Published in Military

Looking for a cheap lunch at a favorite Vietnamese restaurant, got an education instead.

I recorded a podcast last week with David Tucker who has been visiting Ashland for most of the past six months or so.  We discussed many things, but primarily his new book, Illuminating the Dark Arts of War: Terrorism, Sabotage, and Subversion in Homeland Security and the New Conflict.

David also discussed these issues with the Ashbrook Scholars on Friday at a colloquium.  They, too, had a good conversation which you can listen to here.

Steve Knott, who teaches at the Naval War College, has just published Rush to Judgment: George W. Bush, the War on Terror, and His Critics, which offers a vigorous defense of President Bush's national security policies. Knott (who teaches in the MAHG program) argues that the assessment of any presidency requires a "decent interval" before judgment can be pronounced.

I've read all of Steve's books (though not the Don Knotts book in the link) and respect his scholarship and judgment greatly.  He certainly picks his books' subjects well: Reagan, Hamilton, and covert actions. This is the defense Bush and his team should have been giving when they had the power (and the duty) to do so. Their failure to do so has led to cynicism in the public, the Obama election, the rise of Ron Paul, and decline in support for the vigorous foreign policy our country requires today. May Knott's work reverse these trends and advance prudence in politics.

Naval War College Professor Mac Owens reminds us in the WSJ today that "any war plan that depends on the cooperation of the enemy is likely to fail."  The Obama Administraton's defense spending cuts assume principal threats from Asia.  This departure from the "strategic pluralism" designed to account for uncertainty of threats instead invites enemies to exploit our weaknesses.

Herewith my annual plea that Roberta Wohlstetter's 1962 classic study, Pearl Harbor, be read by anyone interested in strategy, intelligence, and the post-9/11 world.  (Here's a link to the googlebooks version.)  As in 9/11, as Wohlstetter shows, U.S. leaders and military knew something was up, but the different "signals" were misinterpreted or not shared with other parts of the government.  And unanticipated Japanese technological progress (combined with boldness) made possible a stunning attack.  Try to track down her study of the Cuban missile crisis as well.

As I write this, I recall that the book was first called to my attention by the late Claremont professor Bill Rood.  It would be fitting if this and Roberta Wohlstetter's other work were recalled at the 2012 APSA at the Claremont Institute panels.

I came across a Civil War song recently written by an Irishman from that era in New York City, about the Irish Brigade in the Civil War. Many of the Irish who fought in the war were the children and grandchildren of rebels who fought in the 1798 Irish Rebellion. My family has some particular connections to that uprising and one of its leaders, John Murphy. My grandmother lives in Boolavogue right down the street from the Father Murphy Center, which is on land owned by my grandfather's cousin, Jim. Jim also owns Vinegar Hill in Enniscorthy, where the Irish rebels made their last stand before a British-led massacre saw hundreds executed and the rebel leadership wiped out. Today Vinegar Hill is a small, quiet, nice bit of land overlooking the village. My great-grandfather was struck by lightning twice in his life, once while trying to herd some sheep off of the hill. A century before, that great battle saw it covered red in the blood of Irish rebels, many of whose compatriots and families fled to the United States in the subsequent decades. The Irish Americans represented an interesting part in our war, and supported the Union heavily for several reasons--not least of which was that they saw the United States as their best hope for support against their homeland's oppressors. The ballad below highlights some important historical points of all of this--the connection to the Boys of '98, the refusal to participate in a parade for the Prince of Wales, and the support for George McClellan.

My name is Tim McDonald, I'm a native of the Isle,

I was born among old Erin's bogs and left when but a child.

My granddad fought in '98 for Liberty so dear;

He fought and fell on Vinegar Hill as an Irish Volunteer.

Then raise the harp of Erin, boys, the flag we all revere--

We'll fight and fall beneath its folds like Irish Volunteers!

When I was driven from my home by an oppressor's hand,

I cut my sticks and greased my brogues and come o'er to this land.

I found a home and many friends, and some that I love dear,

Be jeebus I'll stick to them like bricks, an Irish volunteer.

Then fill your glasses up, my boys, and drink a hearty cheer,

To the land of our adoption and the Irish volunteer.

Now when the traitors in the South commenced a warlike raid,

I quickly then threw down my hod, to the Devil went my spade!

To our recruiting office then I went, that happened to be near,

And joined the good old Sixty-ninth like an Irish volunteer.

Then fill the ranks and march away, no traitors do we fear;

We'll drive them all to blazes, says the Irish volunteer!

When the Prince of Wales came over here and made a hubbaboo,

Oh, everyone turned out, you know, in gold and tinsel too;

But the good old Sixty-ninth, they didn't like these lords or peers;

They wouldn't give a damn for kings, the Irish volunteers!

We love the land of Liberty, its laws we do hold dear,

But the Devil take nobility, says the Irish volunteer!

Now if the traitors in the South should ever cross our roads,

We'll drive them to the Devil as Saint Patrick did the toads.

We'll give them all short nooses that come just below the ears,

Made good and strong from Irish hemp by Irish volunteers.

And here's to brave McClellan, whom the army now reveres!

He'll lead us on to victory, the Irish volunteers.

Now fill your glasses up, my boys, a toast come drink with me:

May Erin's Harp and the Starry Flag united ever be;

May traitors quake, and rebels shake, and tremble in their fears,

When next they meet the Yankee boys and the Irish volunteers!

God bless the name of Washington! that name this land reveres;

Success to Meagher, Nugent, and their Irish Volunteers!

I meant to remind us yesterday that it was the 236th birthday of the Marine Corps, but never got to it. Sorry. My USMC Cpl John doesn't need reminding, of course. He even rides his motorcycle like a Marine should, with pride.

Today is Veterans Day.  This Christian Science Monitor points out that some 41 million Americans have served in the US military since 1775; 23 million of them are still alive, of whom 17 million served during a conflict. Thank you.

Someone reminded me of this, from G.K. Chesterton, on courage: "Courage is almost a contradiction in terms. It means a strong desire to live taking the form of a readiness to die. 'He that will lose his life, the same shall save it,' is not a piece of mysticism for saints and heroes. It is a piece of everyday advice for sailors or mountaineers. It might be printed in an Alpine guide or a drill book. This paradox is the whole principle of courage; even of quite earthly or quite brutal courage. A man cut off by the sea may save his life if he will risk it on the precipice.

He can only get away from death by continually stepping within an inch of it. A soldier surrounded by enemies, if he is to cut his way out, needs to combine a strong desire for living with a strange carelessness about dying. He must not merely cling to life, for then he will be a coward, and will not escape. He must not merely wait for death, for then he will be a suicide, and will not escape. He must seek his life in a spirit of furious indifference to it; he must desire life like water and yet drink death like wine. No philosopher, I fancy, has ever expressed this romantic riddle with adequate lucidity, and I certainly have not done so. But Christianity has done more: it has marked the limits of it in the awful graves of the suicide and the hero, showing the distance between him who dies for the sake of living and him who dies for the sake of dying." Semper fi.

October 25th is named for twins who were martyred in the year 286, the Christian saints Crispin and Crispinian. The day bore witness to three of the most famous battles in history. The first is one made famous by Shakespeare, the Battle of Agincourt--the victorious English archers of Henry V against the French forces of Charles VI. The second is the 1854 Crimean War's Battle of Balaclava, where British Lord Cardigan led the famous and ill-fated Charge of the Light Brigade against the Russians. The final is the Battle of Leyte Gulf in the Pacific theatre of World War II, the largest single naval battle in human history, which saw the United States essentially wipe out what remained of the offensive capabilities of the Imperial Japanese Navy. This is a day of warriors, and, as always, the Bard provides the best words for it:

According to the Department of Justice, after work done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Agency, elements of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran attempted to carry out a terrorist attack in Washington, D.C. A captured Iranian-American citizen was meeting with elements of the notorious Mexican Zeta drug cartel, offering them cash and opium in exchange for assistance with this plot. They conspired to assassinate the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United States and then to carry out bombings at the Saudi Arabian and Israeli embassies. The plot was orchestrated by elements of the Iranian government, including high-level officials within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Attorney General Holder refused to say that the Ayatollah or Iranian President Ahmadinejad were complicit in the plans.

In a little over a month, our son will be ten years old.  Of course, this means that he was born in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our country.  It also means that on the morning of September 11, 2001 when my husband screamed, "Julie!  Oh my God . . . come look at this!" I lay in bed, heavily pregnant, and not very inclined to be accommodating to his request.  "What is it?" I shouted back.  "There's been a terrible plane crash!" he explained.  All I could think of at that moment was how annoyed I was to be roused for that news.  Plane crashes are terrible tragedies but, unless you have a direct tie to it, there is no news in it that changes your life or necessitates your getting out of bed.  Nevertheless, I obliged him, and tottered into our den to see what why he was so agitated.

No sooner had I recognized the building and recalled the terrible luck of that place (thinking, of course, of the 1993 bombing) than the second plane struck the second tower.  This was a new order of things.  I thought it was impossible for me to swell any more than I already had in the 8th month of my pregnancy, but this was not true.  Anger filled every pore of my being and I thought I might explode.  And then, as I watched the horror unfold--the tumbling of the buildings, the ash covering those who were able to flee, the realization that innumerable brave souls must have sacrificed themselves in order to save others as they ran into instead of running out of those buildings--the anger receded a bit and gave way to bitter heartache.  Yet the anger found a permanent little refuge ever to dwell in my soul and I accepted it--though not without some regret.  I would never, could never forget this.  Nothing would make it right.  Nothing could ever fully avenge it.  It altered everyone who witnessed it as it would alter everyone who remembered it.  

I remember sobbing much of the day and desperately clutching my curly-headed daughter, then only a toddler.  She had no way of understanding what was going on or why her parents were so gut-stricken that day.  But even she sensed that the world--which just the day before had included a carefree trip to the county fair--was now different and that joy, should it come, would come along with caution.  The confidence that assures the vulnerable and makes them forget their condition was shaken.  We were all vulnerable now.  In truth, however, this was not a new state of things.  It was just that a generation of Americans unaccustomed to acknowledging it except in abstractions, was rudely awakened to a fundamental truth of human existence:  the good things in life are fragile.  We had taken our security and prosperity for granted and, even more, we had assumed that our liberty was a given and a permanent fact.  Coming to know what to do with this realization would be the hard (and often thankless) work of the next decade (or more).  Remembering that realization--though it then seemed impossible that we could forget--will be the work of the decades to follow this anniversary. 

On October 10, 2001 I woke up in the pre-dawn hours to realize that I was in labor.  Since my daughter had been born in less than six hours and second babies generally come faster, I had been advised to get to the hospital at the first sign of contractions.  When I arrived, however, the nurses examined me and I could hear them murmuring to each other about possibly sending me home.  "She'll probably just be back later tonight or tomorrow," said one.  "Tomorrow?" I thought, "No!"  In addition to wishing to avoid anti-climax and continue with the dragging discomfort of heavy pregnancy, I could not bear the thought of birthing a son on the one-month anniversary of the attacks.  A television, tuned to CNN, blared in the delivery room with pictures from the mammoth efforts to clean-up at Ground Zero.  "Tomorrow will mark the one-month anniversary of the September 11 attacks," the anchors dutifully announced, as if anyone could forget.  I pulled aside one of the nurses.  Her son had just been mobilized to head over to Afghanistan and she read the look on my face.  "He will be born today, not tomorrow.  I understand," she assured me, and then she got my doctor to order a pitocin drip.  It turned out, actually, to be barely necessary.  My son was born about an hour and half after this conversation with the nurse.

As she brought him to me, I looked upon his little face and remembered my fears about raising a boy (as I come from a family accustomed only to girls).  Even then, in that summer of calm before the storm, I knew that we would have to raise him to be strong in ways I did not fully comprehend.  Yet I did not understand just how strong he would need to be until after 9/11.  Ten years on, however, I understand that 9/11 did not alter the truth of this necessity.  It only underlined it for me and, I hope, for a generation of mothers like me.  And, yet, I wonder . . .

I understand the reluctance to remember and the wish to avoid unpleasant associations.  But my children--both of them--have grown up in a post 9/11 world that, in the main, is marked by nothing but fear or solemn silence as it recalls those events. 

We remember it when we line up like sheep to take off our shoes and have our persons probed at the airport.  I remember one awful incident when my son (then 3) was traveling with a cast on his broken arm.  He was whisked away from me to a separate room and swabbed for traces of explosives.  Try explaining that to a toddler. 

During most of the years of their schooling, 9/11 came and went without any formal acknowledgment or remark.  Earth Day, on the other hand, has taken up to a week of acknowledgment and instruction.  We don't fear teaching children to fear man's folly as it applies to pollution and the raping of the Earth's resources.  But we still cannot look outright evil in the face.  I expect that this year, being the 10th anniversary of the event, will mark some change.  It will be necessary to say something.  Yet I am betting that what gets said will be something like solemn regret for the so-called "tragedy" . . . as if this really were just another terrible plane crash.  This is the beginning of forgetting--this choosing not to remember or to pass on what our parents' parents (though probably with better personal reasons) must also have chosen to forget to pass on:  that every good thing we have is vulnerable when we do not understand how we got it or what it takes to keep it.

In the wake of 9/11 it appeared that a generation many had discounted was ready, quietly, to step up and do the job of securing liberty to themselves and their posterity.  As we pass the 10 year mark, it is time for that same generation to consider whether their inclination to labor in reflexive silence and, often, without self-reflection is the best they can do for posterity.   
 

Two Claremonsters, Bill Voegeli and Tom West, reflect on the meaning of 9/11.  Our NLT colleague Bill recalls the evacuations he and his fellow New Yorkers stoically endured.  Tom West always fights for the wisdom of the founders: 

My first reaction to the attack was anger -- certainly against the terrorists, but also against our government. The FAA disarmed pilots in 1987. Passengers and crew were ordered to submit quietly to hijackers' demands. In the name of safety, government banned the very thing that could have prevented the murder of thousands: the Founders' agenda of self-help, self-defense, and gun rights.

Their brief observations can be found at the end of this link on NRO.

As Peter draws attention to below, the maritime rise of China is causing concern among its neighbors, particularly Japan. For the first time China has officially admitted that it is adding an aircraft carrier to its fleet, retrofitting an old Soviet carrier while "secretly" constructing two new carriers itself (they have not yet officially admitted to building new ones). This is understandably causing jitters among its neighbors, and many of them are increasing their own defense budgets in the wake of the Chinese military build-up. This is because of territorial disputes that China has with all of its neighbors. In fact, some maps in Chinese school textbooks include as Chinese portions of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Burma, Bhutan, Russia, Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Brunei, Indonesia, and most of Mongolia. The claims they make that are most volatile at the moment are their maritime claims, which include waters claimed by Japan and much of southeast Asia.

I draw your attention to this piece on the famous Tuskegee Airmen, a name given to the 15,000 African Americans who broke the barriers of color and gravity in service to their country during the Second World War. These old warriors now number just over a hundred, move a little slower than they did in battle seventy years ago, and are a little harder of hearing, but they still stand proud at their annual gathering to remember lost comrades and their days in the sky. Good for them, and good for us.

A presidential prayer for world freedom, in the midst of war.

President Obama's unbounded faith in his ability to make nice and persuade current and former enemies to see reason appears to know no limits.  Former CIA Director, R. James Woolsey and Ashbrook Scholar graduate, Rebeccah Heinrichs give a fascinating accounting of the efforts of leaders in Congress to do what they can to "reset" Obama's naive attempts at a Russian "reset."  It seems that the Obama administration is willing to veto the defense budget over a section in that bill which would prevent the President from sharing sensitive missile defense technology with the Russians.

Russian President Dimitry Medvedev has been successful in negotiations with the Obama administration at getting the preamble to the new START treaty to include language that equates offensive missile technology with defensive capabilities.  As controversy swirled over that dubious equation, it was discovered that the Russians have also requested a great deal of information regarding U.S. missile defense technology and operational authority as part of a separate missile defense agreement they have been working on with the Obama administration.  And the Obama administration gives no indication that they will not happily share it as part of an effort to smooth relations with the former Soviets.  Congress is attempting to prevent the administration from willy-nilly divulging that sensitive information and, of course, from allowing it to get into the hands of Russian allies like the Iranians.  Whatever may be said about the "resetting" of relations with Russia, it remain cozy with nations--like Iran--that pose an unquestionable threat to U.S. security.   

As the field of cyberwar continues to develop and be utilized by countries around the world, and private entities as well, the Pentagon has come out saying that a cyberattack on the United States or American interests would be considered an act of war and may draw a traditional military attack in response. This comes after a weekend revelation that Lockheed Martin, one of the largest defense contractors in our nation and privy to a great deal of sensitive information, recently suffered a "significant and tenacious" cyber attack on its systems (they say that they realized the attack immediately and took necessary precautions to safeguard information systems). An unnamed military official put it this way: "If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks."

I went for my first ride yesterday.  It was a slow ride on this quietest of all days, meandering, almost deliberate, with Isabella taking advantage of the heated day.  The ride lingered into the evening, even after.  My friend Jim Buchwald, on his Egli-Vincent, took the lead on this Decoration Day, as he still calls it.  We meandered through lovely and peaceful Ohio backroads through Killbuck and Nelly, Danville and Glenmont, Wakatomika and Walhonding.  Flags everywhere, small and large.  Noted the country close-up, an assembly of good living men moved by a single spirit.  Had a sandwich in a park, watched children prepare for a parade, dragging their tubas around.  Dropped Jim off near Mt. Vernon, then headed home, stopping at two cemeteries to pay my respects, give what honor I could to the dead.  Pulled up to my mother's house for dinner, found her sitting on the porch holding her dog, large flag flowing softly, contemplating peace.  She understands the meaning of this day and is filled with gratitude, as am I.

To our brothers and sisters who have given their all in the service of God and country, we honor your sacrifice and memory.

Because I was watching a mediocre movie, although with great music (Crossroads), I didn't get the word until about half an hour after President Obama's announcement.  Then couldn't sleep, just watched for incoming reports and reactions for many hours.  Details aside, this is good.  A foreign born friend said this morning, "These Americans, you can't wrong them and expect to get away with it.  They will come after you until they get you.  I'm in awe of you people."  President Obama made the right decision not to bomb the place, but rather have an American shoot him in the head.  Good for him, good for us.  The event--how planned, carried out, and so on--reveals much about both our capacities and our character as a people.  The public rejoicing was also revealing--from West Point, to Ground Zero, to Washington--mostly the young were expressing spontaneous joy, but then another camera to soldiers in a camp in Afghanistan upon hearing of bin Laden's death.  No cheering, no noise, no fear.  Quiet sobriety from men at work.  Impressive.  You Americans are a towering and thrilling people and you will be remembered for that and the things for which you stand.  May the good Lord keep you.

Over on NRO's Corner I observe that that the secrecy of the operation to find and kill Bin Laden is extremely impressive, given the propensity for leaking or for just plain blowing our cover.  From Obama and other accounts it appears things got into high gear last August, which is a long time for such operational secrecy to hold this well.

The civil war taking place on our southern border--and make no mistake about it that the conflict in Mexico is so unstable and deadly to merit such a title--has prompted the United States Department of State to issue new warnings against traveling to many parts of Mexico. In 2006, Mexican President Felipe Calderón dispatched several thousand soldiers to the state of Michoacán to put a halt to drug violence in the area, ending the passive stance that the federal government had taken towards the powerful drug cartels for over a decade. The initial crackdown has now escalated into an all-out war, with various factions killing over 36,000 people. On the one hand you have the fight between the Mexican federal government and the drug cartels, and on the other you have the cartels fighting each other for control of territory and supplies. The cartels are in control of huge areas of Mexico, including many cities, and very often it is the case that local police forces are corrupted and aiding the cartels against the federal military. Over a dozen town mayors and hundreds of prosecutors and police have been assassinated. 

The United States Office of Naval Research, in conjunction with Northrop Grumman, has successfully tested a solid-state, high energy laser (HEL) mounted on the deck of Navy ship. Aimed at a small target vessel moving through the turbulent waters of the Pacific Ocean, the laser beam managed to successfully set the target's engines on fire. And the Navy says that the beam can travel over miles, not just yards. This research is a step towards a whole new technological genre of warfare.

This now viral video comparing Obama the awesome and Bush on their war-making rationales raises some serious points.  It's clear that the President can wage war without declaring it--perfectly constitutional.  A constitutionally dubious law, the War Powers Act, hedges in that power, while acknowledging its temporary use.  Moreover: as important as the discussion of constitutionality is, it is subordinate to prudence and statesmanship.  A perfectly constitutional action can also be perfectly stupid.  And the humanitarian issue is at best secondary.  But the President is obliged to explain.  It's finals. 

Primary issues:  Is this the moment for vengeance against Ghadaffi for his killing of Americans?  (We don't necessarily need civil war for that purpose.)  Can we influence his successors?  Will the oil keep flowing?  Will the European powers act in concert in a way that supports our interests?  Which regional powers will make use of a post-Ghadaffi Libya for good or ill? 

I don't exclude the possibility of Obama/Clinton making the best of a demanding situation after initial flailing (viz. Honduras), but there is little in the Obama record to inspire confidence.  One would think we are seeing a foreign policy produced by a man who is totally unrooted, completely anchorless.  Exactly what one would expect from the author of Dreams From My Father.

How appropriate that the Libya operation has been dubbed Odyssey Dawn.  Recall the first line of Homer's epic poem: "Sing to me of the man, Muse, the man of twists and turns/ driven time and again off course once he had plundered/ the hallowed heights of Troy."

Treppenwitz:  I had forgotten to remark that the hypocrisy concerning this issue may work to a better understanding of what it means to live in a republican (small "r") form of government.  To rule and be ruled under republican principles requires an understanding of and commitment to them.  That is the basis of loyal opposition, not opposition for its own sake.  A public person who could teach this lesson would deserve honor.

I previously criticized GOP complaints that Obama did not seek a formal declaration of war or permit congressional debate on the issue. However, I did not intend to address the propriety of Obama's having failed to seek any form of congressional approval. Obama's decision to forgo the sort of legislative mandate which George W. Bush sought and received has puzzled many - especially in light of Obama's own words on the subject from 2007.

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

A commenter on this site suggested:

Obama doesn't feel he needs Congressional authorization when he's just received authorization from a source he deems more legitimate, id est, the United Nations.

It does seem to be inescapably obvious that approval by the Arab League and United Nations was sufficient for Obama to conduct military action. U.S. approval was deemed unnecessary. Unless Obama's views on the inherent war powers of the presidency have evolved, he must either believe that there was no time to consult Congress or intended to demonstrate the authority of international law within the context of the American Constitution.

The latter would be the most serious political declaration of the Obama presidency. 

The WSJ reports that leading GOP seem to be seeking a formal declaration of war on Libya. Apparently, Sen. Richard Lugar, ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, stated:

If the Obama administration decides to impose a no-fly zone or take other significant military action in Libya, I believe it should first seek a congressional debate on a declaration of war.

I don't see the reason for a break from tradition on the president's War Powers, and can't imagine the benefit of further delay so that Congress may debate. Obama has done nothing for weeks - Congress had plenty of time to debate. Lugar professes a disingenuous congressional impotence in feigning an inability to take up deliberations prior to presidential invitation. I don't recall similar demands on Bush from the right, and see no reason for a WWII-style resolution for Libya (Europe would not follow suit, and America would appear to be setting the stage for a lengthy invasion - quite contrary to our intent).

Whether Obama has an interest in consulting Congress, however, is an interesting question. It would perhaps pacify Obama's left-wing, setting a new precedent of restraint for a constituency hungry for limits on executive power. It also allows Obama to diffuse the responsibility for war (and funding). Most interesting, it would align Obama with the Constitution - he may defer to the long-established War Powers executive privilege as well as the Constitution's allocation of war decisions to Congress. Having already authorized military options, it would be an act of humility following action. But the effect would likely be a circus in Congress, and the entire crisis would be resolved before Congress actually brought the issue to a vote.

This is a touching story that, I think, shows the character of our people and the people who protect us. Amazingly, one of the soldiers in this touching tale, Private First Class Kyle Frederick, said that it was "good to be able to give back" through helping make this sick child happy. A marvelous wonder that our soldiers feel that they owe us rather than the other way around. We can never give enough thanks for the good men and women of our armed forces.

Nature provides that male and females are born in roughly equal proportion (a slight edge going to the females, perhaps because of the inherent reproduction dangers posed to them before the advent of better technology).  But technology may have gotten the better of nature (for now) in the East.  Niall Ferguson writes about the growing gap between the number males and females, particularly in Asia.  In China, for example, because of a cultural preference for boys and a strict one child policy, 123 males are born for every 100 females.  As Ferguson puts it, there are consequences to these developments:

This means that by the time today's Chinese newborns reach adulthood, there will be a chronic shortage of potential spouses. According to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, one in five young men will be brideless. Within the age group 20 to 39, there will be 22 million more men than women. Imagine 10 cities the size of Houston populated exclusively by young males.

Ferguson draws upon economics and history--but most of all, on Hemingway--for examples of what might be on the horizon in an Asia without female influence.  Interesting and important to contemplate?  Yes.  Appealing or cheering?  Decidedly not. 

Frank Buckles, the last surviving American veteran of the Great War, has died at the remarkable age of 110. When the United States joined WWI, he lied to the Army about his age so that he could enlist and go drive ambulances in war-torn France. In 1941, he was on business in Manila when the Japanese occupation came and held prisoner for over three years. In the 1950s, he became a cattle rancher, and worked the farm until the age of 106. He has made it his mission over the past few years to try make sure that people do not forget the sacrifices made in that first monumental conflict of the previous century. Thus passes the last of a great, great generation. He will be buried with full military honors in Arlington. 

The future of warfare in the 21st century becomes more and more clear with every passing year. Robots, drones, cyberspace-- these are the tools and places of warfare for the future. The Department of Defense has recently commissioned some techies in Massachusetts to build new robotic tools for our country to employ in its defense. In what seems to be a mixture of Power Rangers Zords, Transformers, and The Terminator, the robots commissioned are a cheetah-like creature that can run up to 30 MPH, a hummingbird-lookalike spybot, and man-like ATLAS, which bears an eery resemblance to a Terminator prototype. These manmade creatures will join others like BigDog, which was created a few years ago to help soldiers carry 300 extra pounds of gear around. The robots will have various uses for civil and military use. Within the realm of warfare, they--like our new drones and other computer-powered aircraft--will allow us to engage in risky operations with less risk to human life. As our population ages, they will also become useful in helping an elderly population, as robots do in Japan today.

"Switzerland does not have an army; it is an army," goes a common saying among the Swiss. I had the good fortune of spending an evening in the beautiful town of St. Moritz in the upper Engadin this past September, and struck up a conversation with a local at the bar attached to my hotel. We got to prying each other's minds about each other's people, and in exchange for my attempting to explain what a "Tea Party" was to him, he explained Swiss neutrality to me. I inquired how a nation that counts France, Germany, and Italy among her neighbors has managed to stay relatively unmolested in post-Napoleonic Europe. Apart from the massive geographic deterrence of invasion (great mountains and narrow passes), there is an ever greater military deterrence-- nearly every household in Switzerland has a gun in it and someone well-trained in using it. Every able-bodied Swiss male between the ages of 18 and 34 (then volunteers up until the age of 50, and female volunteers) regularly participates in combat training. The entire nation is so heavily-fortified that shelters can accommodate 110% of this well-armed population, and many key tunnels and bridges throughout the country are still wired with explosives and tank traps should anyone try to launch an invasion.

Friends and interested parties in the Washington, D.C. area may be interested to attend a panel this Thursday titled, "Rethinking Comprehensive Missile Defense" which is part of the Ronald Reagan Centennial Celebration at the Heritage Foundation.  The panel will feature many prominent speakers and experts in the field, including Ashbrook graduate, Rebeccah Heinrichs.  The panel is also available for viewing live and on-line if you are unable to attend.    

My book on civil military relations is due out soon.  The publisher, Continuum Books, has more info. Also, the Foreign Policy Research Institute just sent out an e-note introducing the book.

The Sage of Mt. Airy reacts to libertarian skepticism about the war on terror--the one waged against anarchists at the turn of the last century.  Did the West overreact then, as it might have today?  The Sage:  "But, while the costs of taking action are, or at least become obvious, the costs of doing too little or nothing at all are not so."  Christopher Harmon of Marine Corps University details Winston Churchill's presence at a London battlefield of that war, as he recounts it in Thoughts and Adventures. 

How long will it be before some countries try to put the latest in brain science to evil use?  Consider this study:

The story of SM, a 44-year-old woman whose rare genetic condition has selectively destroyed the brain's twinned set of amygdala, shows the clear downside of a life without fear. . . .

This fearlessness may be fine in the safety of one's living room, but it turns out that SM makes her own horror films in real life. She walks through bad neighborhoods alone at night, approaches shady strangers without guile, and has been repeatedly threatened with death.

Much of the discussion of the abuse of biology has to do with destroying or modifying embryos' genetic code.  As we learn more about the brain, surgery might become another option.  Would a nation try to create an army full of men who literally are incapable of fear?

The question remains:  How will the repeal be implemented?  Mac Owens explains that repeal should be implemented in a way that does as little to compromise military readiness as is possible under the circumstances--stressing, again, that the purpose of the military as a fighting machine ought to be the guiding principle whenever making decisions about it.  Robert Gates shares this view and has indicated that he make take some time before certifying the change.  But Owens worries that Gates may soon depart the administration and be replaced with someone who, like Obama, is eager to act for political reasons.  " And this is the great danger: that the repeal will be expedited for political reasons no matter the impact on the military."

Read the whole thing for a good insight into the potential problems.(and, perhaps, some possible solutions to those problems) this change in policy is likely to bring with it.

That's what we'll do unless we absorb the lessons of Roberta Wohlstetter's classic study of intelligence failure (she's the one who popularized  the term "noise").  Here's an incomplete digitized version.

. . . is easy to do when you begin with the wrong assumptions.  Mac Owens shows how the Pentagon's report on the likely effects of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell does precisely that:  "[T]the report seems to be predicated on the idea that the integration of open homosexuals into the military is merely the most recent manifestation of the quest for civil rights that began with African Americans after World War II." 

There are many problems with this approach, not the least of which is the way this assumption hinges on the absurd progressive notion that equal justice to individuals, rather than being the result of objective observations about human nature and politics that demand prudent implementation, is merely a hazy outline that comes into being via some vague and sliding evolutionary scale of cosmic understanding. In this view, one supposes, we will come to a day when all distinctions are finally grasped as nothing more than backward looking and irrational clinging to Neanderthal prejudices.  So, whenever sensible people raise specific objections about broad-brushed applications of this kind one-size-fits-all "justice," those who put their faith in the notion of a coming and superior enlightenment can reply with smug self-satisfaction, "Don't worry.  Be Happy.  It's all good."  What could possibly go wrong?

Of course, at the end of this mythical yellow-brick road, when human consciousness has reached this "happy" level of agreement about the equal value of everything, I suppose the thinking is that there won't be much to argue about or to fight for . . . which makes the centering of this particular struggle around homosexual service in the military all the more strange. 

But there's even more than this flighty logic to object to in the pro-repeal argument.  Denying the distinctions between black soldiers and openly homosexual soldiers in terms of civil rights is flatly outrageous--and it's also insulting to the vast majority of combat soldiers who, today, object to the idea of eliminating DADT.  In the first place, it suggests that having black skin and preferring sex with a member of your own sex are, essentially, the same thing.  One is an incontrovertible fact that cannot be denied and has no inherent moral consequences, the other--though perhaps an innate trait--is, at best, neither obvious nor important information for sharing and, at worst, potentially damaging to unit cohesiveness when it is shared.  A gay man need not share his inclinations with others--a black man can only avoid sharing the fact of his skin color with the blind.  It is a stupid and an insulting comparison.  Further, it suggests that there is a moral equivalence between objecting to being near a person because of his skin color and objecting to being near a person because of his behavior.  Thus, a man who prefers not to shower or live in close quarters with an openly homosexual man is the moral equivalent of a racist. 

I have no doubt that gay soldiers today under DADT serve with honor and in close quarters with heterosexuals and do all of that without incident and even do it with the passive "knowledge" of their peers.  And no rational or fair minded person would support outright cruelty to any person.  But there has to be more nuance to an argument about the fair and just treatment of homosexuals than this argument comparing it to the struggle for the civil rights of blacks suggests. 

Finally, Owens argues that comparing the integration of the military under Truman to a proposed integration of openly homosexual soldiers today, ignores one massive, fundamental and important fact:  the purpose of our armed forces.  "The 'functional imperative,' i.e. the purpose of the U.S. armed forces is to fight and win the nation's wars," says Owens, "Truman's order was motivated by concerns about military effectiveness, not civil rights."  American blacks have fought and died in America's wars since the Revolution (and, yes, I suppose, homosexuals have too).  The question then, was not how do we "open up" the service to them to make it fair--for no one was blocking them--the question was how do we make their service most effective?  What is the most prudent and effective means of achieving the military's goals?  Under Truman, the wise and happy conclusion was integration. 

If there is to be any comparison between the situation of homosexuals in the military and the one time situation of blacks in the military then, perhaps it should be this:  No one is blocking them.  The question is not whether they can serve, but how their service might best serve the ends of the military.  Until homosexual activists can show that eliminating DADT would not only not harm military readiness but would actually do something to improve it, they have no argument worthy of consideration.  That they cannot demonstrate this has nothing to do with their frustrated whines about bowing to the "backward thinking" among enlisted soldiers and everything to do with the fact that their complaint is completely beside the point of the armed forces.

Rich Policz wrote this a few years ago for Veteran's Day.  It is good.

Today is the birthday of the Marine Corps (1775).  Happy Birthday!  You can read more about the outfit from Frank G. Hoffman (Foreign Policy Research Institute), or my impressions here.  Or, you can think about the Marines you have known, say, Mac Owens, or, John Schramm.  Better yet, find any Marine (remember, there is no such thing as a former Marine, so a retired Marine is a Marine still), shake his hand, or give him a hug, and you don't even have to tell anyone.   I  knew a guy in the Army, because I was young I mistook him for a Marine.  He stepped back and said, "You know what happens to a soldier when he believes his own BS, don't you?  He becomes a Marine."  Not bad.  Maybe it's also the birthday of marketing.

From WaPo:

A federal judge has issued a nationwide injunction stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

[The] landmark ruling Tuesday was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say they are under no legal obligation to do so and they could let Phillips' ruling stand. 

While Obama has stated his desire for Congress to decide the matter, I assume this is one of those occasions in which the administration is very content to have a court overturn its own policy. Yet I doubt this mode of victory will inspire gays to rally behind the Democrats, whereas social conservatives are far more likely to find anti-Democratic motivation in the ruling.

Some assumed the Dems would repeal DADT in the post-November lame duck session. Should this ruling prevent such a vote and then be overruled after the GOP assume control of the House, the ruling would have the ironic effect of cementing DADT in law for the foreseeable future.

In his 9/11 speech at the Pentagon, the President declares that our enemies 

may seek to exploit our freedoms, but we will not sacrifice the liberties we cherish or hunker down behind walls of suspicion and mistrust.  They may wish to drive us apart, but we will not give in to their hatred and prejudice.  For Scripture teaches us to "get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice."

(Note the context of the Ephesians 4:31 quotation. Paul goes on to urge slaves and masters not to be angry with one another and that wives should obey their husbands.  Paul's goal here is not submissiveness of men to each other but above all to God.) 

This meekness Obama declares on "a day of remembrance, a day of reflection, and -- with God's grace -- a day of unity and renewal."  And what does this unity consist of?

Those who attacked us sought to demoralize us, divide us, to deprive us of the very unity, the very ideals, that make America America -- those qualities that have made us a beacon of freedom and hope to billions around the world.  Today we declare once more we will never hand them that victory.  As Americans, we will keep alive the virtues and values that make us who we are and who we must always be.

And what virtues and values make us one?   Evidently the most unAmerican person is an angry one.  It follows that the American should lack this most fundamental passion for politics.  (This said at the Pentagon!)  I suppose we should save our anger for BP executives, Republicans, fanatical pastors, etc.   

Obama appropriately recalls the Declaration: 

Like generations before us, let us come together today and all days to affirm certain inalienable rights, to affirm life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  On this day and the days to come, we choose to stay true to our best selves -- as one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 

But contrary to Obama's suggestion, defending rights and being angry are inseparable.  When justice is the goal, anger humanizes.

Moreover, maintaining there is a right to burn a Koran and a right to build a mosque near the 9/11 site reveals utter confusion about rights.  As Lincoln argued in debating with Douglas, there is never a right to do wrong.  In a regime of freedom, we permit willful, stupid, and even immoral actions to occur without punishing them.  And defending such actions as rights diminishes their dignity and what makes virtues of real rights. Freedoms of speech, religion, and property become mere "values," which can be bargained away or accommodated like anything else.  Hence 9/11 becomes a day for anaesthesia.

Elliot Cohen is interviewed by The American Interest on this topic, starting with the Stanley McCrystal episode,  The whole thing is very much worth reading.  Some truths have to be understated, I hope you will allow me to remind you.

The latest edition of On Principle is out and there are two articles within it that may be worth your time: My article, "Among Marines," and David Tucker's, "In the War on Terror, Trust the American Citizen." The whole edition of On Principle can be viewed as a PDF here.

Front-page WaPo article on the Pentagon portrait of General Peter Pace, former JCS Chairman, presents some basics about portrait painting.  Contrast his portrait with that of some famous contemporaries. 

If Gregg Jaffe's (WaPo) characterization of McChrystal's retirement ceremony is honest (I assume it is) it reveals much good about our military, civil-military relations, and, of course, McCrystal's character (never mind the character of the country as a whole).  Although the wit and humor, and pith and eloquence (and McChrystal's long speech on his wife)  are relevant, note this from the Defense Secretary.  Gates called the general "one of America's greatest warriors," and then said this: "We say goodbye to Stan McChrystal with pride and sadness.  No single American has inflicted more fear or more loss of life on our country's most vicious and violent enemies."  Not a bad epitaph.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal's retirement ceremony will take place at 6 p.m. Friday at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. It will be hosted by Gen. George Casey, chief of staff of the Army, and
Defense Secretary Robert Gates will also be there and is scheduled to deliver remarks.  Only three reporters will be allowed to be present: Greg Jaffe from the Washington Post, Julian Barnes from the Wall Street Journal, and Gordon Lubold from Politico.  Here is Mac Owen's take on the McChrystal affair and the broader issue of U.S. Civil-Military relations.

Military/political strategy in Afghanistan (but not only), is affected by many surprising and unusual thing, including obscure (at first) books that had no such original intention.  Many things are worth contemplating in this short note, not the least of which is the influence of generals' wives.

We don't have a missile defense that can handle threats from Iran.  So warn former CIA Director James Woolsey and Rebeccah Heinrichs.  The Bush Administration was building one, but Obama scrapped it, replacing it with one that "offers no added protection for the U.S. until 2020. That's almost certainly too little too late."   Moreover, might the new Obama strategic arms agreement with Russia limit our sovereign right of self-defense?

Rebeccah Ramey Heinrichs is a former Ashbrook Scholar.   A former manager of the House Bipartisan Missile Defense Caucus, she is now an adjunct fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.   (She is also officially a DC  beautiful person, a status she indeed holds by nature.)

Mac Owens has written an op-ed praising the nomination of Gen. James Mattis to USCENTCOM. He articulates very clearly the general's many virtues.