Winning a War

 

            Recently, commentators of all stripes have consumed vast amounts of digits and toner describing the various failures of the Presidential war on Iran. And to be sure, when you are dropping bombs, shooting missiles, and sinking ships, you have engaged in a war. The President unilaterally decided to engage in this armed conflict, bypassing the Constitutional requirement for gaining congressional authorization. To be sure, legislators of both parties shirked their duty to enforce the checks and balances laid out in our constitution; but, that is a discussion for another day. The commentators have labeled this conflict a failure for various reasons.

            Depending upon their outlook and political orientation, they blame the President for a lack of goals, shifting goals, the wrong goals, the lack of planning, the failure to develop international support for the operation, underestimating the resilience of the enemy, and the list goes on. Perhaps they are correct. All those things and more doom an operation, military or otherwise, to failure. But I have yet to see anyone articulate the primary reason for failure…boots on the ground.

            Contrary to popular belief, airpower does not win wars. Wars are won when a grubby, goat-smelling, bone-weary soldier raises a flag and says, “This piece of dirt is mine and you cannot come here.”

            Airpower is a combat multiplier. It enhances or eases the job of ground forces. Airpower may bring the troops into combat and keep them supplied. Airpower may keep enemy aircraft off the ground forces. Airpower may interdict an enemy’s ability to supply their own forces; but, airpower does not win wars. Of course many will bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of airpower winning the war.

            While dropping the atomic bomb may have hastened the end of the WW II in the Pacific, it was the very real threat of invasion, soldiers stepping on Japanese soil, saying, “This is ours and you do not control it,” that ended the war. The Japanese emperor had seen us inexorably take island by island, marching ever closer to Japan. He knew that not only could we invade and conquer his land we also possessed the willpower to do so. Rather than submit his country to such complete devastation, he capitulated. While airpower certainly paved the way, the threat of ground troops marching over Tokyo ended the war.

            Going into this conflict, the President and his advisors failed to take this basic military truth into account. It doesn’t really matter how many bombs you drop or missiles your fire, until you have troops on the ground to enforce your will, a determined enemy remains undefeated. He underestimated the Iranian government’s ability to absorb destruction; military as well as civilian. Under the thrall of technological superiority, he and his advisors assumed that after the initial barrage of munitions the threat of continued incoming rockets would drive an enemy to their knees, forcing them to seek some sort of negotiated end to the war. They, like so many inexperienced in the realities of modern warfare, underestimated the resiliency of a government and its citizenry.

            While horribly destructive and intensely frightening, areal bombardment rarely drives a citizenry to abandon their government. In Germany and Japan, civilians remained largely behind their governments even under the terrifying strategic bombing campaigns. Londoners remained stalwart and steadfast during the blitz. In more modern times, the destruction of the Twin Towers did not result in an American retreat. Areal attacks while they impede industry, can be overcome by a determined and creative adversary. During WW II the German aircraft industry peaked in 1944 under some of the heaviest strategic bombing of the war years.1 Distributed production and other strategies enabled Germany to continue to increase their numbers of fighter aircraft up until the very end. Japanese manufacturers produced consistent gains up until through 1944 as well.2

            This does not mean that airpower is unimportant; however, planners and advisors must be honest about its capabilities and more importantly its limitations. Depending on airpower alone to bring an enemy to its knees is a strategy destined for failure. We may find video of missiles and bombs streaking toward a target enthralling. We may embrace the idea of winning on the cheap; but, war is never cheap, not in blood or treasure. Airpower, while absolutely paramount, does not ensure victory. To win, at some point grunts have to raise the flag and say, this is mine now, not yours.

1. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/history/aircraft-ww2-de-production.htm

2. https://historydashboard.org/world-war-2-aircraft-production/

 

Lessons from High School Football: Sore Losers

            Losing sucks, and I know about losing. You do not reach the age of sixty-five without enduring a few losses along the way. But, I learned this lesson much earlier. I played football in Junior High and High School and we were not powerhouse teams. I played a decent defensive end and pulling guard; but, I never really possessed the motivation, or more importantly the skill, to move on to college ball. However one of the lessons that I learned while playing football was how to be a good sport, even when things did not go our way. When we lost, which was more often than I’d like to admit, we always faced the temptation to blame the referees or cheating by the other team. But our coaches would never let us take that easy way out. They constantly reminded us that being a sore loser was a sure sign of weakness and immaturity. Instead of blaming others, they focused us on improving our skills. I think many of today’s politicians could use a strong dose of West-Texas football coaching.

            A sore political loser blames the system, especially some unidentified cabal of nefarious actors. A mature political competitor examines their message and goals to determine why they failed to attract enough votes to win the election. All the available investigations and research indicate that our electoral systems are secure, delivering an accurate count of the cast ballots. Despite this abundance of evidence, sore losers still blame the system instead of evaluating their performance.

            As a defensive end in the middle seventies West-Texas world of high-school football, I had two responsibilities; turn the play in and then find the man with the ball and hit him. If I did those two things, I would be considered a success. Failure to turn the play in could result in a running back breaking free for a large gain or even a score; neither of which reflected well on my skills as a player. In those simple days, I had no pass protection responsibilities. My coach did not want to hear and would not accept me blaming the referees. As an electorate we should be like minded.

            A politician who blames the system is shirking their responsibility. They are responsible for the content of their goals and issues. They are responsible for their messaging. They are responsible for how they conduct their campaigns. All reputable investigations indicate that voter fraud is almost nonexistent. Despite this, some politicians, and their operatives, insist on casting doubt on the integrity of the voting system. Yet, these same politicians will accept the results of the election should they win. Sore losers make these types of statements. Unwilling to maturely accept defeat they retreat into pouting and verbal tantrums, trafficking in inuendo and conspiracy theories.

            This persistent din of insinuation and conspiracy exerts a corrosive effect on the public trust of our system. It deepens the already cavernous gulf between parties. At a time when we desperately need to work together on the problems we face, this practice of blaming the system serves only to make finding any solution much harder. Sore losers and those who support them do not represent the good aspects of our political system. Instead, they act with childish immaturity seeking to blame others for their own failures. A refusal to admit my own mistakes and focus on improving my skills would have resulted in sitting on the bench watching others play. Perhaps, some of our politicians need to spend some time on the political bench improving their ability to serve.

Turning Back the Clock

            Laws exist for three primary reasons; one they protect the weak from the strong, they protect society in general, and they protect us from our own negative behaviors. I would say that the first reason is the most important. Many, if not most, of our laws restrain the behaviors of the rich, powerful, and majority. Sadly, human history teaches us that the weaker and minorities need vigorous protection from the stronger, often wealthier, majorities. Over the past two and a half centuries, the United States has developed a strong body of laws designed to protect the weak while constructing a vibrant culture, dynamic economy, and thriving ecology. This has been a slow process, often halting, occasionally heading down blind alleys, but progressing steadily towards that ephemeral constitutional goal of “securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” This Spring, the U.S. Supreme Court turned back the hands of time, stopping in the dark days of the early Civil Rights era, sometime in the late 1950s or early 1960s.

            One of the most important expectations that we have as citizens is that we have some hope of true or valid representation, that some of the people who write the laws of our land not only look like we do, but rise out of a shared experience. Gerrymandering, the practice of manipulating representative districts to gain an advantage in an election, which goes all the way back to the era of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, threatens this fundamental aspect of democracy. Parties and other powerful and monied entities have always sought, and will continue to seek, to game the system through various strategies, and one of the most common is to draw, or redraw, districts in such a way as to give the candidates of their choice and advantage in the electoral process. This practice effectively disenfranchises segments of our population, fencing them out of the governmental process. Disenfranchised groups, unable to engage in the representative process, may abandon the democratic process altogether, leading to ever greater isolation and a justifiable lack of faith in the system. Both parties engage in this nefarious practice. Out of necessity we turned to the legal arena to limit this practice. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did much to limit gerrymandering.

            The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais effectively allows states to redraw voting districts with an eye toward limiting representation of Black communities. It undoes much of the hard-won gains in civil rights; gains won through hard work and sacrifice. Not only does it erase decades of effort, but it also turns its back on the more noble ideas enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and other key foundational documents of our nation. Additionally, it displays the fear and hollowness of those participating in this extreme gerrymandering.

            Those who participate in this undoing of some of the more high-minded civil rights work show their fear. They fear a just and open election process. They know that much of what they do seeks to not only to deprive certain segments of our society of adequate representation but also denies them many avenues of improving their lot in life. They fear an open and competitive process. They fear a future with an open door to government. They fear a government in which they might have to share a modicum of power with someone who doesn’t look like they do, doesn’t come from their background, and doesn’t support the status quo. They fear recognition of their empty, hollow ideas based on an extremist past.

            The hollowness of their ideas and goals requires a gaming of the system. They know that they cannot gain and maintain power through fair competition, so they seek to rig the system. Changing the rules, or moving the goalposts, is the only way they can hope to win. Bereft of good ideas for government, of ideals, of honor, they must use maps and pencils to secure their place of power.

            Some will just shrug and say, “It’s not in my backyard. Why should I care?”

            We should care because it is the wrong thing to do and represents a retreat from the high ideals which our nation aspires to. We should care because these are our neighbors and friends. We should care because these are humans and deserve our respect. On a more selfish note, they should care because these people will not stop. Sooner or later, and it will be sooner, they will trample on your rights. All they care about is securing their power and enriching themselves. They do not care about anyone who does not look like them or come from their class.

Institutional Damage

 

            I served in the Army from 1981 to 2010. I entered as a private, going through basic training at Fort Leonard-Wood, earning my commission as a 2LT in 1988 and eventually retiring after twenty-plus years as a Lieutenant Colonel. During my career, I served at all levels of command, spent two tours in Germany, deployed to combat multiple times, worked with various allied armies, and engaged in operations on four different continents. This is not unusual. Anyone spending over twenty years of active-duty service will have enjoyed a similarly varied career path. I witnessed the deep cold war, the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of communism, the drug wars, and many other tumultuous events of those days. I also participated in the growth and restructuring of the Army.

            When I joined in 1981, the Army was struggling to throw off the chaos of the Vietnam Draftee Army, endemic racism, and the disorderly drug and alcohol drenched years that followed. At all levels with varying degrees of awareness and success, we sought to build an institution which lived up to our oath to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The changes in the Army were titanic, involving significant upheaval. These changes effected all ranks and all levels of command. As with any major change or restructuring, the changes came with periods of uncertainty and misunderstanding.

            Despite all of this, we built an institution that I was proud to serve in. Of course, it was not perfect. It was built and staffed by humans, so it was imperfect; however, we truly sought to do the right thing while always completing our mission. The Army that emerged from those years was an institution that embraced meritocracy.

            Promotion depended upon a demonstrated ability to operate at the next higher rank. In other words, as a lieutenant I was expected to act like and make the kind of decisions that a captain would make. Performance outweighed race and connections. As an institution, the Army remained apolitical during these years. Now, under the influence of the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), Pete Hegseth, much of this hard work is being rapidly undone.

            The SECDEF has fired or put out to pasture many high-ranking officers simply because they do not fit his picture of what a modern warfighter looks like, believes, or endorses. While it has always been true that at the flag-officer ranks, political considerations held great sway; during my years of service, I never witnessed such a wholesale reordering, especially one done on such diaphanous grounds. Some appear to have simply been of the wrong race or gender. Others seem to have been guilty of supporting the previous administration’s stated goals with too much fervor. Whatever the case, this heavy-handed approach has had two deleterious effects.

            First of all, the departure of so many high-level officers deprives the Department of Defense of the wisdom gained through years of experience in combat and peacetime. Given the highly volatile nature of modern warfare and geopolitics, we can ill afford to discard such a large knowledge trust.

            Secondly, these mass firings change the promotion and assignment dynamic from one that is focused on mission accomplishment to one of political conformity. During my time in the Army, I never really cared about, knew, or investigated the political leanings of my fellow soldiers. Of course, I understood their general political leanings. You cannot spend so much time around each other and not know; but, dependability and professionalism mattered most, not political party. Suddenly this changes. Now, devotion to duty and competence take a backseat to political allegiance.

            Thirdly, this politicization of the military damages trust; trust between peers, trust of leaders, and trust of the system in general. Previously, the Army culture laser focused on professionalism and competence built trust in the person on your left or right flank. You knew that they were devoted to personal professionalism and mission accomplishment. Now with this new emphasis on conservative political correctness, one never knows. Now one must wonder if their command will extract some sort of punishment for pulling the wrong lever in the ballot box.

            These factors will exert a corrosive effect on the rank and file of the military. In years past one could generally trust the system to produce competent and motivated Officers and NCOs. Yes, there were exceptions to the rule; however, for the most part, the system produced excellent leaders at all levels. The system included various mechanisms that enabled a service member to seek redress should they encounter rank prejudice based on race or gender. While these levers often brought uncomfortable scrutiny, they ensured the institution as a whole remained one in which professional competence and mission accomplishment were the standard. Those unwilling to embrace those as the standard for evaluation were outliers and once identified swiftly delt with.

            The SECDEF’s efforts to cleanse the military of WOKEness will not result in a higher level of readiness. Instead, he has weakened the military, opening the door for a continuing cycle of political readjustment. The systems designed and refined during the latter years of the twentieth century produced an organization that promoted and assigned based on demonstrated ability to work at the next higher level and approached each day with an intense focus on completing the assigned mission. The Army, while not perfect, fully embraced the lofty goal of “protecting and defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Bullies Need Not Apply

 

¹⁷ Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Romans 12:17-18 English Standard Version

Marriam-Webster definition of Bully: to treat (someone) in a cruel, insulting, threatening, or aggressive fashion : to act like a bully toward or to cause (someone) to do something by means of force or coercion

            Everyone has faced the challenge of a bully. Most often it is in the school environment; but, sometimes one finds a bully in the work environment, and sadly there are bullies in marriages with often tragic results. No one likes a bully. We all find the swaggering and threatening offensive. Bullies thrive on intimidating the weak and vulnerable. Fortunately, many of us who are inclined to bully others get our comeuppance in the school environment, learning early that such behavior is anathema to any community. Those who fail to learn that lesson are destined to lurch through a life full of swagger, bluster, and occasional violence. Their arrogance and self-centeredness ensure that they miss out on many of the good things in life. It is the same with nations and their leaders.

            What our leaders say and do reflects our national spirit and moral values. This is why we should choose leaders based more on their character than on their policy pronouncements. Policy pronouncements are important; however, examining character reveals more about how they will lead and make decisions. Those who’ve embraced a life-long practice of bullying those around them to get their way do not pass muster. They’ve shown through their proclivities that they cannot be trusted to make decisions that are just and defensible.

            Some will say, however, that they get results or that the ends justify the means. Perhaps they do get results in the short term and over a weaker constituency or nation; but, sooner or later their behaviour will be truly challenged and their weakness and moral turpitude revealed…along with our own.

            Through our bringing them to power and silence about their actions, we join in their practice of bullying. In some ways the international community is much like a school playground, only with much more serious results. An elementary schoolyard confrontation normally ends with a bruised ego, perhaps a bloody nose, and maybe a black eye. An international confrontation brings much more grievous results; economic chaos or open war just to name two. One result that we’ve recently seen is other countries refusing to acquiesce to our desires. Our bluster and swagger, as displayed by our president, did not result in other nations rallying to our cause in Iran. Most simply shrugged and looked the other way. A few made public pronouncements condemning our actions. Unsurprisingly, it turns out the badgering and belittling your allies tends to generate non-support when you want it.

            Governments, made up by people and beholden to people, tend to react like people. We may be the largest economy on the globe and possess a powerful military; however, we still need friends and allies. You do not strengthen alliances by publicly threatening and demeaning your partners. Those are the actions of a bully and sooner or later will fail…probably sooner. Threats, intimidation, and humiliating people are the tactics of a tyrant and indicators of a small-minded soul that cannot think of any other alternative than the threat of violence.

            This modern world, with its vast web of interconnected countries, businesses, and institutions, requires and rewards creative solutions to seemingly intractable situations. Patient and careful application of “soft” power, while not exciting, produces sound long-term results with the best outcome for the most people. Threats and intimidation, in any form, generate short-term results with little staying power and normally provide a good outcome for a minority of people. This is why we need thoughtful, creative, and strong leaders. Leaders willing to take input from diverse sources show strength, not weakness. Bullies, however, do not show the character necessary to successfully lead others, especially in the context of positions of national and international significance.

Just a Meme?

 

Normally, I try not to respond to single utterances, or memes. After all, it is impossible to compress an important issue into a few words pasted on a picture. Yet, in this time when so many build their worldview from memes, I occasionally feel compelled to speak to a specific meme. It is almost trite to say, but images carry great weight and often move large numbers of people in a specific direction, politically and socially. Our President posted such a meme last night on his Truth-Social account. I have included a copy of his post in this essay for convenance sake.

 

                            This meme, apparently AI generated, presents President Trump in a messiah-like tableau. Wrapped in robes of white with a red sash, he bends over a man in a hospital bed while an adoring nurse and others look on. His hands are emitting glowing orbs. The background includes many national symbols, such as, the statue of liberty, the American flag, fighter jets, and other potent symbols. Such a blasphemous image demands comment.

                              Some will say, this image is a joke, tongue-in-cheek as it were, and that I am overreacting to something not intended to be taken seriously. Perhaps that is the case. I may be overreacting. I have been known to overreact at times, just ask my wife, children, close friends, former students, and soldiers under my command. But in this case, I do not think so.

                              President Trump is our duly elected Chief Executive. He leads the executive branch of the United States is responsible for implementing and carrying out the laws enacted by congress or the legislative branch. While this is a powerful and important position, it is one best served by someone possessed by an appropriate level of humility and propriety. To share a meme which presents himself as a powerful messianic figure replete with the power to heal at will breaks the barrier of pride, rushing into the realm of hubris. Overweening pride is corrosive to leadership.

               As someone who spent two careers in leadership positions, I know that such pride, such hubris, does not enable good leadership. Rather, it inhibits good leadership. Good leaders must be able to set aside their own pride and listen to others. Often others with more or differing experience provide input that leads to an excellent outcome. An unshakable conviction of one’s own ability leads to faulty decision making and tends to surrounding oneself with yes men. Prideful leaders often misshape their organizations.

               All organizations take on the characteristics of their leader, assuming their traits and their decision making processes. When led by an extremely prideful person, organizations become just as prideful and unwilling to listen to outside input. Sometimes, they become so blinded by pride they flail and fail without really understanding why. This malaise eventually effects the spirit of the organization, leaving it so turned inward as to be impotent.

               As a practicing Christian, I cannot allow such a display of pride driven blasphemy in our national leadership pass without comment. For the leader of my country to display such a disregard for the sanctity of my savior takes my breath away. Such a melding of national symbology into a pseudo-Christian image offends at the deepest levels. After all, Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this earth. Of course, we all make mistakes; but, such a mistake calls for comment and correction. As a nation, we must constantly work to keep our moral center, and when a powerful national leader starts leading us down the wrong path, away from an appropriate view of ourselves, we must raise the alarm and seek a better path.

So to my friends who would say that I need to calm down and not take this so seriously, I say that this level of pride and blasphemy requires a response. Failing to respond would lead to more egregious material and further degradation of our national spirit. In this turbulent time, we need leaders who while possessed of a strong will are also possessed of an appropriate understanding of who they are and their role in our unfolding shared history.

              

Wrong Words

 

“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” President Trump on Truthsocial.com

               It is one thing to wage war. It is an entirely different thing to threaten the destruction of a civilization. To destroy a civilization is genocide. Even threatening geocide goes against everything we stand for as a nation. To have our president bandy about such a threat should make us question his fitness to serve.

               A leader must choose their words carefully. Words have discrete meanings and when used properly or improperly carry great weight. For our president to threaten such a despicable, unconscionable, act besmirches all of us and calls into question our place in the community of nations. Those that enjoy great power and authority must also enjoy and embrace the responsibility required. Reckless speech does not indicate strength or wisdom; rather, it shows the opposite, weakness and immaturity. Such a callous remark ought not to emanate from the seat of such great power, and those of us who he represents must not let such a remark pass.

               We must hold the president accountable for his utterances. He represents us and his remarks, even off-the-cuff social media postings, stand for our beliefs. This cannot pass without comment. We must call into question the thoughts and ideas behind such a remark. I know that I do not support the eradication of a civilization and seriously doubt that a majority of my fellow Americans do either.

               So, Mr. President to steal a few words from a long-ago U.S. Senator, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” Senator Joseph N. Welch.