Veteran's Day Aftermath

Been a while since my last post. Life and Facebook have sucked out time for more lengthy reflections.

However, the occasion of Veteran's Day has also brought together three articles that deserve greater analysis in juxtaposition.

Exhibit 1: Hagel Says Cuts to Pay and Benefits are Needed

There are a few things I know about Chuck Hagel: 1) He is a Viet Nam Veteran of not particularly distinguished service. 2) He was a undistinguished senator. During his confirmation hearings his colleagues questioned his intellectual capacity to perform the duties of Secretary of Defense. 3) He replaced Leon Panetta; who, although a former Clinton tool, appeared to take his responsibilities seriously.

From these facts, I quickly determined that Hagel had neither the capacity nor the inclination to do anything but to carry out Obama's instructions to "Fundamentally Transform" the U.S. Military.

Thus, we read this oxymoron: "Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned Tuesday that troops and their families will be asked to sacrifice on pay and benefits to preserve readiness in an era of tighter budgets."

Will someone please explain to the Honorable Mr. Hagel that shredding pay and benefits affects morale, recruiting, retention - all of which are instrumental to... readiness?

"We will need to place more of an emphasis on civilian instruments of power," Hagel said.

Yeah, that worked so well for Jimmy Carter, and has really done outstanding things for the U.S. ability to positively influence events around the globe under Jimmy II. Benghazi is a great example. Syria is another. I could go on, but it seems like Chuck, Barry and Valerie are the only ones who don't get it.

The degree of difficulty in the task increased exponentially under the budget cuts, Hagel said. The Defense Department is "currently facing sequester-level cuts on the order of $500 billion over 10 years. This is in addition to the ten-year, $487 billion reduction in DoD's budget that is already underway."

I'd like to give Chuckie credit that this is merely the normal DoD ante into budget negotiations. But there is no report in the article that he is asking for relief, or that the inevitable damage to readiness will affect National Security. It could be that he doesn't get it. But I think his handlers have no desire to adequately fund our Military.

Exhibit 2: While Chuckie was telling current and future Servicemen that they and their families were about to take it in the shorts - take one for the Boeing, Lockheed, General Dynamics, team, that is; his boss was telling us how much he values the service of our Veterans:

"here at Arlington, and Section 60, we’ve ensured that you can continue to bring the small mementos of your love and affection to the final resting place of these American heroes."

Wow. That's some commitment. But that's not all!

"we join as one people to honor a debt we can never fully repay."

What debt cannot be repaid by a government that feels free to spend $1T more than it collects in taxes, that has no compunction to running up $17T in debt for things it thinks are important? According to Chuckie Hagel, it isn't important enough to spend money on adequate pay and benefits.

"In the life of our nation, across every generation, there are those who stand apart.  They step up, they raise their hands, they take that oath.  They put on the uniform and they put their lives on the line.  They do this so that the rest of us might live in a country and a world that is safer, freer, and more just.  This is the gift they’ve given us.  This is the debt that we owe them."

Oh. Sorry. This platitude is, well, lame. It could describe Barney Fife, or a bus driver, or the guy who feeds the lions at the zoo. Barry really can't relate to the men and women who commit themselves, for four years of forty, to the defense of their country; who accept the demanding training, deployments, deprivations, discipline, and danger. He said if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. More likely than any son of Barry's would ever look like Micheaux Sanders, who was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in Iraq. 

"And that’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, I’m going to keep making sure we’re providing unprecedented support to our veterans."

And that's why he's kept Eric Shinseki as head of the VA despite his presiding over the abject failure of the VA to improve its automation systems or to solve the growing backlog of Veterans' cases. You want unprecedented support? You want VA health care that is above average? You got it. Because for those of us who are ineligible to be maltreated by the VA, Obama promises,

"that veterans not covered by the VA can secure quality, affordable health insurance."

Feeling the love, Vets? As the news brings daily reports of the collapse of Obamacare under its own mal-design, mis-management and ill-conception, this line of the president's is more of a threat than a promise.

So, Hagel promises to cut pay and benefits for those serving in the Military while Obama promises to inflict Obamacare on Veterans. Some thanks.

Actually, Obama never thanked Veterans on Veteran's day. Do a word find on the transcript of his speach and discover that the word "thank" is used four times: He thanks the sycophants and props trucked in for the benefit of the TV cameras twice at the beginning of his speech. He thanks Eric (black beret, tanks are archaic, ballooning VA backlog) Shinseki and he thanks his audience once again at the end.

But then, that is actually to be expected that he would refrain from thanking Veterans. Justin Doolittle (fitting name) writes in the Progressive magazine, The Nation:  

Stop thanking the troops for me: No, they don’t “protect our freedoms!”

Well, apparently Obama and his administration have taken Doolittle's advice.

It's a Secret

Exclusive: CIA Honored Benghazi Chief in Secret Ceremony

by Eli Lake May 21, 2013 4:45 AM EDT

Part of why the State Department has taken the brunt of the political blame for the Benghazi attack, writes Eli Lake, is that clandestine services by definition have very little public oversight.

The operation was so successful, we gave someone a medal for it. But we can't tell you who or why, cuz its secret.

OBTW, It isn't the next president of the United State's fault, but we can't tell you why. cuz its secret.

Senate Republicans getting schooled

Sitting here listening to the Senate hearing on the  Benghazi attack.

Sec State Clinton is man-handling the Republican senators. Occassionally, she lets them talk before patiently explaining to them that who attacked and why isn't important right now - preventing it from happening again is what's important.

Seems like a reasonable person might conclude that understanding the who, what, where, when and why of an event might inform efforts to prevent it from happening again.

The fact that Benghazi participants were present at the Algeria attack using Libyan weapons and led by an AQIM subsidiary who was reacting to AQIM engagements in Mali might be of some interest to the U.S. Secretary of State.

Meanwhile the Democrat Senators are helping her to run out the clock and change the subject.

The list gets longer every day

The list of impeachable or incarceratable offenses by the members of the ruling regime grows day-by-day.

Today's culprit,  EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson:

Congress demands EPA’s secret email accounts

Jackson is accused of using an alias email account to evade open record laws and to avoid disclosure of the unethical, insidious and potentially illegal actions in which she and her agency are engaged. Judging from the Washington Times article, and an earlier one in the Washington Post, it was nearly official policy to use personal email accounts, like gmail, to hide information from congressional oversight potential legal fights.

I didn't see any articles that indicates Sliver suffered any legal ramifications. He merely lost his job for allegedly advising subordinates to evade open government laws and potential congressional attention by using unsecure personal email accounts.

Meanwhile the layers continue to be pealed back on the rotten onion that is Benghazi.

Meanwhile clear instances of voter fraud in Ohio and Philadelphia and perhaps Florida and elsewhere will never be investigated by the most politicized Justice Department in the history of the Nation.

Meanwhile, the (mal)administration refuses to perform its constitutional duty to defend DOMA

While it refuses to enforce immigration laws, thereby effectively enacting a law never passed by Congress

Meanwhile, Operation Fast and Furious questions remain unanswered regarding when the Attorney General and the White House knew guns were being shipped to Mexican drug cartels by the hundreds if not thousands, and why they didn't do anything to stop it before Border Patrol agents and hundereds of Mexican citizen were killed with those same guns.

And the list could go on, if I had more time.

My BS Meter is off the Scales

Washington Times Headline:  "White House says it didn’t edit Benghazi talking points"

"On Friday, Mr. Petraeus told a congressional committee investigating the Libya attack that the CIA’s references to “Al Qaeda involvement” were stripped from his agency’s original talking points."
David Petraeus had to be feeling heat following the Benghazi debacle. CIA contractors killed in an al Qaeda attack is bad enough. The possibility that the unseemly things they were doing would become public is worse. We now know that he was under investigation for something unseemly in his personal life at the time as well. We don't know, yet, if the FBI investigation was used by someone to coerce him to shade his statements to shift attention away from administration malfeasance in Libya.

But by the time he testified last week, it seems his boils had all been popped. His affair was made public, he lost his job, he suffered personal dishonor, and the investigation turned to whether classified information may have been compromised in the course of his affair. About the only thing that could make things worse for him would be to be found in contempt of Congress.

So, he had no reason to lie on Friday.

But that's what the White House expects us to believe.

White House national security council spokesman Ben Rhodes "told reporters the only change made by the White House to the CIA’s initial reports was to change the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility.”

“Other than that, we worked off of the [talking] points that were provided by the intelligence community,” Mr. Rhodes told reporters traveling aboard Air Force One with President Obama on a trip to southeast Asia. “So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made within the intelligence community. If there were adjustments made to them within the intelligence community, that’s common, and that’s something they would have done themselves within the intelligence community.”

When a propagandist for the regime uses the same phrase FOUR TIMES IN THREE SENTENCES, you can be sure his purpose is to plant an idea in your head, not to convey truthful facts.

David Ignatius Gets it Half Right and Totally Wrong

I don't read the Washington Post much. If I come across a link  to an article that interests me, I read it. David Ignatius' 19 Oct post, "The foreign policy debate we should be having" piqued my interest.

What debate should we be having other than

• Why the Obama National Security establishment failed to a) deter b) detect c) prepare for d) defeat or e) accurately assess and report the al Queda attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the death of the American ambassador and three other American citizens?
• How the administration so horribly mis-judged the outcome of the "Arab Spring" in Egypt and other countries?
• How the president's "Reset" policy in regards to Russia has empowered Vladimir Putin consolidate his control of that country's government and act in ways contrary to U.S. national interests?
• How the administrations reckless spending, supplication, and mis-judgements have emboldened China to challenge its neighbors, Japan, the Philipines, and Taiwan?
• How dithering while trying to guage the wind of the American presidential race has allowed the crises in Syria, and Iran to boil over?
• How telling an enemy the date you intend to cease hostilities against them and withdraw will not result in any outcome other than defeat.

I could go on.... but you get my point.

Ignatius' first object is to take the focus off of Obama's numerous severe foreign policy failures.

He says the foreign policy debate we should be having is about grand strategy.

He's right. But it should be in addition to, not in lieu of, the aforementioned.

Ignatius discusses an article in The Wilson Quarterly dated 1 Oct. by Michael J. Mazarr, "The Risks of Ignoring Strategic Insolvency."

Now, I admit that I have not read Mr. Mazarr's article yet. But I am addressing Mr. Ignatius' article in any case. The abstract for the article reads,

"The post-war U.S. approach to strategy is rapidly becoming insolvent and unsustainable. If Washington continues to cling to its existing role on the premise that the international order depends upon it, the result will be increasing resistance, economic ruin, and strategic failure with consequences harming U.S. credibility, diplomacy, and military operations."

It becomes somewhat apparent why Ignatius chose to direct his readership to this particular article.

"post-war" - post- which war? the one engaged in by some 30,000 Servicemembers in Afghanistan? The one on-going in Lybia, or the one in Syria, or the one between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah? Or the one about to occur between Israel and one or more of its neighbors? Perhaps the conflict simmering between China and one of its neighbors across the the China Sea? Or perhaps the civil war being waged in Mexico between the Mexican government and the drug cartels. Only Progressives and caricature beauty pagent contestants believe that they can achieve World Peace.

But he is correct, the U.S. approach to strategy is rapidly becoming unsustainable; because the country is rapidly becoming insolvent. I do want to read Mr. Mazarr's article to see if he addresses what happens if Washington DOES NOT continue to maintain its realization that the international order DOES depend upon the United States? I doubt that he does. I'd say we've had 4 or 5 years of pre-view. And it isn't pretty.

But I'll bet he doesn't talk about that alternative. No, and that is the second point of Ignatius' article. No. Here are the take-aways that make this a donation in kind:

"When you watch the debate Monday night, ask yourself whether the candidates are thinking strategically. Are they repeating rhetorical tropes about the United States as the “indispensable power” that can resolve any crisis? Or are they weighing commitments carefully to make sure that they can deliver what they promise?"

"Romney espouses the traditional, 21-gun-salute version, with its vision of a “shining city on a hill” and a unique calling to global leadership. And he talks about increasing the military budget as if that’s axiomatically a good thing. But he doesn’t explain how we’ll pay for this five-course meal of power, or how the country will digest it."

"My guess is that Obama, deep down, favors a more restrained version of American power, but he rarely says so in public."

So, beginning with the false alternative; if you are for a diminishment of U.S. power, prestige and influence you are "thinking strategically." If not, then you are "repeating rhetorical tropes" and will bring the nation to wrack and ruin if you are elected president.

And, in case any WaPo readers didn't already know it, it is axiomatic that Romney isn't thinking strategically because he sees the necessity for a militarily and diplomatically strong United States. Obama will be able to deliver what he promises, because he promises so much less - even when he promises no less than Romney.

Michael Kinsley, no blood and guts chickenhawk neo-Con he, wrote a few months back that when looking at budgets and revenues, you bought the national security you needed and bought the domestic programs you could afford. I would recommend that article to Mssrs. Ignatius and Mazaar.

So, now that we are down here however many inches from the top of this post, where does Ignatius get it right? He is right that the U.S. cannot resolve every crisis. Policy makers must weigh commitments carefully.

Ignatius compares the U.S. to Britain when its attempt to manage its global empire exceeded its ability to do so. Through the long lens of History, one wonders why Britain fought a war in Afghanistan. One may wonder why we are still fighting one there.

Ancient Rome fought a border war with the Parthians (Mesopotamia) for over 250 years during the declining years of the Empire.

The more some things change, the more they stay the same...

It's interesting that Ignatius calls Reagan's decision to pull out of Lebanon "cold-blooded" at the same time he cold-bloodly recommends that the U.S. pull out of the world and forfeit the capabilities to engage for strategic or humanitarian reasons. He peremptorily abandons future Lebanons to their fate. And future Americans to less freedom, less prosperity and less security.

The entire government must live within its means. Historically, federal tax revenues average no more than 20% of GDP, regardless of tax rates. Our federal expenditures should normally be less than 20% of GDP. That is the only sustainable fiscal policy.

Expenditures for Defense have historically averaged around 4-5% of GDP, rising during periods of war. Russia plans to increase its defense spending to 3.7% of GDP over the next 2-3 years. Who really knows what China's is. But even spending 6% of GDP on Defense would still leave 14% of a $15T GDP to spend on domestic priorities. That should work. Then we look at the world realistically.

The nature of American's is to help those who need help. We can't change our nature. But we have to recognize that our strength does have limitations, that it is illegitimate for the government to act contrary to the country's security, that we will have to make choices based upon our values AND our interests. For one example, Joseph Kony is doing horrible things in Uganda. Uganda is a friendly country in Africa. Our values lead us to help. Our relationship with Uganda makes it in our interest to help. Kony poses no near-term threat to U.S. interests in the region. There is some chance that U.S. assistance could defeat Kony, improve ties with an important nation on an important continent and in the longer term, delay the spread of militant Islam. I would be willing but reluctant to risk American lives or very much treasure there - if we had the treasure to risk. On the other hand, China is doing horrible things in Tibet. Our values lead us to want to help. The geographic location of Tibet and the super power status of China makes military action impossible. Don't even pretend. A rigorous application of classical Just War Theory can clarify the considerations and help to avoid bad decisions. But there is no mathematical formula that will spit out the right decisions.

Every decision that must find the best possible balance between American values, American interests, and America's capabilities is a difficult one. Obama has repeatedly shown himself to be not up to the task. Contrary to what David Ignatius would like you to believe, Mitt Romney is better suited to make those difficult decisions.