Bismarck and East Asia

February 5th, 2017

The other day I heard someone opine that it’s a crime that the US hadn’t (and wasn’t considering) going into Syria to take down President Assad.

Well, consider this:

While the focus of the US, and much of the rest of the world, has been squarely on the US elections, and ISIS, things have continued at quite a pace in East Asia. In the last 5 years China has moved aggressively into the South China Sea (through which passes some 20% of all international trade), claiming it as their own. Meanwhile, China continues expanding its army, navy and air force.

Elsewhere, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia have drifted away from the US and towards China, a result of both neglect on the part of the US during the same 5 years, and the muscular foreign policy of China.

And, North Korea appears to be on the verge of producing both an intercontinental ballistic missile and a nuclear weapon to fit atop that missile.

A rising, expansive power, with a centralized government and few of the restraints found in a western democracy, has been extending its reach, and a new nuclear power has emerged, while the US has been focused elsewhere.

The question is: What next?

Almost to a certainty there will be confrontations between the US (and certain key allies, Japan and the Republic of Korea) and China. And North Korea. Whether those confrontations are violent, and whether they escalate, is the real question. Our goal, quite obviously, is to keep these confrontations as peaceful as possible and where that isn’t possible, to limit the escalation. And to make sure that, in the end, US aims are achieved.

But in getting there, we need to remember something…

Despite how morally superior we might want to sound, it’s critical in the nuclear age that we recognize that every nation will, and must, weigh the cost of survival against the cost of its other interests.

Any planning must first be bounded by the knowledge that potential enemies have nuclear weapons. It’s for that reason that our nuclear force must be modernized and kept ready, to ensure that any possible enemy understands that our nuclear forces are credible and that they can’t resort to the use of nuclear weapons without paying too high a price. A modern, ready nuclear force therefore acts as a bar to crossing that nuclear threshold.

But long before we get to any nuclear threshold, we as a nation need to consider other thresholds.

Ask yourself this “simple” question: how many American lives would you be willing to trade for peace in Syria? 400,000 Syrians have now died in their civil war. Would you be willing to send in the Marines to bring peace to that country? If so, how many dead Marines would be too many?

That’s not an easy question, and there are no easy answers.

Otto von Bismarck, the foreign minister of Prussia 1862 - 1890 (and chancellor of Germany 1871 - 1890) is reputed to have said, as to the question of Germany getting involved in the Balkans: "the whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier."

Bismarck had orchestrated the War of German Unification, the Austro-Prussian War and the Franco-Prussian War. He was an exceptional strategist, probably the best in two centuries, and he understood costs and national interests. He was willing to expend assets – and lives – in defense of those interests. But only in defense of those interests. He understood Germany’s national interests, and he knew where those interests ended.

It’s in this sense that the US must be judicious in where it applies effort, where it commits forces, where it draws “red lines,” and where it lets others do what they will.

SecDef Mattis understands this calculus, he understands US interests, and he understands our approach to China needs to be well thought out and deliberate. 

But there seem to be a fair number of folks who think the US should be rushing here, there and everywhere to defend some other set of interests, the “common interests of mankind” or some such thing. They need to ask themselves exactly what price they’re willing to pay, particularly with other peoples’ lives.

Healing Health Care

January 29th, 2017

The President is looking at unraveling the Affordable Care Act (the ACA, commonly referred to as Obamacare) and replacing it with something that is less expensive and at the same time giving citizens more options in their health care.

Less expensive is key. Since the ACA was passed in 2011, health insurance costs have soared and are heading higher still. As of last November premiums were set to rise an average of 25% in 2017, in the 39 states served by the federal market.

While many will receive subsidies to help pay that increase, subsidies will mean that the taxpayer will ultimately foot the bill. And you can be certain that some of the bill we be dropped into next year by raising the deficit.

Before going any further, it might help to consider a few simple concepts.

When this began, there were some 250 million Americans covered by some form of health insurance. When the ACA was passed, that number jumped. The goal was to reach 280 million, leaving about 10% of the citizens uninsured. Without going into whether ordering people to buy health insurance is Constitutional or ethical, someone should have seen a problem.

The problem is this: if you have a health care system providing care to 250 million, and you add 30 million to it, you have less health care per person when you are done. It doesn’t matter how you get there, you have less per person.

How bad? While the overall ratio of doctors to citizens is staying roughly the same, that trend line appears to be in part due to doctors remaining in practice longer, with more doctors practicing medicine well past age 65. However, there is a trend of more doctors entering into specialized healthcare and fewer into general practice. That translates into fewer doctors providing basic healthcare, meaning more “rationing” of doctors, and higher costs – to be met with higher insurance rates.

Perhaps this shortage can be met by expanding the role of nurses in primary health care?

Certainly, except for one minor point: the shortage of nurses is expected to reach roughly 1 million in the next 5 years, with roughly 2 million nurses in practice in the US  (the need is for roughly 3 million, measured in ‘Full Time Equivalents.’)

In short, no matter what’s happening with the efforts to unravel the mess caused by the ACA, and no matter what steps are taken to address health insurance pricing, none of that is going to matter unless we address the question of supply: the United States needs to expand the “supply” of doctors and nurses.

Practically speaking, that can’t be done in the short term except by “robbing” from someone else. Even as we sit and debate the rules for immigration, the US will need to find ways to attract more doctors and nurses to this country over the next 5 years. Options to provide incentives seem limited: a special tax category perhaps for a medical professional who moves to the US.

To address the long-term problem, any health care program needs to provide some mechanism to expand the “production” of doctors and nurses. What that means is more graduates from medical and nursing schools, but that really translates into more medical and nursing schools. Simply putting more students in any class will in the end dilute the “product.” The real solution requires more schools.

But it doesn’t end there. The other shortage is in residency programs. The residency programs need to be expanded now if we are to meet the needs of a population that will reach 400 to 450 million by 2050. The government needs to identify both incentives for new and expanded medical and nursing schools, and new residency programs, as well as eliminating institutional roadblocks to expansion. And these programs should include planning and sizing to meet the need for that future population growth so that we don’t repeat this problem in another 30 years.

Government planning and interference in health care has been at least partly responsible for the increase in costs over the past decade. The government now has an opportunity to take another look at the health care industry, and working with the industry, academia and the citizenry, chart a different course, one that actually steers us around the problems generated by previous administrations.

We the People

January 23rd, 2017

The transfer of power, per the Constitution, has taken place. President Obama peacefully and gracefully ceded power to President Trump. Huzzah! Three Cheers for the United States of America!

It’s worth noting that while Mr. Obama was passing power to Mr. Trump, troops from Senegal and Nigeria were moving to Ghana, preparing to remove the obdurate President Yahyeh Jammah of “the Gambia;” who had refused to leave office; (he left the country 24 hours later.) That’s how transfers of power often happened, until George Washington – per the Constitution – reset the standard by calmly handing power to John Adams in 1797. (Washington actually handed over power gleefully; Washington had to be cajoled into not resigning more than once during his 8 years in office, dearly wishing to shed his office and return to his beloved Mt. Vernon.) 

If you listened to President Trump's speech you noticed the key point Mr. Trump made: this is really a transfer of power from the Washington DC political establishment back to the people. It's a nice tag line, but the difference is Mr. Trump means it. Not that it's original to him. After all, it's right there in the nation’s instruction manual, the Constitution, which begins: “We the People…”

What will that translate into?

The obvious things certainly; everything promised repeatedly during the campaign, and mentioned again Friday: not simply a government responsive to the citizenry, but also spending less; fixing healthcare and unraveling “Obamacare;” securing the border; and in a grand sense, putting America first in all things.

The media seem to enjoy pointing out that Mr. Trump is just a man, he's not perfect. True. Nor should we expect him to be perfect. None of us are, not even the media who vilify him.

But that's why what he said is so important. By making the point that power comes from and belongs to the people, Mr. Trump has made the simple but vital point that the real effort, the real work, the real America isn't the President, it isn't Congress, and it isn’t the far from perfect federal bureaucracy; America is the people, to include the 95 million Americans of working age who can't find a job, and who in the last 8 years were no longer even recognized by the Department of Labor.

There’s also a subtle point here, one the mainstream media misses, one the mainstream media would suggest the average American is incapable of understanding –one that Mr. Trump clearly understands: the underpinnings of Western Civilization safeguarded by the Constitution.

The Constitution, and its integral role in the culture and society it creates, is at one and the same time straightforward and subtle. Unfortunately, the Constitution has been turned in on itself like a pretzel by judges who felt free to interpret the Constitution in any manner comfortable to them, at odds with the equally valid understanding by the majority of the citizenry (after all, it is our document), and thereby altering, sometimes dramatically, the society desired by the citizenry, and stripping power from the citizenry and shifting it to the bureaucracy.

Yet, despite the portrayal by many in the media of the average citizen of 'flyover country' as an uncivilized rube, the ‘flyover citizens’ understand this complicated relationship between the Constitution and the society and culture around them, and the impact of “pretzel making” by federal judges.

For many, perhaps most, of those who voted for Trump, this issue of “judicial legerdemain” became the critical issue. They understood that selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and selection of more than 100 other federal judges, will change many subtle but vitally important facets of our nation. Not only facets of our economy and politics and various regulations, but also, and more importantly, facets of the culture and society that define the United States, and Western Civilization as a whole.

It is, I would suggest, why they elected Mr. Trump, because they saw that he understood this relationship as well, and understood the need to protect our society and culture with the right judges. It’s why, perhaps more than any other single point, Mr. Trump is now president. It’s why, as Mr. Trump so eloquently pointed out, that he is transferring power to “We the People.”

God Bless Mr. Trump as he begins this monumental effort, and God Bless the United States of America.

Archbishop Carrol Prayer for George Washington

January 19th, 2017

Ladies and Gentlemen - please forgive me for this intrusion, but on the eve of the inauguration of Mr. Trump, I was searching for something that would properly frame what I was feeling, and remembered to look back at the first such event, and the words written by the Archbishop Carrol, on the occasion of George Washington's coming to office. May God Bless Mr. Trump and may God Bless the United States of America - Very Respectfully - pete

We pray you, O God of might, wisdom, and justice,
through whom authority is rightly administered,
laws are enacted, and judgment decreed,
assist with your Holy Spirit of counsel and fortitude
the President of these United States,
that his administration may be conducted in righteousness,
and be eminently useful to your people, over whom he presides;
by encouraging due respect for virtue and religion;
by a faithful execution of the laws in justice and mercy;
and by restraining vice and immorality.

Let the light of your divine wisdom direct
the deliberations of Congress,
and shine forth in all the proceedings and laws
framed for our rule and government,
so that they may tend to the preservation of peace,
the promotion of national happiness,
the increase of industry, sobriety, and useful knowledge;
and may perpetuate to us the blessing of equal liberty.

We pray for the governor of this state,
for the members of the assembly,
for all judges, magistrates, and other officers
who are appointed to guard our political welfare,
that they may be enabled, by your powerful protection,
to discharge the duties of their respective stations
with honesty and ability.

We recommend likewise, to your unbounded mercy,
all our fellow citizens throughout the United States,
that we may be blessed in the knowledge
and sanctified in the observance of your most holy law;
that we may be preserved in union,
and in that peace which the world cannot give;
and after enjoying the blessings of this life,
be admitted to those which are eternal.
Grant this, we beseech you, O Lord of mercy,
through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.  Amen.

Agriculture and National Security

 January 15th, 2017

Several weeks ago while driving through some woods I noticed a sign that identified the land as part of the National Forest Service. I’ve seen those signs hundreds of times before, but for the first time it struck me: the National Forest Service is part of the Department of Agriculture.

Previously, my understanding was that the Department of the Interior managed all federal lands. In fact, the Department of Agriculture manages 25% of federal lands. There isn’t anything nefarious about that, but it raises a simple question: why?

Meanwhile…

Several of the prospective secretaries of the next administration were on Capital Hill last week taking questions from Congress. It’s a good process and the republic benefits from the give and take.

One of the issues that’s come up in the hearings, and the commentary that surrounds the hearings, is the proposition that the next administration wishes to expand our Navy. This invariably leads to discussions as to whether the nation can afford additional spending on defense, and where to ‘find more money.’ I’ve read a number of statements asserting it’s impossible, that there’s simply no more money to be had. After all, the nation still faces a $20,000,000,000,000 debt (that’s trillion, with a T), having added more than $1 trillion to the debt just last year. At current projections (if no changes are made to the budget) the debt will grow another $3 trillion in the next 4 years.

True, DOD is already trying to cut various staffs, civilian offices, and those military forces that neither deploy nor directly support those that do deploy. All well and good. No one can deny that the military is top-heavy, and that there are legitimate savings to be found in some serious ‘trimming at the top.’ But that’s not enough.

How then can the US afford to buy more ships and planes?

During the 1980s President Reagan commissioned an independent study – the Grace Commission – to look at waste in government. What they found was that approximately 30% of federal spending was wasted, a result of bloated organizations, confusing and redundant programs, and a vast array of processes and regulations that did little, but cost a great deal. During the 1990s Speaker Gingrich forced through certain budgetary changes that reflected recommendations from the Grace Commission. Some money was saved, some sectors of the government grew marginally more efficient, and perhaps now the waste is on the order of 20% vice 30%. But the waste is still huge.

As an example, recent reporting suggests DOD wasted tens of billions in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade; some estimates running into hundreds of billions.

Yet, while it is commonplace to excoriate DOD for waste around every corner, and to expound on the need for DOD to become ‘lean,’ what about the rest of government? In fact, every indication is that the rest of the government is as bad, if not worse, than DOD. In 2015 the Heritage Foundation reported that government auditors identified $123 billion in annual spending that “failed to show any positive impact.”

But before we even begin with the waste inside various programs, consider the various federal departments themselves, such as the Department of Agriculture – and its $105 billion budget. Why do we have it?

Why not, for example, take the Food and Nutrition Services (food stamps – formally SNAP), which accounts for perhaps 75% of the Department of Agriculture budget, and move it to Health and Human Services? Move the Rural Housing Service (about 10% of the Agriculture budget) to Housing and Urban Development, then merge Interior and Agriculture into one department. Then merge the departments of Commerce and Labor, with combined budgets of approximately $20 billion.

Four departments where there had been six. Certainly there must be some manpower savings from simple efficiencies. Combined, the 6 departments employ more than 320,000 people. Might it be possible to shave 6% or 7% in manning in the combined departments? Perhaps more? That alone would free some $2 billion annually.

The point is this: we have a huge federal bureaucracy. Across the board it suffers from both inefficiencies and waste. If Congress is willing, we have an opportunity to address those problems. And use some of that money to improve our national security.

Mr. Trump and the Astrophysicists

January 8th, 2017

When I woke up this morning it was very cold, only 256…

Okay, that’s the Kelvin scale, which starts at absolute zero, the point where atomic motion stops, -459 degree (Fahrenheit) or -273 (Celsius). (256K equals 4 Fahrenheit.)

To put that in perspective, the temperature in deep space (between the stars) is about 3K.

Which raises an interesting question: what would be earth’s surface temperature if there were no sun? There’s some heat from the core of the planet, but it would be pretty cold. The temperature on Pluto’s surface is about 45K on average; so, let’s just say the temperature on earth’s surface if the sun went away would be about 50K (-370F). So, the rest of earth’s surface temperature, equivalent to about 235K, is provided by our proximity to the sun.

Our sun pours out a huge amount of energy; the amount of energy reaching earth from the sun is about 170,000 trillion watts per second. By comparison, the amount of oil consumed per second (world wide) would produce the equivalent of 6 trillion watts, substantially less than 1/100^th of 1% of the sun’s energy reaching earth. 

Interestingly, the sun operates in a series of cycles, with fluctuations in its electro-magnetic field, which reflect changes in the amount of energy the sun is producing. The sun is now entering a new cycle, what’s referred to as a “solar minimum,” a period of lower strength in its magnetic field and, if the astrophysicists are correct, the beginning of a period of reduced energy output. (Why exactly these cycles exist is a subject of debate; the cycles exist, but we don’t know why.)

In any case, if the astrophysicists are correct – and there’s virtually no debate that suggests they are in error, perhaps as soon as the next few years we’ll see a drop in the amount of energy hitting the earth by ½ to 1%. That the main-stream media has chosen to ignore this, unfortunately, doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

So?

Well, back to the point above about the temperature on earth if there were no sun (maybe 50K): a 1% drop in the energy from the sun reaching earth would equate to roughly a 4 degree Fahrenheit (2.4K) drop in the average temperature of our planet. This would be potentially catastrophic.

For more than a century earth has benefited from a “Goldilocks” moment (not too hot, not too cold, just right) that allowed, as a whole, ever-larger crop yields, resulting in a world population that grew by 500% in just over 100 years.

While some worry about a rise in earth’s temperature, a drop would be far worse. Rising temperatures can be difficult, but, for example, the Dutch have shown we can deal with rising sea levels. But, a drop in sea level, an increase in glacier size, a reduction in rainfall, a drop in river levels, and all the other consequences of cooling, would be even worse. Colder temperatures would mean shorter growing seasons, in some areas the elimination of winter crops, and a reduction in total arable lands worldwide.

Which leads us to Mr. Trump.

While much of the world has hurried to plan for the possibility of a warmer planet, little has been done to prepare for a colder one. A colder planet would lead, more quickly than a warmer one, to a fight for resources: food, fuel and water. The national security implications would be severe.

Mr. Trump might want to put a small task in front of his planners – particularly from the departments of Defense, Agriculture, Energy, Commerce and Interior: consider steps that might be taken to help the nation in the event of a mini Ice Age. Not only in energy (oil and natural gas, perhaps research in thorium reactors), but food production (tax credits to farmers to experiment in higher yield and more durable winter crops), completion of unfinished reservoir systems in the west, expansion of existing reservoirs across the country, a new look at the strategic grain stockpiles; that’s just a short list of things that should at least be discussed in our contingency plans.

At the same time, planning should consider how other countries might react if their survival was threatened. Our national security would be at risk. We need to be able to help where and when we can, but protect our interests when and where we must. And that begins with good planning; good planning includes asking the “what if” questions no one else is asking.

The Administration’s Message: End the Jewish State

 January 1st, 2017

Secretary of State Kerry asserts the US, and the Obama administration in particular, is Israel’s closest friend, while also informing the world that Israel can choose to be ‘either democratic or Jewish, but it can’t do both.’

This was said as part of a lengthy defense of the US abstention that allowed passage of the UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution condemning Israel’s settlements in the West Bank.

Hmmm…

Mr. Kerry might have forgotten, but the reason for Israel’s existence is that it’s a Jewish state, having been established after World War II for resettlement of European Jews. This was specifically stated in Israel’s first Basic Law of 1958 (in essence a constitution) which specifically delineates that ‘Israel is a Jewish state.’ (It also states that Israel is a democratic state.)

So, ask this question: Could the West Bank survive as an independent nation?

The West Bank covers 2,173 square miles (slightly bigger than Delaware); mostly rough, landlocked terrain, seized by Israel from Jordan during the 6 Day War, June 1967. Israel has de facto control over the entire West Bank, but they administer day-to-day control over 61% of it (about 1,300 square miles – about the size of Rhode Island), of which some 500 square miles is the Judean desert.

The West Bank has few natural resources, has inadequate amounts of water, and most importantly, is landlocked between Israel and Jordan. It has no port, and no major city where industrial or technology firms might act as the seed for economic development.

Politically uniting the small, densely packed Gaza Strip – located on the other side of Israel – to the West Bank would make the West Bank even less economically or politically viable. (Besides the obvious problem that bifurcated countries never survive long.)

Can Israel survive? It has for 78 years. But it’s done so partly by controlling key pieces of terrain – the West Bank and the Golan Heights – for the last 49 years, pieces of terrain that would otherwise leave the nation in strategic peril.

Would Israel survive without controlling the West Bank or the Golan Heights? Perhaps, but perhaps not. The ongoing Syrian Civil War, and the uprising, change of government and counter-coup on Egypt in the last 6 years suggest how unstable is Israel’s neighborhood. What logical argument supports any claim that Israel would have a greater chance of peace by surrendering this territory?

And would the West Bank be a viable nation if Israel ended the settlements and gave it independence? Do we want Palestinians to have a viable nation, one that can survive without perpetual economic aid? Presumably, the answer is yes. But to do that Palestine must have enough physical assets and resources that it can generate sufficient economic activity. Various nations have solved that problem in a host of ways: Tiny Singapore occupies a critical geography in East Asia and has parleyed that position into a large and robust economy. But the West Bank doesn’t benefit from Singapore’s geography. In fact, one might argue that the West Bank is one of the poorest, and poorest situated, pieces of land on the planet. An independent West Bank would almost certainly be an economic and political basket-case.

Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerry, and the UN state they want Israel to be a safe, secure, politically and economically viable nation-state AND they want the Palestinians to also have a safe, secure, politically and economically viable nation-state.

But if Mr. Obama et al want a two party solution that actually works, then they should look to establishing nations that would actually survive, and would be able to support themselves, not live on the international dole for all time.

The reality is the West Bank would never survive as an independent state, nor would Israel be a militarily secure state without control of the West Bank (and the Golan Heights).

Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry should know that. They and their friends in the UN may not like that fact of geography. But that doesn’t change the geography; an independent West Bank would only survive by suckling off of international largesse, while leaving Israel at greater risk.

They say that 90% of communication is non-verbal. So what is Mr. Kerry really communicating? Does he really want a viable Israel? Or is he ‘saying’ something else?

White Elephants

December 22nd, 2016

In Buddhist mythology, Maya – Buddha’s mother – dreamt she was presented a white lotus flower by a white elephant. In Hinduism, Airvata, a white elephant, carries the god Indra, king of the first heaven. Thus, in both Buddhist and Hindu culture, white elephants are sacred.

Unfortunately, white elephants are so sacred they’re not allowed to work. Practically speaking, if you had a white elephant in ancient Asia, you had to care and feed it. But you weren’t allowed to use it.

Consider the US Navy’s three Zumwalt class destroyers. They’re very large (14,000 tons; a Burke class destroyer weighs about 9,000 tons), they have fewer missiles tubes (80 versus 96), and oh, yeah, they’re expensive ($7 billion each, versus $1.7 billion).

And they have problems. The first ship (Zumwalt) broke down in the Panama Canal while en route San Diego, and is – unofficially – a maintenance nightmare.

They do have really neat guns. But, the Navy realized they couldn’t afford the ammunition: $800,000 per round. And they don’t have weapons for fighting other ships. Large, complex, expensive, and they can’t fight another ship. Huh?

The Navy has other problems: the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), originally planned at $200 million per ship, with each ship capable of multiple missions via the interchange of ‘mission modules,’ now costs approximately $400 million each. And they’ve proven to be fragile and difficult to maintain, and the Navy’s taken delivery of few mission modules. Some modules are literally years away from being ready. Most damning, the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation stated the ship would not survive in combat. A combatant that can’t “combat.” Swell.

And then there’s the F-35 fighter, with cost overruns and production delays that seem to have a life of their own.

The other services have equal problems.

In short, DOD procurement is a mess; it must be fixed.

Can it be?

Sure, but it’ll require some hard steps. To begin, Congress has to recognize that they’re key; after all, they hold the purse strings. But Congress, unfortunately, is too trusting; they believe what DOD tells them. So, actually, it begins one step before that: Congress and the new administration need to know “reality.”

It seems every time someone mentions a price of some weapon there’s a dispute as to the “real” price; everyone has different costs or performance figures. So, the first thing the new administration must do is bring in outside auditors. Give them clearances, and let them look at everything. Let’s find out where the money is; let’s find out how much everything costs. Where it’s not classified, publish it all and let the citizenry (the actual owners) know how all these departments – across the government – are spending their money. 

DOD argues: “we aren’t ready to be audited.” So? Let’s just start the audit. The process of “discovery” will be worth the pain.

Second, procurement is – or should be – a function of two factors: what you’re trying to do (goals), and things that might prevent achieving your goals (the threat). Accordingly, the process of procurement ought to begin with clarity as to our goals, followed by a detailed discussion on plans – constrained both by threats and risks. This conversation should take place with key personnel in Congress, and should be constantly updated as threats and technology change. Both Congress and the Administration must restrain DOD from pursuing technology that is no longer relevant to changing plans or changing threats on one hand, or in sinking money into processes overcome by technology on the other.

Finally, we must avoid the de facto approach of identifying requirements without regard to costs. Such an approach has led, time and again, to pursuit of purely technological solutions to strategic problems, rather than forcing planners to develop real, multi-faceted, affordable strategies.

There are a host of problems with procurement; solving them won’t be easy. But we need to begin with clarity, with a real ‘ground-truth’ on where we stand, followed by equal clarity on our goals and how we think we might achieve them. Failure to do so has resulted in ships, aircraft and weapon systems that are large, complex, very expensive and, in some cases, don’t even perform well.

Now we’re saddled with several white elephants. Let’s use this to learn a lesson and fix our system as we sail forward. It’s Christmas time, time for a new beginning!

Syria, China and the Trump Administration

 December 18th, 2016

If you haven’t paid attention to the civil war in Syria (entering its 6^th year in March), the Assad – Russia coalition has moved deep into the city of Aleppo, and now controls all but part of eastern Aleppo. This means that Assad and the Russians are winning the war. It may take another year or two, but short of some untoward event, Assad has survived. It’s now only a matter of time before he regains the rest of Syria.

 4500 miles away, about 50 miles off the coast of the Philippines, another event took place last week that may have as great a significance to the United States (and President-Elect Trump): a Chinese Navy ship seized an instrumented drone being used by the USNS Bowditch, which was engaged in bottom surveys well outside not only Chinese claimed waters, but also China’s Exclusive Economic Zone. 

Although seemingly unrelated, these two events offer Mr. Trump an opportunity to reset US policy.

 First, it’s necessary to understand how the US finds itself in this situation. In 2011, in the wake of the “Arab Spring,” the Obama administration supported uprisings that were, in fact, backed by militant Islamic organizations in Egypt and in Syria. The US also chose to overthrow the unpleasant, but finally cooperative, Col. Qaddafi in Libya. The result of these choices was violence in Egypt (which led to a counter-revolution), the “conversion” of Libya into a failed state, and fueling of the civil war in Syria. Long-time regional US allies (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Oman, Egypt, Jordan) began to wonder whether the US was a dependable ally. The “nuclear deal” with Iran further undermined their confidence in the US. 

Into this ambiguity stepped Russia and Iran. Russia, using high-tech forces, Russian special operations personnel, and Iranian army units to support their client (President Assad of Syria), established a de facto “Damascus Pact,” stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to Afghanistan.

 Meanwhile, in East Asia, despite US promises of the “Asia Pivot,” China began to flex its “muscles,” with a substantial build-up of naval forces, intending to establish hegemony over first, the entire South China Sea, and more recently the East China Sea and all relevant island archipelagos. The US response has been at times tepid, and at times ambiguous; with the US Navy conducting operations in and through Chinese claimed waters, but doing little to support claims by friends and allies to islands now occupied by China. 

The Chinese have capitalized on this confusion and have continued to expand their presence in and around these various islands and over the entire South China Sea. This increasingly muscular China, and an increasingly disinterested State Department, has led to once certain US allies and friends – the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, et al, consciously distancing themselves from Washington and seeking to cozy up to Beijing.

With this latest act of seizing the US bottom-survey sensor, the Chinese have changed, once again, the strategic equation in the South China Sea, making it clear that they will set the bench mark for what is and isn’t acceptable behavior.

Which leads to the obvious question: What should the Trump administration do once in office in less than 5 weeks?

First, the US needs to reaffirm that it will support US interests, not the interests of the amorphous global community, or in the interests of an effete elite in Brussels or the ivory towers of academe. This will come as a relief to many of our allies and friends, who understand that their interests and US interests are very much in common.

Second, the US needs to communicate in private to both Moscow and Beijing that there’s a new administration in Washington and what was acceptable before is no longer acceptable. We will defend US interests. Have Secretary of Defense Mattis take the Russian and Chinese ambassadors – separately – for walks along the Potomac and explain that: “Mr. Trump is Not Mr. Obama, Mr. Tillerson is Not Mr. Kerry, and me, I’m Gen. Mattis.” They’ll understand the message.

This must be backed up by clear commitment of assets supporting friends and allies both in East Asia and the Middle East. Demonstration of intent now will prevent these situations from further deteriorating, a condition that would certainly involve serious – and costly – damage to US interests.

Third, the US needs to commit the necessary funding to increase the size and capability of US naval and air forces, allowing us to maintain the security of US and allied interests in the regions. Doing so will not only provide future administrations with the wherewithal to defend US interests, it will send the clearest possible signal of the seriousness of the Trump administration.

Let's End Civilian Control of the Pentagon

December 11th, 2016

Okay, not really.

But, there’s been lots of talk about “military” vs. civilian control, with 3 retired officers (3 civilians) selected for senior positions in the Trump administration. Hmmm…

First: they’re retired. They were in the military. We’ve had retired military serve in government before; it’s never been a problem. In fact, 60 years ago a guy on active duty occupied the Oval Office.

Eisenhower, a 5-star officer, was on permanent active duty. Interestingly, Eisenhower was perhaps the most vocal critic of Pentagon ‘overreach,’ the man who coined the term - as a warning - the ‘military-industrial complex.’

But there’s another issue, and it’s central to any effort to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the Department of Defense (DOD) – or the rest of government: the Civil Service.

Some history…

Prior to 1883 federal jobs weren’t protected. Every civilian employee could be fired at “the pleasure of the President.” A “spoils” system developed, jobs turning over with every president. But, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act (1883) made hiring, retention and promotion a merit based process.

The concept is sound; the system functioned well throughout much of the last 100 years. But, now there are problems, centered on two issues: First, the number of federal civilian employees. In DOD alone there are 750,000 civilians. That compares to 1.3 million Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. In World War II there were 2.6 million civilians in the Departments (War plus Navy), compared to 13 million in uniform.

Since 1971 the total federal civilian work force has outnumbered those in uniform. In 1999 the civilian work force was double the number of military personnel, though the number in uniform grew a bit after 2001. By 2014 we were back to 2 civilian federal workers across the government per each Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine.

What isn’t apparent to those who’ve never dealt with it, inside the services these civilians have a great deal of real power, much more than it might otherwise appear. There are two reasons for this. First: those in uniform cycle in and out on 2-3 year orders; ‘back to the fleet,’ as the Navy says. Because real power in Washington is in budgets, and budget cycles are complex, multi-year issues, if you’re present for 2-3 years and then you leave, you’re going to have less impact on things then you might suspect.

The second issue is bureaucratic. If a general finds a senior civilian who opposes certain changes, and is passively resisting, the general’s ability to move around or bypass that individual is less than you might think. In many cases it’s effectively zero.

A friend of a friend – a pilot, 2-star officer – is responsible for weapon system acquisition. Despite titular authority service intentions are routinely frustrated by careful and subtle stalling and manipulation by civilian personnel who disagree with the general’s course. Knowing they can’t be fired, and that, in a year or two, the general will be gone, they simply hang on, drag their feet, and prevent change.

That is the real civilian control of DOD. And it’s extremely expensive.

And it’s also apparent that a majority of the civilian work force in Washington DC aren’t supporters of Mr. Trump, and they will ‘slow-roll’ his appointees.

So, what can be done?

1) Fundamentals of civil service reform were, and are, overwhelmingly correct. Hiring and promotion based on merit is the obviously correct answer. But…

2) The civil work force is too large. While automation has made irrelevant many administrative positions, the federal government, and DOD in particular, abounds with large, complex staffs and huge administrative offices. If these offices clearly provided increased efficiency and effectiveness in procurement and management of DOD programs, they might be defended. But the opposite is true.

Many offices report things no one cares about, to people with no real authority. We need to ID and eliminate billets, reports, processes and functions that benefit no warfighting requirement. Where appropriate, move them out of Washington.

3) For SES and GS-15s the law must be clarified: within the context of their job, a legal order from a superior constitutes a legal requirement. Failure to conform is therefore either an indication of incompetence, or willful disobedience. Either should constitute grounds for dismissal.

Finally, employment by the US government isn’t a right. The administration must work with Congress to identify means to reduce the civilian force, identify and remove personnel who’ve risen past their level of competence, and tightly focus DOD on warfighting. 

USS Panay, Taiwan, and Mr. Trump

 December 3rd, 2016

On December 12^th, 1937 twelve Imperial Japanese aircraft attacked USS Panay, a gunboat anchored in the Yangtze River near Nanking. Panay was strafed and hit by two small bombs, and then sank; 2 US sailors and one Italian reporter were killed, 43 were wounded.

The Japanese claimed it was a case of mistaken identity (there were US flags all over it and a large one painted on the deck), and paid the US for “damages”). But Panay was out of the way, mission accomplished. And Japan, the expansionist power of the day, went on to destroy Nanking (the city fell, 13 December) and expand across Asia.

And…

Last week (December 2^nd), 7 weeks short from inauguration, President-elect Trump talked to President Tsai of Taiwan. Taiwan, as you’ll recall, isn’t really part of the People’s Republic of China, which more or less takes a dim view on other nations recognizing Taiwan.

Beijing is now in a bit of a tizzy. As are, of course, the foreign policy wonks in Washington.

So…

Mr. Trump has now served notice to Beijing that he isn’t going to kowtow to their world-view and that he’s more than willing to talk to Taiwan if folks in Taiwan are interested. In short, Mr. Trump will set the US agenda in Asia, not Beijing, thank you very much. This is a substantive change – YUGE, you might say.

But, one lesson from the Panay incident is: don’t put yourself (or your ships) someplace where you might lose them, if you don’t have a plan.

So, do we have a plan if things, as they say, go sideways?

Well, it so happens President-Elect Trump has called for a 350 ship Navy; that’s the right place to start.

Consider our current Navy and what is planned (from the Navy 2016 budget and the Congressional Research Service):

Total ships:                                     282 (2016)    308 (2021 (as 

                                                                                     planned))

Aircraft Carriers:                              11                  11

Cruisers and Destroyers                   87                  88

LCS and Mine Warfare                    22                  52

Amphibious Ships                            31                  34

Submarines

      (attack/cruise missile)                57                  48

Ballistic Missile Subs                      14                  12

Logistics and Support                      60                  63

This reflects a construction rate of 1 carrier every 5 years, 2 destroyers and 2 subs per year and 3 amphibious ships every 5 years, and retirement of several cruisers and subs.

Some thoughts. First, let’s not count ballistic missile submarines – that’s just a whole different story. We need them; just pray they’re never used. So, the adjusted total is 268 ships now, 296 in 2021. That leaves 208 combatants now, 233 combatants in 2021. Second, the LCS (Littoral Combat Ship) has been a disappointment. It’s (too) lightly-armed, and has proven to be delicate, easily sustaining damage. Perhaps they can be fixed. Meanwhile, if they’re omitted (as is likely if the US ever engaged in combat at sea), the numbers shrink to 197 combatants now and 192 in 2021. This isn’t to minimize the importance of logistics and support ships – such ships are vital. But it is to make the point that when people talk about our 300 ship Navy, they aren’t all ships bristling with guns and missiles.

But if we were to set a course ahead for building a bigger Navy, one 15 – 20% bigger (a 350 ship navy), could we afford it? The answer, of course, is yes.

First, we aren’t really talking about a great deal of money. Increasing destroyer and submarine production by 1 hull each per year works out to roughly $3 billion per year. Add additional weapons and training, etc., and it’s less than $4 billion per year, about 2/3rds of 1% of the DOD budget. Some budget adjustments would yield the maintenance money to extend the lives of the cruisers until the new hulls can take their place, and set the US on course for a 350-ship navy.

Second, despite the caterwauling, the US spends less on defense and security as percentage of our GDP now (currently less than 5% on all security spending (DOD, Intelligence, Homeland Security, etc.) then it did all through 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s and most of the 1990s. And this while still prosecuting several wars in the Middle East.

But there’s much more to it than simply dollars and cents. Mr. Trump has served notice to China and the world that the US is going to look after its interests first, not pursue ill-defined “global interests.” And simply put, defending US interests is always going to be affordable, no matter the price.

The Electoral College, Jenga, and Tyranny of the Majority

November 26th, 2016

Jenga should be a required discipline of political scientists; the game teaches, among other things, the consequences of haste. A game of wooden blocks and balance, it teaches the “simple” reality of balance and center of gravity; it also teaches the danger of haste; if a player acts too quickly, either in removing a block or in placing it on top of the stack, the whole mess comes down.

So? Let’s begin with recent statements by certain mayors that they will oppose federal enforcement of immigration law, pronouncing their cities to be ‘sanctuary cities.’

There’s a “minor” problem: cities aren’t sovereign entities. Cities are constructs (physical and otherwise) that exist purely within the definition of respective state laws. If the state legislature changes the relevant laws, the city will change accordingly. For example, the city of South Norfolk and Norfolk County were merged into the city of Chesapeake by the Virginia Assembly in 1963; South Norfolk ceased to exist by an act of the state.

Thus, the idea of sanctuary cities is, from a legal perspective, specious. One might argue for sanctuary states, forcing a discussion on state versus federal sovereignty, but the idea of city sovereignty simply doesn’t exist in any meaningful context.

At the same time, we’re seeing an interesting argument - by those sympathetic to sanctuary cities – for the abolishment of the Electoral College. (We’ll skip the point that one political party has for years reveled in the fact that the electoral college gives them a leg up on any Presidential election).

If you argue for “sanctuary” (sanctuary states to protect various cities) and resisting the federal government, then you’re really arguing for states’ rights. And if you argue for states’ rights, and sanctuary states (and cities), you need to support the Electoral College. The “Why” is the reason the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College in the first place.

The Electoral College, (described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, and as amended in the 12^th, 20^th and 23^rd Amendments) provides for an electoral count that is equal to the number of Congressmen and Senators from each state (plus three for Washington DC).

The Constitution’s “user’s manual,” the Federalist Papers, discusses why selection of the President must reflect the states’ presence; in a nutshell, the answer is this: the electoral college was designed to reflect (and guarantee) state sovereignty: the Constitution (and all amendments) – the document that forms the nation and our national government – was not and is not something approved or changed by popular vote, it was approved by consensus of the majority of the states. Stated otherwise, the states have sovereignty and the states created this nation.

Why this particular construct? The answer is simple: fear of centralization of power and tyranny of the majority. Under the Constitution power is decentralized and, as importantly, difficult to utilize. This is to prevent anyone – a president, a specific Congress, or a court – from gathering too much power, or from acting precipitously. If you bemoan the election of Mr. Trump, you should take heart in this. But, eliminating the Electoral College would eliminate the state’s role in the selection process of the president and more importantly, represent the effective first (and major) step in eliminating states as sovereign entities.

And here’s the so what. Eliminate the Electoral College and presidential elections would focus on 6 or 7 states – those states with the largest populations. The rest of the states? No one would care. Think we have a problem right now between the coasts and the rest of the country? Imagine that magnified by 2 or 3 times.

Eliminate the Electoral College and you end the current process amending the Constitution. You effectively substitute simple majority rule for what we now have. Do that and you seriously undermine the Bill of Rights – which protects minority – not majority – rights.

Eliminate the electoral college, and undermine state sovereignty, and you effectively end the current allocation process for Congress. People in Wyoming? Why do they need a Congressman and two Senators?

And that’s the start: State Sovereignty, Congressional representation, Minority Rights. Is that what we really want?

Haste: in Jenga, the consequence of acting too quickly is that everything comes tumbling down. Our Founding Fathers understood that risk. We should remember that. Go ahead, pull that block out of the stack…

Donald Trump: Grand Strategist

November 20th, 2016

Since early 1953 (in Korea), the United States hasn’t lost a battalion sized force (or larger) in combat operations. In Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., the US has outfought every enemy. Since Desert Storm, including Somalia, the US hasn’t lost any engagement larger than a platoon.

In Operation Iraqi Freedom the US and its allies ground forces attacked into Iraq with a force perhaps 2/3rds that of Iraq’s army; the attacking force won decisively. In 8 years of combat operations that followed the US always had the tactical advantage. Combat operations were often slow and painful, particularly at the squad and platoon level, because the US was determined to minimize innocent casualties. But larger units – battalion and brigade sized units – were never threatened on the battlefield.

A host of reasons explain US tactical and operational success: excellent equipment, excellent battlefield intelligence and surveillance, superb logistics, excellent communications, superb small unit training, and superb (best in the world) senior enlisted personnel.

Yet the wars still drag on, long after repeated successes on the battlefield, yielding desultory results, while costs in money, time and people, continue to climb.

Why?

During WWII the US didn't have the best destroyers (Germany did), or the best subs (Germans), the best torpedoes (Japan), the best tanks (Germans and Russians), best cruisers (Japan or Germany), best infantry weapons (Germans), best soldiers (until late in the war -- Germans), best aircraft carriers (Brits at the start of the war, the US after the Essex class was commissioned), and so on.

But we won…

Throughout the 1920s, we worked the Rainbow plans, adapting and adjusting plans to better use what we had rather than trying to solve everything with a better “widget.” We eventually developed plans that would work – and we won the war with them. And despite those who suggest the US wasn’t innovative, the first plan to attack Pearl Harbor with carrier aircraft was developed by Admiral Yarnell in Fleet Problem XIII (1932), a tactic repeated by Admiral King in Fleet Problem XIX (1939).

World War II combat operations were followed by extensive (one might say vast) plans, an overarching “grand strategy” integrating all elements of US (and allied) power into a comprehensive plan to rebuild Europe, and Japan (and eventually Korea) into the first world, western nations they are today.

Because of these plans, US presence in Japan, Germany (and Italy, the UK, and a few other countries) continues to this day – 71 years later. The presence of those forces serves US interests - political, economic, social.

But today, while succeeding brilliantly on the battlefield, we quickly become “confused” outside of combat. The fault lies not in our combat forces themselves, the fault is in the failure to develop overarching, “grand strategies” that begin with a crystal clear enunciation of our goals – what planners call the “end state” – followed by integrated departmental strategies across the entire government. Everyone is complicit; senior military planners have grown sloppy in their strategic thinking (tactical planning is much more interesting and rewarding than strategic thought); and an entire generation of government and think-tank personnel who are intimately familiar with governmental processes, but who pay lip-service to integrated plans, eschewing the painful and unpleasant effort associated with grand strategy.

Since the 1950s only presidents Eisenhower and Reagan have successfully cobbled together anything approaching a grand strategy. President-elect Trump can change that. But he must begin immediately; once the “daily grind” starts he’ll find it virtually impossible to get “in front of the bus.”

So, Mr. Trump might consider spending a weekend framing how he wants the world to look in 10 years. To cynics who say Trump can’t do this, my answer is that anyone who’s ever built a building already thinks this way; he just needs to be “translated” into the language of strategic planning.

2) Direct your national security advisor to appoint a deputy for “grand strategy.” Provide him the results of your weekend effort; that person (and a small staff) will “translate” it into “commander’s guidance,” chopping it through you until it’s in words you like.

3) Parse this to the respective offices throughout the government for development of individual elements of the grand strategy, then force them to integrate each element across the executive branch.

And keep Congress and the Citizenry fully involved.

You can repeat the strategic successes of the past.