America - Land That I Love

As one gets older, birthdays become not only a time of celebration, but also a time for reflection. I guess this applies to countries, too, at least that's the feeling I get whenever we celebrate another 4th of July and I see the myriad commentaries on our founding, our current state of affairs, and our various potential futures. A recurring theme that I do love to see is the oft-noted point that America is the only country ever founded on an idea: that people are 'free', created equal by God, and possessing unalienable rights bestowed upon them by God--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Men should be free to conduct their affairs without undue interference, free to engage in discourse and commerce with whomever they wish, free to take advantage of opportunities to as great an extent as their abilities and ambition might make possible, and free to express and practice their beliefs...all without fear that a government would arbitrarily impose abusive restraints, conditions, or penalties to force compliance with 'acceptable' or 'required' behaviors as determined by the State. 

America's drive for independence was fueled by 'a long train of abuses and usurpations' intended to subject the Colonists to despotic rule. For a very long while, the Colonists desired only to have their complaints heard and addressed by the King; they repeatedly expressed their wish to remain loyal to the Crown but as citizens in equal standing with their fellow Englishman. 

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.

'Repeated injury' made clear that the Crown had no intention of honoring the wishes of the people it governed in the New World colonies. This led the Colonists--through hurt, frustration, and anger at the injustices imposed on them--to consider their status, to engage in debate about what it meant to be a 'citizen' in the first place, to consider the implications of what it meant to be created in God's 'likeness', to be 'free Men.' In the end, a drafting committee established by the convened representatives of the several Colonies settled on these words that birthed a new country and that have since served as inspiration for so many other peoples around the world:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Implicit in the work of the delegates was the expectation that 'free men' would act responsibly, that they would be accountable for themselves and their actions (or inactions), just as governments should be accountable to serve the interests of the people from whom they derive their 'just powers'.  The Colonies declared their independence from England because the government refused to be held accountable for its unjust treatment of its subjects. In choosing to establish their own country, the colonists took advantage of the rare opportunity to form a government whose form and function would reflect the ideals outlined in the Declaration. It would take another decade before that government took its final shape but when it did it reflected the sense of independence and personal responsibility implied by the Continental Congress and highlighted by the various writings of the Founding Fathers. 

Some fifty-five years after the Declaration was signed, two young French noblemen, Alexis de Tocqueville and Gustave de Beaumont, arrived at the direction of the French government ostensibly to study the American prison system though their real interest in coming to America was to study the society of this new and vibrant country. Though both men penned volumes based on their observations during the trip, Tocqueville's  On Democracy in America (text here) became the far better known. 

Tocqueville had much to say about his trip to America, in the two volumes of Democracy and in various letters he wrote and talks he gave in the years that followed. He noted that America's greatness extended, in part, from the goodness of its people, but warned that should Americans cease to be good, so too would America cease to be great.

America is great because she is good. If American ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

Similarly, he rightly connected the liberty enjoyed by Americans and the goodness that informed America's greatness with the idea that God-centered Faith was necessary and essential for the proper workings of both.

Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.

He also noted that personal freedom and the 'unalienable rights' at the center of America's founding documents were crucially dependent on the extent to which citizens took an active and productive role in the functioning of society.

The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens.

As I read these and so many other related statements pertaining to the character, quality, vitality, and viability of our country, what it has stood for however imperfectly over its 237 years, and the principles upon which it was founded, I cannot help but also think about the issues facing our country today and the many problems that are afflicting our society, the vast majority of which are self-inflicted.

One commentator has noted that “According to Tocqueville, democracy had some unfavorable consequences: the tyranny of the majority over thought, a preoccupation with material goods, and isolated individuals. Democracy in America predicted the violence of party spirit and the judgment of the wise subordinated to the prejudices of the ignorant.”  Others foresaw these problems, too, because they understood that the strength of our country and the type of government our Founding Fathers knew would best support our 'unalienable rights' also carried the seeds of its undoing. 

Upon leaving Independence Hall on the closing day of deliberations by the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin responded to a women who asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” with “A Republic, if you can keep it.” 

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ~ John Adams 

Sustaining our great and good country demands the active and informed participation of our citizenry on a consistent basis and for our citizenry to choose to manifest the principles enshrined in our Declaration and reflected in the form of government stipulated in our Constitution, especially those that are implied: personal responsibility and accountability, the exercise of self-discipline, individual behavior guided by a closely held moral code that is itself rooted in one's conviction of a higher guiding Authority, and the courage to hold elected officials accountable when they hold their own interests above those of their country and fellow citizens.

During the 2012 political season, I had occasion to be involved in a political campaign. Among the many insights I gained from that experience one, in particular, stood out far more prominently than any other. Based on frequent and prolonged interaction with the voting public over the course of a pretty intense year, I concluded that the greatest threat to our country comes not from any physical danger posed by terrorists or a competitor state, or even the growing fiscal dangers generated by our extraordinary levels of debt and complete inability to restrain our spending habits, but rather from the growing divide between our citizenry and our government. Specifically, I found that the American voting public is generally apathetic, highly cynical, and quite uninformed...a sad combination of traits that feed on each other with tragic results but that are, I think, a natural result of "extended affluence."

Over its 237-year history, our country has enjoyed such great success that it stands astride the world. The dissolution of the Soviet Union left us with no existential threat. We possess the largest and most productive economy. We enjoy greater abundance, more opportunity, and fewer basic concerns than any other people in any other country. But our success has bred complacency, disinterest in the world around us, a singular lack of curiosity about the ‘why’ of our success and the lack of it elsewhere, and the expectation that our quality of life is a right unto itself with little obligation, if any, for each person to contribute to its maintenance...after all, everything that might be enjoyed in this country is a 'right': healthcare, a good paying job, higher education, broadband internet access. In fact, it seems that legal citizenship isn't even required these days. Go figure! 

Because so many people have ceased to care and have such little interest in making the effort to understand the reasons for our condition, they are readily seduced by politicians who make wholly unrealistic promises to garner their vote; who couch government subsidies as ‘entitlements’ rather than costly programs that divert limited resources from wealth- and opportunity-generating private enterprise; and who promote sundry programs and 'benefits' that inexorably make our ‘free and independent’ people subordinate to and dependent on the good will of the government. 

Worsening the divide are the accumulated abuses of power by fellow citizens who gain public office only to use it for personal gain. Every time a government official--whether elected, appointed, or career civil servant--betrays the trust of the public, they feed the public’s cynicism of all things ‘government, widening the divide between the American people and the government our forefathers intended would serve the public’s interests. Perhaps as a consequence, the percentage of eligible voters who take the time and interest to participate in our elective process declines each year to the point where nearly half don't bother to vote even in a national general election and barely 20% participate during the Primaries. Among those who do cast a vote, an increasing percentage vote for candidates who promise the easy path, who make no demands for self-discipline, who pillory the productive sector—perversely casting wealth-and job-creators as the enemy of those who need jobs that provide the surest path to wealth and greater opportunities, who coopt and distort the ideals of ‘freedom,’ ‘equality,’ and ‘tolerance’ in ways that advance the interests of party and ideology over the long-term interests of our country and that betray the original meaning of these principles as they were understood and applied by our Founders.

But this isn’t something new to our time. Returning to Tocqueville, he recognized the subtle, seductive, but ultimately lethal danger of 'soft despotism':

Thus, After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.

Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. As they cannot destroy either the one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large who hold the end of his chain.

By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large.

It's not that Tocqueville was prescient. Rather, he was a keen observer of people and recognized their natural tendency to seek the easiest path over time. This is the very situation weakening our country today. Doesn't our government "[extend] its arms over the whole of the community...covering the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules...that seldom [forces men] to act, but...constantly [restrains them] from acting"? Doesn't our citizenry seem content to extend and deepen its dependency on the multitude of programs, subsidies, and protected statuses generated by the government they have selected to act as shepherd? 

It seems that while we were successful in gaining independence from an abusive tyrant, fought a horrific civil war to maintain a Union free of forced servitude, and throughout the 20th Century engaged in numerous battles large and small to promote Freedom and Democracy elsewhere we find ourselves willfully subjugating ourselves to our own government. Entitlements without work. Rights without responsibilities. Authority without accountability. A willingness to complain without first educating oneself as to the 'why' or 'how' of things. Comfort in demanding without contributing. And willful ignorance, if not outright condoning or, worse, desiring, policies harmful to our long-term interests then feigning outrage when the natural and logical consequences come to full flower.

To quote that great philosopher from Okefenokee Swamp, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Yes, things seem pretty dire. And yet I maintain an optimistic view of our future. Why? Because, returning full circle, I am convinced of the power and enduring quality of the principles upon which our country was founded. Just take a moment to reflect on the outcomes of all other forms of government and on the various attempts by tyrannical regimes to seize and hold power, especially in today's world. People have seen the good that comes from the system we have enjoyed for over two centuries and they want what we have. The stupid try to seize our type of power by force, but they reveal their stupidity by not understanding the 'why' of it. We forget the 'why' from time to time but eventually wake up and 'do the right thing.' Our system reflects that best ideals of Man, accounts for the tendency of men to swing from one extreme to another, for individuals to seek the easy path but for societies to recognize the harm over time and in their collective response to effect corrections...even if such corrections are more painful, bloody, and destructive than they should have been had they been corrected earlier.

Tocqueville observed that “The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.” 

I think Tocqueville is as right here as he is in his other observations. We have it in our power to correct our ways and we are blessed with a system that not only facilitates corrections but by its very organizing principles accounts for the nature of 'free men' to recognize dangers--sooner or later--and act to counter them. 

I love our Country and I know that eventually we will get our act together. I just wish it didn't have to be so hard.

June 6, 1944 -- "...And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking."

"There is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest."   President Ronald Reagan, June 6, 1984

As this is June 6, news services, blog sites, and social media are filled with remembrances of, and commentary on, the amphibious landings on the beaches of Normandy, France, in 1944. Most all have something to do with acknowledging the tremendous sacrifices made by the many men who waded ashore under devastating enemy fire, climbed into the teeth of enemy defenses, and at the cost of 9,000 Allied soldiers on D-Day alone opened the way to the recapture of Europe and the defeat of Hitler and his murderous regime. It was an amazing undertaking involving nearly 3,000,000 troops assembled in Southern England, 7,000 ships and landing craft, and 12,000 aircraft -- the largest invasion force ever committed to battle.

I had the great privilege of visiting the landing beaches, walking the cliffs, and retracing the sites of the brutal battles through the bocage during a battle studies tour across Europe almost fifteen years ago. One can still find physical reminders of that great campaign - bombed-out gun emplacements, key terrain such as critical road junctions, canal gates, and the sites of command posts, and a wealth of museums, memorials, and even old veterans (though ever fewer these days) able to recount the realities they faced minute by minute as they pushed German forces back from the coastline and into the interior of France.

Assembled at Pointe du Hoc

Utah Beach to the west

Omaha Beach to the east

German reinforced gun emplacement

Interior showing pre-sighted ranges and elevations for the gun at various points along the beach 

Remaining structures and foundations of gun positions with the beaches/Channel waters just visible 

Our group, with me (wearing ball cap) nearly hidden in the back, just left of the base of the statue 

The entire operation, the many battles preceding it, and those that followed have served as inspiring testimony to the commitment of that generation to meeting the great challenge of their time. 

While keeping all this in mind, however, my thoughts also turn to the key leaders of that age. With respect to the execution of Operation Overlord, no one stands more prominently than General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force. The operation was months in the planning and in the final days leading up to its execution, the decision to 'go' was his alone. The weather was terrible, each day of delay chipped away at the element of surprise (an absolutely essential component of the operation), and the window of opportunity to execute the plan was short. The weight of command was monstrous yet "Ike" knew what needed to be done and shouldered the responsibility as only a true leader does. Knowing that many factors were beyond his control, he was quite aware that success hung in the balance between all the preparations that he, his staff, and the assembled force had worked so very hard to accomplish, the opposing efforts of the enemy force who knew this would be a fight to the death, and the 'friction of war' that always plagues the best efforts of combatants. 

Ike's actions the day prior to the invasion say as much about him as a person and his attributes as a leader as any other moments before or afterward. He penned two notes, one to be announced to the force the morning of the invasion and the other to be released in the event the operation was a failure. His second note warrants special attention:

    "Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

Notice his concise description, the absence of any obfuscation or excuse-finding, his praise of the efforts of everyone else, and his complete acceptance of the responsibility for the decision and for the failure. He wrote the note, tucked it into his wallet, and went on about the business of visiting the troops, bucking-up their morale, showing them he had faith in their ability to successfully execute the difficult mission before them, and projecting the kind of assurance and confidence his people needed to see at such a decisive moment in their personal lives and in the history of their countries.

His message to the troops on the morning of June 6 conveyed the same sense of optimism, confidence and encouragement. 

Note his closing lines:

     "I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full Victory! 

     Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking."

I love that last part: "...And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking."

When was the last time you heard someone in a position of leadership, especially in the most senior ranks of our national leadership (whether in government, the military, even our business community), say something like that? 

We are faced with rather extraordinary challenges of our own, today. Some of them are fiscal and budgetary, others have to do with how we define ourselves as a nation, the values we hold, and what we are willing to fight for, and still others are of the type with which preceding generations of Americans would be familiar--the spread of tyranny, the odious nature of authoritarian regimes, and ideologies that demand the subjugation of freedom. There are many things beyond our control. Our 'window of opportunity' for action may be closing given our parlous state of national finances, the increasing extent to which 'government' is perceived to be the solution for any and all ills, and the general erosion of expectations that individuals should take personal responsibility for the consequences of their decisions rather than finding someone else to blame. Our challenges are difficult, complex, long-in-the-making, and likely longer in their solving. But are they any more daunting than the many others our country has successfully faced over the course of our nearly 238 years as a country?

Everyday I pray that our Nation awakens to the reality of its current condition and that we find within ourselves the ability to rise to our challenges just as previous generations have risen to meet theirs. I hope that a half-century from now, someone commemorates our 'devotion to duty' in the same way President Reagan remembered that of the "Boys of Pointe du Hoc."

Crowd stunned after valedictorian rips up speech, recites Lord’s prayer

Well done, Mr. Costner, well done!

Crowd stunned after valedictorian rips up speech, recites Lord’s prayer

By Jessica Chasmar, The Washington Times, Wednesday, June 5, 2013

A South Carolina valedictorian garnered wild applause after he ripped up his pre-approved speech and delivered the Lord's prayer at his high school graduation on Saturday.

The act was apparently in protest of the Pickens County School District's decision to no longer include prayer at graduation ceremonies, Christian News reported. Officials said the decision was made after the district was barraged with complaints by atheist groups.

But that didn't stop Roy Costner IV of Liberty High School. He ripped up his graduation speech for all to see, before he started talking about his Christian upbringing, Christian News reported.

"Those that we look up to, they have helped carve and mold us into the young adults that we are today," he said. "I'm so glad that both of my parents led me to the Lord at a young age."

"And I think most of you will understand when I say..." he paused. "Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name..."

The auditorium began to erupt with applause and cheers.

"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil," he continued. "For Thine is the Kingdom and the power and the glory, forever and ever. Amen."

Pickens County School District spokesman John Eby said that no disciplinary action will be taken against Mr. Costner.

"The bottom line is, we're not going to punish students for expressing their religious faiths," he told Christian News. "He's a graduate now. There's nothing we can do about it, even if we wanted to."

Attendee Logan Gibson told reporters that he thought "it took a lot of courage" to do what Mr. Costner did, Christian News reported.

As of noon Wednesday, a YouTube video of the exchange had received almost 45,000 views.

Remembering Tiananmen

Every so often an extraordinary event occurs where people rise up in authentic and legitimate protest against tyranny such as happened in 1989 in Tiananmen Square or in recognition that a long-lasting tyranny has ended. We saw something of the latter in the waning days of the USSR especially as the throngs of people from both parts of Berlin finally tore down their wall just five months after Tiananmen.   Hopefully we'll see something of the same in China in the not too distant future. Here's a good collection of links at War News Updates.

Memorial Day 2013

This past Friday evening my family and I watched "Saving Private Ryan," Spielberg's classic WWII film about a squad of soldiers, led by Captain John Miller (Tom Hanks), tasked to locate and bring back a young Army private whose three brothers had been killed in separate actions within days of each other. I remember seeing it when originally released (1998) in the company of a bunch of fellow Marine Corps majors. We were all struck by the realism of the combat depicted, the lessons of courage and leadership under extreme conditions, and the themes of sacrifice, morality, compassion, and meaning-found-in-loss. It's an intense movie but a very powerful one in all the right ways. My wife and I discussed whether it would be appropriate as a 'family film' and concluded that it was given our current context: our kids are now older and have been exposed to a range of war-related issues via the news (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, their school-related studies of the 9/11 attacks, the recent bombings in Boston, the two-year war in Syria, and the most recent horrible slaying in London, among others), we were at the start of the Memorial Day weekend, and most obviously they had been routinely exposed to military things given my career as a Marine and continued work in military and national security-related affairs since my retirement from active duty. It was as intense as I'd remembered and I believe it gave the kids something on which to reflect the next time they see a glamorized depiction of war or any violence for that matter. Further, it gave us a great reference point as we discussed this Memorial Day and similar occasions to come on down the line.

Last evening I received by email a link to a Memorial Day speech given by Marine Corps General John Kelly in San Antonio this past Thursday. His speech is among the best I've heard or read and it is all the more poignant given the personal loss he has suffered not only as a leader of Marines over several combat tours but, more importantly, as a father who lost one of his own sons in combat action in Afghanistan just a couple of years ago. Gen Kelly is the highest ranking US officer to have lost a family member in our battles since Sept 11, 2001. Greg Jaffe, of the Washington Post, painted a deeply moving portrait of the man, his son, and the intimate context of those serving our country, in a beautiful story published just five months after the General's heartbreaking loss. If you can carve out any time at all in the next few days, I urge you to take a moment to read both items, probably starting with Jaffe's article and then moving to Kelly's speech. 

In each account--Gen Kelly's own words and Jaffe's reporting--we gain a glimpse into the nature of service to one's country and the bond that is established among those who share in such service, especially in combat when the stakes and the potential (probable?) cost cannot be higher. Jaffe's perspective is that of an observer and a reporter, attempting to capture the experiences and emotions of those effected by the loss of a loved one on a foreign battlefield. Kelly's is that of someone on the inside, whose experiences derive from the mortal dangers of combat shared with fellow Marines, to the solemn duty of delivering to families the most painful news they can possibly receive, and finally to that of recipient of the same devastating message. In his remarks, the General takes time to highlight how things have changed over the past half-century, from a time when these experiences were shared amongst a much larger portion of our society and even across overlapping generations to our current time when barely one out of a hundred have any connection at all to such service and its related cost. 

The point of his remarks, of course, is to encourage those who are connected in such a way to work to ensure that the importance of such service isn't forgotten and that the rest of society is reminded of the benefits they accrue from the sacrifice of others; that our country is as blessed as it is because of the decision made by some to undertake such noble work and to stick with it when the going gets as rough as one can imagine. 

In additional, and perhaps most importantly, he addressed the inevitable question raised by families seeking meaning in their loss: was it worth the life of their son or daughter? Here is some of what the General had to say: 

     "Aside from everything else their families have endured over the loss of their loved one they can be proud of the decision to serve…of the commitment to defend their nation when they did not have to. Proud of their loved one who stepped forward when the vast majority never even consider it. Proud that by this one very personal decision—to serve a cause higher than themselves regardless of the outcome to them personally—their fallen loved one gave answer to two questions that have over the centuries defined the dedication of free and righteous men and women in the fight against wickedness: “If not me, who? If not now, when”?

     "...They [the young man or woman who has chosen to serve] also learned early as anyone who has truly experienced combat does, however, that fear is always with you... The fear is at times an all-consuming constant but that is what courage is, isn’t it, pushing through the terror and completing the mission assigned regardless of how dangerous. They learn early, these kids we send out to fight the nation’s battles, that fear is an instinct but courage is a decision and one they make day-after-day throughout their tours... 

     "...And their families should know and hopefully take comfort in the fact that when they fell they were not alone. When they went, they were surrounded by the finest men and women on this earth—their buddies—who desperately tried to save their lives. They held their hands, and tried to comfort them, prayed with them, listened to all the little stories about their families and their homes…until they were gone. They were not alone and when the spirit left them and God in his infinite wisdom took them to his bosom, their military family lovingly sent them home. In this their last journey, they were never alone. At every stop along the way they were treated with the greatest reverence and deepest respect due a fallen hero until members of the service they proudly joined brought them to you

     "...in my dozens of conversations with families of the fallen at Dover, or at gravesides at Arlington, or at gathering’s like this, I have been similarly asked if it was worth the life of someone they brought into the world, raised and nurtured so lovingly, and so much looked forward to seeing grow and find wonderful husbands and wives, and give them grandchildren to spoil... [I] had no right to reply because as hard as I tried to understand what the immensity of their loss might be, and the depth of the sorrow in their heart, I knew it was impossible. My sense then was it is inconceivable for anyone to understand that has not had his own heart pierced with such sadness. I learned I was right."

General Kelly went on to briefly share his own loss, the details of which Jaffe concisely conveys with such sensitivity. Kelly asked himself the same question that others had posed to him. Was it worth it? This is what he concluded...

     "The only thing that matters is what he [Second Lieutenant Robert M. Kelly, USMC] thought. That he had decided it was more important to be where he was that morning in the Sangin River Valley, Afghanistan, to be doing what he was doing with the Marines and Navy Doc he loved so much and led so well in what was at that time the most dangerous place on earth. In his mind—and in his heart—he had decided somewhere between the day he was born at 2130, 5 September 1985 and 0719, 9 November 2010, that it was worth it to him to risk everything—even his life—in the service of his country. So in spite of the terrible emptiness that is in a corner of my heart and I now know will be there until I see him again, and the corners of the hearts of everyone who ever knew him, we are proud…so very proud. Was it worth his life? It’s not for me to say. He answered the question for me." 

As General Kelly conveys, the 'worth' of service to, and sacrifice for, country can only be determined by the person who answers that calling. The best we can do to extend that meaning, to give it enduring value, is to honor such service and the sacrifice it demands by doing our part as family, friends, neighbors, and responsible, involved citizens of this great country. 

At the end of Spielberg's film, Captain Miller pulls Private Ryan close and tells him to 'earn' the sacrifice made by so many who paid the ultimate price to secure his safety...to make their effort mean something beyond the battlefield. As the movie comes to a close and the scene shifts to the beautiful American cemetery overlooking the Normandy coastline, a now-aged Ryan, with tear-rimmed eyes, stands before the headstone of Captain Miller, saying to him, "My family is with me today. They wanted to come with me. To be honest with you, I wasn't sure how I'd feel coming back here. Every day I think about what you said to me that day on the bridge. I tried to live my life the best that I could. I hope that was enough. I hope that, at least in your eyes, I've earned what all of you have done for me." Then turning to his wife he asks of her, "Tell me I have led a good life...Tell me I'm a good man."

In many ways, General Kelly's remarks, and perhaps what Spielberg was trying to convey, remind me of President Lincoln's thoughts on the occasion of his speaking at the dedication of the cemetery at Gettysburg and I think that's where I'd like to conclude this post. President Lincoln spoke for only a few minutes, delivering just ten sentences, but what he said epitomizes the essence of Memorial Day. Here are his final few lines:

"[In] a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Depression, Relationships, and Choices

A week or so ago someone very dear to me passed along this blog post as a way to help explain what they had personally dealt with over a period of four or five years in the not-too-distant past. It's the best description of depression I've ever come across. In some ways, it's the best description of any mental state I've read or had explained to me in that the author makes something indescribable actually understandable to someone who hasn't personally experienced such a thing. Apparently this post struck a chord with others, too, given that within 10 hours of publishing it the blogger had received 5,000 comments. [Of note, her last post prior to this was written eighteen months earlier, in late-Oct 2011, apparently in the early throes of her ordeal.]

Since reading and re-reading the post and dwelling quite a bit on my own experiences with someone caught in such numbness (something I didn't recognize at the time, much less understand), I've been rather reflective about the more general issue of 'relationships' and much that is implied by the word. It’s important to note (for me, at least) that the blogger is telling her own story, that her experience is hers alone, something very personal and unique in its context and that the person who shared it with me had their own experience, too, just as personally definitive for them as the blogger’s was for her. In many ways it reminds me of C. S. Lewis' A Grief Observed, his deeply personal account of dealing with the loss of his wife. His grief was his own and how he dealt with it could only be unique, by definition, as no other person would have shared the exact same experiences, felt the same feelings, had the same relationship as his did with his wife. So it is with anyone’s experiences even when accounting for the same type of event (a love, a loss, an accomplishment, a disappointment).

But even though each person’s experiences are unique, I think we can still draw insights from them when they are shared (as the blogger chose to do), thoughtfully merging their observations with our own to arrive at a fuller understanding of the human condition. Though there are many ways to gain insight into what makes each of us tick--the arts are an especially powerful medium in this regard--nothing has greater impact than our daily interactions with those around us.  

Having reached my 50th year, I've come to appreciate that the vast majority of our interactions with others, the vast majority of the issues with which we must grapple, are of the rather ordinary variety that constitute 'living'. And yet within this ordinariness we have an extraordinary ability to affect the lives of those with whom we come into contact each and every day, whether for protracted periods of time or the briefest of moments. The reality is we likely have no idea at all what another person might be dealing with, what burdens they are shouldering, or what path in life has brought them to that moment where we find ourselves touching them in some way – at an intersection or in the checkout line, over the phone or in the bleachers, during a meeting at work or around a dinner table.

Judging from my own experience I know that the ordinary can lead one to casualness, to take things for granted. Too quickly we can find ourselves ignoring the condition of others, not out of coldness (though this, too, happens), but from the distractions of our own living. It takes a measure of thoughtful consideration, of choosing to be intentional in our discourse with others, that enables us to pause a moment to 'connect.' I think that too often this intentionality or purposefulness is missing, leading us to miss opportunities to brighten someone else's day, to show common courtesies, or just be polite. Our Lord would have us act differently, of course...calling us to relate to each other with patience, understanding, tenderness and love in all things. I've long thought that scripture, ultimately, is the story of relationships: the relationship God desires with His creation and the relationship He desires each of us to have with each other. We get things right when we take the time to get to know others or, at the very least, to pause for a moment when tempted to react to a provocation. Pausing enables us to temper our response or, better, recast it in an edifying way such that we account for things we likely don’t know as when we are unaware when someone might be struggling with the hidden burden of depression.

There  are certainly moments in life when resolute firmness is required, when meanness, injustice, cruelty, even coldness must be addressed for what they are, confronted and righted...when evil must be stopped dead in its tracks by whatever means are necessary. But such occasions seem to come along rather infrequently, don't you think, when compared with the wealth of opportunities to act in simple kindness toward others as our Lord desires?

Life is too short...and much too sweet...to lose any portion of it at all in casual disregard of others.

Addendum: A terrific 4-minute video that captures the blog post mentioned above.

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.