Tuesday’s Random Thoughts

Posted: September 30, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

So much is happening in our nation and in the world that often events move so fast that many of us cannot keep up with it all. Here are a few quick thoughts about some of these happenings.

  • Syria and Iraq.  The President gave a good speech at the United Nations General Assembly last week.  (You can read it here.)  However, in his remarks there and to the American people, he has assiduously avoided the use of the word “war.” For those flying the combat missions and on the ground in Iraq, legal definitions of “war” make little difference.  For them, we are at war.  As a minimum, the Obama Administration should have the Department of Defense and Central Command come up with a name for the operation.  From the Middle East to Panama we have over the last few decades named all of our significant military undertakings.  This one should be no exception and would, psychologically, help the American people to understand the nature and seriousness of our commitment.  Something like Operation Desert Lightning might work.
  • White House Security.  As many of you are aware, the Secret Service has had a series of revelations of breakdowns in their procedures for protecting President Obama and his family.  So far, most of the suggested changes to improve that security involve expanding the security perimeter around the White House and making it harder for normal citizens to access the area.  Indeed, the security perimeter along Pennsylvania Avenue has already been expanded.  Wrong answer.  Review and follow the protocols.  The failures of the Secret Service cannot be fixed by imposing increasing restrictions on the people. One of my biggest disappointments in recent years is going to Philadelphia to see the Liberty Bell and Freedom Hall.  The security procedures required to get into the building were worthy of any security check for any airport in the world.  Bad news that our symbols of freedom are hidden away behind tight security.
  • Congress.  Whether or not we are technically at war, Congress has an important role to play in making sure that our Armed Forces are not sent needlessly into harms way.  Although the last time that Congress actually passed a resolution declaring war was long ago (in June 1942 against Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary), they have debated and passed resolutions supporting significant military operations.  Other than authorizing funds to begin to train Syrian fighters, Congress left town last week for campaigning without addressing the current actions against ISIS.  (Incidentally, this is the earliest Congress has left town for mid-term elections in fifty years — after having worked only eight days following a five-week summer recess.  Nice work if you can get it.) There is no more important matter for our government as a whole and for Congress in particular than national defense.  The only good news here is that it was a bipartisan agreement. Perhaps the only one of the past year.  Neither party wanted the “operation” against ISIS to get in the way of the campaigns surrounding the mid-term elections.  In other words, most Representatives and Senators did not want to have to go on record with a vote either for or against military action in fear of having to explain it during the campaign.   Shameful.
  • Baseball.  On a more positive note, at least in this area of the country, both the Washington Nationals and the Baltimore Orioles won their divisions and are in the playoffs.  It is too much to hope that they will meet in the World Series, but the locals can dream.  Already the debate is underway as to what to call it.  Battle of the Beltways?  The Parkway Series?  It would be fun.  And no comment on baseball could be complete without a comment on the retirement of Derek Jeter.  As a rehabilitated Boston Red Sox fan (Jetah — you suck!) I tip my hat to the man.  It is too easy to get carried away about what our various sports teams mean to the country and one can question what role it should play.  But all of the leagues and those in sports would be well served if their players were as consistent — on and off the field — in grace and leadership as Derek Jeter.

I could go on, but this is enough for today.  It is a fast paced world that we live in, indeed.

In Search Of Evil

Posted: September 30, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 3 Comments

Please forgive me while I muse out loud about the nature of evil.  This piece is not meant to be about, for, or against, any particular religious view.  Most religions address the nature of evil and the human dimension of fighting it off.  In many religions, Satan, or a similar being, is the embodiment of evil. While I will muse about Satan, this is not intended to be a religious discussion.  Or at least I think not. Non-religious people certainly recognize and ponder the nature of evil.  It is more than just a religious concept.  Spoiler alert:  That said, I will write about God and Satan, among other approaches to trying to understand evil.  Stop reading if this is not your thing and you would rather not get into it.

With the nearly constant bombardment of video images depicting the actions of the Islamic State (or ISIS, or ISIL — all the same entity), one immediately thinks of that group as evil.  Adolf Hitler and his Nazi supporters were evil.  Josef Stalin was evil.  Pol Pot was evil.  Narco-terrorists are evil. The list could go on and on.

However, I wonder why, or perhaps more accurately, how, people become evil.  I do not think that it is in the nature of humankind to be evil.  My premise has been and continues to be that, given a chance, people are inherently good and will do the right thing.  Although this premise is tested daily, I still consider the vast majority of people to be good.  So what happens to the others?  I do not think that they were born evil.  Although there are psycho-paths and people lacking any empathy what-so-ever, I see their actions as more a matter for psychiatrists than necessarily a manifestation of the existence of evil, which still leaves some of their actions clearly defined as evil.  Nor do I excuse their behavior in any way, shape or form.  However, I do not think that most of what we see today, or historically, as evil actions in the name of nations or dictators is coming purely from mental disorders. Perhaps some, but not many.  It is too facile to say that they are all psychopaths.

On a Judeo-Christian religious level, most believe that God is the Supreme Being.  God knows all and as the Creator, by definition, created everything in the universe.  God would not create Satan.  In the Old Testament (such as in the Book of Job) God sometimes sends Satan to do his bidding — in this case to test Job. If Satan exists, it is not as an equal to God.  How can there be an equal competition between good and evil — manifested as God versus Satan — for the souls of mankind?  There cannot.  God is all-powerful. He is not going to lose to Satan in any endeavor.

To me, Satan stands as a symbol of free will.  We have the curse and the gift of determining our own destiny.  It is a human decision as to whether or not to do the right thing.  When humans choose the wrong path, evil deeds occur.  So do our historical evil doers choose to be evil or are they on some other path?  I am not sure.  To some degree, it depends on which side of history one sits.  As has been written many times, the winner dictates the history.  In war, evil things happen on both sides. From other cultures’ perspectives the United States has done evil things.  Did we choose to do evil?  I say no we did not.  Either we were ignorant of the consequences of certain actions, or as a nation we decided that certain actions were necessary to achieve our goals.  Is it possible that Hitler, Stalin, and others, including the current leaders of the Islamic State were not born evil?  Is it possible that their actions were, and are, in the pursuit of what they consider to be a greater good and thereby necessary? If they wrote the history would they depict their actions as evil?  Are people evil or are their actions evil?  Does it matter?  I am no expert.  And I am no apologist for those that do evil things — there are no moral equivalencies here.  I am merely trying to find my way through a troubling problem.  Why does evil exist and how is it manifested?

How do good people go bad?  Nature or nurture?  I am not the first to ponder these questions, nor will I be the last.  The world is a fearsome and complicated place.  Perhaps the answer to what constitutes evil lies somewhere near Justice Potter Stewart’s opinion on hard-core pornography — that it is hard to define but “I know it when I see it.”  (An opinion he later professed to regret.)

This is not to say that evil is in the eye of the beholder.  It is to say that some things are universally considered evil and other things may be subject to motivation and context.  Some profess that all war is evil.  Evil things happen in war, but the necessary aspect of many wars (not all) does not inherently make them evil.

I have grappled with this for a long time and have no good conclusion.  I hold to my basic premise that humans are born good and want to do the right things with their lives.  I am challenged in resolving that outlook with the day-to-day evidence to the contrary in our lives.

 

Where Do We Go From Here?

Posted: September 1, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | 1 Comment

“Well, here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten me into.”  — Oliver Hardy

After only a cursory glance at the headlines of the past few days, it is easy to discern that a lot of troublesome events are occurring around the world.  Two of the biggest, in my mind, involve the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the continuing rampage of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS — although apparently the United States government is using the abbreviation ISIL, or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).

On the recent Sunday news talk shows, and elsewhere, there has been much finger-pointing and “coulda, woulda, shoulda” type of talk as to what needed to be done in the past.  While somewhat productive in order to prevent future mistakes, the backward looking finger-pointing does nothing to resolve the situation at hand.  It is disappointing, especially as many of the critics in the Senate and the House offer no way forward, only criticism of the President’s leadership or lack thereof. Unfortunately, the President showed a lot of candor but gave a disappointing public statement when he said last Thursday that we have no strategy for Syria.  Those of us who have studied such things would argue that there is no clear policy either, so without either concept, there can be no policy-strategy match.  As everyone who has taken even the most basic course in such things knows, the great disasters of military history are most often the result of a policy-strategy mismatch.

So, what do I say we should do so as not to be one of those backward looking critics that produce very little?  I am struggling with it — it’s a tough nut to crack in all respects, which is why most of the critics would rather look back at what should have been done rather than forward as to what to do.

Part of the significant background that sometimes goes missing in each of the cases — Ukraine and ISIS — is that no one, at least no one that anyone takes seriously, is advocating that American ground combat troops get involved in either situation.  (Can we please stop saying “boots on the ground?”  No one I know in the military uses that expression.  It is used mostly by pundits and politicians trying to use the latest lingo without really understanding what they are saying.) Even the strongest advocates of using American military power are really only advocating the use of American air power and some supporting intelligence units and special operations groups to find and identify targets.  Unfortunately, I can think of no significant conflict involving the use of American military power that has been won solely in the air. Ground troops, either our’s or someone else’s working with us are required in order to defeat, or even to significantly degrade the forces at work.  Thus we are back to diplomatic efforts to build some sort of coalition to fight the invaders and/or build up the host country so that it can fight on its own terms.  This takes time.  Sometimes, lots of time.

Currently, the Obama Administration is trying to build a coalition on both fronts to confront the Russians in Ukraine and ISIS in Iraq.  The Russians are more of a direct threat to Europe than the United States and ISIS is a direct threat to every country in the Middle East.  Yet, trying to get other nations to take action has been difficult at best.  One could question whether or not the difficulty is partly of our own making, given the ambivalent messages that the President has put forward during the last 12-15 months.  It is time to step up and put some direct pressure on our allies and friends to come together and not just leave it to the United States to solve the problem.  Fortunately, a few national leaders in Europe are starting to come around, but not enough and not very quickly.

I am more worried about Ukraine, in terms of long-term implications to the United States, than I am about ISIS. This is not to say that I underestimate that maniacal organization.  Both situations are extremely serious to the United States and its interests, but I think strategically, Russian actions in Ukraine are more detrimental to our long-term interests. Unfortunately, that crisis is not getting the same sort of attention from our leaders, at least according to what I see in news accounts, as is ISIS.  So let me address that first.  As I do so, remember from my 9 August post that the basic function of military forces is to deter, defend, defeat.

Vladimir Putin is neither deterred, nor defeated by the threat of sanctions.  That is clear in his actions so far.  And sanctions do little to nothing to defend against an attack.  This is not to say that sanctions should not be applied, only that what the Europeans have done thus far is only mildly irritating to Putin in the pursuit of his ambitions.  Particularly troubling were reports about a television appearance he made in Russia on Friday where Putin openly talked about creating a new state in eastern Ukraine.  It is not only for propaganda purposes that Putin and many Russians talk about Novorossiya, or the new Russia.  It is a historical term that denotes most of eastern and southern Ukraine along the Azov and Black Seas.  Indeed, this is the area of the latest Russian invasion (and yes, I understand the President said “incursion” in order not to create the conditions where we must act.  But that’s what it is).  The latest Russian military moves occurred for two reasons.  First, the Ukrainian military was defeating the “volunteer” Russian and separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.  The simple operational move to relieve pressure on those forces is to open a new front, and that’s what they did, thereby giving the Ukrainian military too much to handle.  Secondly and strategically, the move along the sea creates a corridor to create a land bridge between Crimea (annexed by Russia from Ukraine last spring) and other areas of Russian interest.

Remember, and I wish European leaders would review their history,  that NATO was formed for the exact, and at the time the only, reason to protect Europe from Soviet (Russian) invasion.  Although Ukraine is not a member of NATO, it seems that the leadership in Europe should see the writing on the wall.  Putin is testing the waters of European resolve in order to see what type of resistance he will get as he tries to regain Russian dominance and restore the Russian Empire, goals he openly talks about.  Weak sanctions will not do it.  So far there have been no substantive consequences to stop his territorial ambitions.

So, what should be done?  The following actions within NATO and the European Union are not exhaustive as I am sure there are additional courses of action being considered.  As a minimum the west should:

  • Provide the Ukrainian military with the supplies, including heavy weapons, that they require to combat the immediate threat.
  • Provide training to Ukrainian military leaders at the tactical and operational levels to instill a long-term ability to combat Russian military adventures.
  • Increase the numbers and types of rotational deployments of United States military forces to the Baltic states and eastern Europe to underline the importance the United States puts on the tenants of the NATO treaty and the independence of nations.
  • Impose meaningful sanctions on the Russian economy.  This will necessarily impose hardships on some sectors of the European economy.  The western world is either serious about this threat or it isn’t.  To me there is a certain element of “pay me now or pay me later”.  The costs of dealing with Putin will only go up over time.
  • Convene a high level diplomatic conference involving all meaningful players, and put the pressure on Russia to cease its adventures in Ukraine while trying to accommodate legitimate concerns of vital importance to Russia. This should not mean throwing Ukraine under the bus, but could include some semi-autonomy in parts of eastern Ukraine under international observers.

Putin is playing the long game.  The sooner the west demonstrates to him our resolve and the sooner that he feels actual consequences to his actions, the sooner he will look for a diplomatic solution.

Defeating ISIS takes a different skill set.  ISIS will not come to the negotiating table, nor should we even hint at any kind of compromise.  However, diplomatic and political efforts must be made along with any military effort.  Iraq must get its political house in order so that the efforts of its military are not seen in Sunni or Shiite terms only.  Defeating ISIS also means that we are helping Bashar al-Assad and his murderous regime in Syria and aiding the strategic interests of the Iranians.  Both results are inimical to our own interests.

So what should be done?  The United States cannot do this alone.  While we have the military means to fight ISIS, air power alone cannot stop their reign of terror and the United States should not reintroduce ground combat troops to fight the ISIS army.  The nations in the area must also recognize the threat that ISIS holds for them as well and take actions to:

  • Pressure Turkey to close its borders.  Intelligence reports indicate that fighters, supplies and weapons are moving freely back and forth across the border with Syria.  Turkey is a member of NATO.  Push them to shut down this avenue of supply.
  • Pressure Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to cut off funding to ISIS.  Wealthy Sunni Arabs are secretly supplying funds and supplies to ISIS.
  • Enlist Jordan, Qatar, Turkey and others to train and equip moderate fighters in Syria to increase their strength and ability to counter the Bashar al-Assad regime, and thereby pull fighters away from ISIS, as well as furthering a more moderate force in the area.
  • Push for a ground offensive from the Iraqi military.  American air power can support ground attacks, but cannot alone defeat ISIS.
  • Equip Kurdish and other fighters that have a proven combat record.
  • Continue intelligence work to find and decapitate the ISIS leadership.  They have many dedicated fighters.  They have also become a haven for the world’s psychopaths out for a good time.  Without key leaders, the various factions within the group would fragment.
  • Continue to push the Iraqi government to get its political house in order.  The disenfranchisement of Sunnis in Iraq adds fighters to the ISIS ranks.  With a coalition government that genuinely looks out for the interests of all Iraqis, not just Shiites, some of the fighters from ISIS that do not share their apocalyptic view of the world may melt away.
  • Continue intelligence work in the United States and elsewhere to identify and impede the travels of potential recruits wishing to join ISIS.

ISIS is an evil force that must be excised.  The United States is a key player in getting an organized effort to eradicate them.  However, the United States should not, and cannot be the only nation combating this threat if we are to succeed in making it irrelevant.

Critics of the President say that he is too deliberative and slow to act.  I am not so sure that is a bad thing.  Some events require an immediate response, others, with so much at stake, require a more thought out response.  It is not too late to have a measured, coherent, international response to both of these threats.  Such things take time, often frustratingly so.  That said, time, tide and world events wait for no man.  We need to put forth a coherent and forceful strategy to deal with these threats to our stability.  And we need to be flexible enough to adjust the strategy as events unfold and respond to the actual situation.

I am sure that the professionals in the State and Defense Departments have thought this through.  Let’s get on with it.

Between Iraq and a Hard Place

Posted: August 9, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 3 Comments

As I commented in my post of 17 June, the United States has a difficult task ahead in figuring out how to deal with the advances of the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  Although their progress slowed in late June and through July, as you are aware, they have now turned northward towards the semi-autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq.  These ISIS fighters are a much more formidable force, with skilled tacticians and some sense of strategic objectives, than most originally thought possible.  On Thursday, President Obama authorized the use of American air power to avert a humanitarian disaster and to help the Kurds resist ISIS advances.  More on that in a moment.

For months the Obama Administration resisted pressure to get involved again in Iraq.  Primarily,  it was because there was no clear path to follow without significant changes in the political climate in Iraq.  In the end, with extremely few historical outliers, wars can only be ended through political means.  The loser gets to decide when the war is over, no matter how badly beaten they may be.  The situation is the same in Iraq.  The Shiite dominated government of Nouri al-Maliki is extremely unpopular in many areas of the country.  Until a broader based government is in place, there is little to no chance of stability returning to Iraq.  The United States cannot fix that.  And yet, here we are getting involved again.

Part of the issue is that we cannot ignore the territorial spread of the pernicious tenants of the ISIS fighters.  They dominate much of Iraq, essentially controlling the northern and western parts of the country, as well as parts of Syria. There is no question that ISIS is bad news, bringing death and destruction to anyone that opposes them or their extremely fundamentalist view of Islam.  The role that the U.S. can play in stopping them is difficult to determine, especially as ISIS is also fighting the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

Part of the issue is that the Iraqi Army, at least those Sunni dominated units, do not have the will or the ability to oppose ISIS.  US military advisers and intelligence personnel have helped the Iraqi units that are willing to resist (unfortunately backed primarily by Shiite militia units) to stop them from advancing towards Baghdad, but is unclear how the Iraqi military will act to confront ISIS where it already exists.

The unexpected development is the inability of Kurdish fighters to stop the ISIS advance.  The Kurdish fighters, or peshmerga, are tough, experienced fighters.  They were expected to be a bulwark in stopping the ISIS advance and thereby preserving a part of Iraq that could be used as a staging area for further efforts against ISIS and to provide a bastion for United States military and other personnel to operate out of the United States Consulate in Irbil.  This plan fell apart this week as Kurdish forces were becoming overwhelmed by the ISIS fighters, partly because of their use of captured American heavy weapons that Iraqi forces left behind in their eagerness to abandon their posts in the June fighting.  The Kurds were the most supportive of U.S. efforts in Iraq and a bond exists between the U.S. military and Kurds.  Additionally, a very large humanitarian crisis was unfolding as tens of thousands of Iraqis fleeing the ISIS forces found themselves stuck atop a barren mountain range without adequate food or water.  The combination of factors could not be ignored.

Complicated indeed.  Thus, President Obama’s decision to provide air power to try to alleviate the situation.  This effort is currently underway in two parts.  First, air drops of food, water, and other supplies are taking place for those trapped on the barren mountains.  It was a situation that only a major power could alleviate.  Second, fighter/bomber forces were authorized to protect the airdrops and to attack ISIS fighters where they threatened Kurdish forces protecting U.S. interests in Irbil.  This part is more difficult to understand.  Both parts of the operation could potentially drag the U.S. back into combat in Iraq or conversely, tarnish our reputation as a world power.  Only time will tell, but here are the pitfalls that I see coming and that may be difficult to avoid.

The United States, with the United Kingdom, has already undertaken a nearly similar effort in providing relief in this part of Iraq.  It occurred in 1991 and was called Operation Provide Comfort.  This effort took place following Gulf War I when Saddam Hussein turned his wrath inward on his own people following his defeat in Kuwait.  In short, a humanitarian crisis developed as tens of thousands of Kurds fled Saddam’s forces and were trapped without food and water.  The U.S. and U.K. began air operations to provide food, water, and other supplies to the Kurds.  As it happened, there was no expertise on the Kurdish side to assist in the effort, so it was decided to put logisticians on the ground to help the air dropped supplies land in the proper places and to distribute those supplies.  This precipitated the need for security forces to also be on the ground to protect the logisticians.  This led to a major undertaking.  I trust that some of the current planners in the Pentagon, Baghdad and Irbil remember this operation, and how what seems to be a simple thing — getting food and water to people who need it — can quickly become a much larger and more involved task.  It is never as simple or easy as it seems.

More worrisome to me are the “limited” air strikes.  The tenants of military forces, simply put, are “Deter, Defend, Defeat” — deter the enemy from attacking, defend against attacks if deterrence fails, and then defeat the enemy.  We already know that ISIS is not and will not be deterred by the threat of limited air strikes.  The intent of the authorized action is to defend the Kurdish fighters, the results of which are unknown and will be unknown for some time.  We also already know that limited air strikes (despite the headlines and rhetoric, a total of twelve 500 pound bombs and a drone strike in the desert are a pin prick) will not defeat ISIS.  So where are we going?  Heavier airstrikes?  Special forces on the ground to locate targets?  More advisers in Iraq?  The path ahead is unclear to me, and there is no obvious strategy at play in the use of our military force.

My concern is that either the United States — and it is unlikely that we will get any other nation actively involved to help us — will get drawn into another major conflict in the Middle East, or do little more than what we have done already the last few days and look ineffective at best in our efforts.  We are in a tough situation, sure to be damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.

There are some that can make a good case that we should get involved yet again in Iraq, especially against such an evil force as ISIS.  I am not so sure.  In the end, only the forces on the ground — Iraqis, be they Kurds, Sunnis or Shiites — with their own homes and families hanging in the balance can make a difference.

There are a number of intermediate steps that can be taken, of course, without full American involvement.  The question is how effective they will be.  Remember that we spent eight years, nearly a trillion dollars, and lost 4,487 Americans in our last attempt to fix the problem.  It does not seem to me that a few bombs from some carrier based F-18s are going to solve it now.

These are indeed dangerous times.  Actions are required.  Let’s hope that our leaders understand history and make the right decisions.

 

What To Do About Iraq?

Posted: June 17, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

As you know, events in Iraq have unfolded quickly as the fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) moved into northern and western Iraq from Syria.  The cities of Mosul and Tikrit, significant in many ways to Iraq, fell without resistance from the Iraqi army, most of whom changed into civilian clothes and ran away.  The ISIS fighters seemed well on their way to Baghdad when the Iraqi army, backed by Shiite militia, stiffened and are now providing resistance to the advance. How this will end is anybody’s guess at the moment — truly, no one really knows.

There are several things that we do know, however, and these are worth a look.  Most importantly, the question before our national leadership is “should the United States get involved in what is fundamentally a religious civil war?”  “If so, in what way?”  Clouding the issue of course is the investment we already made of 4,487 dead and 32,223 wounded Americans.  A high price to pay any time, but especially given the unraveling of all that was accomplished. Unfortunately, in my view, we should not invest any more lives or treasure in Iraq.  Certainly, we should not do so under the current conditions.

Demands that the United States should supply immediate intelligence and material support to the Iraqi government are a bit overblown and not really reflective of the facts.  This is true in particular because of two things: the Iraqis have been known in the past to use “intelligence” to even scores with political rivals, and the ISIS forces are now equipped with modern U.S. weapons left behind when the Iraqi army abandoned their posts.  It will be a continued waste of time and money (and perhaps lives) to continue to equip and train the Iraqis (or any force) if they refuse to fight.

Most experts do not believe that ISIS has the will or ability to take Baghdad, especially now that the Iraqi army is beginning to mobilize.  It will, however, get very dicey in Baghdad in the coming days as the terrorists will use assassinations and car bombs and other attacks to disrupt life in the city and to create more friction between the factions that live there.  While Iraq as a whole is divided into roughly three sections (Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish), all three elements are present in the city which is also de facto divided.  This is where the United States needs to beef up its efforts. Protecting the world’s largest American embassy and those that work there should be our current focus of main effort.

It is tempting to get into a “who is responsible for this mess?” argument.  There is plenty of blame to go around.  Some of you may recall that from my observations in a key Pentagon office that I felt that President Bush and his administration began planning to invade Iraq beginning in January of 2001 following his inauguration.  The unfolding events after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks gave them a reason, however much of a stretch that might have been.  It was especially discomfiting because our real effort should have been in Afghanistan where the threat was real.  That is all now past history.  Similarly, accusations that President Obama did not do all that could have been done to reach a Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government to leave U.S. troops there serve to place the blame at his feet.  I happen to think that the Iraqi people as a whole never really wanted the United States there at all, period, end of discussion and that it was unrealistic to think that they would allow our troops to stay.  But again, whatever one’s opinion of  that, it is past history.  We are where we are and the challenge is figuring out what to do about it now.

The real problem is the current Shiite government that totally shut out the previously dominant Sunni power brokers.  There is enough religious animosity, deep-seated anger and hatred between the two groups and that has only been exacerbated by the administration of Nouri al-Maliki refusing to deal with Sunni leaders and driving them not only from the government, but in some cases, from the country.

I suspect time will reveal that some percentage of the ISIS fighters are actually Iraqi Sunnis seizing an opportunity to topple the current government.  I am not sure how long this uneasy coalition of terrorist fighters can stay together and I am especially doubtful of their ability to administer a large territory or population.

There is no doubt, however, of their ability to create havoc, destruction, and threaten the lives of thousands of people.  They are also creating the conditions for another failed state that can easily become a training ground for terrorists that reach far beyond the current area of conflict.  That is a different problem, one that needs to be addressed but different from what to do to support the current Iraqi government.  In the end, wars end through political settlements.  Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is not able to, or does not desire to, build a functioning coalition government.  The ISIS leadership is not interested in a negotiated settlement.  This leaves the United States with few options.  In my opinion, putting more American lives at risk through direct military action will not help the situation and should not be one of the options on the table.

We should continue to protect our embassy and critical workers and to pressure Nouri al-Maliki to work out a political settlement.  Whether an “artificial” country drawn by western powers without regard to the indigenous population can survive is a difficult question that only time will resolve.

The Curious Case of Sergeant Bergdahl

Posted: June 3, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 2 Comments

For those that may be unfamiliar with Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, United States Army, he is the soldier that was held captive by the Taliban for five years, probably in a remote area of Pakistan.  He was returned to U.S. Special Forces on Saturday 31 May in exchange for five senior Taliban held in Guantanamo Cuba as terrorists.  From where I sit, there are a number of strange aspects to this case so perhaps we have yet to hear the full story.  However, as it has unfolded thus far, I am troubled by certain aspects of it.

First and foremost I am happy for the Bergdahl family.  As their only son (reportedly he has an older sister), I can only imagine the heartache this family went through and the joy that they now feel as he starts his journey home to Idaho.  For the Bergdahl family, this was a major success for U.S. diplomacy.

On the policy level, I am not sure that we made the right call.  I disagree with the reasons given by some politicians that are critical of the trade, but I do agree that the Obama administration may have set a bad precedent.

Several of the criticisms, in my view, are weak.  Among them:

  • We have now put a price on every American’s head and the incidents of kidnapping for exchanges for other terrorists will now be the new normal.  Weak argument.  For many years now there has been a price on American’s heads overseas, especially in the war zones.  Nothing has changed there.  Terrorists all over the world are not for the first time thinking “why didn’t we think of that? Let’s go find us some Americans to trade.”  Nothing new.
  • The Obama Administration was required to give Congress 30 days notice before moving any prisoners from Guantanamo Bay.  This provision is really a political attempt to prevent the administration from closing down Guantanamo Bay and has little to do with this case.  More to the point, the Commander-in-Chief needs the flexibility to act quickly when an opportunity presents itself.  Given the apparent circumstances of the trade, it probably came about quickly and had to be acted upon quickly or the opportunity could be lost. Concern for Sergeant Bergdahl’s health is the stated reason for the quick action.  One could perhaps argue that this was not as urgent as portrayed by the White House, but the President must still be able to act quickly when opportunity arises.
  • The timing was an attempt to divert attention from the problems in the Veterans Administration.  Really?  The Taliban cares about the VA and politically protecting President Obama?  Really?

Likewise, I think that some of the justifications given by the Administration are weak.  Foremost among them:

  • Our military leaves no man or woman behind.  Fair enough and true enough — an honored tradition.  But I am not sure how we would have been leaving him behind if the United States will still have a military presence in Afghanistan until at least 2016.  There have been some unconfirmed reports that our intelligence agencies had an excellent knowledge of his location and that a Special Forces raid was considered to extract him by force.  If this is true, it is more in keeping with the “no one left behind” tradition than is a “prisoner” exchange.
  • We do not and did not negotiate with terrorists.  Disingenuous.  All governments do.  This includes Israel, most often held up as a paradigm for tough actions against terrorists.  The question is how, when and for what, not whether we or other nations do it.  The Obama administration contends that the Qatari government arranged the deal. Okay, so we did not sit down at a table with the Taliban, but who did we think was at the other end of the Qatari discussion?  (Interestingly, the deal may have been finalized at last week’s West Point graduation ceremony where President Obama spoke and the Qatari Emir was present to see the first Qatari graduate from West Point.)
  • Prisoner exchanges are a normal part of warfare.  Perhaps, and they certainly occur, again under the right circumstances.  What were the circumstances in this case that made it so compelling?  We have yet to get the full story.

Similarly, I think the discussion takes a wrong turn when pundits and critics combine our policy for withdrawal from Afghanistan; our trading of the five Taliban for Sergeant Bergdahl; whether the Sergeant deserved (?!) to be rescued because he put himself and others in harm’s way due to his own actions; and the general view of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy as weak.  All of these things are worthy of discussion, but they are all separate issues and should not be rolled up into one big free for all.  They need to be addressed in context and as stand alone issues, even as they are inevitably related.

It seems to me, as others have stated, that the real reason for this exchange is to tidy up loose ends as the war in Afghanistan winds down.  There are certainly humanitarian overtones to the case, and I’m glad that the Sergeant and his family will be reunited.  As a matter of policy, I don’t think we should have sent five Taliban leaders to Qatar in exchange.  They may be under close supervision for the next year, but if they are still alive a year from now, they will most certainly get back in the game and actively work to undermine U.S. interests.

To me it is a finer point than whether or not to “negotiate with terrorists” or discussions over how many Taliban equal one U.S. soldier (in my eyes an American soldier is worth an infinite number of Taliban, but I understand we won’t trade limitless numbers of them, nor should we do so).  It is just a matter of reality that these wars are different and the fact that some of those we have captured will never go home.  Nor should they ever go home.  We totally mischaracterize the nature of this conflict by talking about prisoner exchanges and the like.  This is not World War I or World War II.  There will be no armistice or peace treaties.  There will be no Marshall Plan for the Taliban or for Al Qaeda.

I look forward to someday hearing the rest of the story.  There are many curious aspects to this case and I don’t think we have heard all of it.  Given what we know so far, if we wanted to get Sergeant Bergdahl home, we should have gone and brought him home.

Enough!

Posted: May 28, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , | 3 Comments

With yet another mass shooting in our nation, it is with some trepidation that I venture once again into the conversation about what to do about gun violence.  Trepidation only because it is such an emotional issue on all sides.  However, I continue to come back to the fact that as the only major country in the world that has so many violent deaths by guns, we are clearly doing something wrong.  As I have written before, the usual explanations of mental illness, video games, movies, TV, etc. as the cause of such actions do not resonate with me.  I am sure that all or some of those factors are at play, but in those respects our country is not different from Canada, the UK, Japan, or other modern nations and yet it is rare for them to have an incident of gun violence and they certainly do not suffer them on the scale or with the frequency that we do here in the United States.  And let me make an even finer point.  Canada in particular has a culture and a heritage that is very similar to ours, including sport shooting and hunting, and yet they do not suffer from the same indignities and deprivations resulting from gun violence that we do in this country.

I am not advocating the repeal of the Second Amendment — although I think that it is wildly misinterpreted — and I am not advocating the removal of all guns in the country. I hunted as a boy, served a career in the military and enjoy the occasional outing to go skeet shooting.  My thought is simple.  If gun owners have a “right” to own their weapons, don’t all citizens have a “right” to walk down a street on a beautiful evening and not get gunned down?

And please, do not insult my intelligence by arguing that private citizens “need” to have their guns to keep the government in line.  How is that a factor?  And just who do those “patriots” think they are going to go up against?  The police?  The United States Army?  The United States Marine Corps?  “Obama/Democrats/liberals/communists/fascists (pick one) want to take your guns.”  Puhleeez.  Fantasy aside, there is little chance of gun-toting civilians over throwing the government.  And even if there is a chance, who elected them as the only individuals deciding what is right and good in this country?  The last time I looked it up, an armed insurrection was considered treason.  This was settled early in our history over several incidents starting with the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794) where President George Washington (yes that George Washington — aka “founding father”) rode as Commander-in-Chief at the head of a 13,000 man militia to end the armed uprising of farmers and distillers in western Pennsylvania protesting the imposition of a tax on whiskey.  This set the precedent that the national government has the right and ability to enforce the law and to suppress armed insurrections.  If that is not enough of a precedent, and there are others from our early years as a nation, it was put to rest permanently with the Civil War and the preservation of our country.

Of particular concern to me is the concerted effort by “pro-gun” advocates to suppress or prevent the sale of “smart guns.”   Smart guns are, at present, hand guns that have a computer chip in them that prevents their use without some other identifying presence.  From my understanding, the most reliable thus far are the smart guns where the shooter wears a wrist watch style device that communicates with the weapon and allows it to shoot.  No signal, no shooting.  While there may be legitimate arguments as to why this is or is not a good idea in certain scenarios, it seems to me that a large number of gun owners have their weapons for sport, either hunting or target shooting.  It seems to me that having such a gun would cut down on spur of the moment violence, suicides, and children coming across an adult’s gun and accidentally shooting themselves or someone else.  It’s a start, not a panacea.

Unfortunately, two gun dealers recently found themselves in the news when they offered smart guns for sale.  One was in California and one was in Maryland.  Both received personal threats to their own and their families’ well-being including death threats.  Additionally, there were threats to burn down their shops and other over the top reactions for merely offering them for sale along with the usual assortment of weapons in their stores.  They both decided not to sell them fearing for their safety.  So much for free market capitalism.  I have no idea whether they would be a good seller or not or whether there is a market for them.  I do know that the zealots that somehow equate guns with their own self-worth are preventing us from finding out. The ruckus comes primarily because of a New Jersey law passed and signed into law in December 2002.  The law requires that all guns sold in New Jersey be “smart guns” starting three years after the state approves a workable smart gun.  Law enforcement is exempt from the statute.  To date, New Jersey has not approved a smart gun, however, gun advocates and the National Rifle Association fear that the sale of such a weapon (see above) would cause New Jersey to implement the law.  As they see it, this is the first step in “taking our guns away.”  I disagree, but then what do I know?  Legislators in New Jersey have offered to repeal the law if the NRA will agree not to oppose their introduction into the market place.  So far, the NRA stands by their opposition to the guns.  Curious.

There are so many myths about the right to bear arms and what it means that a rationale discussion is hard to come by.   But I agree with Richard Martinez, the father of one of the students gunned down Friday night at the University of California Santa Barbara when he says that our motto concerning gun violence should be “Not one more!”  Not one more child in an elementary school, not one more college student sitting in class, not one more person minding their own business walking down the street. Not one more.

Ironically, in some perverse way, the continued senseless acts of violence may in the end radicalize a new generation of young Americans that decide enough is enough.  As more and more of our young people gain first hand experience through these tragedies it may actually spur them to action.  God help us, but perhaps we need more of these senseless killings in order for people to finally act to change our behavior and our attitudes towards guns.  I am especially tired of the macho baloney some of our politicians espouse in order to garner votes. It needs to change.

I see no reasonable argument against the requirement that gun owners take a certified course and get a license in order to own a gun.  I see no reasonable argument against universal background checks.  I see no reasonable argument against a national data base of gun owners to aid in the solving of gun crimes.  And there are many more steps that can be taken to allow reasonable people to own guns and to pursue their hobbies and/or give themselves a sense of security in their homes.  To do nothing other than offer our sympathies on the loss of loved ones accomplishes nothing.

I am not naive.  Nothing will change over night, or perhaps even in my lifetime.  I am encouraged however when I think of other cultural changes that did occur in my lifetime.  I am of an age where when I was growing up smokers were everywhere, and I mean everywhere. Efforts to curtail smoking were impugned as a threat to every American’s freedom to do what they want.  The term “nanny government” began in this era.  Over time, with education, thoughtful laws and an understanding of the health hazards, not only did the rules change, but people’s attitudes changed as well.  Non-smokers no longer have to put up with smoke-filled rooms in the name of “freedom” for smokers to do as they please.  Smoking is not outlawed, merely regulated to protect the health of non-smokers. Likewise, drinking and driving laws and attitudes have changed equally dramatically in my lifetime.  The danger to innocent people and consistent campaigns of education and enforcement have drastically reduced the number of people killing themselves and others through drunk driving.  Why not take the same approach to guns?  My family should not be in danger of a random shooting.  I do not want to take your guns away.

We have done it before when as a nation we came to realize that this was not the type of culture or threat to our well being we want to deal with anymore.  It is time that we move away from this culture of guns and violence.   Enough!

Time To Get On With It, Already

Posted: May 7, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

The controversy over the Keystone Pipeline System continues.  Adding to the controversy is the continued effort by President Obama’s administration to kick the can down the road.  Essentially, they keep moving a decision on the building of Phase IV (the “XL” or “eXport Limited” you see in the news as the source of so much contention between various factions) until after the next election. In a political sense this may be a good thing for those arguing on both sides of the issue as it gives them both continued fodder to use against the other in elections. Lots of people making lots of money to support their cause. In a real sense, however, it is at best ridiculous to continue to delay a decision and in a worse sense it could have an impact on the economy to continue to delay it. There is an old saying that “a bad decision is better than no decision” meaning that some action, which can be modified as the event unfolds, is better than dithering and having events unfold without direction.

I am hardly an expert on this subject, but in my opinion, it is time for the Obama administration to approve the new pipeline and to get on with it.  In truth, the arguments for and against it are exaggerated by all involved.  It will not significantly increase jobs in the United States and it will not significantly impact the environment in this country either given that our reliance on carbon based fuels will be a fact of life for years to come.  (This does not mean that we should give up on alternative methods of producing energy.  Quite the contrary.  To be viable into the future we need to learn to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.  However, the reality is that while those systems are being developed and coming on line, we will need to use what we have.)

In particular, since we now have to move fuel via train and truck tankers which, as has been proven dramatically in recent months, are prone to accidents that can have horrific results.  It seems to me that the use of a pipeline, while hardly fool-proof, is in any case safer than moving volatile liquids by rail or road.

For those that may not have followed this closely, I will try to summarize the issue.  (A more in-depth explanation of the issue may be found here.  A map of the current and proposed systems may be found here.)

In sum, the Keystone Pipeline System is designed to carry oil from Alberta Canada to the Gulf Coast of the United States and will run through the middle of the country.  The economic viability of the project is based on the relatively new technology that makes it possible to recover oil from shale and sand.  It is owned by the TransCanada Corporation.  Since that is a foreign company, and the pipeline crosses an international boundary, it was left to the State Department to study its impact and to recommend to the president whether it should or should not be approved.  Among the factors that impact the decision, and the primary source of much of the emotional debate, is the impact on the environment.  Arguments from both side of the aisle in Congress tends to be divided by which states perceive that they will benefit from the project, and those that use the project as a symbol of the fight to reverse the impact of fossil fuels on climate change. Besides the policy implications, I never forget that large amounts of money are involved on both sides of the issue and that they are playing for high stakes.

Those that politically support the expanded pipeline — parts of it are already in operation — primarily argue that it will lessen the need for the United States to import oil from outside North America, with Canada as a reliable and stable trading partner, and that it will create jobs for the economy.  Those that politically oppose its construction primarily argue that it will impact the environment in several ways: the possibility of oil spills in environmentally sensitive areas it crosses; the method used to extract the oil is not really akin to drilling but rather is closer to strip mining; and the biggest factor, they argue, is that it will add to climate change by adding more greenhouse gases to the environment, both by the burning of the oil, and because of the process used to extract it from the ground.

Lost in the argument, of course, is the fact that oil is a fungible commodity.  The price and availability is dependent on market forces and when converted to fuel it does not matter where it came from in the first place. While piping is cheaper than shipping it overseas (TransCanada has threatened to ship it to China if the United States does not build the pipeline), in the end the impact on the worldwide oil market is not significantly affected — it is driven mostly by availability rather than source.

Studies delineating the economic impact of the pipeline and the promised number of jobs created vary greatly with the groups presenting the information.  Most of the numbers have been grossly inflated by the proponents. The official State Department study indicates that somewhere around 2,000 jobs would be created while the pipeline was being built (about a two year process) with less than a hundred permanent new jobs.  The effect on the gross domestic product (GDP) would be almost nothing — a few billion dollars or a fraction of one percent.

Currently, the Senate is considering legislation requiring that the pipeline by built.  This would be a binding resolution, expected to pass easily in the House of Representatives. This follows in the wake of a non-binding resolution from last year that passed with 62 votes in favor.  There is some question as to whether the proposed legislation is Constitutionally legal as the Executive Branch is tasked with decisions relating to foreign powers.  Unknown is whether such legislation could survive a presidential veto which might be likely be it for environmental reasons or to prevent the Constitutional issues from setting a precedent. No one knows for sure if the president would veto it, but it is thought that a Senate override would fall short of the needed 67 votes to do so.

The Obama Administration has been reviewing the issue for approximately five years.  The State Department initially rejected the project in 2011 because the pipeline crossed aquifers in Nebraska that were a significant source of water in the Mid-West.  Since then the route was changed to avoid the most environmentally vulnerable locations.  The State Department deferred another decision in April of this year in order to continue to study its impact as expressed in what was considered an “unprecedented” number of inputs from the public.  However, the study is complete and seems to indicate that the environmental impact of building it or not building it will be nearly the same.

It is an emotional issue and is believed by those concerned to have ramifications beyond the actual facts of the case. I understand that.  However, it is time for the president to make a decision and get on with it.  The reality is that whatever his official decision, the issue will not die and is surely going to result in more lawsuits in addition to those that are already in the courts. It is time to resolve the issue and to stop trying to delay it again until after the next set of elections.  That in my mind, is poor leadership.  The issue has been studied to death.  It is time to act.  I consider myself to be an advocate of setting standards to limit or reverse climate change (whether or not you believe in climate change, how can one be for pollution?).  However, in this case, I see little reason to delay the completion of a pipeline that is already partially built and results in ever-increasing numbers of truck and train tankers on our roads and rail lines, especially when predictions are that those numbers will quadruple in 2014.

Just do it Mr. President.

 

 

 

Home On The Range

Posted: April 28, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

The recent dust-up on the Nevada plains concerning rancher Cliven Bundy got lots of national attention.  You may remember him as the rancher that for twenty years, four lost court cases and over a million dollars in unpaid rent decided to resist the Bureau of Land Management agents that came to collect his cattle as payment.  He and a host of supporters resisted the federal agents with guns and threatened to shoot it out if the officers tried to enforce the law. One of the sharpest tools in the shed supporting Bundy, former sheriff Richard Mack stated bravely that “We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front.  If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”  Wisely, the federal agents did not think some cattle were worth people being shot and withdrew.  However, they have not changed their mind about holding him accountable and the story is not over.  In the process of resisting duly appointed law enforcement officers, Bundy became the darling of some of the “name” right-wing conservatives and libertarians who, mostly, gave him unconditional support in his “fight” against “big government.”  Famously, Bundy declared that he “doesn’t recognize the United States as even existing.”  A “patriot” indeed.

Most recently his racist remarks caused lots of conservative politicians and talk show hosts to retract their support for him.  My question would be why they gave him any support in the first place, even discounting his remarks that revealed his true view of minorities in the United States?

These would be the same people who say they support the United States of America, just not “big government.”  The role of the federal government, its size and functions are legitimate areas of debate. However, I cannot understand the anointing of this individual as a “patriot” protecting his rights.  He is an unabashed mooch.  As many of his supporters deride the “welfare state,” he has taken advantage of the American taxpayers to the tune of over a million dollars.  In four different cases the courts have ruled against him.  Supporters of “law and order” should be helping the federal agents to get rid of the moocher instead of announcing their willingness to stand up for, to stand up for, well I’m not exactly clear who or what it is that they say they are standing up for.  Some vague notion of states rights, traditional grazing lands, the right to bear arms and the right to be a bigot, I suppose.  So of course their first instinct is to lock and load and to use their “women” as human shields.  The only thing that I am sure about is that they are willing to use violence against duly constituted law enforcement officers.  Last time I looked, people who were willing to shoot law enforcement officers carrying out duly litigated court orders were considered terrorists or criminals.

So I ask again — forget the talk show hosts who will jump on any issue if it gets their name out there and they make money off of it (I’m talking to you Sean Hannity) — why would elected officials, sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land support a welfare king and scofflaw willing to kill federal agents?  To maintain credibility in my eyes, the supporters of a smaller federal government at least need to have some logic to their arguments.  And it wouldn’t hurt to vet their “heroes” a little more closely.

Georgia On My Mind

Posted: April 23, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

With all due respect to my friends that live in the great state of Georgia, I wonder what is going on there.  The entire state (or at least their elected representatives) seem determined to push back the clock as far as possible.  The evidence may be found in two official acts taking place  in Georgia — one was a bill signed into law today.

First let me say, as many of you know, that I am not against guns.  I am against gun violence and believe that we as a nation can do a lot more to restrict the illegal use of weapons.  I do not consider more guns being carried by more people to be a deterrent to the illegal use of guns and I do not believe that it enhances the safety of the average citizen.  The biggest fallacy of all is the NRA pronouncement that the way to stop bad guys with guns is by good guys with guns.  I see.  Exactly who are the good guys?  The same ones that feel “threatened” and shoot unarmed people?

So today Republican Governor Nathan Deal signed into law the “Safe Carry Protection Act” (or as it is known in other circles, “the guns everywhere bill”).  The bill allows those with concealed weapons permits to carry their guns into bars, college campuses, government buildings, houses of worship and just about anywhere else, including by the way, airports.  (Under the bill TSA can still search for guns at checkpoints, but the individual with the weapon cannot be arrested, only  turned away.)  Oh, by the way, if you have been convicted of a misdemeanor for pointing a gun at another person, you cannot be denied a permit to carry.  My favorite part is that the police are not allowed, by law, to ask a person if they have a permit to carry — I guess they are supposed to assume that all armed citizens are legal. It also allows schools to arm their administrators, teachers and other employees.  Somehow I do not feel in the least bit safer.  I do feel like if I ever return to Georgia that I am going to be real careful about who I talk to.  I sure would not want someone to think my friendly “hello” in an unfamiliar bar was actually a not so friendly “hell no” and have them feel threatened and blow me away.

The second part of the progressive atmosphere in Georgia is demonstrated by the Georgia Department of Revenue approving the addition of the Confederate flag to their official state license plates. Admittedly they are specialty plates (also called vanity plates in some regions) requested by the Georgia division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.  The fun part in this story is that the group previously had such plates, but the symbol was small.  Now the plates will not only have the same small symbol, but the new plate has the Confederate battle flag covering the entire plate and the “Sons of Confederate Veterans” takes the place of the issuing county on the standard plate.   The organization claims that they have just as much of a right to be proud of their heritage as does any other group.  Point taken.  However, these seem to be many of the same people who proclaim that they are true (get this) United States of America patriots.  The “America love it or leave it” types. Seems to me that in my Middle School history class I learned that the Confederate states were trying to create an entirely new country, separate and apart from the United States of America.  It should also be noted that before the Civil War the correct grammar was “The United States are…” and after the war the correct usage became “The United States is….”   Our country went through a very difficult time that forged the united nation that we are today. I see little reason to celebrate those that tried to pull it apart — no matter how noble they may have thought their actions to be.  Study it, yes. Understand why our ancestors did what they did (both North and South), yes.  And many other valid points of view.  While I do not begrudge the organization its “pride” I do not see why elected officials in Georgia are bending over backwards (you can look it up!) to support the official use of the Confederate flag. As a young boy I sometimes thought that the Southern soldiers were gallant, romantic and a lot more fun than the Northern soldiers.  And then I grew up.  I suppose some people never do grow up, but the last time I looked, the Civil War ended almost 150 years ago.  Get over it.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →