Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

Posted: October 3, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 2 Comments

John Boehner is allowing a small radical wing of his party to attempt to destroy the fabric of American democracy.  Sooner or later most Americans will realize the true nature of what is going on in the current fight over the Affordable Care Act.

Whatever one’s view of the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare may be, supporters of American democracy should be very concerned.  This is not business as usual, especially as the debt ceiling limit gets closer and closer.  Earlier Washington stalemates that resulted in government shutdowns in the 1980s and 90s concerned budget issues, where money should or should not be spent and which programs took priority.  This is about none of that.  This time around it is a radical minority of one party trying to undo the fabric of our democracy.  They do not like Obamacare and obviously have very strong opinions as to why.  In my view, most of those arguments are incorrect or mere assertions without a basis in fact,  but okay, I’ll respect your opinion.  Unfortunately, after over forty attempts to undo the legislation (without, I will add, any alternatives to provide healthcare to Americans in the greatest country in the world), they have decided that they will bypass the legislative system that we have and create their own.  Simply put, if they get their way on this issue, there will be more issues that take some portion of the American way of life hostage until they get their way.  Remember that they are taking our economy hostage for a six week continuing resolution.  It isn’t even about an actual spending bill.  Who is naive enough to think that if Congress delays Obamacare for a year that we won’t be right back where we are now in 2014?  It will never end.  It is time for the showdown and a restoration of the American way of democracy.

There is nothing that the Tea Party Congressmen are demanding concerning Obamacare that should be negotiated.  Period.  If they want to go to conference with the Senate to resolve budget issues and to negotiate a spending bill for this fiscal year, by all means, it should be done.  But that’s not what they want.  They continue to try to eliminate or cripple the health care act.  An act, again, that has withstood every conceivable challenge in our way of government.  They failed.  So now we have to put up with their antics outside of the normally accepted legislative process.

John Boehner is now Speaker of the House in name only.  He has seriously undermined the authority of that position by caving to the hard liners.  Every account coming out of Washington from both sides of the aisle is that a “clean” continuing resolution to fund the government for another six weeks would pass in about five minutes with sufficient Democrats AND Republicans voting for it .  Done and done.  Speaker Boehner won’t do it because he fears losing his Speakership.  In truth, it is doubtful that he would be voted out, but apparently, he’s unwilling to take the risk and is afraid to do the right thing.

This is also, in my opinion, a naked attempt by the Senate and House Tea Party members to severely hobble the President.  If President Obama gives in to the demands to delay or defund the health care act, he is done as president.  Indeed future presidents of both parties would be weakened if this undemocratic tactic being foisted on our country succeeds.  It would become a weapon for any dissatisfied minority to use that will hobble the ability of our country to operate.

We should be afraid, very afraid for the future of our country if this naked attempt by a minority to grab power from the majority succeeds.

Quick Thoughts for a Friday

Posted: September 27, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Another busy week in the news.  I hope to expound on these topics in the future but thought that I would get some quick thoughts down in the interim.  Here we go:

  • Syria.  Events continue to percolate in our continuing effort to bring the Syrian regime to account for its August use of chemical weapons on its own population.  Frankly,  diplomatic efforts have gotten further than I anticipated that they would in this amount of time.  The next key step will be to actually pass a United Nations resolution under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter.  This is what will put the teeth into any effort to bring the chemical weapons under international control should the Syrians back off.  The Russians had objected  to any strong resolution to make Syria comply but it appears there may have been a diplomatic compromise.  We will find out next week.  I am still of the opinion that no action would have been taken on any front if President Obama had not threatened, and continue to hold open the possibility, of military action.
  • Budget Battles.  As we all know, the right-wing of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives continues to threaten to hold our economy hostage if there is no bill to defund the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare.  As predicted, this afternoon the Senate passed a Continuing Resolution to keep the government operating into November.  It is unclear what will happen as the bill returns to the House.  Probably, they will not meet the deadline of midnight on 30 September but I don’t think they will miss it by much so that the impact will be minimal.  Or seem to be minimal.  As I’ll explain below, it is already having an impact.  The reason that it will pass is that Speaker Boehner will promise a similar showdown over the raising of the debt limit in mid-October.  The current impasse will seem minor compared to what we are likely to see over that issue.  Yet to be determined is whether or not the Congress can actually pass a bill that sets up a long-term management plan for the people’s money.  Since 2007 the continual use of Continuing Resolutions is the primary method that Congress chooses to fund  the government rather than using the appropriation and authorization bills.  This year the Continuing Resolution keeps spending at or below last year’s funding and includes the sequestration that resulted in furloughs of workers, limited hours for government agencies and severely limited the ability of our Armed Forces to meet their training and equipping requirements.   So, even if they pass the short-term Continuing Resolution by 1 October, they will not have solved any of the fiscal problems we face now and in fact, they just exacerbate them as we move forward.  They should be so proud.
  • Federal Government Workers.  Consider the plight of government workers.  So far in 2013 they have been publicly vilified by certain politicians, had their pay frozen for the last three years, furloughed via the sequestration which impacts their take-home pay, threatened with more time off with no pay if the Continuing Resolution does not pass, and experienced a shocking violation of the safety of their work place with the murders in the Navy Yard last week.  In addition they must do more work with fewer people as the government continues to shrink but the requirements mandated by Congress have not abated.  Please remember that these are not faceless bureaucrats.  They are regular people working hard on important issues.  They really do work hard.  Of course, there are a few dead beats.  There are dead beats in almost any work environment.  However the vast majority, the vast majority, of people working in the federal government are working long hours trying their best to do the right thing.  Many are beginning to re-think their dedication as they continue to be vilified and used as pawns in a political game.  These are real people, not some theoretical “they” that can be played with without consequences.  These same people have to pay rent, get their kids to school, fix the family automobile and deal with the same frustrations of life in the 21st century as do the rest of us.  Different visions of what the government should or should not be are legitimate issues for discussion.  Vilifying dedicated public servants is not.
  • Entitlements.  Lost in the brouhaha over the federal budget is the fact that several other important pieces of legislation sat in the House without action.  Among these was the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as food stamps.  The House Republican leadership stripped the SNAP funding out of the farm bill passed last summer by the Senate in a bipartisan vote.  Traditionally, the SNAP funding was part of the farm bill.  It actually may be a good idea to separate the two as special interests were quite effective at getting what they wanted when the two were linked.  However, the House action stripped nearly forty billion dollars from the program over the next ten years.  Nice.  If there is a country on Earth that should not have hungry citizens it is the United States.  Part of the motivation for stripping funds is that allegedly too many people take advantage of the program.  Does this happen?  It is most likely that it does.  Will stripping forty billion dollars from food stamps stop fraud?  Most likely it will not.  What the bill does do is restrict who is eligible for the assistance and limit the amount of time that they are allowed to receive benefits.  It also puts new requirements on the states (the individual states actually control the distribution) which will require increased government workers to implement.  I suppose that helps with job creation, but seems ironic from a number of Congressmen that want to reduce government.  Here is the tough question that no one has yet resolved in my mind.  Most Americans agree that there should be some kind of social safety net for our citizens — Social Security, Medicare, SNAP, WIC, and others.  Most Americans agree that there is some percentage of the population that are dead beats — no matter what you try to do to help them, they just do not get it and never will.  So the magic question is where to draw the line?  How do you legislate out the dead beats without hurting those people who have legitimately fallen on hard times and need a hand while they strive to get back on track?  Given the state of the economy over the last five years, there are a large number of people in that latter category.  Let’s not cut them off to score political points.

There is a lot going on in our country.  Many of these events underscore for me, yet again, that votes count and elections have consequences.  I hope that our so-called leaders in the House and Senate figure out that the vast majority of Americans are disgusted by their inability to reach some common sense decisions.  Quit manufacturing crises — there are enough to deal with without shooting ourselves in the foot.

Okay, I guess I wasn’t that quick after all.

How Long Do We Have to Put Up With This?

Posted: September 21, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

There go my men and I must follow as I am their leader.  — John Boehner

Speaker of the House John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) did not actually say those words, or at least there is no record of it.  But it seems to be his motto.  He has demonstrated little to no control over his party in the House of Representatives.  The latest lack of leadership revolves around the upcoming end of the fiscal year and the need to fund the government or shut it down.  Right behind that by about three weeks we will face default on our national debt if the debt ceiling is not raised.  This development seems to be yet another impending manufactured crisis in the continuing efforts of about forty right-wing Republican Representatives determined to destroy our national economy if they do not get their way.  “Looking out for the middle class” indeed.

Speaker Boehner understood that the legislation passed in the House yesterday is not the way to make sure that the government continues to operate effectively.  He knows that the Senate and the President will never go along with his plan to delay and/or de-fund the Affordable Health Care Act otherwise known as “Obamacare.”  He tried to maneuver legislation that will give the malcontents a chance to vote once again to eliminate Obamacare but in a way that the Senate could then easily overcome and everyone could move on.  But no, that wasn’t good enough for those trying to hijack our country and so Speaker Boehner backed down and moved legislation nearly guaranteed to keep us tied up in knots once again.  He even pretends now that it is a good idea.

There are several things to remember about this “fight” as they call it.  First of all It is a manufactured crisis.  The Affordable Care Act is duly passed legislation found Constitutional by the Supreme Court (with five of the Justices avowed conservatives) and a national election where Obamacare was a primary issue.  In case nobody noticed, President Obama was re-elected and the Democrats retained the Senate.  Let me put a finer point on that.  The president was re-elected in a national election.  Any member of Congress, including the Speaker, was only elected by a small fraction of the electorate.  On top of that, the House has voted at least forty times (almost too many to count) to repeal, defund, delay or otherwise disrupt the legislation.  This they have time for but they cannot seem to find the time for getting on with the business of actually running the country.  Throw on top of that the refusal to consider other significant pieces of legislation passed in the Senate with bipartisan support and they really do have a terrible track record.  I suppose that the only thing that matters is that they demonstrate their commitment to obstructing the Obama administration at every turn whether or not it is a good idea and whether or not it hurts the majority of Americans.

Oh, and by the way, the bill they passed is only a continuing resolution to mid-December.  There will still be no 2014 budget or appropriations.  They “need more time.”  This after being on vacation for five weeks in August and September and coming after several attempts by the president in the spring to work with Republicans to avert a crisis and to get things moving again.

Oh, and by the way, sequestration remains in force under their continuing resolution which all agree is not the way to reign in government spending.

Speaker Boehner spoke of “victory” after the vote.  The only “victory” was by the recalcitrant gang of forty and their allies outside the government such as Heritage Action for America and the Club for Growth that have intimidated moderate Republicans in the House.  I could go on about the growth industry supported by these groups and the immense amounts of money that come their way when the conflict continues, but that will be a post for another day.  I will merely say that they have no real interest in resolving these issues because that’s what they thrive on.

Not-with-standing the real politics behind the scenes, and I do understand how a Speaker of the House gets elected by the majority party, there should still be an occassional reminder to Speaker Boehner that he is Speaker for the entire country, not just a radical wing of his party.

I am also tired of these guys (and a few gals) who claim to speak for all Americans.  As the Speaker said, “We had a victory for the American people, and frankly we also had a victory for common sense.  Our message to the United States Senate is real simple.  The American people don’t want the government shut down and they don’t want Obamacare.”  Well, maybe he got it half right as most of us do not want the government to shut down.  Note that he says the “American people” meaning every American.  Not “most Americans” or “many Americans” or even “my constituents that are Americans” or any other modifier.  Every American.  How dare he or anyone else say that?  How conceited to think that he or his party speaks for every American.  He may mean those that voted for him and that’s legitimate, but the facts just do not support the assertion that everyone wants Obamacare eliminated.  Note also that they have not proposed any replacement for bringing health care to those that need it.  Just get rid of what was passed three years ago.

This is outrageous to me.  Saner minds, including I’m sure Speaker Boehner, must know that their bill will go exactly nowhere.  However, it is not clear to me how this will get resolved.  If the malcontents do not get their way on the continuing resolution (an actual spending bill by 30 September is now out of the question) they have threatened to default on the national debt.  Thanks guys, I’m sure that will help the economy to recover.

Oh, and by the way, raising the debt limit is required to pay our nation’s bills.  Bills that we are already committed to based on legislation already passed in the House and Senate.  This is not new spending.  It’s paying the existing bills.

To be clear, I do think that we should take a hard look at spending, programs and where government can be trimmed or modified or improved.  Likewise I’m sure that there are ways to improve the Affordable Care Act and that there will be blips along the way that need to be rectified.  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs have been improved through bipartisan efforts.  It should be the same for this program and for government spending on the whole.

There is no moral equivalency here.  Suggestions to compromise fall on deaf ears because there is nothing to compromise about.  The hostage takers will not negotiate or compromise.   I understand that Democrats don’t get everything right.  The president doesn’t get everything right.  Not all Republicans are trying to bring down the government.  There are some good people on both sides of the aisle that could fix some of these issues in a meaningful way.  It is not happening because of the group of Republican crazies in the House (and lately two or three in the Senate).  No one will stand up to them from within their own party for fear of losing their job.  From where I sit, those people may as well lose their job because they are not doing it.  If they are unwilling to stand up for what they believe to be right, then they should leave.

To me Speaker Boehner has decided that it is more important to remain as Speaker of the House than to do the right thing (he wouldn’t lose his seat in the Congress as he is popular in his home district).  He could have put forward a bill to solve the “budget crisis” that would have passed with bipartisan support.  But he also knew that those in his party that want to hold the country hostage would probably have brought him down as Speaker.

Here is what will probably happen, although increasingly I am finding that I should get out of making predictions.  But, I will give it a try anyway.

The Senate will pass a bill that is a continuing resolution that keeps spending at about current levels but that will try to move some money around to lessen the impact of the sequestration.  A few Republican Senators will try to derail it.  This slows down the process so that the bill passes with only two or three days until the deadline and then goes back to the House.  Another round of publicity speeches will take place as they continue to rant against Obamacare and the administration.  This will further slow down the process so that the “compromise” that passes the House and Senate sometime early on the morning of 1 October will be the spending levels that we have now including sequestration.  It will be temporary so that we can do all of this again in late December or early January.

All concerned will take a break for about one day and then the hostage taking will continue anew over raising the debt ceiling.

How long do we have to put up with this?

What a Week

Posted: September 21, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | 1 Comment

There was so much to write about this week that it was overwhelming.  Unfortunately, much of what occurred is sad or troubling.  It was a bit much to take in all at once.  However, I plan to address many of the issues as the days pass.  A few quick thoughts:

  • The shootings at the Navy Yard in Washington DC were horrific and troubling on many levels.  Besides the personal aspect of my having been in Building 197 many, many times, one must ask how many more mass shootings are there going to be before we as a society decide to make our citizens safe and secure?  It will not be by arming more of our citizens.  I’m troubled that some in our society are calling these shootings the “new normal.”  There is nothing normal about it.
  • I am dismayed at the continued dysfunction in our Congress thanks to a minority of about forty House Republicans that seem to think that their way of thinking is the only correct way for Americans to think and are willing to hold our country hostage to get what they want.  I also wish they would quit telling me what I want as in “the American people want to get rid of Obamacare.”  None of those people asked me about it.  I happen to think it is a good idea.
  • Within the first three days that it was on sale, “Grand Theft Auto Five” had over a billion (yes, with a “b”) dollars in sales.  I’m not one of those that fears the end of civilization as we know it because of video games and other aspects of our culture, but one can’t help but wonder why such a cruel, violent, misogynistic game would be so popular.  And no I’ve never played it.
  • The new Apple i-phone also arrived this week.  I am not sure why people had to stand in line to buy a phone that appears to be only marginally different from what already exists, but that is up to them.  With the controversy over who is collecting what information on all of us, it seems counter-intuitive that those buying the phone are excited about coughing up their fingerprint to use it.
  • Nina Davuluri, Miss New York, won the 2014 Miss America crown.  She is the first woman of Indian descent to win.  I did not see the pageant, and I’m not even sure I knew that it was on, but I heard the news about it not because of reporting on the event, but rather I heard about it from reporting about all the nasty postings on social media regarding her ethnic background.  Most of the postings were just plain ignorant, but it continues to reflect the worst aspects of our society.  Ignorant or not, many of the racist posts, if reflective of a noticeable slice of America, makes me understand just how difficult it will be to solve many of the problems facing our country.

There were of course some positive things happening this week.  College football is underway again, for example.  I know there are significant problems there and one day I’ll address them, but for now I choose to enjoy the excitement and camaraderie of a beautiful fall day and losing oneself in an endeavor that has no bearing on the crisis of the day.

I also continue to appreciate the freshness that Pope Francis is bringing to the Catholic Church and the pastoral, big tent message he is sending.  Putting people in need above the church hierarchy is just the message many in that hierarchy needed to hear.  It will be interesting to see how he continues to convey his message of humility and faithfulness.  I seriously doubt that there will be any significant doctrinal changes in the months and years to come.  However a continued message that all are welcome is in itself a significant change.

I trust that the coming week will bring better news.

 

Why, Thank You Mr. Putin

Posted: September 12, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

If you have not seen it, please read Vladimir Putin’s op-ed in today’s New York Times.  It is always nice to have a Russian explain democracy and the will of the international community regarding international law to American citizens.  He must have learned about it at the KGB Academy.  Interesting that he understands American freedom of the press, even if he inhibits it in his own country.

This only reinforces what I wrote about in my previous post.  Mr. Putin is trying to poke us in the eye over Syria and this is just one more example.  He is trying to make Russia look good (and stronger) at the expense of the United States.

Based on the comments I’ve seen coming out of Congress, Mr. Putin may actually provoke the very thing he purports to want to save us from doing.

My favorite line from his piece is this:  “We are different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”

Why thank you, Mr. Putin, I never would have known that.

 

Getting This Right

Posted: September 11, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

The twelfth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on September 11 is a strong reminder that national security is a serious business.  As we pause to remember those we lost that day, we should also try to re-focus our efforts toward the Middle East and specifically in Syria.  We need to get this right.

In essence, yesterday our national leadership called a time-out to re-group and to re-assess our policy and our ability to move forward in enforcing international law by holding Bashar al-Asad accountable for his use of sarin gas.

I do not think the president made as compelling of a case in his speech on Tuesday night as I had hoped that he would do.  The speech probably just reinforced the opinions of those that support action and those that oppose it.  No minds were changed.  It did, however, provide an opportunity for a face-saving decision to let Congress postpone a vote on whether to support the president’s request for a military response to the Syrians.  Whatever the outcome, and events are outpacing my ability to keep up with them, our actions (or lack of action) cannot lead to a decision to just let things slide under the guise of supporting international diplomatic efforts in the hope that the problem will go away.

As the experts have quickly pointed out elsewhere, the practical problems in implementing the Russian proposal to turn the Syrian chemical weapons over to international inspectors are enormous, if not nearly impossible.  It would be difficult to do a credible job in a timely manner in a perfect world, and Syria is certainly not a perfect world.  I agree that the United States and other nations, through the United Nations Security Council, should pursue the proposal, but I doubt that it will succeed.  Already the Russians have threatened to veto a British and French resolution that would implement the turnover, but with the proviso that it has to be on a specific timeline and if that timeline were not met, military force would remain an option.

The United States can only accept a resolution that is specific, time sensitive, and that retains the option of military force in the future.  Both the carrot and the stick need to be present to get the Syrians moving forward.  Indeed, the carrot will probably be viewed as weakness and only the stick will get their attention.

Beyond what should be a natural American moral stance that it is actually our job to enforce crimes against humanity when no other nation is capable or willing, there is a bigger picture.  This developing story has significant ramifications for future United States policy.

With Russian involvement, and given the mentality of some non-western cultures, this is also a test as to which nation has the influence and wherewithal to accomplish its goals in the region.  Despite their public pronouncements, the Russians did not come forward with their proposal in an altruistic effort to curb Syrian chemical weapons.  Russia stepped in to stop the United States in an effort to show to our friends and enemies alike that we no longer have the will to get involved in the Middle East (or elsewhere) if it involves the use of military force.  The message will be that a “redline” means nothing.  The Russians are trying to convey that post-Iraq, the United States is no longer willing to go the extra mile.

If the diplomatic efforts drag out for weeks or months, the game is over.  The United States and its allies need to craft a resolution that tests Russian and Syrian willingness to do what they say and then press them if (when?) they back away or dissemble or otherwise try to change the playing field.  The Syrian regime must suffer real consequences or the United States will be viewed as unable to influence world events or to back up its threats.

War is a serious business and should never be undertaken lightly.  I was a critic of American involvement in Iraq in 2002 before the decision to go the following year.  It hurt our operations in Afghanistan and we invaded for the wrong reasons.  Syria is not Iraq.   However, I think that the Obama administration has thus far been a bit flat-footed in its efforts.  With this Russian proposal the scenario is reset and there is a chance to get back on our toes and to get ahead of events in order to shape what happens rather than just to react.

The end of America as we know it will not occur if we do not act in Syria.  Serious questions remain as to what military action is appropriate or wise.  But it is also clear that as events have thus far unfolded, American credibility as a world player is on the line and that if we are unsuccessful in this endeavor, we will bear the repercussions down the line.  If in the end there is no real accountability for Bashar, and the world perceives that the Syrians stood up to us and the Russians forced us to back down, then within a year we will see further tests of our resolve in other parts of the world.

Let this sad anniversary be a reminder that there are nasty people in the world who wish to do us harm.  We cannot look away.

What about Syria? (Part Three)

Posted: September 8, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

It is hard to know where to begin as events continue to unfold concerning possible United States military action against the Syrian regime of Bashar Al-Assad.  The bottom line is getting significantly obscured in all the political rhetoric within our country and without.  To me, however, it is still necessary for the world — and as the leader of the world, for the United States — to take action against Bashar’s regime.

As I write, I think of all the things that have gone wrong in the way that we’ve approached this case and how we may be able to rectify the many mistakes.  But in the end, that is all water under the bridge.  The real question is “what happens now?”  There are many questions that cannot be answered and thus create an aura of doubt about the feasibility of taking action.   Not to be cavalier, but it is also possible to be stymied  by over-thinking all of the issues and questions.  As a mentor of mine used to say it becomes “paralysis by analysis.”  Continuing to press for every conceivable scenario and pushing to eliminate all of the risk may even be a strategy by some of those opposed to military action.  To them, too many unknowns means we should not take action.  However, if that was the basis for all decision-making, then few things would get accomplished, especially in a context such as this one.  That is not to say that planners should not be trying to answer all of those questions.  As I pointed out in my first post on this subject on 28 August, there must be a plan B — branches and sequels as they are known to planners.  These are important when the operation is a success (the need to seize the initiative and to take advantage of unexpected opportunities when they arise) and they are critical if the operation is less successful (how do we still accomplish the mission while lessening or eliminating the problems standing in the way).  Keep trying to get the answers, keep working on contingencies and “what ifs” but at some point it is time to act.

I am not sure exactly why President Obama made the choice to get Congress involved in the decision to act.  Much has been (and surely will be) written about whether or not it was necessary, supports or undermines the Constitution, or jeopardizes the chances for success.  My own view is that it was not necessary.   Significant precedence exists for the president to initiate military action without a vote from Congress.  Indeed, in his own administration he took action in Libya, and on a much larger scale than anticipated here, without it.  Clearly, a president should consult with Congressional leaders, provide them with a rationale, share intelligence leading to the decision and otherwise include the legislative branch of Congress.  A vote, however, creates an entirely different dynamic and significantly complicates the issue on many levels.

Foremost among those complications is that the nature and ramifications of what was going to be a relatively (if there is such a thing in warfare) straight forward, short duration operation achieving tactical surprise if not operational or strategic surprise have changed.  The public, our legislators, anyone discussing the issue now talk about “going to war.”  We were never going to war with Syria and the vote in Congress is not a declaration of war.  But merely talking in those terms raises the stakes to a level not in the original concept.  (At this point, let me say I do not and will not gloss over the dangers of combat.  When bullets are flying, those on the scene don’t care if we are technically at war or not, they are in danger.  I remember Beirut in 1983 where the Reagan Administration would not authorize hazardous duty pay — commonly referred to as combat pay — because of fears it would trigger the War Powers Act.  We were not amused.)

The “Goldilocks Solution” I referred to in my 31 August post becomes increasingly difficult to achieve (not too little, not too much, but just right).  However, we must still try.  Politicians that argued that President Obama does not understand or believe in “American Exceptionalism” are now arguing that the United States should not be out front in holding Bashar accountable for his violation of international law.  Really?  We are the world’s leader militarily, economically, and in this case most importantly morally or we are not.  We cannot have it both ways.  To me this case is all about demonstrating that we are serious when we say that certain actions are totally unacceptable and that we will not stand by and let them happen.  Deterrence does not work if there is no consequence for the action being deterred.  Our nation is a leader in putting a moral force behind international law and therefore we must act.

Continued references to our involvement in Iraq under President George W. Bush are not relevant in this case.  It is wholly different.  I have not heard of a single member of the House or the Senate say that the evidence of Syrian use of chemical weapons (probably Sarin) is false or shaky or insufficient.   When the president addresses the nation this Tuesday, I hope that besides laying out the moral arguments for our involvement that he also includes the facts of the case — the surety that caused him to embark on this course in the first place.

Whether or not to act and if so in what manner is not a trivial discussion.  It is a weighty decision and I appreciate that members of the public and the Congress have legitimate concerns.  They should ask the hard questions.  To me, it seems that most of the opposition to military action falls into roughly three categories.  Some merely oppose anything that this president puts forward.  Period.  Thankfully, in this case I think that number is very small.  Others oppose military action because they feel that it would not do any good or merely “make things worse.”  I appreciate this line of argument but I think it naive.  What could be worse than what is already going on and will go on.  Could things get worse?  They could.  Will they get worse if we don’t act?  They will.  A third group, and in the Congress right now I think the largest group, feel that we do need to do something, but are not convinced that we will achieve our aims by taking military action.  This is where the Obama Administration must make its case.  To be sure, I do not think that they have made it to date.  Secretary of State Kerry has been the most eloquent in delineating why now and why in this way.  So far I have been unimpressed by General Dempsey (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) and Secretary of Defense Hagel. As the experts, they should be able to make the case with a clearly stated, straight forward mission statement and define the intent.  Why are we doing it and what do we accomplish?  I haven’t seen them do it, although they are getting closer with the aim to “degrade and deter” future Syrian use of chemical weapons.

There is a lot riding on this decision, and not just for those that must go in harm’s way.  I think our credibility as a nation is at stake and non-action will come back to haunt us in the future as other bad actors feel emboldened to create mischief.  Our past history demonstrates that foreign leaders can badly miscalculate the meaning of the contentious American brand of democracy.  Should this happen again with North Korea or Iran or even Syria (again) we will rise to the occasion as we have so many times before.  But it will be at a much greater loss of lives and treasure than would have been risked had we acted now instead of later.

So what will happen?  I don’t know.  My best guess is that the House will vote down the resolution and the Senate will pass it.  If that is the case, the President will go ahead and act.  If both the House and Senate vote down the resolution, the President will not act.

Either way between now and the beginning of October with so many domestic and international issues pending for our legislators to resolve it is going to be exciting.  Or as Bette Davis said in the movie All About Eve, “Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night.”

What About Syria? (Part Two)

Posted: August 31, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 2 Comments

What a difference 72 hours makes.  In many respects nothing fundamentally changed, but like so many complicated issues, this one got even more complicated.

I doubt anyone, especially Prime Minister David Cameron, expected the British Parliament to vote against action in Syria.  In my view, this was an internal political move rather than a repudiation of the alliance with the United States or an acceptance of the Syrian use of chemical weapons.  They have been, and still are, mad as hell about the United Kingdom’s involvement in Iraq, and the way that it was sold to them, and they”aren’t going to take it anymore.”  I doubt that Thursday’s vote is the final word from the British about their involvement or lack of involvement.  As further information becomes available to them and to the world about what occurred in Syria (and may occur again) it would not surprise me to see them come on board in the end.

I am surprised by President Obama’s statement today (Saturday).  I have not yet had the opportunity to fully digest it.  None-the-less I find it confusing for him to say that the United States is going to take military action against Bashar’s regime — and my interpretation of his words is that we are definitely going to take action — but then seemingly leave it up to a vote by the Congress.  It is all backwards.  If even only for appearances sake, he should make the case for military action, rally Congress for support and an open-ended resolution to use “all necessary means” and then announce a strike or other military action.  And oh by the way, he has now given the appearance of providing Congress veto power over his already announced decision to take military action.

While I understand that there is not necessarily a definitive timeline to act, the traditional statement that works best in these circumstances is something along the lines of the United States “will take action at a time and place of our choosing.”  President Obama left me with the impression that “we’ll get around to it.”  To me, if the case is as compelling as it increasingly appears to be, and ten days have already elapsed, then I don’t see why he is waiting for Congress to return to Washington at the regularly scheduled time (9 September) to get going on this.  Call them back to Washington now and get on with it.

Of course I may be reading more into this than is there.  Perhaps consultations will be sufficient and he won’t wait until they return to Washington to have a debate and a vote on the issue.  Additionally, waiting another ten days (or more) may have the side benefit of giving the Administration time to continue to build its case for action and to bring more international support to the equation.  So, maybe there is some method to the madness, but I still wonder if the President is getting very good advice on how to put this all together for the country’s consideration.

On top of all that, as was demonstrated in the United Kingdom, there remains a very deep distrust of “evidence” of WMD and its persuasiveness for taking action.  Personally, I do not see this as being the same — either in scale or in terms of what has happened — as the events in Iraq leading to Gulf War II under President George W. Bush.  I think that by invading Iraq we took our eye off the ball (Afghanistan) and went after Saddam because that Administration thought they saw an opportunity to get rid of him “easily.”  Nothing in warfare is as easy as it looks.  Regardless, those events, and the justification for going to war in that case, have poisoned the well this time around.  No one wants to get fooled again.  However, I believe that this time around what we see is what we get — Bashar’s regime used chemical weapons, probably Sarin gas, against its own population and killed approximately 1400 people.  He may well do it again.

As I noted in my previous post on 28 August, I still do not have a clear idea of what the President intends to accomplish with a military strike.  I support a strike.  Like it or not future deterrence depends on demonstrating a willingness and capability to act as we say we will act.  I am not a war monger.  I have serious reservations about any military action and very great concerns about what will come of this particular action.  Once underway, there is always the chance for things to go awry.  But in this case I believe it is important to do something that demonstrably holds Syrian leaders accountable, I just do not yet understand what the President has in mind that accomplishes that goal.

Many current and former military leaders are expressing serious concerns over the use of force in Syria.  Primarily, this is because there is still no full explanation of what we want to accomplish and, as I’ve said before, what is it exactly that we want to see as a result of the military action.  In my view, we probably cannot do much more than degrade the WMD capability of Syria and also send a message to those responsible that their personal well-being is in danger if it happens again.  I think the critics fear both what happens if we take “too much” action and equally fear what happens if we take “too little” action.  As with Goldilocks, we need to get his one “just right.”

So far the President has said that Bashar crossed a red line and that we therefore need to do something about it.  That is a political statement that does not translate to military action.  The arm-chair strategists are nervous because they don’t know what is that the President wants — “what do you want us to do?”  I say this only a bit  facetiously, but let me  give you an example.

In the lead up to Gulf War I, President George H. W. Bush said following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that “this will not stand.”  Got it.  As military planners, it was necessary to take that statement and put it into concrete terms that the forces that had to go out and do something could understand and work towards.  In this case it would “not stand” because the goal was to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait and restore the legitimate government (the one that existed before the invasion) of Kuwait.  It was not to over throw Saddam or occupy Iraq or bring democracy to Iraq or a number of other unrelated actions.  It was a clear and precise formula for what needed to be done and everyone could clearly understand what things would look like when it was over.

It is easy to pick targets and talk weapon systems and the like.  Some people consider it fun and others make a lot of money talking about it on TV.  That stuff is relatively easy for those in the know but it has no relevancy to the bigger picture.  What is important is the mission and the end state.  Figure that out and the tacticians and military commanders on the scene know what targets to hit with what weapons.  Let the professionals do their job.   But to do it well, they need to know what we want it to look like in the end.

It does not appear to me that the hard stuff has yet been addressed.  I hope I am wrong, but we are still waiting to hear what the end state should be.  How do we know when we are finished?

I am also sure that Congress, which apparently cannot take anything seriously during its five week vacation that takes precedence over the well-being of the country, will make it even muddier.

Let’s get on with it.

What About Syria?

Posted: August 28, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

Even a casual look at the news over the last few days reveals that the United States is about to undertake a military action against the Syrian regime in response to the Syrian’s near certain use of chemical weapons against its own population.

The opinion pieces and talking heads on TV, many of whom are former military officers or Defense Department civilian leaders, are full of cautions about embarking upon a military action without fulling understanding what the results might be.  They are right to be cautious.  Unfortunately, the United States is in a no-win situation.  We cannot draw a clear “red line” that we would respond harshly should Bashar Al-Assad or his regime order the use of chemical weapons, or as they are commonly called, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and not do so.  In order to credibly issue other such warnings in the future we must take action now.  Deterrence is totally dependent on the credibility of a nation’s stated reaction to the act to be deterred.  Every so often, nations need to act in order to show that their threatened response has credibility — that they actually can and will do what they say.  On the other hand, there is no desire for a long-term United States military involvement there, yet the situation is going to become a significant long-term problem for the United States should we act.

I am guessing that the Obama Administration drew the red line over Syrian use of WMD to show that they were concerned with developments in that country and that we would not ignore what happens there.  By taking a moral stand we could demonstrate that we actually cared what happens there.  I do not think that the Obama Administration believed that Bashar would actually use them.  After all, large-scale use of chemical weapons has not been done since the end of World War I.  When nearly the entire world agrees that such use is beyond the realm of warfare, we need to take action.  The question then becomes, what kind of action and how does it end?

The two most similar situations from the not too distant past are Operation Desert Fox against Iraq in December 1998 and the NATO involvement in Kosovo which began in March 1999.  Both are instructive for what did and did not happen.  In 1998, the United States and the United Kingdom began four days of Tomahawk missile strikes and bombing attacks from naval and air forces.  The action was in response to Saddam’s refusal to comply with United Nations resolutions concerning WMD in Iraq.  The Kosovo action was also a combination of NATO missile and air attacks to stop atrocities being carried out by Yugoslav troops against Kosovo civilians and fighters.  After over three months of the air operation, the Yugoslavs agreed to withdraw and to allow NATO troops under United Nations auspices to enter the country as peacekeepers.

There are elements in both operations that reflect the current situation.  In Iraq we thought we were dealing with WMD.  In Kosovo we were dealing with mass killings and atrocities against civilians.  Both exist in the current Syrian situation, but the context is totally different.

Operation Desert Fox was never intended to be an extended operation.  The stated intent was to degrade Iraq’s ability to produce and use WMD.  The United States never set out to totally eliminate any and all stockpiles or production facilities.

The air operation in Kosovo was intended to be of a similar nature — a short duration operation to convince Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw.  He and his cohorts turned out to be much tougher than expected as it took him over three months to get the message.  Most analysts feel that the air operation would have continued indefinitely if the threat of placing NATO forces on the ground in Kosovo had not been made.  British Prime Minister Tony Blair was at the forefront of publicly pushing for a ground operation and Milosevic finally caught on that he could not last forever.

In Syria we have a totally different situation.  In 1998 Saddam was not using WMD against his own population like Bashar is now doing.  In Kosovo Milosevic was in essence leading an external force into Kosovo and it was possible to withdraw to allow for peacekeepers to enter.  There are no external forces to withdraw from Syria — they are caught in a civil war.  No credible leader is pushing for putting troops into that country.  So what happens now in Syria?

Every military planner knows that no military action should go forward without a clear understanding of the mission.  A mission statement must clearly answer the “who, what, where and when” questions of the action.  However, most importantly, it also answers the “why” and provides the desired end state.  We are going to go in and blow things up and kill people — so why do that and what should it look like when we are finished?   The crafting of the mission is crucial to success but not easily accomplished.  Everything else stems from this including the analysis of alternative courses of action.  It’s impossible to know what to do if you don’t know why you are doing it.  We should expect the President to articulate this for the nation just prior to or coincident with the beginning of hostilities.  There are signs this may happen soon.

When choosing a course of action one must ask several questions relating to the mission.   Is it suitable (does it accomplish the goal)?  Is it feasible (are the resources available sufficient)? Is it acceptable (is the level of risk involved worth the payoff)?  Is it consistent (is it in keeping with our core values and objectives)?  We need to know that all aspects of the situation have been thoroughly reviewed.

Finally, planners must have alternative courses of action ready to go — a “Plan B” if you will.  Nothing is certain in life and it is even less certain in warfare.  Planners can project what will happen but cannot be certain that the opponent will react as expected.  They must have alternatives ready to go and have thoroughly thought through the “next step” or the mission will not be accomplished.

So what will do in Syria?  Perhaps a more important question is what should we do in Syria?  My honest answer is “I don’t know.”  Unfortunately, that is not an acceptable answer.

My guess is that the mission will be similar to Operation Desert Fox in 1998 against Iraq.  The goal will be to degrade the ability of the Syrian forces to use chemical weapons again in the future.  They will not be able to prevent future use, they will only be able to make it harder for them to do so and also to make it “personal.”  We will not threaten to put troops into Syria as was done in Kosovo because that is a step too far for both the will of the nation and our national interests.  Therefore the plan will not be  for a long-term campaign, but rather a limited action with limited objectives.  In other words, to send a message that certain actions in Syria are unacceptable (and perhaps just as importantly, send a message to other bad actors in the world that we will act as promised if they cross the line).  Whether or not Bashar gets the message is a different question and we may let loose the dogs of war without really knowing what will happen in the end.  An unsettling situation to say the least.

Here is the rough outline of what I think will happen.  There will be a limited air operation involving Tomahawk missiles and aircraft from the United States, United Kingdom and some other token NATO involvement including some Turkish and French forces.  All of the media attention is on the ships and submarines in the Mediterranean but there will be larger air forces launched from Cyprus and Incirlik Turkey among other places.  I would expect token involvement from Arab states — probably a few aircraft from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The planners will expect the operation to last 3-5 days and then they will  re-group to assess whether their goals were met.  The operation will begin at night, perhaps as early as this Friday night — a weekend night in the Arab world — in the hopes of tactical surprise and also limiting civilian casualties.  The exact timing may depend on whether or not the United Nations observers currently in country are gone.  They will not hit the chemical weapons storage sites.  They will try to take out the means of delivering those weapons such as launchers and command and control sites.  They will not target Bashar or his family but it is likely that they will target key military commanders that oversaw the use of the weapons.  I am sure that we have fairly good intelligence as to who those people are at the senior tactical levels of command and we will send a “this one’s for you” type message that things will get very bad for any other military leaders that decide to use such weapons.

Just as in the previously discussed operations, Russia will voice its objections in the strongest possible terms, perhaps even threatening some kind of retaliation.  Just as in those previous operations, in the end they will be unable to influence the events or prevent them from happening.

There are some serious unknowns to me that I hope the planners and decision makers have a handle on.  Foremost among those is whether or not Bashar thinks that his end is near and that he has nothing to lose — thus ordering ever more extensive use of the chemical weapons.  This is where the success of the initial strikes will be critical in eliminating the means to deliver those weapons and whether the message gets through to subordinate commanders that their own health and well-being is in jeopardy from us if they follow those orders.  Word of further defections by senior leaders in the regime will be a good measure of effectiveness as to whether the “message” hit home.

In the end, the United States and western powers must do something or our future credibility in such matters is seriously undermined.  A quick, short duration attack focused on disrupting the Syrian military’s use of WMD in the future seems to be the best short-term approach.  Only after that will we know what the future holds for Syria.

It Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time

Posted: August 23, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Not all new ideas are good ideas.

Some new ideas, of course, are good ideas, and some we don’t know whether or not they work until they are tried, but there are also definitely bad ideas that get implemented and then never go away.  I am sure that Pandora thought it was a good idea to open that box, and then it was too late.

I am not entirely sure which category the addition of ethanol to gasoline (commonly called gasohol) falls into, but I think it is probably in the “nice try, but no” category.  It seemed like a good idea at the time, but it is not clear to me that the technology to produce it is as efficient as once believed.  To meet the demand for the amounts of ethanol required produces negative impacts such as less corn for food and animal feed and the conversion of farm land now growing other crops into corn.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 implemented the requirement to mix ethanol into gasoline produced in the United States.  This was further expanded through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.  What was once a voluntary program became a mandatory one.  The 2007 Act created subsidies for producing ethanol and banned the importation of ethanol from outside the US.  Two groups that are very happy with this new windfall are the large agribusiness companies and the lobbyists that pushed to have the law enacted.  As a result, it is a matter of faith for members of Congress from the farm states that this is a crucial element to our national security.   This notion is re-enforced every few years by candidates for President that have to make their way through the Iowa caucuses.

To meet the sudden demand for ethanol, corn was the easiest and most logical source.  Ethanol is alcohol, something well-known for a very long time by those using corn in their stills to make a little “home-brew”.  When mixed with gasoline it can provide an alternative fuel that reduces US consumption of oil.  Currently, most gasoline sold in the US is 10% ethanol although in some areas it can be as high as 15%.   (There are a few remaining sources of pure gasoline, but they are few and far between.)  Many new vehicles can use “flex fuel” or a blend of up to 85% ethanol (E85) resulting in more demand for the product.

The original idea was a good one — the search for alternative fuels to lessen American dependence on oil, especially oil from politically unreliable sources.  In fact, ethanol can be made from a variety of other plants (the next two most used sources are sugar cane and sorghum), but so far alternative bio-mass sources do not provide the same yield, which is part of the problem.  With the establishment of corn as the primary source and a near monopoly, there is less incentive for research and development for alternative sources.  Although touted as a renewable energy source, it is doubtful that large-scale use of bio-mass fuel is currently economically feasible.  Some day — but not yet.  For the long haul, there needs to be much more diversity if we are serious about developing large quantities of fuel from plants.  As new sources of oil, and especially natural gas, are discovered in the US, there is even less incentive to develop alternatives.  Yet ethanol from corn continues to be subsidized.

Like most things in life, there are pros and cons to the use of gasohol and sourcing it primarily from corn.  However, the benefits expected are so far turning out to be much less than they were originally thought to be.

The positive impact of burning gasohol rather than pure gasoline may be over-stated when taking into account its production and delivery costs.  For example, ethanol is hygroscopic (absorbs water) which cannot be totally eliminated.  Therefore it cannot be transported long distances via pipelines (goes by truck) and causes corrosion and water slugs in fuel lines of engines not operated often (such as boat motors, lawn mowers and other small engines).  One must also take into account the farm equipment, fertilizers, trucks, production plants and other sources using energy to grow and harvest the corn and then to  generate ethanol.

Vehicles get less gas mileage with ethanol.  In most cases it is about a 3-4% reduction in a 10% ethanol/gasoline mix and up to 30% with E85.  This means we are filling our tank more often, costing more in a tight economy.

With the advent of the mandates to supply ethanol in our gas supply, and the subsequent decreased availability for food and feed, the price of a bushel of corn has increased significantly.  This increases the cost of everything from Frosted Flakes to beef.

The original idea was a good one and it was a noble and valid experiment.  Now, however, it appears to have become a cash cow for agribusiness and those that support it.  Most small farmers, of which there are actually very few left,  do not much benefit because they cannot produce the mass quantities required.

The basic idea of using bio-mass as an alternative renewable fuel source continues to have great promise but it is not yet really commercially feasible.  To be a truly effective alternative fuel source, which we will need in the years ahead despite our currently expanding fossil fuel sources, more research and development is needed.

In the meantime, remove the subsidies for the production of ethanol and the requirement that 10% or more of our gasoline must be made of ethanol.  The industry will catch up and we’ll have a more sustainable path to the future.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →