Show Me Your Face

 

            Over the 4^th of July a group named, “Patriot Front,” staged a march in Washington DC. During the march they wore a uniform of khaki pants, navy blue shirts, and tan baseball caps emblazoned with the group’s logo. Of note, they all wore masks. It reminded me of the white hoods of the KKK in the first half of the twentieth century.

            The white hoods performed two important functions. They increased the terror of the victims through the inhuman specter of hooded shapes, and they provided anonymity for the participants, shielding them from identification and possible prosecution. These hooded figures with their violence and burning crosses terrorized Black citizens and those who supported them. In more modern times, terrorists employ the same tactic for the same reasons.

            All of us understand this dynamic. We want to protect our identity when engaging in nefarious activities. Criminals operate under the cover of darkness. Other nefarious actors cover their faces hoping to avoid identification. We know in our souls that what we’re doing is shameful and do our best to protect our identity. We want to avoid accountability. Knowing that there are many around us who would take umbrage at our participation in such activities, we take steps to insulate ourselves from identification. Such are the signs of cowardice.

            Some may argue that masks protect participants from “doxing,” the publication or use of personal information for the purpose of harassment. And while the fear of doxing is valid, wearing a mask to protect your identity calls into question how committed you are to your cause. After all, our founding fathers and other patriotic heroes faced dire consequences should their cause have failed. Hiding your identity behind a mask calls denigrates the justness of your actions. After all, if you truly believed you were doing the right thing, why would you hide?

            Hiding behind a mask or a hood broadcasts the moral bankruptcy of a cause. It tells all observers that participants fear identification with the cause. If the cause were just, then those who support the cause would feel comfortable identifying with the cause. Masking protects your identity but undermines your belief in the honor of your actions. When deployed to Iraq in 2003, I frequently wore either sunglasses or the goggles issued by the Army. In fact, they still adorn the helmet that I wore. Iraqis often complained about them, believing that I wore them to avoid identification and to appear more menacing. Though I continued to wear them while convoying around Baghdad, I did make sure that when I spoke with Iraqis, I took them off. I believed then, and I still do, that the basic causes and goals of our deployment were just.

            Like the citizens of Baghdad in 2003-2004, I suspect those who hide their faces of not truly believing in the justness of their cause. The mask preaches more loudly than any words that they might utter in defense of their actions. It also tells me that they seek to intimidate more than they seek to convince. Their cause being fundamentally flawed, they must resort to intimidation and a menacing appearance. So I say, if you want me to take you seriously, then take off your mask. Stop hiding. Stop trying to intimidate. Stop menacing my fellow citizens.

Hero or Villain?

            I have seen a variety of memes portraying MAJ Watson as a hero. Perhaps he is; but, we must also take into account the fact that he violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, better known among service members as the USMJ. What most civilians do not realize is that when one becomes a soldier, sailor, marine, or airman, one gives up or accepts limitations on certain civil liberties, among them is free speech.

            For example, it is against the UCMJ for members of the armed services to speak against the president, our commander in chief and other specified members of the government. For service members to speak against the commander in chief exerts a corrosive effect on the chain of command and the good order and discipline of the service. We are required to obey lawful orders and have the right and responsibility to disobey unlawful orders, but that is something different than criticizing the commander in chief. Some may think that this is a severe curtailment of a service member’s civil liberties, and it is. But this is part of the sacrifice required of a life in the service of our nation.

            This is why we in the military often refer to it as, “the service.” We accept and embrace this concept. We may not agree with our orders, but unless they violate the law or in extreme cases our conscience, we must obey. We may not have voted for the person who holds the office of President, but they are our commander and chief and due the respect of the office. We serve, ultimately, at the pleasure of the President. I served every president, from Regan to Obama. All of them made decisions that I liked and decisions that I did not like; but, I served them all and accorded them the respect due their office. It was all part of the discipline required of a life in “the service” of something bigger than I am.

            Major Watson was led away in handcuffs. Should he find himself in front of a civilian judge, he might mount a successful defense based on freedom of speech; however, I would expect that a military court would find him guilty of violating the appropriate portion of the UCMJ. So the questions remains, is Major Watson a hero or a villain?

            As a civilian, I’m tempted to hold him up as a hero, someone who took great risk to proclaim his thoughts in a very public fashion. As a retired officer with over twenty years of active service, I would say that he’s a villain, or guilty of a criminal offense at the least. For a member of the armed services to stand up in uniform on the nation’s capital and call for the impeachment and removal from office, of the President, his commander-in-chief, is a criminal offense and does not improve the situation in any way. So while I may admire his courage and commitment, I do not respect his judgement.

            We live in a time filled with disagreement and division. Our duly elected president directs the military to take what seem to be questionable actions. There are mechanisms in place to deal with such contingencies; none of which include demonstrating on the steps of the capital. And that is the challenge of a life devoted to military service, in order to uphold the oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic service members must give up access to some of the fundamental rights contained therein. Back to the questions at hand, hero or villain?

            It all depends upon how Major Watson responds. Civil Disobedience is a time-honored method of protest. When one engages in civil disobedience, one takes actions that are against the law, willingly accepting the consequences of such actions. Should Major Watson accept the punishment meted out without complaint, serving his sentence, then he is a hero. Should he contest the results, claiming freedom of speech, then he is a villain, someone who broke the law and seeks to avoid the punishment. In this era of hyper-individualism, we may be tempted to label him as a hero, someone who stood up to an authority figure we disdain; but, we would be wrong. As they say, the ball is in his court…hero or villain. 

   

True Patriotism

 

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

            Flags, bunting, and fireworks will festoon this day of celebration. Our nation turns two-hundred-and-fifty today! Despite our shortcomings, it is still a day of celebration. Many of us will post the obligatory chest-thumping-patriotic-memes. I’m certainly not against an outward display of patriotism. I’m flying my flag, the flag the Army gave me when I retired after twenty-seven years of military service. I’m proud to do so. I like to think that I’m a patriotic man. But I often think about how we define patriotism.

            Merriam-Webster defines patriotism as: love for or devotion to one's country. That’s a good definition; but, I like the closing of the Declaration of Independence. It is a more active definition, one that inspires and requires something of the individual.

            It is easy to step out on my porch and fly “Old Glory.” It is another thing to work to make my nation a better place. That idea of sweat-equity and sacrifice is often missing from our displays of patriotism today. Sadly, we’ve become self-centered and venal only willing to support those displays of patriotism that serve our individual purposes and wants. We need to reinvigorate a sense of national service and belonging to a larger community.

            The patriotism of our founding fathers included self-sacrifice. They believed that what they were doing was worthy of supreme commitment. They willingly gambled their fortune, their personal honor, and yes, their lives. That level of commitment drives a nation to develop into something bigger and better. Our foundational documents proclaim an aspiration to greatness; something we strive to realize through toil, labor, and sacrifice. That kind of patriotism makes us a better nation, a nation worthy of our continued support and effort. The lessor chest-thumping patriotism may look good but fails to deliver on the bold promises that our founding fathers made.

            Today, on this most auspicious of days, let us take a moment to read those stirring words, the words that call us to a like level of patriotism, and reignite the fires of liberty that have grown dim in recent years. Let us fan those flames into a torch that expands the borders of liberty, that increases the freedoms of the disenfranchised, and inspires us to even greater works to lift the downtrodden into the light of a better future.

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.”