Saving the Air National Guard

When Ronald Reagan was President, it was easy to see who was on America's side and who wasn't. The Evil Empire was out there and was real. Now we have a heck of a lot more enemies and the threats are more multi-faceted than back in the Cold War. So it's easy to lose sight of the threat and the need.

So when someone claiming to represent the interests of the Ohio National Guard tells me that we need to draw down forces in Europe, or to gut the Air Force to save the ANG, I think we need to take a deep breath. And always be careful what we wish for, lest we get it.

First, the Guard serves a three fold mission: The nation's sword when force of arms is used. The citizens' protectors in time of disaster. And the guarantors of the rights of the states and the people against tyranny. To accept an enlarged Federal role is to alter and potentially neglect these obligations to the states and people. It makes the Guard part of the leviathan, rather than a balance to it.

Second, we have already drawn down radically from our Cold War numbers in Europe. Remember Bitburg, Hahn, Rhein-Main, Torrejon, RAF Upper Heyford, RAF Bentwaters... those bases are closed now. Our military presence in Germany has dropped from 200,000 in 1990 to about 60,000 now. The Russians and Chinese may have left the path of Marx but they are still global economic and power competitors and hostile to the United States in many aspects. The Chinese Premier recently visited Lajes. Why is China looking at a base in the Azores? Russian subs and bombers patrol our coasts in numbers and ways that make the news for the first time since the Cold War.

We are committed to missile defense in eastern Europe, so we need not more cuts, but to augment our few remaining bases in Europe with new ones in Poland and Romania. And look at a globe: Europe is a lot closer to where our military needs to be than Ohio. So, till we recruit a Romanian National Guard, we're going to need an Air Force big enough to support that rotation. And keeping ground forces there makes sense for the same reason. Cutting our commitments in Europe further is a bad idea.

And don't forget - President Obama has announced a strategic "pivot" toward Asia. Maybe it's time to build up the Guam National Guard. Do we have volunteers to homestead there???

As far as the ongoing statement by the Guard leadership that ANG provides 35% of the combat capability for 6% of the cost... that's true if you don't count the missions the Air Force does for the Guard - Basic training, technical training, pilot training, just to name a few. These are missions where the Air Force ought to fully utilize the ANG, missions requiring expertise, continuity, and maturity - three great strengths of the ANG. Also, when we look at USAF costs, remember the Air Force has to move people around, to station thousands overseas and in locations far from our hometowns or that many of us might find less than enjoyable. (wonder what it costs to move an Airman to Turkey or Japan - and his family, and the other 5,000 people on the base and the other 20 or so bases overseas... and to rotate them 3-4 years later?). And don't forget that the Air Force has some unique and costly missions like ICBMs, research & development, and procurement. Not that you couldn't roll the ANG in there, but it has to be considered in budget assessments.

The simple fact is, if the Guard flies a KC-135 and the Air Force flies a KC-135, the gas still costs what it costs for a gallon, a captain gets paid the same either way, etc. The only real savings comes in the fact that in the ANG, you don't pay for people 30 days a month, you only pay for the days they work. You don't provide medical care, dental care, housing, leave, or meals. The Air Force does all that. And the Guard defers paying retirement till the person is 60, generally speaking. The active military pays immediately upon retirement. So those Guard savings come at a cost to the members.

The cost to the members: If we rely more heavily on the ANG - and we already do - it means more mobilizations and more disruption of civilian careers. In the 1980's the active Air Force was nearly 600,000 members. Today it's about 316,000 - just half what it was in the Cold War. The ANG has dropped from 120,000 to 106,000 in the same quarter-century. There were 5 active USAF members for each Air Guardsman in 1990. Now it's only 3 to 1. That means their well dries up sooner, they have to rely on the Guard much more readily than in the Cold War or Desert Storm. How much we can put in the reserve components is a tough question, but there is a breaking point. The ANG is highly responsive and has been amazing in this war. I helped put ANG tankers and cargo planes in the air on 9/11, within minutes of the attack, before we even knew what all would happen that day. And the 121 ARW was activated and flying Iraqi Freedom missions in less than a week in 2003. We were there, but sustaining that is a different commitment. If the ANG takes on more of the Air Force mission, we are going to have to build up a more full-time force. This means that we lose the flexibility that enables traditional members to participate fully in the mission.

Let's not say things or make promises that don't make sense. Guardsmen need to stop impugning the integrity of the active military - and of those of us who served in the Regulars - and keep the focus on what makes sense. People don't understand that the Air Force and the ANG are in some ways competing governmental bureaucracies. Remember that the public doesn't understand a lot about the military. Relatively few people in our country under 75 years old are veterans. In my current employment, I've been asked if a sergeant is higher ranking than a colonel and why did we never fly the KC-135 off an aircraft carrier at sea. We all wear the same uniform, don't we? The general public often lumps us - active and reserve components - together as a welfare constituency or less nicely, as warmongers. We're like an insurance policy: nobody wants to pay the premium but they hope the house never burns down. Never overestimate popular support based on "support the troops" ribbons on cars; ask if they have a loved one in uniform. I've met plenty of folks who "thank you for your service" and in the next breath explain why their child will never go in the military.

It's a complex issue. The overriding consideration has to be what is best for the defense of the United States. I believe in the militia concept as the best safeguard of our Republic and as a cost-effective tool to prosecute many of the nation's military requirements. I am also intensely proud that I was trained by and served in the greatest Air Force in the world, a power that played such a big part in winning World War II and the Cold War. Sadly, the Total Force Concept that was intended to bring America to war with its military has meant that even with its Reserve Components, those of us in uniform - and the large number of us who have gone to war - are isolated from the America that has been at the mall throughout the last 11 years of war.

And yes, fold the Air Force Reserve into the ANG and cut thousands of bureaucrat jobs and overhead!!

Faith and Argument

 Now and then, we who are Christians are beset with the occasional treatise from the unbelievers around us, those who would aim to show us the medieval abyss we exist in, when we trust in the unknowable and unfathomable power of faith. The following is my response, and I think you can see what issues sparked my reply. 

Thanks for the interesting article on Sunni-Shia conflict. Very enlightening.  

But your post-script was more than a bit insulting to those of us whose faith is an important part of our lives. 

               First, your assumption that a world without religion would be at peace is just wrong.  North Korea has no religious issue with South Korea. Russia and Georgia have no religious conflict. You fought in Vietnam, a war with no religious overtones. I spent much of my military career in the Cold War: billions of dollars and hundreds of lives spent guarding our freedom from the Soviet Union, a nation that officially espoused atheism. Indeed, a popular Communist organization in the early years of the USSR was the League of the Militant Godless. The Militant Godless? Lack of religion scarcely brings peace. 

               Second, religion does a lot of practical good. Charity for the poor, education, hospitals, even the will to maintain morality and decency are spurred by people who are trying to follow Christ's example.  People care for others through Lutheran Social Services, Faith Mission, St Vincent de Paul, and countless other church organizations for the less fortunate; parochial schools offer good education from the local parish school to major universities; and where would we be without religious based hospitals?

               Third, Evolution: If it's a fact, then our notion of "all men are created equal" is outdated.  If evolution is a true and inexorable process of nature, then some people are or will be a superior species.  The world has already seen what happens when a people are imbued with the notion of being a master race.  For one thing, they forget religion and replace it with a zeal to perfect humanity through eliminating the "other."  Don't tell me evolution's a fact till you find a missing link.  Clearly, you can breed more perfect beagles or tastier beef, but nobody can explain where we made the leap from ape to man.  When I consider that a fly has eyes that are in many ways more advanced than mine, yet perfectly suited to its life and role on the planet, while the fly itself remains simplistic, I have trouble agreeing with macro-level evolution.   

Lastly, for many people, religion provides a reminder and a reason to behave better toward our fellowmen. My faith tells me "God is love" and that I should do unto others as I would have them do to me. In that, religion slows the impulse toward a brutal, selfish, dog-eat-dog world.

               It is true that the storms of life are inexplicable under an almighty god. Tornadoes, cancer,  and a million other sorrows occur and we don't know why. I can't explain why the bad things happen.  But if we're going to mention that, I ask you to explain the good things that happen by that same inexplicable force: Yosemite, strawberries, the song of the birds just before dawn...  We've seen what misused religious fervor does in the world, and it's a sad commentary on the fallibility and folly of humans.  A lot of evil has been done in God's name: but that's hardly God's fault. If I rob a bank and tell people that you made me do it or that I did it to please you, does that mean you should be blamed? 

               I don't believe in conversion by force (as do Islamists) or in badgering non-believers (as do many of my fellow Christians).  But if you are right about religion, then I would be better off sleeping in on Sunday and I could spend my money on lottery tickets rather than church.  If I am right, you have much more at stake. 

Wish him well

A dear friend shared his concern for my political soul on the day after the election: "....now that the dust has settled, and your state seemed to put a dagger into Romney (who I actually voted for!)...will the world end? Surprisingly, the sun rose today where I live, and, though I didn't vote for him....I wish the chief executive of my nation the best, and pull for his success, don't you?" 

 

Well, do we wish the president success? 

 

I wish the nation well and I hope that the president will govern wisely and justly. I do not understand why this president did not triangulate in 2011 as did Bill Clinton after the 1994 elections. This is a centrist country, we love the middle. But I think this president governs from the far left. 

 

Do I pull for President Obama's success? I guess that depends on what he proposes. For example, George McGovern was said to be "ready to go to Hanoi on his hands and knees" to get peace if elected president. No, I couldn't support that.

 

I'm quite concerned about this Administration's views on firearms.  Why are they so opposed to so many forms of private gun ownership? Obamacare is a nightmare in the making; a good friend who's a physician - who voted for Obama in 2008 - believes it is a terrible mistake and will wreck her ability to provide quality care for her patients.  I am concerned about the cavalier approach we've taken to killing Americans with drones.  As they said in old Western movies, "some varmints need killin'", but I need some explanations when we unleash lethal firepower on an American citizen, away from the battlefield, without benefit of trial. I'm still trying to understand why Bush's military tribunals for foreign enemies were bad, but blasting an American (even a vile and disgusting one) into pink mist is ok with the left now. 

 

In a more workaday way, what really concerns me is the social change I see among many people who support this president.  Rush Limbaugh (liberals, insert derisive chuckle here) said if it's a choice between Santa Claus and work, which will most people choose? I've seen high school kids who have no working role model in their homes, who just don't think much about work after high school. I've heard teens speak about how they knocked up a girl so she'll get public assistance and they can live with her. Then there are the students who drop off their free lunch form, while drinking their daily $5 Starbucks coffee and listening to a new IPhone 5 or $300 Beats headphones. 

 

I see a scary attitudinal shift: work itself isn't valued. I heard teenagers mock the idea that Mitt Romney wanted them to have good jobs: Who wants a job?

 

My grandpa lived through the Depression - he worked in a coal mine from the age of 12 and was involved in the UMW in eastern Kentucky in the late 1930's - a bloody fight for workers' rights. He died in 1983 but I remember he told me, if we had hard times again, people would just take what they want, not stand in soup lines and bread lines.

 

God help us if he was right. 

 

So do I wish the president success? Yes, but in the same way I would wish a wayward friend success. I would hope he turns away from his vices and do that which honors his family. I would wish he'd get out of  a shady business and do well in a cleaner line of work.  And I would hope he will cut down on the spending that is destroying his home and live within his means, so that his children have a chance for a decent future.

Good luck and God bless you, Mr. President. I am praying for you. And for our country.

---

The Real World

Do you ever wonder if other people live in the real world? You know, the one we inhabit, where tired, sweaty humans work long hours in the sun and rain to wrest from the ground the wonderful things we eat, the fuel for our homes and cars, to bring cattle to market, to make refrigerators and cars and light bulbs?

I've noticed that among the left, there is almost a disbelief in the old fashioned methods of work. It seems incomprehensible to some people that these wonders, Fords, freezers, and fillets don't just magically appear in the retail establishments where we encounter them.  It reminds me of the story told in my family, as my mother's then-three year old sister encountered a squawking, cackling bird running about in Granny's yard. Upon being told what it was, the little girl responded, "That's not a chicken, it has feathers on it!"

I am fairly certain that a lot of liberals, indeed most of the young people who so earnestly espouse the current leftist party lines, have little idea of the processes that bring them the cell phones, IPads, Priuses, and other miracles of technology.  When I was in school, we made innumerable field trips to see various industrial plants - a Coca-Cola bottling plant, Procter and Gamble's soap factory, Cincinnati Milling Machine, a GM plant, the Cincinnati Post-Times-Star newspaper presses, a can making factory, a fastener factory, even a place where they tested deodorants for P&G. I still remember watching in horror as a lab technician sniffed the stinking armpits of a handful of test volunteers. But I don't think that is part of most of most students' curriculum today. It's too bad. Being exposed to these jobs, to these occupations, to seeing how things are made, was important to me, to help me understand what it takes to bring "stuff" to me.  I visited the factory where my dad was a machinist many times.  Dad always wanted me to know what he did for a living, I think so that I might see it and choose differently. It was hot in the factory, loud with machinery, and for many the work in the plant was dull and repetitive. I was determined to go into the military, so it wasn't an issue for me. But I never forgot what I saw. It would do kids today a lot of good to see these things.

I think what is most nettlesome in the liberal world, is the utter disdain many liberals have for honest work that leaves one's hands calloused and dirty.  A liberal friend - a teacher, of course - had to call a plumber.  You would have thought the plumber was an extortionist! She was clearly offended that this tradesman - "who never went to college" should be able to make this much money fixing her leaky shower. I sat astonished that it was any part of the discussion that he had less education than a public school teacher! 

In Michael Burleigh's book, Moral Combat, a look at good and evil in World War II, he notes that in the Italy that brought the Fascists to power, the universities were a place to avoid the draft, and that the colleges produced several times more arts graduates than engineers.  Perhaps this serves as a warning, that when a nation becomes less interested in work and more into navel-gazing, it can only head into a bad place.  We should consider the lesson here in the real world.

Who Is Poor?

What are we to make of the fact that the number of Americans on food stamps has increased from 32 million to 47 million in the past three years? Every sixth American is dining courtesy of the rest of us. That seems incomprehensible in the wealthiest nation on earth, that 16% of us need to be fed by the rest. Meanwhile, obesity remains a major health concern and it would be exceedingly rare to find an actual hungry person on an American street.

And we are generous in feeding our kids, too. Plenty of students get two or three meals a day at school, many at reduced prices or free, subsidized by the taxpayers. Out of our 52 million school age children - those aged 5 to 17 - about 31 million are getting lunch on us. That means that about 60% of America doesn't accept the responsibility for feeding its own children.  So, it's up to us. Yet, I don't think anybody minds feeding the hungry. 

The problem begins when we ask who is truly needy? Is it the girl who is showing her friends her new IPhone5 as she hands the teacher her free lunch paperwork? Is it the boy wearing the $300 stereo headphones as he gives the teacher the documentation of his family's inability to provide food for him? At what point are we no longer generous but merely being played for suckers?

It seems that Americans have completely lost touch with the ugly reality of poverty.  I am old enough that my youth and outlook was shaped by people who lived through the Great Depression.  I remember hearing my grandfather talk about plowing a neighbor's fields for two days, so that he might borrow their mules for one day's plowing. He talked about subsisting on pinto beans and corn bread for weeks at a time. He was pleased to be able to get a nickel's worth of baloney and crackers for lunch when he went to work in the coal mines. 

I feel like most of the current generation, those who enjoy government largess and live on the backs of the rest of America, these people don't know what it is to be hungry, to be cold, to be scared of whether or not there will be baloney or crackers or beans tomorrow.  My grandfather foresaw this.  He told me before he died (in 1983) that if there were another Depression, that people wouldn't docilely stand in line for survival rations - soup, beans, cheese, rice, bread - but they would be violent and take what they wanted.

I listened to my grandpa. But I never thought I would see it.  Now I wonder.

Presidential Leadership

I've been thinking about Presidential leadership.  Over and over in tonight's foreign policy debate we saw our President misstate facts, demonstrate a lack of serious knowledge of the military role in foreign policy, and denigrate a man who questioned him. 

This administration has seized defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq.  We couldn't negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with a country heavily dependent upon us. That is a failure. We abandoned those who stood beside us against terrorism and evil and we will do it again in Afghanistan. 

But the sad truth is, the Republicans have shown no more acumen in maintaining American power throughout the world, throwing away hard won victories because they simply lack the killer instinct any championship sports team will show in a big game.

President Obama seems to bend over backward to radical Islam. He apologizes for America, as if we are the only nation that has made mistakes.  He seems to pick the Muslim terrorists side reflexively, in Libya, Egypt, Palestine, and Iran.  He doesn't offer the level of support to Israel that we might expect the world's greatest democracy to give the only pro-Western democracy in that region. He failed to support pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran. He refers to a terrible killing spree carried out by a self-proclaimed "soldier of Allah" at Fort Hood as "workplace violence."

But this insistence on finding the good (even when it is imaginary) in the Muslim world was a hallmark of Bush 43, too. He referred to Islam as a "religion of peace" despite the bloody evidence in New York, Washington, London, Madrid, and countless places in the Middle East. There are a lot of brutal thugs in that club.  Our presidents need to say this openly: Islamic extremist terrorists mean to destroy us, to end our way of life, and everything we hold dear. The only way to deal with many of these men is by harsh application of force. 

Bill Clinton did everything he could to avoid confronting these brutal forces, even when Americans were murdered in Tanzania, Kenya, Somalia, and as bookends on his watch, at the World Trade Center and on the USS Cole. He tossed a few missiles and bombs at Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Serbia, but ineffectually and in ways calculated to do as little damage to the enemy as possible. He ran from Somalia when it got messy, and demanded the Air Force plan its air war over Serbia at altitudes high enough that no American was endangered, even at the cost of less accurate bombing. He allied us with the Bin Laden-backed Kosovo Liberation Army.

George H.W. Bush put together a coalition to win Desert Storm brilliantly.  But when the enemy was on the run, in those moments where you break their will to fight, he backed down.  On the Highway of Death, we stopped killing the enemy because it looked bad on television. We have simply lost the will to break an enemy in the crushing way that worked for us in 1945.  The result was the longest slow-motion war in our history, 12 years of no-fly zones, intermittent bombing of Iraq, and permitting some degree of state-sponsored terrorism.  If we had killed a few thousand Iraqi soldiers along that desert road in 1991, how many Iraqis, Kurds, Americans, and others would be live today?

Ronald Reagan gets a black mark next to his name for putting American Marines into Lebanon, then doing nothing after Iranian backed Hezbollah bombed their barracks in Beirut in 1983. Why did we not punish Iran then?

Jimmy Carter: 444 days. A figure all of us who lived through the Iranian hostage crisis will remember. What a disaster.

The therapeutic age seems to have purged leadership from our leaders. So often Bill Clinton looked like a talk show host hugging the tearful, bolstering the sad, and listening with trembling lip to the sorrows of life. Once our nation was led by men of steely resolve, heroes who had counted the cost of freedom. George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt - these were men who would fight rather than yield on principle, and the foremost principle that an American president upholds is the safety of the American nation and its people. We sacrificed half a million lives to fix the wrong that was slavery.  We saved Europe twice in a generation. We have tried to preserve freedom - or at least a chance for it - for people from Korea to Kosovo, across the breadth of Asia from Indochina to Israel. How many times has America fought brutal enemies, tried to build representative governments, provided every kind of aid and commercial trade, and then treated them as partners, allies, and friends. No other nation has done this.

Now we are engaged in a great global war, testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. Will we step up to this responsibility? I hope so. But it begins with a commander-in-chief who faces the world's terrible truths about force, perception, reality, and victory.

Poverty

Minimum wage is a neat idea. Everybody ought to get paid at least a certain amount of money. never mind if their skills only produce half that amount of value for the business enterprise. It's just a nice idea. So, we have had minimum wage laws since the 1930s. Then it was 25 cents an hour. Now it's $7.25 an hour. Isn't that nice? Liberals are so proud of themselves for "helping" working people. They can tell poor voters "we're your friends!"

As with most liberal ideas, they're substituting what feels good for what really works. Some people - especially high school age kids looking for that first job - just don't have $300 a week in marketable skills. Others don't put forth that much ambition or work effort. Consequently, employers are picky about bringing people on at this rate, while  they manage what they can give their current employees more carefully. So it may actually reduce the number of jobs out there. 

But more damaging, is the idea that we've done something for the working poor by creating this "minimum wage," the main effect of which is to drive up prices in the basic food and services sector where the poor spend most of their income - groceries, fast food, small retail. I think the Conservative answer to the liberals' next minimum wage increase ought to be "Heck, let's make it $30 an hour." Make them explain to the poor why they want the poor to remain poor. Let them tell people how easy it is to raise a family on $300 a week.  Let the liberals then explain why a "minimum" wage can't be too high. Let them be the bad guys.

Then, ask why the Republican controlled House hasn't hauled in Big Oil and the Administration to account for the high price of gasoline. It sure made headlines in 2008. Then haul in healthcare leaders and demand free medical treatment and immortality. Heck, Obama says he wants people to be healthy. What could be healthier than living forever? Let the liberals explain how that would upset social security. At some point then, they have to tell people to die.

Alas, none of this will happen.  Conservatives simply won't outdo the liberals in making foolish promises.  The liberals will continue to make conservatives look heartless and mean, while they enact policies that keep people poor and dependent.  It's been said that we could mail a check to every poor family in America sufficient to lift their standard of living for far less money than we're spending on the dozens of overlapping and redundant bureaucracies that aim to help the poor by making them a little less poor but certainly not lifting them out of poverty.  Here's a check for your family of four: let's say $24,000 for the year. And build in a provision for a smaller check for the people who are a little above the line, so that we don't reward sloth at the expense of those who work but just can't get ahead. But pay your own rent, buy your own food, and manage this money well, it's all you get. If they misuse it, then let the justice system work. We would need thousands fewer bureaucrats and managers to run these agencies. (Have you ever thought that if some miracle simply eliminated poverty, this would be so opposed to the interests of the poverty pimp welfare bureaucracies that they would try to stop it? If I woke up tomorrow multi-billionaire wealthy, I'd love to go to a small county or state and just give every welfare recipient a check from me, on the condition that they don't draw any more from the government. It would be fun to see what the "administrator" apparatchiks would do.)

Our two party system is growing into a one mind system, where all the insiders think alike, but differ in degree and little else. A very smart boss of mine once said, "If we're all thinking alike, then some of us aren't thinking." It's time for politicians to think.

Priorities and Liberalism

A friend out of town mentions a news story to me. Seems that the Dayton Daily News is digging into the astronomical salary and perks received by E. Gordon Gee as President of THE Ohio State University. Remember Acton's Law? The old saying that "absolute power corrupts absolutely." I can tell you that three pages of Google Search found papers reporting this story all over the country, and the OSU "Lantern" (the campus paper) covered it but apparently not the Columbus Dispatch. Maybe I just missed it, but it sure wasn't a top item on Google.  A lesson for all those who rely on one source for news.

Turns out that Dr. Gee is paid way more than comparable college presidents. The Daily News reports that E.G.G. is paid more than the presidents of the U of Texas and U of Michigan - combined! Gee even received $64,000 from the University for those ridiculous bow ties. That's shameful. Almost as bad as the $8 million they've paid him since 2007. His comeback to this criticism is, "I make billion dollar decisions every day." So he makes decisions worth $365 Billion a year? The university's budget is about $5 billion a year. Is Gee telling us he earns his pay five days a year?  Aside from the fact that's just BS, what an ego. I know this: just 100 miles away, OSU is more known for football than academics. If E.G.G. just made the same salary as the President of the United States, I'd be ok with it - now there's a guy who makes some big decisions everyday. And cutting his pay to that level would have poured millions back into the coffers.

Let me see if I understand: College is expensive, so we have to make lots of loans available. Kids and their families take the loans, and are saddled with debt for years. With lots more students and lots more money flowing in, we now have a big business enterprise, so we have to hire top dollar executives to run it. To pay for them, we raise tuition. This makes college more expensive, so we have to make more loans available...

 

Meanwhile, college presidents, professors and the liberal politicians who love them tell us that overpaid executives in the private sector are the problem in America today.  They never blink at the king-sized checks that so many public employees get at that level.  E.G.G. has been followed by controversy over his lavish spending every place he's gone. But that hasn't stopped his anointment as the king of THE OSU.

 

Next time a politician tells me big oil and big business executives get too much money, I will have a reply. Hopefully it will leave my questioner a little more thoughtful while the citizens of Ohio try to recover from the E.G.G. left on their faces by THE OSU.

Liberal Elitism and Perpetual Childhood

When we see liberal policies in action, we realize that the overwhelming sense of "we know best" is at the root of the problem.  The liberals simply believe that every person and every group that has failed or encountered hard times is inherently unable to function without their help. 

The liberal can excuse the most heinous murder committed by some Third World denizen.  They will simply accept the most brutal things done to women and gays by Islamic radicals. And in America, liberal politicians treat human beings like children.  They feed them, house them, and take care of their medical needs.  Thus a childish level of behavior is really predictable, completely expected.  The petulant fits of rage, the angry striking out at those who might tell them "no," and the refusal to accept even a basic level of self-reliance are all behaviors associated with children.  And the liberals always seem surprised when those people who they've treated as children act childishly. Grown-ups take responsibility for their actions. Children are not held so accountable.  And when someone takes responsibility for you for long enough, you never learn how to behave.

Our political betters tell us it's our fault, we are racist, we are anti-immigrant, we are stingy, we are mean, we are intolerant.  Yet many of us can look back at our own families - only a generation or two back - and see that our grandparents or our neighbors didn't rely on government aid and didn't let language barriers, poverty, culture, or education stop them from assimilating into the American melting pot.  I'm tired of being told it's my fault that people aren't making it in life and that I must pay their way. I'm tired of my children's future being imperiled by the vast numbers of those who will not do for themselves. Their great-grandparents didn't come here to enslave them to a government bureaucracy aligned with a ne'er-do-well sub-culture of native-born America haters, simply along for the ride, and immigrants who don't desire the better way of life that America has always promised, but rather wish to enjoy a more materially affluent version of their homelands.

These politicians who have promoted this are essentially giving their children toys rather than teaching them to to play ad make toys.  Liberal politicians throw a few crumbs to those who have nothing. The recipients  respond with fealty to the politicians.  A few scurrilous figures in the community profit handsomely by constantly telling the children that they need the politicians. Most people remain only a little better off than they were before, but now many of them are less equipped to escae the cycle. And those who've made it out are forced to pay for it all. It's been said that democracy is doomed once people realize that government gives them the tools and the authority to dip into other people's pockets. The question before us then, is the one asked by children: "Are we there yet?"

A world of changes

I marvel at the things I hear said in political ads.  Anyone trying to learn about America from what our political candidates say would think we're on the verge of totalitarianism or mass starvation. America's economy is still a mess and I just don't see how printing money and borrowing from China will help us in the long run.  We're going to have to take some harsh medicine.  I doubt that any politician has the will to make us take it.  Still, millions of humans, everyone who can physically get here, is attempting to escape from other countries to get here.  And as bad as it is right now, nobody is about to flee America to get to those other countries.

We have to shake off the culture of victimization.  Too many Americans buy into the image of being victims, self appointed wards of the state.  Romney may have spoken clumsily, but his point about the 47% who are dependent on government was a good one. There are too many people taking and too few giving, too many in the wagon and too few pulling it.  I know that many public employees work hard. But there are just too many on the books.  I don't know where the breaking point is, but it may be close.  There are too many who contribute little to society, while they expect that society owes them something for nothing.  And always, the barely veiled threat of violence if the mob isn't placated.  

We have to teach people that this is still the land of dreams, the one place on earth where everyone has a chance. The formula is the same for EVERYONE. Get an education, learn some marketable skills, become an expert in your field, work hard, use your money wisely, and exercise some responsibility and self reliance. Too many people do destructive things -dropping out of school, having kids they can't support, drugs, criminal acts, and allowing themselves to become addicted to the sweet candy of government handouts.  We're able to provide a tolerable life on the dole; surely it isn't one people should choose. If we, as a people, think politicians can take from one man to give to another, what stops them from taking from all men? I'm told over and over that our healthcare - doctors, nurses, hospitals, equipment - have all become too costly. How will doctors, nurses, hospitals, equipment, AND government bureaucrats be cheaper? Terrible politicians and commentators stir the crowd with talk of the pervasive racism of America.  One would think it's 1963 and that Bull Connor and George Wallace are on the loose.  No, this is a nation where a black man with an African, Muslim name can win the White House over a decorated war hero/fighter pilot/prisoner of war, a white man married into wealth.  Why do we listen to these voices? We keep replacing societal norms and expectations, what we have used for decades, what has worked, what is tested and proven, replacing it with good intentions and wishful thinking.  This is foolish gambling with our society's future. It is destructive, and it has to be answered, not with new ideas, but with the values and standards we have always held. We must hold to these timeless truths with fierce conviction. Or we shall be plunged into tumult and tyranny.

 

To Support and Defend

Every military member takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  Perhaps it is the ultimate expression of the phrase, I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.  Our troops stand in defense of Larry Flynt and Larry Elder, Billy Graham and Bill Clinton, George Bush and George Stephanopolis.  They don't fight harder for ideals they like and they don't slack off if the Commander In Chief isn't the one they voted for.  That's what makes General Martin Dempsey's actions so bizarre and troubling.
For the second time in a few weeks that General Dempsey has acted against free speech. He recently spoke against the veterans who've expressed political opposition to the Obama Administration. Perhaps he needs to take action to posthumously demote Dwight Eisenhower and US Grant.  And how does he feel about John McCain and Joe Sestak?
Now Marty's calling the producer of this ridiculous video that has so riled the Muslims unto the point of murdering our ambassador in Libya and three other men.  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff calling a private citizen because he doesn't like that citizen's beliefs is intimidation, no matter how you slice it. A lot of people, many in the military, have defended General Dempsey because he's trying to protect the troops. Well, this stuff angers the enemy. So does Christian religion, Western women's attire, Salman Rushdie, Jewish people, pork, alcohol, and a thousand other things. Which do we stop doing? Which of your values, what of your personal beliefs and habits do you surrender in order to placate someone?
I simply can't accept the premise that these actions - Koran burning or making videos - are responsible for the violence. If that's the case, then The DaVinci Code and the Piss Christ "artwork" should have led to riots across America. Why do we excuse such violence? We simply hold these people to a lower standard than we do ourselves. How condescending are these bigots? 
These issues are a cover - the imams, Al Qaeda, and such love violence because to them, it's doing God's work. Most of the "protesters" have not seen the video. Now, this video may be hateful junk, but if free speech doesn't risk offending someone, then it's not free. I'm reminded of the Danish cartoons that caused such a deadly ruckus in the Muslim world.  We're allowed to be offensive.  Our culture, our values are built for this. We expect it as a part of the marketplace of ideas.  And even in our society, offending Christians is tolerated.  Maybe that's because the last time the Lutherans or the Baptists took to the streets is long past living memory. 
Should there be a call for the Muslims to stop saying bad things about Christians and Jews? I can find countless calls for the death of all Jews in Muslim writings.  Has General Dempsey called any of the Muslim clerics who spout this stuff?  I wonder what General Dempsey's view might be of a competent Hollywood production about Muhammad - including his child bride, sexual enslavement of captive women, and murder of Jewish captives.  These are aspects of the Muslim heritage that are inexplicable to most of us.  But I know what we did to our World War II enemies who took comfort women and murdered Jews.
Perhaps General Dempsey should concentrate on the military role he's there to play: Either win the war or bring our kids home.  War means fighting and fighting means killing.  It's that simple, as Nathan Bedford Forrest said 150 years ago.  We need to kill the enemy and wreck their will and capacity to carry on the fight.  General Curtis LeMay said, "if you kill enough of them, they stop fighting." I don't care what the enemy thinks, so long as he understands to never again raise his hand against the United States, and to never ever let anyone come from his soil to kill Americans. Ralph Peters said on Fox News (9/14), that when they kill four of ours, we need to kill 400 of theirs. Brute force is all that works with some people. Much as we'd like to make nice, that's the way it is. And NEVER should we curb our freedoms to please some seventh-century minded despot.

 

Academics and Credit

The National Geographic Society has published a book entitled "1001 Inventions: The Enduring Legacy of Muslim Civilization." I believe we must be forthright about giving credit to other societies for advances and inventions. It is intelligent, morally right, and truthful to do so. It also gives us insight into the capabilities and history of our neighbors, competitors, and opponents.

But this book is full of garbage. Among the wonders credited to Islam: Chess; Running Water; Surgery; Tents; Observatories; Paper; and the ever-popular algebra (they must have invented it, it's an Arabic word)

Now, remember Muhammad lived from 570 to 632 AD, and the Islamic faith dates from 622 AD, so Muslims clearly invented nothing before the 7th century.

Chess was played in India before 600 AD.

The Greeks and Romans had running water systems - aquaducts, baths, plumbing. And they did surgeries - but surgery goes back into ancient Egypt and India.

Tents? I'm guessing the first cavemen who realized that some animal skins on sticks planted in the ground would keep you dry might have invented the tent. The Bible describes the Apostle Paul as a tentmaker (Acts 18:3). Paul died 500 years before Muhammad was born.

Observatories? I could mention Stonehenge, but clearly Hipparchus in Greece and Chinese astronomers had observatories hundreds of years before the birth of Christ.

Muslims didn't invent paper - the Chinese did that before the birth of Christ.

And the so-called Muslim advances in mathematics? The Babylonians and Greeks were doing algebra a thousand years before Muhammad was born. Even the numbers we call "Arabic numerals" are actually Indian. You'll recall from your travels in the Middle East that they still don't use Arabic numerals, but their own system. It's as if we went to Italy and found Roman numerals in common use today.

We should always give credit where due, even if we don't like it. But when we try to credit civilizations and cultures with accomplishments beyond their actual achievements, we devalue the contributions of those who did the real advancements. The Soviets claimed credit for inventing everything from the telegraph to the airplane to baseball. We laughed at those outrageous lies. Now we promote such stories in some warped attempt at feel-good kumbaya harmony. To say Muslims invented a bunch of stuff they did not is to lie. And we need to call the liars on their lies.

Every Word You Say Offends Me

Did you know the State Department has a "Chief Diversity Officer?" Me neither. The State Department's Chief Diversity Officer John Robinson tells us in the latest issue of Slate Magazine that  such plain English terms such as "hold down the fort," "handicap," and "rule of thumb" are offensive.

Hold down the fort is not some "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" reference.  It seems to have originated in a hymn written by a preacher who served under William Tecumseh Sherman in the Civil War.  Sherman used the expression in ordering men to hold a position while his forces advanced elsewhere. As far back as Elizabethan England, Handicap was a gambling game where players would hide their hands in their caps during the wagering.  The term applied to the disabled is of twentieth century origin and has nothing to do with begging with the cap in hand, as the esteemed Mr. Robinson would have us believe. Even Snopes has dispelled that rumor. And rule of thumb is not at all related to the size of a stick to beat your wife.  Woodworkers have used the thumb as a measurement as far back as we can trace.  Indeed the word for thumb and inch are similar and derived from the same root in many Romance languages. 

Now, speaking for the millions of us who are pretty sure we have Indian ancestry, although I really can't prove it - but you should see a photo of my grandma and her dad - I think Chief might be offensive.  I always thought the Air Force was on shaky ground with the Indian headdress regalia surrounding the Chief Master Sergeants.  So perhaps Mr. Robinson needs to come up with another title. 

Hunger, Games, and Politics

I don’t know Suzanne Collins’ politics, but I am intrigued by her Hunger Games trilogy.  Her stories of a dystopian future are entirely relevant to today’s America.  

"Hunger Games" is set in Panem, a North American nation in the future.  The power, money, and media are controlled by elites in the Capitol, a marvelous and advanced place, far removed from the hardships of life out in the Districts that make up the nation.  The people of the Capitol are ridiculously faddish, enjoying a wonderful life of colorful clothing, excellent food, and cosmetic styles that look more like Lady Gaga’s than our world’s day-to-day.  Meanwhile, the twelve districts exist as resource providers to the Capitol.  Their people are virtual serfs, struggling to get enough to eat, and staying alive through hard work and grudging compliance with the Capitol’s directives.  

The Hunger Games were dictated as punishment for a rebellion by the Districts against the Capitol.  In the wake of this upheaval the government imposes harsh rule and enforces its agenda by media coercion and by outright terror – those who get crossways with the State have their tongues cut out “or worse.”  The ultimate punishment is that each year, a boy and a girl, between the ages of 12 and 18, from each district are chosen by a lottery called the “Reaping” to participate in the Hunger Games as “Tributes.”   The event provides a continuing reminder of the power of the Capitol and is an ongoing punishment for the rebellion.  At one point, the president tells a confidant that hope is the only thing stronger than fear, so rather than just execute 24 kids at random each year, it is better to make it a contest, so that the Districts are cooperative in the ongoing horror.  The media actively promote the Games, as an entertainment for the elite, and the entire nation is commanded to follow.  It is televised continuously, the contestants are briefly celebrities, and sponsors are obtained.  Then the young people are placed into a high-tech arena that is changed annually – think Survivor and its different locales – where they fight like gladiators, dying in a variety of inventive and terrible ways, manipulated by a game controller who reports to the nation’s president at the Capitol.

The story’s heroine, Katniss, is a girl from District 12, a place that looks a lot like Appalachia.  Her father was killed in a coal mine accident and now she poaches small game to make ends meet for her mother and sister.  She’s a skillful hunter and trapper, at home in the woods.  Apparently nobody in this post-rebellion world has a gun, but she is deadly with bow and arrow.  When her 12-year old sister is “reaped,” Katniss volunteers to go in her place. 

Aside from the cynical take on our reality shows – the doomed contestants form alliances, use their varying fighting and outdoors skills, and quickly bump off the weak and guileless – why is this relevant? 

Because this is the Left’s dream: a statist government and its chosen ones in entertainment cooperating to keep the population in line.  It is a horrifying vision of the Left’s ultimate goal, powerful and ruthless government supported by an all-seeing media controlling the masses.  Panem, like Washington DC, is a leftist utopia with its ruling class the masters in every way.  They and their elite cronies live in beautiful surroundings, with every convenience, enjoying a rich pleasure filled existence, with plenty of leisure time, and having almost no dealings with the poor desperate folks out in the hinterlands.  

The elite media in the Capitol mock and patronize the doomed kids, teasing and joking with them in an interview show and providing a pre-game betting line before they’re plunged into the arena.   For a few days the Tributes are free of their dreary existence in the Districts, given a comfortable life, and then they are sent to die on television for the entertainment of their betters.   

How far are we from this now? Many Americans feel that our leaders and our media elites have no idea how they live, nor do they share the concerns of ordinary people.  The difference between those who work hard to provide the things that our nation needs and those who live in luxury and enjoy privilege is great and growing.  In our world, between the two, there is a class of government dependent poor, with a living standard that is tolerable but completely reliant on the tax burden levied on the productive class.  They will support the governent elites even though they only get the crumbs from the table.  You may say, “But Zippy, it’s always been like that.” Maybe so, but it wasn’t in our face before there was such powerful media.  And more importantly, such wide gaps have usually been harbingers of revolutionary change.

I have not yet read the other books in the series, but I look forward to seeing how the world of the Hunger Games develops.

Generals, Politics, and Stupidity

A century after cavalry became obsolete, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have found a use for at least one end of the horse. US military chief General Martin Dempsey denounced veterans for speaking against President Barack Obama. He said soldiers had a duty to stay above the political fray. The military has a unique role that requires political neutrality, said Dempsey, to reporters after visiting Afghanistan and Iraq.

A group of former Navy SEALs and other former military members have expressed genuine concerns about national security leaks. They have charged the Obama administration with endangering the United States and our soldiers’ safety by possibly politicizing secrets about special operations, such as the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. Tons of information was publicly released soon after the Abbottabad raid, probably compromising its utility in rolling up other terrorist leaders

General Dempsey, do you not understand that once you retire or separate from military service, you are simply a citizen with all the same rights as anyone else? One of the great issues we’ve had recently is that there is a dearth of military experience among decision makers in Washington. The veterans on both sides of the aisle bring a corrective to that. Using Marty logic, doctors need to get out of the discussion about how to treat cancer.

Any person on active duty who steps into a political debate is wrong to do so. They are in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Perhaps a bi-partisan congressional committee including John McCain, Daniel Inouye, Charlie Rangel, and Steve Stivers should call Marty Dempsey to explain himself. This group of decorated veterans probably has an opinion on the rights of “ex-soldiers” to speak on political matters. Perhaps Senator McCain and Tammy Duckworth, a combat-disabled vet running for Congress, should speak to the future Mr. Dempsey on their role as former military members now involved in politics. Short of that, perhaps Marty should just open a history book. Names like Eisenhower, Grant, and Taylor might be familiar to him as generals who were elected president. Or maybe he should just look closely at a dollar bill: George Washington was elected the first president largely on the strength of his noble service leading the Continental Army in the Revolution and he is the senior ranking officer in the United States Army’s history, having been elevated to the rank of “General of the Armies of the United States” in 1976. Then General Dempsey can tell us again if veterans have a right to be active in politics.

MRAP, Saving Lives, and Victory

In Foreign Affairs magazine recently, there was a highly critical piece about MRAP, the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles that are used to protect our troops from IEDs.  Basically
it says the DoD numbers on 40,000 lives saved are a major overstretch of bureaucratic
estimating.  The authors seem to believe that the Defense Department basically wrote up every passenger in any MRAP that was attacked as a life saved. Well, that's an interesting argument, and may bear review.  The authors, a couple of economics professors - one at the Naval Postgraduate School - say that the US spent $45 Billion on MRAP, and that is just too much money - by golly, it is almost as much as the entire Homeland Defense Department budget.  Aside from the crassness of putting dollar signs on the human lives saved by the program, it is another example of the no-win position we love to put our nation's decision makers into. Have the professors forgotten that Americans were being blasted by IEDs and RPGs in their HUMMVs? Have they forgotten the outcry to "do something?"

The fact is, MRAP was a reaction to a terrible situation. Could it have been done cheaper? Maybe. It is rare to see a weapons system procured, fielded, and thrown into combat simultaneously. Usually a newly developed weapon or vehicle is tested and prototyped and tested some more.  By the time it is fielded, it is drawing criticism for being over tested as a way to put cash in contractors pockets.  The AAMRAM missile was being tested in the late 1970's when I was a cadet; it was fielded just in time for Desert Storm in 1991.  So you can't win with the critics.

But there is a more fundamental question in the fielding of the MRAP.  If we had lost even a few thousand more lives in Iraq or Afghanistan, the nation would have been forced to ask a different set of foreign and military policy questions about the utility of the war, and the value of the cause.  It seems highly doubtful that we would have become more ferocious, more willing to hunt down and kill the enemy with the annihilative will to win the war decisively, thereby ending the IED threat through a bloody pound-the-enemy-into-submission response.  Thus, one could argue that MRAP
prolongs a war that we don't seem determined to win any more, thereby costing lives a few at a time by its existence.

What our leaders have done is put our troops into a safer cocoon while they continue the temporizing "nation-building" policies that have taken the place of winning wars, punishing our enemies, and protecting America first and foremost. We won't pull out and we won't destroy the enemy so all that is left is protecting the people we send to do this thankless job. Meanwhile, the politicians all pat themselves on the back for protecting the troops, never once asking the "why" question, why are we there and what do we expect to gain from our efforts: What are our troops' lives worth, not in dollars, but in terms of the causes we send them forward in, when we see them forward for us.

Fair and Balanced

I got to witness something unique yesterday: the meeting between the editorial board of a major big-city newspaper, and two political candidates. It was about what you might expect. The incumbent was already well known and friendly with the newspaper writers. Their banter was lean forward friendly, first name basis, just nice people gathering to chat. The challenger was completely overlooked in the lobby, bypassed by the staff, and probably came across as a naive, under informed neophyte. To be sure, the newspaper staff were polite, even amiable to the newcomer. But their preference and familiarity was clear.

It led me to wonder, how does an outsider ever get coverage or mention, when they don't have these advantages. It left me more certain than before that well-organized party political work is vital at every level.
Political parties that don't make this effort and do this work are wasting their time. It is vital that every race be contested, so far as possible. This is the soul of democracy, to offer a choice.

But I am left pondering something I heard on the radio yesterday, en route to this meeting. That is, that there are plenty of Republicans who are just fine with being a second-tier party, with accommodation with the Democrats, so long as they get a share of the spoils. Hence, the Republicans (usually unnamed) who disparage strongly committed rightists like Paul Ryan or Rand Paul.

I'm not saying we adopt a take-no-prisoners attitude. But we need to stand on principle, to proclaim our opinions, and be able to articulate them. But we also need to find those on the other side we can work with, to find the common ground in America. To be sure, there are plenty of opponents who wish the other side ill, and that is a shame. We need to call them out on specifics. Accusing someone of killing people or of desiring dirty air or polluted water is shameful.

I sometimes fear that we have devolved to a point where a "thinking" candidacy is doomed. We turn all too quickly away from the better angels of our nature, toward a mean-spirited negative approach that does not convince me such candidates have a better America in mind. I don't want my political choices to be determined by the lesser of two evils, but rather by visionary, thoughtful, honorable leaders who see America's best days ahead.

A final note: the incumbent was a very nice person, and really has some good ideas and a firm grasp of issues. Actually, we could be friendly, in the right circumstances, and I'm sure we could work together.  I was glad to have been there, but I wish I had been prepared better for the meeting.

Candidates and Ordinary People

For a guy who talks so much about "the middle class" and ordinary folks, the president seems to have no idea about ordinary folks - about us.  He reminds me of a guy I was in the Air Force with, a man who was a a high-ranking officer's son and raised mostly overseas. This guy had no understanding of how "ordinary" people live, he didn't even know the rules of baseball. And I'll bet President Obama can't explain the infield fly rule. 

Obama's father was not an American; lots of us have recent immigrant ancestors - but ours mostly fell in love with this heaven-blessed land. Obama Sr. headed back to Kenya as soon as possible. Obama's mother was a Ph.D - that alone makes him more fortunate than most people you and I know.  How many moms in your neighborhood were Ph.Ds? His father's ancestors were not freed from bondage by the Union Army; that alone is very unlike most black Americans - including his own wife. He was raised in Hawaii, the state least like the other 49 in many ways - geography, economics, demographics, and culture. He attended Honolulu's top private prep school; not a public school, or even a parochial school, like most of us. He went to Ivy League colleges - like the wealthy elite he claims to be going after.
None of these are showstoppers for a political candidate, and none of them is necessarily a bad thing in any case.  Good fortune and an unusual life are hallmarks of the successful in every generation. I can cite another politician whose life is at least as different from most Americans: Mitt Romney's background is almost a planet apart from yours and mine.  His father was a top level corporate CEO; Mitt's lived in wealth beyond my imagining all his life. His father was governor of Michigan - was your dad governor? For that matter, did your mom run for the US Senate? Romney's dad was also foreign-born - in Mexico. Mitt practices a religion that my church fervently disagrees with. It bugs me that he is not a veteran: our country was at war in Vietnam when he came of age; I want to know why he didn't serve. (I don't ask that our leaders be heroes, but I think they need to have stood a post.)
We all bring a certain history and personal narrative to those around us. This is magnified when one runs for office. This magnification is exponential in the contest for the Presidency. The difference in these two men is in the way they voice their vision of America.  One speaks of blame and envy, while the other seems truly grateful for the many blessings in his life. One's worldview is shaped by our nation's failings, the other's seems rooted in America's opportunities and greatness. One sees America as a cause of many of the world's problems and just another flag at the UN; the other subscribes to a more traditional view rooted in American exceptionalism.  One man thinks we help people by forcing the successful to share their wealth, while the other believes we help people by creating opportunity for those with the wherewithal to capitalize on it.

I look at the Democrats and wonder how, in 2008, did they not nominate Hillary Clinton, Bob Kerrey, or Joe Lieberman. And could the Republicans this year find no more conservative contender? Bobby Jindal? Rob Portman? Condi Rice?  We can keep stumbling toward the abyss of crushing debt, perpetual underemployment, and a public sector that burdens innovation, or we can step away from these things. Mitt Romney is too progressive for my taste, too much a big-government guy. We are fond of pointing out that Democrats are pointing our country toward a cliff. I think progressive Republicans often will do little more than drive parallel to that cliff.  We need to turn around and drive away from the cliff. 

We are confronted with two distinct visions of our future, of the future for our kids and for their kids. The choice we make will affect our nation's future, as surely as did those made in 1980, 1964, and 1932.

Tourism

I recently shared a list of the military history sites I would like to visit. A friend replied, "That's quite a bucket list." I hadn't thought of myself being ready for a "bucket list" but well, maybe. I'm sure not keen on the bucket though.

The list represents a few of the top places I'd like to visit. I've been to many of the Civil War battlefields but there are a lot of great places to see, covering all aspects of our military heritage. Some are pretty obvious - the Alamo, Pearl Harbor, West Point, the USS Constitution. Others are less apparent - the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry (U-505, a Stuka), Houston (USS Texas and the San Jacinto battlefield).

I have no idea if all of these are worth seeing. I was always intrigued by the Indian Wars, but I think these battlefields are just fields with little interpretation. Still, I'd like to see where the Wagon Box Fight took place. I can tell you, the Alamo is a little disappointing. And Bunker Hill is just a neighborhood in a busy city.  But I wonder about the Pacific War Museum in Fredericksburg, Texas, and the Mexican War battlefields near Brownsville, Texas - Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma. I can tell you from personal observation that some places are disappointing. The battle of Franklin is poorly preserved - unless Confederate General Pat Cleburne really was killed leading a charge in the parking lot of a Domino's Pizza. Missionary Ridge and Orchard Knob are a little scary - rough neighborhoods there in Chattanooga.

I'll publish the list sometime. It is just my preferences, but it's a big world and time is limited. There's a lot I didn't include: USS Niagara in Erie, Pa; Ft McHenry in Boston; the Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, and a lot more. It just reflects what I would drive to see. Vicksburg makes the list largely because of the USS Cairo. There's no place else to see a Civil War river ironclad.

My OCONUS choices reflect the same limitations and interests. Most of what I list is in Britain, France, Belgium, and Germany. A truly in-depth military history tourist would see Stalingrad, Thermopylae, Rorke's Drift, Gallipoli, and Hue. Well, maybe someday I'll play - and win - the lottery. 

Why do we need an Air National Guard AND an Air Force Reserve?

As America struggles to figure out how we will pay for all our obligations, aspirations, and expectations in the world and at home, political leaders and public servants look for ways to cut budgets while maintaining services. Duplications are anathema in this fiscal environment. So, why do we need an Army/Air National Guard AND an Army/Air Force Reserve?

It seems like an awful duplication of bureaucracies: there are separate headquarters and administrative systems for the Guard and the Reserve. There is only one reserve for the Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard. Why are there two for the Army and Air Force?

Part of the answer is in the Founders' fear of central governmental authority. Seventeenth century England had seen Parliament's army take over the government and behead the king. The men at Independence Hall in 1787 were familiar with that history - not terribly distant to them - and meant to ensure that the Congress ad the Presidency they created would not be able to run roughshod over the nation: The President is commander in chief of the military; Congress appropriates military funding; and the states retain considerable militia forces. Hence, the Guard. In 1947, when the Air Force won independence from the Army, it was natural that its air units went along as well.

The Army Reserve - and in 1947, the Air Force Reserve - grew out of the distrust the regular army had for the Guard. They had seen too many political generals, too many brothers in law, and too many fiascos. While many Guardsmen had distinguished themselves in war, many failed badly. Political appointees and militiamen all too interested in fancy titles were the bane of the regular army's leaders in the nineteenth century. Forgotten militia generals in the War of 1812 and the Mexican War fell short in the field. One thinks of Ben Butler and John McClernand in the Civil War, and of too many Guard generals in the opening months of World War II, men who were well connected but poorly trained. The only Guard general who came all the way through World War II with his command and reputation intact was Ohio's Robert Beightler. Other men succeeded at lower levels, or in staff positions. But most of the Guard unit commanders in 1940 were canned.

Today's Guard is much more combat capable, its leaders better vetted, its equipment much better aligned to that of the active component. In short, many of the reasons for having two reserve component entities have dissolved.

It would save millions if we simply eliminated the duplicative headquarters structures of the Air Force Reserve (an Air Staff role at the Pentagon), the Air Force Reserve Command (a major command at Robins AFB, Ga), and the Air National Guard (at Joint Base Andrews, Md). Dozens of senior officer billets could be eliminated as well. The same would be true of the Army Guard and Reserve.

Guard and Reserve units are ideal for homeland defense missions. They have engineer, transportation, communications, medical, and police capabilities. They can feed thousands in austere conditions, provide medical care in tents, and return a battered community to safe functioning in the worst emergencies. These capabilities are vital, whether the situation is a terrorsit attack, a tornado, or a toxic chemical spill. Many of the units are Reserve forces, much less readily available to governors and local officials than Guard units. Let the states pick up these homeland defense/ state mission costs and have the Federal contribution to the Guard focus on the warfighting mission. On the Air side, it would necessitate shifting missions: why does the Ohio Guard need F-16s and KC-135s? Stocking the ANG with lots of tactical airlift makes great sense. The C-17, C-130, and C-27 all seem ideal for the homeland mission and have great utility in wartime.

The biggest issue is getting leadership to make the tough calls to enact these changes. It amazes me that military leaders who have exhibited great courage in combat frequently display moral cowardice when faced with hard, institutional level decisions.

Chick-Fil-A

The founder of Chick-Fil-A, Dan Cathy is a devout Christian. He is a man so committed to his beliefs that he closes his fast-food restaurants on Sundays. Think about that: a man whose ideals are so ingrained within him, that he will forego a day’s profit every week in order to honor God in his own way.

Now the liberals are angry that he expressed his views opposing homosexual marriage. So angry that they want to shut down his restaurants, to bar him from Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia, as if a Chick-Fil-A is an affront to tolerance. I find it amazing that liberals immediately go for complete submission to their ideas, unable to countenance any difference of opinion.  If a true conservative doesn't like your opinion, he shrugs and goes about his business. If a liberal doesn't like your opinion, he has to try and discredit you as an uninformed, heartless troglodyte.

This is true of just about anything that pits liberal against conservative. If a conservative doesn’t like MSNBC, he just doesn’t watch it. But if a liberal doesn’t like Fox, he demands a boycott, wants the cable company not to carry Fox, and decries the bias of every person on Fox. I’ve been told that John Stossel, Lou Dobbs, Geraldo Rivera, and Greta Van Susteren are all now unreliable politically biased hacks. I have heard everyone of these praised when they were on other networks.

I have a dear friend who is a liberal. She will believe anything her union (NEA) tells her. But let me mention anything that differs, and the fight is on. One day, as she was telling me how Mitt Romney made money shutting down businesses, I responded with a story my brother told me. His company, Totes, was bought by Bain Capital. Romney’s investors looked at the company, decided it was worth pouring money into, and made the investment. The workers were told “you have about two years to turn this around.” And their pay was greatly increased – Dave’s was doubled in less than four years. Now, if the company hadn’t pulled itself back from the edge under Bain’s direction, then they would have been liquidated. And then I guess my brother would be on a commercial talking about that no-good Romney.

My friend’s reaction: “How can you verify these claims? You haven’t looked into other information.”  How do you respond to that?  All I could say was, “That’s my brother’s experience. Your actual mileage may vary.”

How do you argue with someone who will deny and discount a personal experience? I didn’t claim it was a total explanation or accounting for Romney’s business deals. Simply one man’s story. But to a liberal, it doesn’t count. By this logic, I can’t prove that Babylon or Julius Caesar existed.  I only have the history books, and I suppose it’s entirely possible that all that stuff was made up.

The liberals would go into orbit if you confronted them with this: While a certain skepticism is healthy, total questioning ends up denying any universal concept of truth, denying any universally common ground, even denying unwanted facts. There was a time when right and wrong were commonly accepted. Now, everything is relative.

I believe that we are all entitled to our opinions, but we all have to use the same facts. If I tell you Mitt Romney did at least one thing that benefited someone I know or that Dan Cathy is free to have his opinion, then accept that. If these men bother you, then don’t vote for Mitt and don’t eat at Chick-Fil-A. But don’t call me uninformed and don’t deny Mr. Cathy his right to speak.

Now, I'm going to have a chicken sandwich and some of those terrific waffle fries.

The World At War

I'm watching the 1974 British documentary, The World At War, again. It is an amazing program. At that time, many of the top leaders were still alive, so there are interviews with Albert Speer, Karl Doenitz, Bomber Harris, Curtis LeMay, Ira Eaker, Mark Clark, and a host of lesser ranking people.  It is sobering to see the more ordinary ranking people - Bill Mauldin, Otto Kretschmer, and other veterans - and to realize that when I was a boy, they were still vigorous adults in the prime of life, in their 50's and 60's. It makes you realize how quickly time passes. I vividly remember watching this show in high school. Now I am as old as some of the people pictured here.
But the point of the documentary is the enormous thing that was World War II. The numbers of participants and casualties stagger the imagination. The stakes are almost unimaginable. There was a moment in the fall of 1940 when Germany might have secured its borders and kept control of Europe for who knows how long. D-Day might have failed. We look back with comfortable hindsight at a successful long-ago endeavor, easily forgetting that the 1940's were not simply a triumphant decade of Glenn Miller music and stunning victories, but for years were a time of suffering and fear, when darkness and death swept across the world and threatened to extinguish the light. I've read that for the United States, something like 90% of our casualties came in the last eighteen months of war, 1944-45. Think of the timeline: Facing an ascendant Axis through 1942, the shock of Pearl Harbor and loss of the Philippines, Nazis deep in Russia and Africa. We didn't know then that Midway was a turning point. 1943 was a transitional year of ferocious fighting in the Soviet Union, horrible struggles in the North Atlantic, combat in places that we had never heard of like New Guinea, and Tarawa, and in places still far from Germany - Tunisia and Sicily. In 1944 came the rollback of German and Japanese forces, liberation and recapture of the enemy conquests. It is stunning to realize that the US lost more than 10,000 killed in combat every month through 1944 and 1945. With measurable progress came awful pain and loss.
We have to remember this forever. So much was sacrificed for our freedom. All we can do is to work constantly to keep liberty, the blessing they gave us.