a Supreme Court decision supporting abortion. One author (I don’t remember who) suggested a pro-abortion decision would lead to euthanasia for the terminally ill, assisted suicide for the depressed, government healthcare plans that prioritized treatment based on costs, abortions for children with birth defects and later for those with complicated healthcare issues, tailored ‘reproduction’ where children would only be “allowed to live” if they were “just right,” etc.

These suggestions were derided as ridiculous. One generation later virtually all of it is true someplace, and may soon be true in the US.

Mrs. Clinton, and Democratic Party leadership, believes in an unlimited right to abortion. And, whenever the issue of any restrictions on abortions has surfaced, she and her peers have vehemently opposed it. Their ardor in defense of abortion rights translates into defense of the authority to define when life begins. And ultimately when it ends. Such an authority expands from there: to support state controlled termination of life support for the ill (even as they argue for state controlled healthcare), is to assert that the state defines not only when life begins and ends, but what quality of life is acceptable, and what isn’t.

But, if the state defines when life begins – which is the very essence of the abortion “right” – and what life is worthwhile (and what life isn't) and can define when and how life ends, then the state fully controls our first right, the key right of all those derived from God (or nature if you prefer). The unbounded “right” to abortion thus requires supplanting God with the state.

But, when the state defines life, and death, your right to life is no longer absolute. In fact, it becomes contingent on the decisions of the state. Life is no longer “unalienable,” no longer “endowed by our creator.” Rather, it is conditional, and derived from the state. And if government controls our right to life, then all lesser rights – and all rights are lesser than life – are controlled, derived from the state; our rights are nothing but 'grants' given to us by benign dictators.

And then the rights protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights will no longer come from God (or nature); they will come from, and be defined by, government.

The 58 million abortions in the US since 1973 (1.5 billion worldwide) is, if you believe in the soul, a horror of incalculable dimensions. But it might lead to even greater horror. The pieces are already in place; what is happening elsewhere will happen here, beginning slowly, assuming a progressive justice is appointed to the Supreme Court: first, Catholic hospitals will be ordered to perform abortions. Then what? Assisted suicide? Euthanasia? Termination of medical support to ‘ease suffering’ and ‘ending the burden on loved-ones?’ It’s begun in Europe. Perhaps the “right to abortion” will grow and change, until only those deemed worthy by the state will be allowed to give birth. The doors will be wide open, limited only by the imaginations of bureaucrats and academicians.

Progressives will protest this is nonsense, as they did 43 years ago. They were wrong then, they are wrong now.

This election will select a president who’ll either strengthen government's hold on our rights, or one who’ll defend the premise that rights derive not from the ruling elite, but come from outside us, from God. Mrs. Clinton has firmly stated her position on the side of abortion and government oversight of rights. Mr. Trump, for all his weaknesses, has promised to defend our rights. That is the choice we face.

Maxwell Taylor, Sam Malone and the Establishment

October 16th, 2016
 

General Maxwell Taylor, a great combat soldier who became a horrible Washington DC general, brought the theory of proportional response to our national security. He convinced the Kennedy and Johnson administrations of its merit and they embraced it – Vietnam was partly the result. The essence of the theory is that when some other country (or group - it works (more accurately, it doesn't work) with any sized enemy) does something damaging to or threatening the US, the US retaliates with a measured, balanced response that is “in proportion” to what was done to the US.

The intellectual basis of the theory rests firmly in the Cold War, the idea being the US didn't want to do anything that might startle the Soviet Union and lead to escalation, and eventually nuclear exchange. In short, we’d use proportional response to send a signal to the Soviets that the nature and extent of any response would be known by them; we wouldn’t escalate a small crisis into a larger one.

Contrast this with the theory of deterrence. Deterrence is best described by Sean Connery, in his role as Jim Malone in “The Untouchables,” the tough Chicago cop who joins Eliot Ness's team in pursuit of Al Capone (Malone is a composite character of several real members of Ness’s team). Malone describes the essence of deterrence perfectly with his lesson on the Chicago Way: "He pulls a knife, you pull a gun; he puts one of yours in a hospital, you put one of his in the morgue."

Just so. Deterrence exists when a possible enemy understands that he doesn’t control the nature or the extent of your response. So, if he does “X,” he doesn't know what you will do, but he’s certain that you’ll do more than “X,” and it may well be “10X.” It may also be “10 Y,” that is, it won’t be the same kind of thing that he did. 

So, deterrence means the other guy has to know 1) you can do all sorts of things to him, and MUCH worse than what he did to you; and 2) he has to firmly believe you are ready, willing and able to do just that. Capability and credibility equals deterrence; and makes him hesitant to do things to you.

The Establishment views this as “Cold War” and “Neanderthalic” thinking. Rather, a limited, measured response, a sophisticated, “nuanced” approach that carefully controls our response and seeks to contain our and their actions inside a tightly controlled set of parameters is the preferred approach among the establishment cognoscenti.

The White House, the President and his team, and Mrs. Clinton, view this as the responsible option. It is… In fact, if you thought Vietnam was a great way to fight a war, it’s the perfect response.

Thus the incredible reporting that the White House is preparing to respond to Russian cyber activities with our own cyber activities.

There are so many things wrong with this that it’s hard to know where to begin. 

But two points need to be made: first, this release is for public consumption, “leaked” to show to the citizenry that the Administration (and the Establishment) is tough and knows how to handle this kind of thing. But, cyber, of all things, isn’t a type of warfare that benefits from open discussion of capabilities or intentions. Yet, we’ve now served notice to the Russians that they need to be more vigilant in their network defense. And more deceptive in their offensive cyber operations. But second, we’ve told them we’ll be responding in kind; it’s “proportional.” In reality, we’re telling them they can set the size and scope of the threat to them: if you do “X” to us, we’ll do “X” to you. As Vietnam showed, that doesn't give you less “X,” it just gives an enemy the opportunity to “control the dial,” the opportunity to dial up and dial down the level of attacks on us with the sure knowledge that the response won’t exceed his acceptable level of pain.

“Deterrence” thus gives way to never-ending low level attacks, in this case, a never-ending cyber “insurgency.”

Swell. Another “victory” for the establishment. 

Admiral of the Ocean Sea

October 12th, 2016
 

'Tierra! Tierra!' - Rodrigo de Triana, lookout, Pinta, shortly after local 0200, 12 October, 1492

They dropped anchor in the Bahamas (which island isn’t known for certain, San Salvador, Plana Cays and Samana Cay are all possible), coming ashore shortly after first light (some time after 6AM local), and Columbus and his crews prayed / sang the Salve Regina.

It is fashionable these days to opine on Columbus as not very bright, not a man of letters, someone who brought terrible things to the people of the New World. On the other side of that, he also introduced Christianity and Western Civilization to the mostly Neolithic peoples of said New World. 524 years later, I would say everyone benefited from his arrival.

In any case, if you want to read a great book, pick up ‘Admiral of the Ocean Sea’ by Samuel Eliot Morison. Morison, a sailor and an historian, researched Columbus’s four voyages of discovery, then sailed from Spain to the New World himself on the 45-foot ketch ‘Mary Otis’ between August and December of 1939.

Morrison was equipped with a modern sextant, modern maps, modern compasses, several chronometers, radios and the sure knowledge of where he was headed.

Columbus, on the other hand was equipped with: a quadrant, an astrolabe, a map that terminated in the mid Atlantic, some interesting math that said there are more lines of longitude ‘west of the map’ so you can sail to India – but exactly how many was a subject of a great deal of debate – and he had no chronometer, just a half-hour glass and an hour glass.

(When the glass was turned the crew on watch would chant:

“Blessed be the hour of our Savior’s birth

 Blessed be the Virgin Mary who bore him,

And blessed be John who baptized him.”

Columbus reported that none of them could sing well.

He also had anecdotal reporting from fisherman from all over Europe that they knew of other fisherman who had sailed ‘further west’ and found land. He also had detailed reports from these fishermen on the extent of the various trade winds.

Columbus also kept a detailed log, and while the original hasn’t survived, it was copied in the early 1500s and that copy still exists. From that copy Morison was able to reconstruct the tracks of the 4 voyages.

Of note, while we have no detailed specifications of the vessels commanded by Columbus, we have rough estimates of their lengths (on deck, not overall):

Santa Maria: 60 - 65 feet

Nina: 50 feet

Pinta: 55 feet

Morison’s conclusion, after sailing the same waters himself, and noting that Columbus was able to return to the same islands on each voyage – again without anything approaching modern charts, was that Columbus was a sailor and navigator of extraordinary skill and that few if any other sailors of his day or any day could have readily done what Columbus did.

King Ferdinand had declared, before his departure:

"Whereas you, Cristobal Colon, are setting forth by our command to discover and acquire certain islands and mainland in the ocean sea it is just and reasonable that, since you are exposing yourself to this danger in our service, you be rewarded therefor, it is our will and pleasure that you said Cristobal Colon after you have discovered and acquired the said islands and mainland or any of them, shall be our Admiral of the said islands and mainland which you may thus discover and acquire, and shall be our admiral and Viceroy and Governor therein, and shall be empowered henceforward to call and entitle yourself Don Cristobal Colon, and his heirs and successors forever may be so entitled, and enjoy the offices of Admiral of the Ocean Sea, Viceroy and Governor of the said islands and mainland."

So a toast to the Admiral of the Ocean Sea!

Have a Great Columbus Day!

A Man (And A Woman) For One Season

October 9th 2016

Would you vote for a candidate who said: "I personally believe the following is wrong, but I'll do it anyway if you vote for me!"

In an Oscar winning performance from 1966, a hero states that: "…when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos."

The point is obvious: if your conscience tells you that doing "X" is wrong, but you do it anyway “because the voters demands it,” you’re sacrificing your values for the sake of your position, rather than trying to lead “the citizenry” to what you believe is the morally correct course. Leadership is, after all, about leading people from one position to another. 

Assume for a second - just an assumption - that Mrs. Clinton isn't quite the rosy picture of health that we’ve been told; that she has “shaved the truth” just a bit. Let's further assume that, if elected, she’ll be subject to all the stress the presidency can produce. If so, Tim Kaine has a higher chance of becoming president then your average vice president. To date, 3 of 43 presidents have died in office from poor health.

So, if you assume Mrs. Clinton is going to be the next president, you could argue that Tim Kaine has a better than 1 in 15 chance of being the 45th president; pretty good odds. Stated otherwise, a vote for Hillary Clinton is arguably a vote for Tim Kaine for president.

Do we want Tim Kaine as president?

Let's take one 'simple' position of Tim Kaine, one he brought up: his position on capital punishment versus his Catholic faith. 

First, some clarity, something that was hard to obtain from Senator Kaine; the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion is absolute, abortion is the taking of an innocent life without any cause. On capital punishment the Catholic Church's position is quite different: a nation or state has the authority (to perform an execution) provided the law has been scrupulously followed AND there is no other recourse. If the state finds that it’s incapable of preventing the individual concerned from doing further harm to others (even fellow prisoners), then the state, under its recognized responsibility to protect its citizens, has the authority (you could say responsibility) to carry out the execution. The Church's argument is that modern states have the ability to protect others, including other prisoners, from such a man without executing him. Therefore, there’s no need to execute a prisoner. The argument therefore is not one about authority to carry out such an act, but the necessity.

Tim Kaine asserts that, as a practicing Catholic, he agrees with the Church's position on execution. (Of course, the Church doesn't insist that he agree with this position, it isn't a matter of Church dogma.) But as governor, he said he’d promised Virginia’s voters that he’d enforce the law. So, he went ahead with executions while governor.

Mr. Kaine also says that he agrees with the Church’s position on abortion. But, as with execution, Mr. Kaine will do as the citizens wish, rather than what his conscience dictates. (Mrs. Clinton supports unlimited abortion ‘rights,’ while asserting she wants ‘as few abortions as possible.’ Sure.)

Hmmmm...

So, to restate what Governor Kaine said: “I believe capital punishment (abortion) is morally wrong, but I'll support it anyway because I promised the voters I would in order to get elected.”

If his conscience lets him execute people, should we wonder what else he’d do for votes?

Did Mr. Kaine ever consider running for office on what he believes and if that isn’t acceptable to the voters that he shouldn’t hold office?

Looked at differently, someone who’ll abandon his own morals for votes is someone who probably shouldn’t be allowed to wield ANY authority.

The quote above is from Robert Bolt's magnificent “A Man For All Seasons.” The hero, Thomas More, later commented that “an oath is words we say to God.” Like the oath every politician takes on entering office. More refused to swear an oath to the King's law that placed him at odds with his conscience. Recognizing he couldn’t perform his public duties without sacrificing his own morals, he resigned from office.

It’s a lesson we should all take to heart. In particular, we should demand this from our elected officials, not reward them when they find ways around their morals in order to garner votes.

Deplorable and Stupid

October 3rd, 2016

Mrs. Clinton, in a statement she later retracted (though one suspects with some remorse), called those who support Mr. Trump: 'deplorable.' Now the mainstream press tells the world that Trump followers don’t think.

Washington’s major newspaper, in discussing how one of Mrs. Clinton’s ardent supporters in the press describes Trump supporters, tells us "the Republican nominee's appeal is fundamentally an emotional one. It's heart, not head."

You see, the “smart people,” the ones that use their heads, they’re for Clinton. If you’re for Trump, you don’t think, you’re too emotional.

So, let's take a look at what the ‘smart’ people have done, the ones that make up the leadership elite in Washington, and have to an ever greater degree during the last 100 years, the ones that have set the defacto drift of the nation since early in the last century; let's look at their record:

Defense: 

Korea: 3 years of fighting, 36,000+ US dead, reached a ceasefire, and 63 years later we’re still there, the situation unresolved, and due to glaringly bad decisions in the last three administrations, North Korea will soon deploy nuclear tipped missiles.

Vietnam: 10 years of combat, 58,000+ US dead, clear loss.

Afghanistan: 15 years of combat – and counting, 2,300 US dead, a draw at best.

Iran: a 'cold' war since 1979; now we’ve signed a 'non-treaty' releasing billions of dollars, lifting sanctions, and letting Iran establish hegemony over the Mid East.

Iraq: since 1990 we have been engaged in, over and around Iraq; we are still there, and it appears that Iran and Russia are going to be the primary beneficiaries.

Plus: a broken procurement system, and a host of other problems with force structure, recruiting and base infrastructure, and a military that is increasingly distant from the general population; Syria, Libya, the inability to name radical Islam, al Qaeda larger than it was 15 years ago, and on and on.

Education:

Since creating the Department of Education - established to control rising education costs while improving the performance of US students - our children are, if anything, less well read, less well educated and less prepared for life in the real world. But take comfort in the fact that the US now spends more in total AND more per capita on education then any other country on earth.

We may not be getting any smarter, but at least it costs a lot more…

Healthcare:

Start with the 'Affordable Care Act' (aka Obamacare). Since it came into law the cost of healthcare has increased 19% (inflation is 6% over the same period, medical insurance deductibles are up 63%). Meanwhile, nothing has been done to address the need for more doctors and nurses, and costs continue to rise, even as more doctors are leaving practice due to government interference.

Energy? Housing? You get the picture.

The economy as a whole:

 

Since the creation of the Federal Reserve we haven’t had substantially fewer recessions (still about 2 per decade), but recessions have been longer and deeper, and our currency, which gained in value regularly from our nation's birth until 1913 (except for the Civil War period) has lost 90% of its value in the last 100 years.

Debt? The nominal US debt is as large as our total Gross Domestic Product, and total unfunded government annuities now exceed $200 trillion (more than 10 times the size of our economy).

With the exception of the Great Depression – brought on predominantly by government spending – unemployment rarely exceeded 5%, even without messing with the numbers – until after World War II. Black unemployment remained within 1% of white unemployment from the 1880s until after WWII. But, since the early 70s, when all the government “help” arrived, black unemployment has remained at least 5% higher than white unemployment.

What do all these programs -- and others -- have in common? They were all created, and all have been managed by the brilliant progressives who 'use their heads, not their hearts.' These are the “smart” people who feel – 4 to1 – that policy in Washington should not consider what the citizenry want because the citizens are ill informed. 

This is their track record.

Perhaps it's time for the citizenry to tell the 'brilliant' people to sit down and give someone else a chance. It's hard to imagine anyone could do much worse.

Terror - Again

September 25th

After the most recent (multiple) terror attacks several commentators were quick to point out that the process from ‘explosion to arrest’ took less than 48 hours and that this demonstrated the great strides made since 2001.

The action of the various police and investigative organizations in identifying and tracking down the suspects was excellent police work. But…

It should be remembered that no action of any intelligence or police organization prevented the terrorists from succeeding. That these bombs went off and yet no one died is just a little short of a miracle. But banking on miracles is not a great security strategy.

That various terrorists have failed in their attacks because of incompetence (the ‘Underwear Bomber,’ the ‘Shoe Bomber,’ etc.) is hardly cause for celebration. We can thank God that such was the case. But, besides prayer, what can we do to prevent terror future attacks?

In the short term we can’t completely stop attacks. Whatever we start today won’t yield immediate and comprehensive results. Answers that ‘we need to copy Israel’ (the implication being that Israel has better security than the US) miss the point that the US is physically 400 times bigger than Israel with 40 times the population; the US is a much harder problem then Israel. And it’s a different one; it’s worth remembering that Israel suffers from regular terrorist attacks. The US can learn a great deal from Israel and others, but the US solution is going to be much different.

The US also has the benefit of the Constitution. That is something we absolutely don’t want to ‘throw out.’ But with the rights and freedoms the Constitution guarantees and protects, there is an associated cost. So, any solution must balance our security with those rights and freedoms.

So, how do we do that? Our candidates need to be asked this question. Any reasonable answer needs to address the following points:

First, recognize that any answer is going to be incomplete, that there will always be mistakes and gaps in our security. And, every answer will take time to implement. That we’re 15 years into this war against Islamic terrorists and we’re still asking these questions is a reason for criticism. The first 7 or 8 years or that period we seemed to perform slightly better. But in the past several years we’ve seen multiple successful terrorist attacks. Our security appears to be slipping. That suggests that, at a minimum, the people in charge right now need to be retired and new leadership and new strategies are needed.

Second, immigration reform – and that means better border security and immigration control – is a key element of our internal security. Trying to establish better security while maintaining open borders is nonsensical. We need to establish control first and then move on towards some sort of immigration reform. It is the sine qua non of the security problem. You can’t have open borders and high security. Pick one.

Third, intelligence agencies – working with the FBI, the state and local police and other agencies – can do a lot. They can probably do more then they are doing. Doing so will require intruding on personal liberties from time to time. And there will be mistakes. The intelligence agencies have no right to unchecked activities, or instant acceptance and loyalty from the citizenry. The nation needs more, and more aggressive, Congressional oversight. The intelligence community needs to be more forthcoming with Congress, and Congress needs to be much more aggressive and assertive in establishing detailed and comprehensive oversight.

Fourth, winning this war will require a very aggressive ‘away’ game. The root of this war is Islamic fanaticism. The way to fight them is with our Arab friends and allies who are in the same war as we, and who are suffering far more casualties than we are. We need to work with them to root out existing terrorist cells, but we also need to help them to do what is necessary to reform or stamp out those forces that promote fanaticism that threatens not simply the West, but threatens their own nations.

These are the big pieces: new leadership; immigration reform; meaningful intelligence reform and oversight; and attacking Islamic fanaticism at its roots. There are a thousand details. But whatever we do, every plan must include these elements.

US Foreign Policy: Off the Rails

September 18th, 2016

A recent commentary opined that, if elected, President Trump must find 'qualified' people for key positions; that only a few on his team have the necessary credentials.

Another article lauded Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy acumen, experience and inside knowledge. This was compared to Mr. Trump’s inexperience and lack of inside knowledge, concluding that Mrs. Clinton was the only possible choice for those serious about US national security policy.

So… let's begin with several simple assertions:

Mrs. Clinton is at least part-author of current US foreign and security policy.

Mrs. Clinton will, on the whole, maintain current US foreign policy and national security policy.

Mrs. Clinton will draw from the ‘established’ policy experts.

So how has US foreign policy and national security policy developed after 7 years of these experts?

Iraq was recovering in 2009, declared a great success by VP Biden in 2011, but now wars with ISIS, and drifts further into the Iran – Russia camp everyday.

Egypt has been through two non-constitutional changes in government and is fighting a nasty shadow war with Islamic extremists.

Libya, not a friend in 2009, but being helpful, was turned into a failed state and a breeding ground for radical Islamists. This is arguably Mrs. Clinton’s particular achievement.

Syria’s civil war emerged from the ‘Arab Spring,’ an event misunderstood by the Mrs. Clinton and the Administration. 5 years later 300,000 Syrians are dead, the war continues, and a refugee crisis threatens Europe.

Russia rises, despite Clinton’s ‘Reset.’ Putin seized Crimea, is slowly seizing eastern Ukraine, has applied heavy-handed pressure on Georgia, and has successfully exploited the vacuum in the Middle East - caused by the partial US withdrawal - to keep Assad in place in Syria, and stake out a new power position for Russia.

Iran exploited the same power vacuum and helped to undermine the government of Yemen, leading to civil war in that country - now 5 years in duration. Now, flush with cash, Iran ‘flexes its muscles’ in the Persian Gulf and North Arabian Sea.

North Korea transitioned into the 3^rd generation of the Kim dynasty, has conducted scores of missile tests, and accelerated nuclear weapon development; the US has done nothing to slow that nuclear weapons program. Within a couple of years the North will probably have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them regionally. Within 3 or 4 years they may be able to reach the US.

China continues expanding, with Chinese naval forces now on patrol in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean, Chinese bases built or building in Pakistan and Djibouti, and seeking a naval port in the southern Atlantic Ocean.

The Philippines’ new president is bowing to Chinese presence, and, recognizing American fecklessness and the situation in the South China Sea, it’s looking increasingly that he will cede de facto control of key Philippine islands to China.

Cuba’s leaders mocks us; Mexico builds a border wall to keep out those crossing its southern border (really); Chinese commercial interests have moved into Panama, and want to move into Nicaragua; Venezuela has collapsed; and Brazil and Argentina are facing economic and political crises.

Many US policies are diametrically opposite to that which came before. From Israel to Japan, Great Britain to the Philippines, the US has retreated from longtime friends, and courted new friends (e.g. Cuba and Iran) who’ve turned around and mocked the US even as the White House chases more agreements.

These political and economic situations, if not caused by the US, have all been seriously exacerbated by US policies in the last 7 years, many of which were first implemented by Mrs. Clinton.

Meanwhile, the US economy remains stagnant; and our military, according to those across the political spectrum, has grown weaker; investments are needed in a host of capabilities, and it will require years to recover.

Yet, those who created this mess wish to remain in power. These are the people the intelligentsia insists President Trump must have on his team.

As this disaster unfolds in slow motion we’re told that Mrs. Clinton can fix it. But Mrs. Clinton helped create this catastrophe. Can we really afford to give her another chance?

Perhaps Mr. Trump can’t fix it. But if ever there were an argument for Donald Trump, this is it.

A Nuclear North Korea: Now What?

September 10th, 2016

North Korea detonated a bomb September 9^th.

If you haven’t been following closely, during the past year the North has conducted multiple missile tests – short, medium and long-range missiles, and also tested a sea-launched ballistic missile. And last Friday they detonated a 10 – 30 kiloton weapon (that is, 10 – 30 thousand tons of TNT).

(The test was underground; because of the limits of seismology, while it can be determined with a high degree of certainty that it was a man-made event, determining the actual size of the explosion is limited by knowledge of the specific geology where the explosion took place, hence the estimate: at least 10 kilotons, but probably not more than 30 kilotons. For reference, the bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 15 kt and 20 kt, respectively.)

How did we get here?

For decades the US has been in on-again, off-again talks with Russia, China, the Republic of Korea (ROK) and Japan vis-à-vis North Korea and, among other things, how to keep them from developing nuclear weapons. China and Russia have direct contact with North Korea so there was always communication with the North.

Following revelations of a substantial North Korean nuclear weapons program in the early 1990s, the Clinton Administration entered into negotiations to try to end the North’s development program. This resulted in an agreement: the North Korean – US ‘Agreed Framework,’ signed in October 1994 to end the weapons program, and build 2 nuclear power stations in North Korea.

The agreement broke down in 2002 when we accused North Korea of continuing uranium enrichment, violating the agreement. The North countered that the US had no definitive proof. In December 2003 all work ceased on the reactors. Talks resumed and by 2005 some in the State Department were hopeful that the North would adhere to the agreement.

That didn’t quite play out. And whatever the interim truth, the recent detonation shows that they in fact have a successful weapon program.

Previously, the US, Japan and the ROK would meet with Russia and China and they would use ‘carrots and sticks’ (‘carrots’ mainly consisting of fuel and food, sticks mainly being targeted sanctions on bank accounts and the moving of money into and out of North Korea) to get North Korea ‘back in the box.’

That has unraveled. Sanctions – on paper – are now very tight. But there seems to be a reasonable conclusion that China is not really enforcing the sanctions. And, there is informed speculation that China has assisted in at least elements of the nuclear weapon and missile programs.

Why would China support the North? Because, despite rhetoric otherwise, the last thing China wants is a unified Korea. A unified Korea would leave a true capitalist state, and a US ally, on China’s border. That’s clearly not in China’s national interest. In fact, such an outcome is unacceptable to China. Nor can they let North Korea fall apart. So, whatever is necessary to sustain the North – and prevent unification, is justifiable.

How does a nuclear North Korea help China? Simply, nuclear weapons make North Korea ‘too dangerous to fail.’ Without nuclear weapons the world could, arguably, let the North collapse economically and politically: ‘let China and the ROK fix it.’ It would be ugly, but it could happen.

Adding nuclear weapons into the mix changes the equation; it is arguably too dangerous to let a nation fail when armed with nuclear weapons. So, with nuclear weapons, North Korea must be ‘saved,’ and China need not worry about a unified Korea.

China will, however, use this situation to ‘stir the pot’ and call for steps to reduce tensions, which they will equate to reducing US presence in Korea and the Western Pacific, while continuing calls for the US to remove ballistic missile defense systems from the region.

What should the US do?

The US needs to recognize the primary issue isn’t North Korea; the primary issue is China. North Korea survives, and North Korea has a viable ballistic missile force and a nuclear weapons program because, in the end, China has aided and abetted the programs and sustained North Korea’s ruling regime.

China is looking after what it perceives as its interests.

It’s time the US does the same. There are many steps to take, to include modernizing our deterrence forces, and strengthening our missile defense capabilities. But we need to begin by recognizing that China’s interests clearly are not ours.

The G-20: A President in Search of a Kingdom

September 3rd, 2016
 

In the summer of 1191, the army of Richard the Lion-hearted captured the city of Acre, then moved on towards Jaffa, prepatory to assaulting Jerusalem. But things weren’t going smoothly for Richard and on June 28^th he sent a message to Salahdin, asking to meet and negotiate a settlement. The two never met, though Richard did meet with Salahdin’s brother Sayf ad Din. It was, arguably, the first attempt at a great power summit in modern history.

Like many summits, little was accomplished. However, that hasn’t diminished the appetite many leaders – kings and presidents – have for such meetings.

Beginning on the 3^rd, the leading politicians of the world are meeting in Hangzhou, China, part of a complex, and often confusing, series of institutionalized summits: the G-7, G-8, G-20, etc. The numbers change, but the agenda remains the same: the titular leaders of various nations get together and act, well, not exactly presidential. More accurately, they act imperially, much like Richard and Salahdin.

The first G-7 meeting was held in 1974, when the presidents and prime ministers of Canada, France, West Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US met to discuss what might be done about the oil crisis. Following the discussions nothing was done that actually addressed the oil crisis – such as producing more oil. Economies weren’t fixed, oil wasn’t produced, and no alternatives were generated.

More summits followed. Such is one of the legacies of summits.

From the G-7 sprang the G-8: Russia was added. And then came the G-20 in 1999.

At these various summits they’ve met, and they’ve talked. They’ve cancelled a number of debts from developing nations, and they’ve pontificated on how to fine-tune short-term economic actions by their governments. There were a number of meetings in the 2008 – 2010 timeframe that addressed the global recession. The global recession more or less churned on and the actions recommended by global leadership accomplished little, except perhaps slowing the recovery. But that didn’t slow the appetite for these meetings.

 

But there’s another piece to these meetings, what has percolated out of these various summits, something that’s become more prevalent in the last 5 or 6 years: the announcement of various agreements. Some mean very little; at the G-20 summit last November, world leaders announced they were united against terrorism. (I thought they’d announced that in September of 2001.)

 

But yesterday President Obama announced – as he arrived for the meetings – that the US would, according to multiple news sources, ‘ratify’ the Paris Agreement on Global Warming. He then turned over documents to the UN General Secretary as to exactly how the US would comply.

There is, however, one small problem: the President doesn’t ratify treaties, the Senate does. Per the Constitution, Article II, Section 2: the president “shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” 

The President asserts that it isn’t a treaty. So, the Senate doesn’t need to approve it. But despite what the President says, the ‘agreement’ binds the nation, under terms of international law. Call it what you will – a rose by any other name – it’s a treaty, detailing what steps each nation will take to reduce various emissions, and how much money each nation must pay into a global clean-up fund.

 

We may argue about what causes climate change, and we may argue about what’s the best course of action to limit change. But the specifics of the Constitution are clear: the President is the executor of the nation’s laws, he doesn’t create them. Yet this is exactly what happens at these summits: the President meets with senior figures of other governments, they talk, they reach some sort of understanding, and then believe that, because they’ve reached an understanding, that our nations are bound by that understanding. That is called imperialism.

The G-20 is another opportunity for the President to act like a king. But the President has no authority to bind the nation to an agreement with another nation. Such an agreement is called a treaty. And that power rests very specifically with the Senate. It’s time we turn a jaundiced eye towards these summits and demand thorough oversight by Congress.

China, the South China Sea, and the and the League of Nations

August 27, 2016
 

September 18^th, 1931: a young Japanese army lieutenant, Suemori Kawamoto, acting under orders of Col. Seishiro Itagaki, surreptitiously detonates a small bomb next to a railroad track just outside of Shenyang, Manchuria.

The Japanese used the fabricated ‘Mukden Incident’ to justify invading and occupying Manchuria, claiming the attack represented a threat to security.

Roll the clock forward…

Beginning in 1991, as the Philippines demanded removal of US military bases, and as US presence in the South China Sea (SCS) began to shrink, the US began shifting naval assets to the Middle East, while shrinking our navy as part of the ‘peace dividend’; no serious effort was made to address the power vacuum in SE Asia.

Meanwhile, the Chinese had already been making waves about the ‘9 Dash Line,’ a map (with a line made up of nine segments – ‘9 Dashes’) that marked out Chinese territory in the SCS, to include most of the islands. China didn’t quite have the navy to do anything about it, so things went more or less unchanged for the next decade or so.

 

But 4 or 5 years ago things started changing: the Chinese navy was larger and more capable, the US had sent a clear signal that it viewed trade with China as perhaps our number one foreign policy issue, and there was no one else to challenge China. And China had plans to expand their footprint in the SCS.

 

In January 2013, as China staked a claim to what was clearly Philippine territory, the Philippine government brought its case to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague (established under the UN), seeking a ruling on ownership of the islands.

 

The Chinese asserted the court had no jurisdiction and in 2014 (and again in 2015) refused to submit a counter argument.

By 2014 the Chinese were already well into a major construction effort, dredging around the islands and pouring tens of thousands of tons of concrete.

Nevertheless, on July 12^th, 2016 the court issued its decision, finding the Philippine position was correct, undermining China’s entire claim to the ‘9 Dash Line.’

 

Since then China has made it very clear it vehemently disagrees and has no intention of abiding by the Court’s findings. The Philippines finds itself unable to confront the Chinese navy (or air force, now flying routine patrols over the SCS) and appears to be headed towards some sort of de facto accommodation with Beijing.

 

It’s worth remembering that through the SCS passes 25% of the world’s international trade, to include some 15 million barrels of oil per day.

 

All of which leads us to wonder what happens next.

But, this kind of thing has happened before.

Consider: in February of 1933 the League of Nations issued a report calling for Japan to leave ‘occupied Manchuria.’

In response, on February 24^th, Ambassador Yosuke Matsuoka walked out of the League assembly in Geneva, and Japan withdrew from the League. Matsuoka stated: "Japan will oppose any attempt at international control of Manchuria. It does not mean that we defy you, because Manchuria belongs to us by right.”

Now, the words President Xi of China used just 7 weeks ago in responding to the ruling by the Court:

“China is committed to resolving disputes through direct negotiations, but its national sovereignty and maritime interests will not be influenced under any circumstances by the South China Sea ruling by the Arbitral Tribunal of The Hague.”

Later, while meeting with the EU President, Xi added: “The South China Sea Islands have been China's territory since ancient times, and China refuses to accept any claims or activities based on the arbitral ruling.”

Following Japan’s quitting the League of Nations there was a good deal of talk, but little action.  Two years later (1935) Italy, equally contemptuous of the League, invaded Ethiopia. The League did nothing. Several years later, the world was at war.

Decisions have consequences. The decisions made by the foreign policy elite over the last two decades, and in particular those made since 2010, have led us to this situation. It’s unreasonable to assume that those who got us into this situation will get us out of it. And to a certainty, this will get worse before it gets better.