Syria

Syria has dominated much of the recent news about events occurring outside our borders. Reports of the civil war in that country have gained greater urgency with revelations about the use of sarin gas, a nerve agent, especially given the Obama Administration's previous mention that use of a chemical agent would be a "red line" event spurring the intervention of the US. Syria has long been known to maintain the world's fourth largest stockpile of chemical weapons and security analysts and policy makers have feared the potential compromise of those stockpiles in the chaos that always accompanies war. In fact, just this past week there was reporting about al-Qadea affiliates battling for control of a chemical munitions factory with the related concern that should such material fall into the hands of a terror-group no one knows where they might pop-up next -- an attack on Israel, Turkey, some European target or perhaps the US itself?

A common question that arises in any discussion about Syria--or similar situations such as Mali, Nigeria, Libya, North Korea, etc.--is "why should the U.S. care?" What are our interests in such conflicts or why should we be concerned about who-kills-whom in such faraway and seemingly always-in-crisis places? What does it matter which odious regime is in control of some desolate patch of sand that produces little if anything that contributes to the global marketplace? After all, we've sacrificed thousands of lives and spent trillions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan and provided billions in foreign aid toward Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others and what does it seem to have gotten us? Corrupt officials that are enriched with US-taxpayer provided funds; Islamist groups that were previously kept in check by the local strongman but which are now freed and strengthened to impose their own brand of tyranny; or supposedly 'moderate' governments that after ascending to power (thanks to the US) let contracts for energy exploration, military equipment purchases, and access to strategic minerals to everyone else except the US. The easy answer is for us to stay home. After all, we certainly have sufficient troubles of our own to demand our attention without seeking places elsewhere to spend our blood and treasure.  

But more than any other country in the world our interests really are global. Our most immediate interest vis-a-vis the Syrian civil war is the impact it is having on a region about which we do (or should) care. Last I've read, the war has generated over a million refugees who are pouring over the borders into Jordan and Turkey--Jordan being one of the very few stabilizing powers in the region (meaning not-yet-radicalized), something important to Israel, and Turkey being a NATO ally that is itself teetering between Western secularism and a radicalized Islamic state. The longer the conflict lasts, the stronger the foothold of the more extreme radical Islamist elements; Hezbollah is one of those elements (supporting Assad) and is extending its reach from the southern half of Lebanon it already controls (thanks to munitions provided by Assad and Iran). Should Assad prevail, he will remain a close ally of Iran, thus extending Iran's influence in an arc stretching from western Afghanistan to the northern border of Israel. Further, the conflict in Syria can be viewed as a proxy war between Sunni (the rebels) and Shia (the Assad government), between Saudi Arabia (as the primary Sunni power) and Iran (the chief Shia power). The course and outcome of the Syrian civil war will have an impact on US interests for many years to come. Sadly, there aren't any good options at all for US involvement -- one can't tip just a toe into this torrent but we can't simply ignore it either. 

Some folks have suggested we impose a no-fly-zone(s) to either impede Assad's forces from effectively attacking the rebels or to create safe zones for refugees. But this isn't easy to do: 1) we would need the support of another country in the region agreeing to allow the US to fly combat air patrols from its bases, a policy decision for that country that would have to account for its own domestic political situations; 2) to keep our aircraft safe we would need to neutralize Syria's air defense system (meaning destroying their radar and/or antiaircraft missile systems) thus making us an active participant in offensive actions against the Assad government; 3) having aircraft in the air over Syria would raise new policy/morality-sensitive decisions given we would have the ability to intervene in situations where either government or rebel forces posed a threat to civilian populations--i.e. not preventing harm when we had the ability to do so might cause additional problems for the US in the court of domestic and world opinion; 4) it presumes a decision on our point regarding Syria's sovereignty, and 5) having introduced ourselves into the conflict we would at some level link ourselves to the final outcome and to the regional competition amongst all the various actors (Iran, Syria, Turkey, Hezbollah, etc., etc.). 

But, if we stay uninvolved, we will have no influence on the shape of a post-civil-war Syria; will have taken no steps to try to preclude the rise of a replacement regime that may be even more problematic for US interests; will have compromised whatever level of influence we currently have in the region (re Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, et al); will have sent a clear message to Israel regarding our willingness to get involved in matters that clearly effect their security interests (remember how they bombed Syria's nuclear facility when no one else would take action); and will have stood by while yet another slaughter of civilians occurs (the Clinton Administration deeply regretted not taking action to preclude the Rwandan genocide and George H. W. Bush was heavily criticized for allowing Saddam Hussein to gas the Kurds at the conclusion of the First Gulf War).

Again, there are no good options. 

In such cases, our policies should be strictly framed in terms of our self-serving national security interests. I suspect we will funnel arms from third-party sources to select rebel groups much as we did to support the Mujahideen in their fight against the Soviets. You might remember that the current USD for Intelligence is the same guy who handled the arming, training, and tactical employment of Mujahideen thirty years ago (also here) -- meaning, we have people currently in key positions who know how to do this sort of thing.

Stratfor is a 'global intelligence' service that provides most of its products by subscription but also publishes a number of its items for public consumption. One of their most recent releases is an exceptionally good overview of the Syrian civil war and the challenges that accompany any thoughts about intervention. If you've any curiosity about what's going on over there, take a few minutes to read "Redlines and the Problems of Intervention in Syria." Here's a sampling of the many good insights provided in the article:

    "What the United States learned in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya is that it is relatively easy for a conventional force to destroy a government. It is much harder -- if not impossible -- to use the same force to impose a new type of government. The government that follows might be in some moral sense better than what preceded it -- it is difficult to imagine a more vile regime than Saddam Hussein's -- but the regime that replaces it will first be called chaos, followed by another regime that survives to the extent that it holds the United States at arm's length."   and...

    "Many things are beyond the military power of the United States. Creating constitutional democracies by invasion is one of those things. There will be those who say intervention is to stop the bloodshed, not to impose Western values. Others will say intervention that does not impose Western values is pointless. Both miss the point. You cannot stop a civil war by adding another faction to the war unless that faction brings overwhelming power to bear. The United States has a great deal of power, but not overwhelming power, and overwhelming power's use means overwhelming casualties. And you cannot transform the political culture of a country from the outside unless you are prepared to devastate it as was done with Germany and Japan."

Lastly, I found this piece rather interesting if only for these two paragraphs: 

    "If a strong and well-armed individual refuses to come to the aid of someone being assaulted, we judge that person harshly — because his obligations are clear: He should defend the victim, even at the risk of injury to himself. If he displays a willingness to sacrifice his own well being in the act of fulfilling his moral duty, we call him selflessly courageous; it he doesn't, we denounce him for cowardice and selfishness. That's how moral judgment works.

    "But it's not how statesmanship works. The primary duty of the nation's commander in chief — the duty that overrides all others — is to uphold the common good of the United States and protect the rights of individual American citizens. If that sounds selfish, that's because it is. And rightly so. The president's duty is to us. He can have no duty to the citizens of another nation. That's why the greatest acts of statesmanship will always be more self-interested than the highest acts of individual virtue."

I don't agree with the absolute nature of the author's conclusion at the end of his article. I think national security policy is an inherently complex thing influenced by myriad factors that are all extraordinarily context-sensitive. That said, I do concur that a President's primary responsibility is to our country and our people. But it is also the case that the values embedded in the founding principles of our country call us to do things that other countries seldom do...such as involve ourselves in the affairs of others when we feel a greater good is being served, especially in cases when that greater good ultimately serves our own interests.

Our way forward with respect to Syria will be a one-day-at-a-time sort of affair. I've no doubt this Administration would just as soon see one side or the other 'win' so that it can deal with whatever the resulting power structure turns out to be but I'm also quite confident such a resolution will not come easily or quickly. It's one ugly mess and only time will tell as to how it all sorts out. 

'Democracy May Have Had Its Day'

In an email sharing the below story, a very dear friend of mine, who has spent his entire professional life studying the politics and cultures of the Middle East, had this to say about Kaminski's coverage of Prof. Donald Kagan's farewell lecture: "Possibly the most important article published this year."

I'll be looking for a transcript of the lecture but until then, Kaminski's overview is quite enough to convey the primary themes and import of the points Kagan was trying to convey: the importance of America's role as defender of Western democracy, the difficulty in doing such, the fragility of the form of democracy itself even while it is the most powerful form of government in providing the greatest opportunity for the greatest number of people, the fundamental importance of education in making our citizenry aware of all of this (especially with respect to democracy's foundation and the nature of its development over the centuries), and the roles both society and our educational establishment have in preserving all of this. 

The greatest threat to America comes not from any external actor, condition, or influence but rather from the steady growth of a sense of entitlement among our people and the corresponding decay in individual and collective responsibility for doing what is necessary to preserve and promote the ideals of democracy as it is practiced by our Republic. 

Just a couple of days ago, Former President George W. Bush briefly spoke at the opening of his library. Here is an excerpt from his speech:

    In democracy, the purpose of public office is not to fulfill personal ambition. Elected officials must serve a cause greater themselves. The political winds blow left and right, polls rise and fall, supporters come and go. But in the end, leaders are defined by the convictions they hold. And my deepest conviction, the guiding principle of the administration, is that the United States of America must strive to expand the reach of freedom.

    I believe that freedom is a gift from God and the hope of every human heart. Freedom inspired our founders and preserved our union through civil war and secured the promise of civil rights. Freedom sustains dissonance bound by chains. Believers huddled in underground churches. And voters who risked their lives to cast their ballots. Freedom unleashed creativity, rewards innovation and replaces poverty with prosperity. And ultimately freedom lights the path to peace. Freedom brings responsibility.

    ...I dedicate this library with an unshakeable faith in the future of our country. It's the honor of a lifetime to lead a country as brave and as noble as the United States. Whatever challenges come before us, I will always believe our nation's best day lie ahead. God bless.

Like our forty-third President, I, too, believe that "our nation's best day[s] lie ahead" but I also know that there are no guarantees about the future. The opportunity, hope and promise that America has symbolized for so many millions of people cannot withstand general public apathy, selfishness, indiscipline, and abrogation of both civic responsibility and a constantly renewed commitment to our founding principles. We simply have to do better than what we are doing now.

For your consideration:

'Democracy May Have Had Its Day'

Donald Kagan, Yale's great classicist gives his final lecture, fighting as ever for Western civilization.

By MATTHEW KAMINSKI

New Haven, Conn.

Donald Kagan is engaging in one last argument. For his "farewell lecture" here at Yale on Thursday afternoon, the 80-year-old scholar of ancient Greece—whose four-volume history of the Peloponnesian War inspired comparisons to Edward Gibbon's Roman history—uncorked a biting critique of American higher education.

Universities, he proposed, are failing students and hurting American democracy. Curricula are "individualized, unfocused and scattered." On campus, he said, "I find a kind of cultural void, an ignorance of the past, a sense of rootlessness and aimlessness." Rare are "faculty with atypical views," he charged. "Still rarer is an informed understanding of the traditions and institutions of our Western civilization and of our country and an appreciation of their special qualities and values." He counseled schools to adopt "a common core of studies" in the history, literature and philosophy "of our culture." By "our" he means Western.

After the Wars, New Battlefronts for the Marine Corps

Thought I'd share my latest item on things-military. In the Fall of 2010, The American Interest asked for a piece on the Marine Corps as part of a collection of essays on the military Services that they ran in their Sept-Oct issue for that year. In "Caught on a Lee Shore" I attempted to describe what I believed to be key challenges for the Service at that time, most prominently among them the EFV program. A few months ago, TAI asked for a follow-up item that they've now published. In "After the Wars..." I've tried to address the major challenges confronting the Corps as it draws-down its efforts in Afghanistan amidst substantial budgetary, cultural, and conceptual pressures. 

I was intentionally descriptive vice prescriptive as my focus was to lay-out the issues rather than pontificate about possible solutions. To my mind, most pundits presume to know all the various details of any given issue as well as just what the organization should do to "fix things" even though they haven't been party to the very private discussions that take place amongst leadership at the highest levels of government. Sometimes, enough information is available in the public domain and one has sufficient, relevant personal experience to come to rather obvious conclusions. Such was the case for my recommendations about EFV and other matters in "...Lee Shore" and an earlier piece published by CSBA. When it comes to the budget turmoil created by the sequester and federal debt situation, the changes being imposed on the military regarding who can serve and in what capacity, and just how the Services will evolve their thinking about applying military power in future settings...no one really has any idea how this will all work out. My hope is that senior leaders keep their eyes firmly fixed on 'military effectiveness' in serving our national security interests and that the myriad decisions before them are decided with this fundamental objective in mind.

After the Wars, New Battlefronts for the Marine Corps

Dakota L. Wood

As the U.S. Marine Corps winds down its operations in Afghanistan, it faces a different kind of battlefield back home, where the challenges take shape as numbers, ideas and purposes. This operational theater consists of three fronts: budgetary, cultural and conceptual. 

On the budgetary front, the Corps faces substantial challenges as it adjusts to the decline in defense spending that historically follows periods of war; the frustrations of “continuing resolutions”, by which it must operate under the funding level approved for the previous year regardless of the accumulation of new expenses; and the cuts forced by sequestration, which require an additional 8 percent reduction in the Corps’ annual budget each year for the next decade.

Regarding cultural stressors, the Corps must deal with the implications of homosexuals serving openly and accommodating their partners or spouses; figure out how to open previously restricted “combat arms” occupational fields to women; and manage shrinking its force by 10 percent over the next four years, while keeping faith with Marines accustomed to high-tempo combat operations abroad who will now increasingly be moored to garrison and training environments in the States for the decade to come.

As for conceptual matters, the Corps has embarked on a variety of efforts to redefine its role as the nation’s “911 force.” What does it mean to “get back to the sea” following a decade of sustained operations ashore? The vast majority of Marines currently serving in uniform have never set foot on a ship. How does the Corps regain a service-wide competence in amphibious operations if the U.S. Navy now has only 28 amphibious ships in its fleet, half of which might be unavailable for immediate use at any given moment due to maintenance schedules? How should the Corps proceed with plans to focus on key regions, to maintain a “persistent presence” supporting U.S. regional commanders with at-the-ready crisis response forces, when the cost of deploying such forces is steadily rising?

Each front brings challenges of its own, but taken together they present a kind of battlefield occupied by the Service’s most senior officials. The outcome of these battles will shape the Corps in size, capability and purpose for many years to come.

For the rest...

H7N9

I'll admit to tracking recent reporting of H7N9 with a bit more interest than your average bear. I spent a year on a small team developing a national bio-surveillance program during the H5N1 "bird flu" scare not so many years ago. It was quite an educational experience in many ways but particularly with regard to the "drinking from a fire hose" learning necessary to rapidly come up to speed on some of the more interesting aspects of bio-threats, both naturally occurring and man-made. The team leader was brilliant in demanding that we read a masterful book by John M. Barry entitled "The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History." While the primary theme is the influenza pandemic of 1918 (causing upwards of 100 million deaths), Barry also tells the broader story of how the search for a cure -- in fact, the search to even understand what the flu virus was -- actually served as a catalyst for the birth of modern medical science and of the social impact the pandemic had across communities large and small, urban and rural.

The 'bird flu' scare of 2006 (actually 2003 to present but cases/deaths peaked 2005-07) likewise had an impact well beyond the actual number of cases of human infection, spurring lurid reporting in the news, the rise of a 'bird flu protection' industry, widespread community and municipal awareness and pandemic response preparedness programs, and even a made-for-tv-movie or two. Since the much-feared and over-hyped global pandemic never materialized as popularly imagined, most folks (I think) tend to dismiss the actual risk such outbreaks have inherent to them. The field of bio-surveillance has really improved over the past decade perhaps no where more importantly than in the areas of information reporting, sharing and preventive posturing, i.e. the willingness of government agencies and the medical community to collaborate in aggressively investigating and responding to the potential for outbreaks.

The current reporting on H7N9 indicates no cases of human-to-human transfer. As of today all 43 reported cases of infection have occurred from close contact with infected birds. For those interested in reading up on the outbreak, the World Health Organization site is pretty informative and is kept up-to-date with each reported and confirmed case: WHO H7N9. For information on influenza in general and the H5N1 strain especially, the flu.gov site is really very good. A companion site - ready.gov - is also a good resource for information on emergency preparedness planning.

North Korea

Well...just in case you were tiring of news about the sequester, the job and housing markets, European economic collapse, or corruption in WashingtonChicagoNewYorkCity politics, Kim Jong-un has been quite busy stirring up alternatives for your morning-cup-of-coffee reading. If you're in the habit of more than one cup, here are a couple of sites you might find of particular interest:

- War News Updates has extensive coverage but this website should be on your daily reading list regardless. The editor (who lives in Canada) uses tags for sorting reporting on North Korea if you'd like to sort by sub-topic (missile capabilities, North-South relations, etc) but you'll get all the latest reporting by just scanning the website. 

- Galrahn with a very good post at his naval blog Information Dissemination on the background story leading up to our annual military exercise with the South Koreans, an event that sends the North into a tizzy every year. He details the 'playbook' developed and implemented to leverage this year's exercise as a 'strategic messaging' initiative to a greater extent than is normally the case each year. Interestingly, the North's more-than-usual animated response threw the US message off track. As you're seeing in the news, all the major players (US, South Korea, Japan, and China) are waiting to see just how closely North Korea's actions reflect its hyperbolic rhetoric.

But if you really want to understand the North Koreans, there's no better item to read than this: "The 1951 Korean Armistice Conference: A Personal Memoir," by Herbert Goldhamer, who dictated it in 1951, and which was released by RAND as a monograph in 1994. Goldhamer's memoir was recommended to me (following some work I did at U.S. Central Command in the immediate wake of the 9-11 attacks) by the fellow who wrote the Forward, from which I share this extract:

    "In his Memoir on the Korean Armistice Conference, Goldhamer shows how American beliefs and values made for disadvantageous negotiating performance. He points out how members of the U.N. side were determined to behave honorably. The North Koreans and Chinese were able to take advantage of this attitude by constantly challenging their ethical behavior, forcing them to demonstrate their morality, sometimes to the detriment of the U.N. position. Also, in a section entitled, "Strength Leads to Failure, Weakness Leads to Success," Goldhamer points out that because the U.N. negotiators assumed the North Koreans and Chinese would be intransigent, "... there was a tendency to assume, in considering any possible line of action, that if the action was a strong and aggressive one the outcome would probably be a failure.... On the other hand, any action that was a sign of weakness, for instance a concession, was in some obscure way looked upon optimistically.""

       -- A.W. Marshall, 1994, Forward

Goldhamer's point was essentially this: the North Koreans behave like bratty children who throw a tantrum when ignored and who will bully, bluster, threaten, and angrily pout to get their way. Conversely, the West, and especially the U.S., just hates the idea it might be seen as anything other than the 'mature, understanding parent' so it wants nothing more than to mollify the scene-making child. So, it gives in. The North knows this and has had proven time and again this is how the West/America will respond. With Jong-un newly ascending to power this is likely -- likely -- a situation wherein he and his handlers see an opportunity to gain attention on the world stage (especially with the US hindered by war fatigue, debt problems, and domestic political discord) and make some gains vis-a-vis concessions from the West re the DPRK nuclear program, etc. One should also keep in mind the South Korea also has new, untested leadership.

Most commentators I've read feel the North will fire a missile or two into adjacent waters to make a point, declare victory, and go back to starving its people. But there is always the possibility for miscalculation, misinterpretation or simple mistakes when things are on a knife edge and everyone is unsure of just what might happen. When folks are running around in the dark with loaded weapons and fingers on triggers, lots of bad things can go wrong even if no one really wants them to. 

I'm reminded of one of the final scenes in Le Morte D'Arthur where the armies of Arthur and Mordred are arrayed against each other on Salisbury Plain. While the two principles are preparing to engage in negotiations a knight sees a snake in the grass and innocently, unthinkingly, draws his sword to kill it. The action is perceived by everyone else in proximity as a signal to attack and the two sides surge to war. Mordred dies as do most of Arthur's knights, Arthur himself receives an ultimately fatal wound, Guinevere follows him from anguish and, learning of her death, Lancelot likewise passes.

Brinksmanship is a tricky game.

Margaret Thatcher

Of the many eulogies I've scanned on the passing of Margaret Thatcher, I like these two the best. William Kristol provides a superb, concise coda that provides context for not only the combined contribution of Thatcher, Reagan, and John Paul II to the West's victory over the Soviet Union's oppressive communism but also their resolute stand for the principles in which they believed. But first, a remembrance from The Economist, who does this sort of thing better than anyone else. In fact, it has long been my habit to read the magazine from back to front, starting with their weekly perspective of an extraordinary life.

Margaret Thatcher

The lady who changed the world 

Apr 8th 2013, 12:35 by Economist.com

ONLY a handful of peace-time politicians can claim to have changed the world. Margaret Thatcher, who died this morning, was one. She transformed not just her own Conservative Party, but the whole of British politics. Her enthusiasm for privatisation launched a global revolution and her willingness to stand up to tyranny helped to bring an end to the Soviet Union. Winston Churchill won a war, but he never created an "ism".

The essence of Thatcherism was to oppose the status quo and bet on freedom-odd, since as a prim control freak, she was in some ways the embodiment of conservatism. She thought nations could become great only if individuals were set free. Her struggles had a theme: the right of individuals to run their own lives, as free as possible from the micromanagement of the state.

In Britain her battles with the left-especially the miners-gave her a reputation as a blue-rinse Boadicea. But she was just as willing to clobber her own side, sidelining old-fashioned Tory "wets" and unleashing her creed on conservative strongholds, notably the "big bang" in the City of London. Many of her pithiest putdowns were directed towards her own side: "U turn if you want to", she told the Conservatives as unemployment passed 2m, "The lady's not for turning."

Paradoxes abound. Mrs Thatcher was a true Blue Tory who marginalised the Tory Party for a generation. The Tories ceased to be a national party, retreating to the south and the suburbs and all but dying off in Scotland, Wales and the northern cities. Tony Blair profited more from the Thatcher revolution than John Major, her successor: with the trade unions emasculated and the left discredited, he was able to remodel his party and sell it triumphantly to Middle England. His huge majority in 1997 ushered in 13 years of New Labour rule.

Yet her achievements cannot be gainsaid. She reversed what her mentor, Keith Joseph, liked to call "the ratchet effect", whereby the state was rewarded for its failures with yet more power. With the brief exception of the emergency measures taken in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007-08, there have been no moves to renationalise industries or to resume a policy of picking winners. Thanks to her, the centre of gravity of British politics moved dramatically to the right. The New Labourites of the 1990s concluded that they could rescue the Labour Party from ruin only by adopting the central tenets of Thatcherism. "The presumption should be that economic activity is best left to the private sector," declared Mr Blair. Neither he nor his successors would dream of reverting to the days of nationalisation and unfettered union power.

On the world stage, too, Mrs Thatcher continues to cast a long shadow. Her combination of ideological certainty and global prominence ensured that Britain played a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union that was disproportionate to its weight in the world. Mrs Thatcher was the first British politician since Winston Churchill to be taken seriously by the leaders of all the major powers. She was a heroine to opposition politicians in eastern Europe. Her willingness to stand shoulder to shoulder with "dear Ronnie" to block Soviet expansionism helped to promote new thinking in the Kremlin. But her insistence that Michael Gorbachev was a man with whom the West could do business also helped to end the cold war.

The post-communist countries embraced her revolution heartily: by 1996 Russia had privatised some 18,000 industrial enterprises. India dismantled the licence Raj-a legacy of British Fabianism-and unleashed a cavalcade of successful companies. Across Latin America governments embraced market liberalisation. Whether they managed well or badly, all of them looked to the British example.

But today, the pendulum is swinging dangerously away from the principles Mrs Thatcher espoused. In most of the rich world, the state's share of the economy has grown sharply in recent

years. Regulations-excessive, as well as necessary-are tying up the private sector. Businessmen are under scrutiny as they have not been for 30 years. Demonstrators protest against the very existence of the banking industry. And with the rise of China, state control, not economic liberalism, is being hailed as a model for emerging countries.

For a world in desperate need of growth, this is the wrong direction to head in. Europe will never thrive until it frees up its markets. America will throttle its recovery unless it avoids over-regulation. China will not sustain its success unless it starts to liberalise. This is a crucial time to hang on to Margaret Thatcher's central perception-that for countries to flourish, people need to push back against the advance of the state. What the world needs now is more Thatcherism, not less.

"Three Who Saved the West"

William Kristol, Apr 8, 2013

And now the last of them is gone. Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Pope John Paul II—three who won the Cold War and, it isn't too much to say, saved the West (at least for a while!)—are no longer with us. Their examples remain.

They knew what they believed but also knew they had to justify their beliefs, and that one could adjust prudently to circumstances without yielding on principle. They stood firm when in power, and they took risks to get there, challenging the conventional wisdom and the respective establishments of their nations or institutions. They were conservative but not nostalgic, and would counsel us today against excessive nostalgia for their deeds and their days. They would rather, I suspect, urge that we act in their spirit—what one might call a spirit of unapologetic but reformist conservatism.

Whittaker Chambers wrote at the end of his last letter to Bill Buckley, “Each age finds its own language for an eternal meaning.” So each age has to find its own leaders for an eternal task—the defense and renewal of civilization. The death of Margaret Thatcher is a healthy reminder to students of politics of the difficulty, the gravity, and also the nobility of this task.

Big Data and You

I'm not really sure how to structure this post but I wanted share some thoughts about trends we are seeing in our world that directly effect our lives now and will profoundly effect our lives in the years ahead. A week ago I heard a great story on NPR with one of the authors of a book about 'big data' -- massive sets of data from all kinds of sources that organizations sift through to derive information meaningful to their interests. Using such information, businesses try to determine consumer preferences, habits, and interests so that they can micro-target advertisements and products at the individual level. Law enforcement organizations have started to mine data from various sources to include social networking sites like Facebook or Twitter in an attempt to predict when and where crimes might be committed so that they can better apply limited policing resources to those areas where they would be most effective and prevent crimes from happening in the first place. Our nation's intelligence community routinely sifts through massive amounts of data to thwart efforts by our competitors and enemies to steal our information or to plan and execute attacks against us and our interests. Examples are nearly endless but here are a couple more stories (in addition to the NPR piece already mentioned) that hopefully illustrate what I'm talking about: Michelle Malkin on the Federal government's collaboration with schools and business to mine data from student records and Bruce Schneier writing about the evolving character of the Internet as a 'surveillance state' of sorts.

Like it or not, we have all become dependent on our ability to access information anywhere and anytime...likely irrevocably so. Want some cash from an ATM? That machine exchanges information about your account balance with your home bank. Ever use a credit card? Same thing occurs there. Place or receive a cellphone call lately...or text from your phone...or use it to buy something or find your way using its mapping feature? Your ability to do so is only possible because the phone continuously checks-in with the carriers network that locates the phones position based on timing references among the cell towers able to receive the phone's signal. Use a GPS map in your car? The system tracks your movements. Love to shop online? Use the 'web' to read the news, post to Facebook, read this blog, check sports scores, look for a recipe, comparison-shop for a snowblower...you get the idea. We love convenience, instant communications, as many options as possible, no-wait answers to any question. But this all comes at a price, that being our willingness to place massive amounts of information about ourselves into a place that is accessible to anyone who has an interest in knowing what we like, what we do, where we go, what we value, and even what we think. 

I think most uses of data, especially our personal data, is rather innocuous - companies wanting to make a buck by targeting people with ads that are as attractive and compelling as possible. Educators, doctors, and local police chiefs would like to use as much information as possible to teach students in as effective a way as possible, fine tune medical support so that solutions to individual health problems can be targeted to the unique characteristics of the patient, and prevent bad guys from doing bad things to good people. But people just can't help themselves. Whenever they get access to information they start coming up with new ways to use it. Their curiosity gets the better of them and they pry where they shouldn't. Those in positions of power and authority see the opportunity to do what they are convinced needs to be done. And people just can't help making mistakes. Abuses occur. Hard drives containing social security numbers or medical records are lost. Sources are shared with reporters. Titillating details from private lives are shared among gossips. Security services, under the presumption of 'to serve and protect', act preemptively in the name of 'public safety.' Before you know it, 'privacy' becomes as archaic as the rotary dial phone. 

How bad will things get? It's impossible to say, of course. But I do know that trends do not extend into the future indefinitely, unaffected by reactions to that trend. Systems operate within boundaries determined by those effected by them. When things get outside 'acceptable limits,' people respond and impose corrections. Sometimes such corrections are mild - the price point for hotdogs gets too high and people stop buying hotdogs; the price comes back down. Sometimes, however, the correction is radical. Strikes, protests in the streets, public outcry, civil disobedience. It all depends on how attuned 'the market' is to changing 'market' and 'consumer' conditions. When governments are deaf, dumb, and blind...they suffer the worst blowback. 

I hope folks become attuned to the rapidly changing nature of our world before 'radical corrections' are generated. If they do, then gentle corrections can keep data-use within acceptable boundaries. But we don't seem to do too well at voicing concerns early enough and ensuring those in positions to 'do something about it' are aware of such or held accountable to making necessary corrections. 

Something to think about. And while you're thinking...re-watch Minority Report, the Steven Spielberg film released back in 2002 (based loosely on a 1956 short story, if you can believe that) that projected a near-future time when government agencies enforced the law based on assumptions of human behavior. Not a pretty picture.

Iwo Jima - "The birth of a new freedom for the sons of men everywhere"

There have been plenty of reminders the past few days about the 68th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima, but an old friend of mine passed along another reminder...one about the extraordinary eulogy given by Rabbi Roland B. Gittelsohn, a Navy Chaplain with the 5th Marine Division, at the dedication of the Division cemetery on Iwo, March, 1945. It is often referred to as second only to the Gettysburg address in its power, poetry, timeless message of love and compassion for one's fellow man, and commemoration of both the nobility and terrible loss that accompanies battle. Here it is as it was read into the U.S. Congressional record not too long ago:

"Here before us lie the bodies of comrades and friends, men who until yesterday or last week laughed with us, joked with us, trained with us, men who fought with us and feared with us. Somewhere in this plot of ground there may lie the man who could have discovered the cure for cancer. Under one of these Christian crosses or beneath a Jewish Star of David, there may now rest a man who was destined to be a great prophet, to find the way perhaps for all to live in plenty, with poverty and hardship for none. Now they lie here silently in this sacred soil, and we gather to consecrate the earth in their memory.

"It is not easy to do so. Some of us have buried our closest friends here. To speak in memory of such men as these is not easy. No, our poor power of speech can add nothing to what these men have already done. All that we can even hope to do is to follow their example, to show the same selfless courage in peace that they did in war; to swear that by the grace of God and the stubborn strength and power of the human will, their sons and ours will never suffer these pains again. These men have done their job well. They have paid the ghastly price of freedom.

"We dedicate ourselves, first, to live together in peace the way they fought and are buried in this war. Here lie officers and men, Negroes and whites, rich men and poor, together. Here, no man prefers another because of his faith or despises him because of his color. Here, there are no quotas of how many from each group are admitted or allowed. Among these men there is no discrimination, no prejudices, no hatred. Theirs is the highest and purest democracy.

"Any man among the living who fails to understand that will thereby betray those who lie here dead. Whoever of us lifts up his hand in hate against a brother or thinks himself superior to those who happen to be in the minority makes of this ceremony and the bloody sacrifice it commemorates an empty, hollow mockery. To this, then, as our solemn, sacred duty, do we the living now dedicate ourselves to the rights of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, of white men and Negroes alike, to enjoy the democracy for which all of them have paid the price.

"When the last shot has been fired, there will be those whose eyes are turned backward, not forward, who will be satisfied with wide extremes of poverty and wealth in which the seeds of another war can breed. We promise you, our departed comrades, this too we will not permit. This war has been fought by the common man. Its fruits of peace must be enjoyed by the common man. We promise, by all that is sacred and holy, that your sons, the sons of miners and millers, the sons of farmers and workers, the right to a living that is decent and secure.

"When the final cross has been placed in the last cemetery, once again there will be those to whom profit will be more important than peace. To those who sleep here silent, we give our promise: We will not listen. We will not forget that some of you paid the ultimate price for men who profit at your expense. We will remember you as you looked when we placed you reverently, lovingly, in the ground.

"Thus do we memorialize those who, having ceased living with us, now live within us again. Thus do we consecrate ourselves to the living to carry on the struggle they began. Too much blood has gone into this soil for us to let it lie barren. Too much pain and heartache have fertilized the earth on which we stand. We here solemnly swear, this shall not be in vain. Out of this, and from the suffering and sorrow of those who mourn this, will come, we promise, the birth of a new freedom for the sons of men everywhere."

Semper Fidelis

Living Off Our Children - Lying To Ourselves

I was recently asked to review the President's "State of the Union Address" (SOTU) for any specific implications for the U.S. Defense budget. I'd intentionally avoided watching it during the live broadcast because I knew I could skim all the news/commentary that would follow to gather the salient points and I had better things to do with my time than watch the political theater that is the SOTU. Given my task, however, I had to actually read the speech which only served to validate my decision to skip the live broadcast. That said, my project served as a useful mechanism to assemble a variety of budget-related items I've been tracking for some time. Most recently, of course, has been the flood of materials focused on the pending sequester. It seems more likely than ever that sequestration will occur, so the Defense Department has sent all the military Service Chiefs and various Defense officials to Capitol Hill to regale Members with their assessments of the effect sequestration will have on military readiness and national security. Short story - we're in for some very lean years, reduced military readiness, and a steep hill to climb should we ever need to mobilize forces in large numbers. (I'll work on a future post that gets into some of the detail on this subject.) 

All this aside, the SOTU address did underscore (unintentionally) why we have arrived at sequestration in the first place, why it is a relatively minor plot point in a much larger saga, and why commentators of various sorts have a rather dim view of our future days. It really comes down to this: our collective unwillingness to be honest with ourselves is sowing the seeds of our destruction. Our national budget, flights of fancy like the SOTU, Congressional ineptitude in matters of fiscal responsibility, the corrosive effect of hyper-partisan bickering, and the complicity of the American public in the massive fraud being perpetrated against future generations combine to make 'solutions' unlikely. Am I without hope? Of course not. Anything is possible and America has shown an amazing ability to overcome extraordinary challenges. But we are caught in a terrific current that is sweeping us to a very bad place and we seem unable to commit ourselves to the effort necessary to escape.

As part of my little project, I put together the above graphic to illustrate aspects of our budget situation and the relative amounts of various elements associated with the budget that hopefully provide perspective. The rancorous debate over "cuts" mandated by the sequester are the fiscal equivalent to arguing over who gets the bigger deck chair in which to relax while the ship is sinking under you. As written, the sequester requires a reduction in federal spending of $1 trillion over a ten year period, meaning $100M per year each year for the next decade. As written, 50% of the reductions are levied against Defense spending (with military personnel accounts exempted) while the other 50% is applied to all other spending. Consider, however, that our federal spending outpaces revenue by 50%, meaning we take in only two-thirds of what we spend (roughly: income=$2.3T, spending=$3.4T) so we go $1T further into debt every year. With this in mind, sequestration would lower the amount of money we're spending that we don't actually have from $1,000,000,000,000 to $900,000,000,000 per year.

Hmmm...I think that means we're still accumulating massive new debt each year. 

It also means the amount of money we have to spend to service that debt -- the interest paid on the debt -- increases over time. Add to this all the new promises we're making: health insurance coverage for pre-existing medical conditions; adding 11-15 million previously-illegal-immigrants to the pool of people eligible for government benefits; federal subsidies to 'green' industries; opting for more expensive energy technologies (wind, solar, biofuel, etc.) over less expensive coal and nuclear; funding 'high-speed rail' at phenomenal costs in dollar-per-passenger-mile...the list is quite long...and you quickly outpace the rate of anemic growth the commercial sector is experiencing. Not a pretty picture.

What should catch your eye, however, is the big arrow in the background showing 'total unfunded obligations.' This is the reality that things like sequester, policy speeches, federal budgets, and public demands completely ignore. The $80 trillion I used is a rough average of many estimates available for review ($62T, $84T, $100T, $144T to cite just a very, very few). Variations in estimates result from what one considers an 'unfunded liability." Most estimates center on the ever-increasing cost of health care insurance coverage. But as one includes deferred maintenance of national infrastructure, obligations associated with public sector pension plans, assumptions of future deficit spending, the cumulative effects of inflation and compounded interest on debt, etc. you can quickly reach extraordinary levels of debt that are implicit in our current spending patterns.

My favorite estimate comes from Niall Ferguson, a British economic historian who takes the same approach to analysis/commentary of economic policy that Victor Davis Hanson does with his commentary on socio-cultural and foreign-military affairs...approaches rooted in the lessons of history. Ferguson estimates that the total of 'unfunded liabilities' facing the U.S. amounts to a staggering $238 Trillion, basing his conclusion on the "difference between the net present value of federal government liabilities and the net present value of future federal revenues" plus the "unfunded liabilities of state and local governments". In an article of his entitled "Why the young should welcome austerity," published last summer, Ferguson makes some trenchant observations: 

     "These mind-boggling numbers represent nothing less than a vast claim by the generation currently retired or about to retire on their children and grandchildren, who are obligated by current law to find the money in the future, by submitting either to substantial increases in taxation or to drastic cuts in other forms of public expenditure.

     "In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, published in 1790, Edmund Burke wrote that the real social contract is not Rousseau's contract between the sovereign and the people or "general will", but the "partnership" between the generations.

     "Society," says Burke, "is indeed a contract. The state is a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born."

     "In the enormous inter-generational transfers implied by current fiscal policies we see a shocking and perhaps unparalleled breach of precisely that partnership.

     "We blame the politicians whose hard lot it is to bring public finances under control, but we also like to blame bankers and financial markets, as if their reckless lending was to blame for our reckless borrowing.

     "We bay for tougher regulation, though not of ourselves."

Put another way, our inability to discipline our current 'wants' will not only bankrupt us in our present time, it will consign our children and their children, for generations to come, to lives lived in austerity...and it just doesn't have to be that way. We are methodically and relentlessly breaking faith within our generation, with those who preceded us (who built the wealth and opportunities implicit in our system that we are now squandering), and with those to come. The consequences will be much greater, more deeply penetrating and far broader in their scope than the price of gas at the pump or the availability of a doctor to tend an illness. They will include damage to the mutual trust and relationships, the implied societal framework of unspoken agreements, that undergird the success of a nation. Our government is incapable of addressing this problem. It will be up to the People. Do we have it within us?

Real Heroes

There isn't anything one can actually add to this story; I know I can only comment on it. It's a bit lengthy but if you take time to read anything this week, please read this. Movies, television, the 'web', water cooler stories all regale us with tales of derring-do, swashbucklers and secret agents who always hit their mark, survive all manner of explosions, rarely take a hit themselves, and come out the vaunted hero in the end. This tale sheds light on the gritty reality of real heroes...and one real hero in particular. Our political, entertainment, sports, and even business worlds are filled to overflowing with chest-thumping, attention seeking, wealth motivated egoists. This story talks about the type of men who go into harm's way for all the right reasons, do their job in the shadows, who shun the limelight, and for 'thanks' get a nice plaque and a pat on the back on their way out the door. This story speaks to the real cost of such service, a cost born not only by the man himself, but by his family as well. True professionalism in service to one's country calls upon people to sacrifice, to share great burdens others are unable or unwilling to shoulder, and to do what must be done even when...especially when...such acts go unnoticed, unacknowledged, and unrewarded in ways most people seek and expect. Yes, among those who share such service there is a bond and an understanding no one not of that circle can truly appreciate. But even with that type of brotherhood buoying the spirit, the true warrior must continue to should a great burden largely alone. It's the nature of the beast. This story reminds me of a observation always attributed to George Orwell: “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” Though he didn't actually say this, it makes a very important point. We are blessed that people like The Shooter are willing and able to undertake the tasks they do on our behalf. I just wish we did as good a job taking care of them as they do of us. I pray that his days ahead bring him and his family the peace he seeks. 

"The Man Who Killed Osama bin Laden... Is Screwed," By Phil Bronstein, Esquire Magazine

Women in Combat

A week ago, Secretary of Defense Panetta announced that he had decided to repeal the restriction on women serving in combat units. Stating the obvious, there were howls of derision and near-apocalyptic warnings on one side of the spectrum while at the other end long-time advocates for such a change cheered themselves hoarse. (A handy quick-reference source for a good sampling of the arguments pro- and con- can be found here.) Those in favor cited the American principles of 'equality' among people, 'equal opportunity' to serve one's country, and 'equal opportunity' to compete for promotion to the most senior levels of leadership within the military Services regardless of gender. Those opposed raised a host of issues from the physical ability to perform tasks associated with combat units, to whether 'unit cohesion' would be damaged by the introduction of women, the impact of readiness issues stemming from different biological traits (pregnancy, etc.), the frictions that accompany mixed-gender settings, and whether performance standards would be lowered to ensure women would 'succeed' even at the potential risk of lowering the combat effectiveness of a unit. 

From all the statements I've read issued by senior leaders in the Department (both civilian and military), I take it as a 'done deal' that women will indeed by allowed to serve regardless the findings of the various studies now underway in the Army and Marine Corps. The Administration has committed to making this happen and the Services will salute smartly and get it done. Personally, I think it's a very bad idea for reasons that include some of those already mentioned by critics but mostly for a reason I've not heard raised at all in the current debate. I've posted below some thoughts I shared with friends/colleagues earlier this week on this issue. Before jumping into it, however, I just want to be clear that I have the deepest respect for the women who do serve our country in uniform, whether in the military services, law enforcement, as firefighters, or other 'first responder' professions. In my three decades of service to our country, I have had the distinct honor of serving with or around some of the most capable and professional women imaginable. Whether here at home, while deployed aboard ship, or serving in combat zones abroad, the women Marines I've worked with more than held there own right alongside their male colleagues. But I hope you see the larger point I try to make below. Without further ado...

----

Secretary of Defense Panetta’s decision to open the “combat arms” career field to women has stirred a hornet’s nest of response both in vigorous support and horrified opposition. Having served a career in uniform as a U.S. Marine, in peace and war, and remained involved in the Defense community for several years since retiring I have my own thoughts on the matter. They derive from two pillars: maximizing effectiveness in combat (get the dirty job done as quickly and effectively as possible) and acknowledging in our policies what I think to be key values-based cultural issues. 

Women involved in combat actions incidental to war are one thing; committing women to offensive combat actions intentionally, especially in ground actions, is quite another...and I don't mean having them drive a truck along an IED-strewn road or conducting the myriad tasks necessary to sustain combat ops in a theater of action. Women have participated in "war" in one form or another as long as people have fought. They have certainly suffered the nastiest effects of war wherever it has occurred and have been at the forefront in 'cleaning things up' when all the shooting stops - getting a society back on its feet, dealing with the devastation imposed on families, shouldering the burden when the men don't come back from the front, etc. In my mind, there isn't any question about whether women can endure, or have endured, in such settings nor whether they have the ability to pull a trigger as well as any man or have the stamina to hold up under extended hours of hard work under arduous conditions. Examples abound across the field of human endeavor. Even in ground actions there have been notable examples. One of the most effective snipers in WWII was a Russian woman (one of over 2000 Russian women who served as snipers) who tallied an extraordinary toll of dead Germans (309). But is this really the point? For me, it isn't. The real point, in my mind at least, is how a society views warfare and the extent to which it willingly commits its population to undertake some of the most horrible tasks imaginable. 

In Spielberg’s classic film “Saving Private Ryan” there is this heart-wrenching scene in which one of the soldiers looking for Ryan finds himself engaged in a brutal hand-to-hand fight with a German soldier. He ends up dying as the German gets the upper hand and slowly shoves a big fighting knife into his heart. Most combat actions take place at extended ranges via rifle, artillery, and aerial-delivered fires. But the whole purpose for ground forces in war is to 'locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver or repel his assault by fire and close combat.' At some point, it gets close and personal, and brutish, and very, very physical. 

Current cop shows on TV featuring 'hardened but vulnerable' female detectives and SWAT team members, news footage of young women serving in the 'front lines' in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the now-ubiquitous drone of 'drone ops' convey the sense that the combat-of-old just isn't the way it is in the 21st Century. Poppycock. Mankind has always searched for ways to 'touch the enemy' with effect and from increased distances. But mankind has also learned that ultimately it comes down to who owns the terrain and successfully imposes his will on his opponent. What our most brutal enemies will conjure-up is what will eventually happen on a battlefield - i.e. brutal treatment of a captured female for effect. Just look at the reporting out of Syria about rape being systematically used as a weapon. The same thing has occurred in other conflicts, of course, and is now occurring with nauseating regularity among the 'brush wars' raging in western Africa 

Various commentators have observed that cultures or countries can be assessed or judged by how they treat their women. Some societies dominated by “Islamic fundamentalists", for example, tolerate and even espouse beating their women and denying them the most basic rights, respect and dignity. That says something. What can be said for a culture that willingly and completely unnecessarily commits its women to the brutality of “waging war” on their fellow Man for the purpose of showing how 'equal and just’ we can be?

I'd prefer no one had to undertake the task. But history plainly shows that odious regimes and vile individuals arise from time to time that can only be stopped by force. Given this, I'd prefer to showcase our better cultural nature, apply as effectively as possible the resources (meaning 'people') best able to complete the job as quickly as possible, and thus bring the crisis to a close. "[Most] effectively", "best able", and "as quickly as possible" in such situations typically call for the aggressive application of violence against one's enemy when lesser measures fail...as they often do. Why lessen our odds for success, and trumpet as an “achievement”, that we’re happy to have even more of our society participate in the harsh, ugly practice of killing the enemy all for the goal of ‘leveling the career playing field’ or showing just how 'equal' we can be?

Whatever supposed gain we might achieve by the change in policy, I think we will have lost something much more important in this exercise. We won't notice it immediately, of course, but it will have an effect on who we are as a people.

Online Freedom

A couple of recent articles about 'online freedom' really grabbed my attention more than is normally the case when I scan such material. The first was a ZDNet post about the 'hack' of the U.S. Sentencing Commission website by the hacker-collective known as Anonymous. The second item was a very nice Op-Ed by Timothy Karr, published in the Seattle Times, in which he talks about the importance of protections needed to ensure the Internet remains what it has rapidly evolved to become: a globalized 'common good' like air, food, water and shelter.

'Online freedom' is such a complex, expansive, and nuanced issue that I'll not even attempt to fool myself into thinking I can do it justice in a brief blog post, but I do want to make a few observations.

First, 'the web' is probably that last domain or medium by/through which people can exchange information of any type, any where, at any time. It probably comes as close to 'unfettered freedom' in the public domain as one is likely to find in life and as such presents mind-boggling opportunity as well as enormous potential for harm. In a sense, it is the virtual-world/cyberspace analogy to what the U.S. has represented in the physical world to so many people for so many years. For multitudes, the U.S. has represented the idea that anyone has the opportunity to do anything, that in this country one has the freedom to pursue any dream...not the guarantee of an outcome, mind you, but the freedom to try. With that freedom, however, come 'vulnerability' and 'risk' and the very real potential to 'fail.' Every attempt to eliminate risk, to guarantee an outcome, or to reduce vulnerabilities to near-zero, however, necessarily means that controls over behavior must be effected, that efforts must be shaped and managed, and that comparative differences be 'normalized' such that one person or group does not have an inherent advantage over another. When freedom is maximized, there will always be winners and losers. But when controls are imposed to erase such disparity, freedom is sacrificed. All freedoms carry this inherent dichotomy. 'Freedom of speech' means equal freedom to praise as well as condemn, for a society to be able to express opposing views without fear of persecution. Freedom to 'arm and defend oneself' means your neighbor can have a gun, too. 

I do not propose that all freedoms are perfect in their implementation. As our own legal system has determined here in America, and we have wholly embraced, 'freedom of speech' does not mean the freedom the shout 'Fire' in a crowded theater because of the real danger of causing irreparable physical harm to others. But herein lies the rub: when 'freedom' bumps up against things like 'intellectual property', 'public good' (or safety), the inherent obligation of government to exercise its lawful responsibility to provide for various protections, etc., etc. These are in constant tension--the freedom to do vs. necessary constraints on activity to guard from excessive harm. In the midst of this, of course, are issues such as 'personal responsibility', 'individual restraint', 'willingness to accept risk' (and the natural and/or logical consequences of such risk), and protection of the weak against the predations of the strong.

Second, 'online freedom' is arguably the greatest tool in the eternal fight against repression, corruption, intimidation and criminality whether practiced by governments, corporations, criminal organizations, or private groups and individuals. We value a 'free press' because a responsible press corps has the ability to bring corrupt practices into the light of public visibility and thereby enable the public to hold officials of all types accountable for their actions. Social media tools such as Facebook and Twitter enable people to share information, collaborate on projects, and bring to public awareness all manner of issues. Much of it is inane, of course, but much of it is immensely good too.

Which leads me to a third point, that of the importance of not only protecting online-freedom but of promoting it even when problems are encountered. (When an issue is important enough - like recognizing the inherent right to maintain ownership and control of one's creative work - we find ways to protect such things without destroying the larger good that comes from sustaining the underlying freedom or right.) As I mentioned above, governments have an obligation to undertake tasks individual citizens or even a collected whole cannot do on their own, such as defending a country from invasion or establishing and maintaining a legal framework within which a society conducts business. But all too often governments abuse their power, exploiting their ability to draft and impose laws and rules, to compel compliance, and to effect punishments against which an individual citizen or minority group has little defense. In such cases, the Internet affords people the ability to share information about, raise awareness of, and mobilizing opposition against such corruption. 

Governments know this. Repressive, authoritarian regimes fear it. Examples abound but two that are regularly cited are the efforts by China and Iran to stifle dissent and prevent collective action by censoring the free exchange of information among their populations through control of the Internet within their borders.

It is sometimes observed that people should be mindful when they hear of efforts by one group to control another even in small things or when long-held 'rights' are lessened even a little, because once a precedent for such has been established and it becomes the 'new normal' it doesn't take as much effort to nibble away the next little chunk. At some point, the once-unassailable 'right' or 'freedom' is gone and people wonder how it all happened.

You might remember some reporting about our own fight here in the U.S. over this issue about a year ago. A couple of bills had been introduced into Congress for debate that would have placed restrictions on content and the exchange of information across the internet. A massive effort was mobilized by 'online freedom' advocates and a range of companies with both idealistic and capitalistic reasons for preventing their passage. Personally, I'm glad the freedom-advocates won.

In closing, let's return for just a brief moment to the hack perpetrated by Anonymous. I don't know much about the group but I found their manifesto quite interesting for a couple of reasons that include their commitment to 'net freedom' (and willingness to confront attacks on such) as well as insight into the strange new world dawning upon us in the form of high-level competitions waged in cyberspace, with all the implications we are only on the verge of beginning to understand. 

This evolving world is becoming our 'new normal'. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to understand these issues, to jealously guard our freedoms, and to make sure that those who have the ability (legally or technologically) to impose restrictions, controls, and limitations on such clearly understand that they are being watched and will be held accountable in the public domain for their policies and actions both here at home and in so many countries around the world where our freedoms remain a dream yet to be realized.

The Most Inspirational Thing I've Seen in a Long Time

Alternate video link: http://www.wimp.com/sportsillustrated/

Passages and Perspectives

This coming Monday, our Country will observe the inauguration of our recently elected President. I can't help but think of previous inaugurations and what they have represented singularly in their own time and collectively across the fifty-six inaugurations that have preceded this one upcoming. I also can't help but draw comparisons. Take a few minutes to read Reagan's First Inaugural Address, noting what he emphasized, the sparing use of personal pronouns (and their specific context when used), his focus on the greatness of our country and the elements he believed made it great, and his prescription for the ills that plagued the U.S. as he took office. On Monday, do the same analysis. I think the differences will be stark.

Inaugural Address, Ronald Reagan

January 20, 1981 

Senator Hatfield, Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. President, Vice President Bush, Vice President Mondale, Senator Baker, Speaker O'Neill, Reverend Moomaw, and my fellow citizens:

To a few of us here today this is a solemn and most momentous occasion, and yet in the history of our nation it is a commonplace occurrence. The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place, as it has for almost two centuries, and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every-4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.

Mr. President, I want our fellow citizens to know how much you did to carry on this tradition. By your gracious cooperation in the transition process, you have shown a watching world that we are a united people pledged to maintaining a political system which guarantees individual liberty to a greater degree than any other, and I thank you and your people for all your help in maintaining the continuity which is the bulwark of our Republic.

The business of our nation goes forward. These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions. We suffer from the longest and one of the worst sustained inflations in our national history. It distorts our economic decisions, penalizes thrift, and crushes the struggling young and the fixed-income elderly alike. It threatens to shatter the lives of millions of our people.

Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, human misery, and personal indignity. Those who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity. 

But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.

"Customs, Traditions and Moral Values"

Sometimes a commentator publishes something that just doesn't need embellishment. Such is the case, in my opinion, with Walter William's latest item at Townhall.com. Though he references the current hullaballoo over gun ownership, he does so only to discuss the much more fundamental issue of societal restraints and where it comes from. If we are to find solutions to our problems, the first place we should be looking is the foundational underpinning for our culture, our form of government, and the societal framework that provided critical limits and reference points for what was acceptable in daily living. Without such a framework or foundation, we give license to our worst inclinations and suffer the consequences. 

Oh...and by way of illustrating Mr. Williams' article, I found this interesting little item originally published in the NY Times of all places, Jan 7, 1913. My, how the "Times" have changed!

Are Guns the Problem?

Walter E. Williams 

When I attended primary and secondary school -- during the 1940s and '50s -- one didn't hear of the kind of shooting mayhem that's become routine today. Why? It surely wasn't because of strict firearm laws. My replica of the 1902 Sears mail-order catalog shows 35 pages of firearm advertisements. People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped. 

Dr. John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," reports that until the 1960s, some New York City public high schools had shooting clubs where students competed in citywide shooting contests for university scholarships. They carried their rifles to school on the subways and, upon arrival, turned them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach and retrieved their rifles after school for target practice. Virginia's rural areas had a long tradition of high-school students going hunting in the morning before school and sometimes storing their rifles in the trunks of their cars that were parked on school grounds. Often a youngster's 12th or 14th birthday present was a shiny new .22-caliber rifle, given to him by his father.

Today's level of civility can't match yesteryear's. Many of today's youngsters begin the school day passing through metal detectors. Guards patrol school hallways, and police cars patrol outside. Despite these measures, assaults, knifings and shootings occur. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2010 there were 828,000 nonfatal criminal incidents in schools. There were 470,000 thefts and 359,000 violent attacks, of which 91,400 were serious. In the same year, 145,100 public-school teachers were physically attacked, and 276,700 were threatened.

What explains today's behavior versus yesteryear's? For well over a half-century, the nation's liberals and progressives -- along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals and the courts -- have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. These people taught their vision, that there are no moral absolutes, to our young people. To them, what's moral or immoral is a matter of convenience, personal opinion or a consensus.

During the '50s and '60s, the education establishment launched its agenda to undermine lessons children learned from their parents and the church with fads such as "values clarification." So-called sex education classes are simply indoctrination that sought to undermine family and church strictures against premarital sex. Lessons of abstinence were ridiculed and considered passé and replaced with lessons about condoms, birth control pills and abortions. Further undermining of parental authority came with legal and extralegal measures to assist teenage abortions with neither parental knowledge nor consent.

Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society. These behavioral norms -- transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings -- represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works. The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. The more uncivilized we become the more laws that are needed to regulate behavior.

Many customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now we're paying the price. What's worse is that instead of a return to what worked, people want to replace what worked with what sounds good, such as zero-tolerance policies in which bringing a water pistol, drawing a picture of a pistol, or pointing a finger and shouting "bang-bang" produces a school suspension or arrest. Seeing as we've decided that we should rely on gun laws to control behavior, what should be done to regulate clubs and hammers? After all, FBI crime statistics show that more people are murdered by clubs and hammers than rifles and shotguns.