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.