EO and DEI

 

            I joined the Army in 1982 as the Army was reinventing and rebuilding itself from the post-Vietnam chaos. One of the challenges we faced was creating a force that somehow represented American society…demographically. Now as a private, this largely passed over my head. I was most focused on keeping the sergeants happy and avoiding interaction with officers altogether. Eventually I earned a commission, and this issue became one of many that I worried about. Truthfully, it was fairly far down on the list. Other items, maintenance, weapons qualification…and cleaning…, physical fitness, and paperwork filled most of my days; however, this issue did have significant impact on my world, namely as Equal Opportunity, normally referred to as EO.

            The EO program and all its subsidiary components was the Army’s plan to protect various minorities and to ensure that the force better represented the American demographic as a whole. For most of us, especially the white us, the EO program was fairly innocuous. It did not influence our daily lives. As an officer, I interacted with the EO program as a portion of the IG and other inspections. I also had an EO NCO in all my units who helped me make sure that I treated everyone evenhandedly. Rarely, I would have to answer an EO complaint. Fortunately for me, all those complaints against me were unfounded, though the investigation process could be intimidating. The Army used EO complaints and periodic EO briefings to help educate and improve the force. Though these efforts were not perfect, they helped us discard some old and rather bad habits. The EO program also influenced promotions, and here is where many complained.

            I was a young lieutenant when the Soviet Union collapsed, and the cold war wound down. The Army went through a series of reductions, shedding thousands of soldiers, NCOs, and officers. In many ways it was a daunting time professionally. Many friends, excellent officers and NCOs, found their careers cut short by the downsizing. In this atmosphere it was quite easy to blame EO. Though I do not know the exact mechanisms, I do have some knowledge of how the Army pursued creating a force that was demographically aligned with the American population.

            When the Army had a board for promotion or retention, the board would first determine all those administratively eligible for promotion. From that very large pool of highly qualified individuals the Army would then develop an order of merit list. In some ways this could be a bit arbitrary, but it was based on performance in general and in certain key positions, company commander, platoon leader, and the like. Once that list was created the Army would scrub it for demographic concerns. And this is where things get a bit sticky. Is it fair to move someone down on the order of merit list to elevate someone else based on race or gender? If we were talking about elevating an unqualified or lessor qualified individual over a more qualified one that would be problematic; but, such was not the case. The Army started with a very large pool of highly qualified individuals and sought to fill positions in a way that reflected our nation. Awaiting those board results was nerve wracking, but that was part of the process. The result of all those angst inducing machinations? The Army developed a highly professional force that well represented our nation.

            Sometimes when a board did not go your way, which happened to me, the temptation would be great to blame the EO process instead of your performance. The temptation to abandon cooperating and helping peers was also great. In one battalion that I served in our commander sensed a growing disunity and competition between the lieutenants. He gathered us all into a room and gave us this bit of very good advice.

            “Your fellow lieutenants are not your competition. You are only competing against yourself. If you strive to be the best officer that you can be and pull together as a team, then promotions and retention will take care of themselves.”

            It was excellent advice and helped build teamwork in the unit. As I remember, all the lieutenants in that room made captain and I knew several that made the exulted rank of colonel. But his true point was to avoid blaming others for our own lackadaisical attitude towards professionalism. This is the siren song of railing against EO, DEI, or any other program designed to help make the workforce more representative.

            Through its efforts the Army shed its post-Vietnam problems and emerged as a force which valued professionalism, afforded all members opportunities for advancement, and resembled the nation demographically. Did it always work? No, no organization, plan, or program is perfect. Later when I commanded a recruiting company, I learned even more about how this worked.

            As a recruiting company commander, my professional career hung on meeting monthly enlistment goals. These goals varied and were always hard to meet. While I met the raw numbers on a regular basis, I only mission-boxed once, recruiting speak for meeting all the numbers and categories assigned. I received regular reports on the demographics of my enlistees. The number-crunchers at Fort Knox, USAREC HQ, measured my success against the demographics of my company area. Truthfully, I never worried too much about the exact demographics as I struggled to meet the raw numbers. But I did find the data interesting. One area that I always failed in was enlisting wealthy white males. Rich kids just are not that interested in a life of service. They have many options. The Army understood the importance of a force that reflected the nation as a whole and how that enhanced unit cohesion. DEI and its predecessor EO worked to build a viable, vibrant, and strong organization.

            We do best as an Army, an organization, indeed as a nation when we strive to include all members of society. This comes with challenges as there are members of our society that find proximity to others uncomfortable. We all feel most relaxed around people who are like us. Most of my friends look kind of like me…old white guys. But it is those friends who think differently that add color and character to my life. And so it was in the Army.

            Though we all wore BDUs and “bled green” as it were, our differences brought vitality to the organization. My comrades from differing backgrounds brought different skills to the table. They often had a different way of solving a given problem. We were better for our eclectic character. I always found “Joint” (multi-service) and “Combined” (multi-national) operations challenging and invigorating. It is the same in society.

            We need not retreat from DEI and EO. These programs do not solve all problems, but they are a step in the right direction. Our country will thrive the most when people know that they are evaluated on the content of their character and abilities and not some arbitrary standard of sameness. All members of society have something to offer, and we need to do our best to open doors for their participation.

Deeds Inform Trust

 

            I’ve been reading a variety of posts and memes encouraging me to take a wait and see attitude towards the tactics of ICE rounding up all manner of aliens. ICE, under the direction of the administration, not only raids numerous workplaces, but also camps in the government buildings where immigration courts meet and detains or arrests individuals when they come in for scheduled court appearances. They are casting as large a net as possible in order to meet the stated administration goal of deporting more undocumented aliens than President Eisenhower. Their efforts and tactics have caused a considerable stir across the nation, and significant demonstrations in Los Angeles and New York. Some question the legality of detaining someone while they are attending a court ordered meeting as part of their process. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of men and women are being asked to wait and see while in custody.

            The idea of waiting and seeing implies a certain level of trust in the administration to properly work the system, to respect the concept of due process. Many of the memes and other postings claim that an undocumented alien does not deserve due process, which is untrue according to our legal system. In fact, due process enables us to verify a person’s legal status and take the appropriate action, whether that be release or deportation. Due process enables us to protect the innocent and hold the guilty accountable for their actions. We’ve long taken the stance that someone is innocent until proven guilty, and this is why I’m uncomfortable with the wait and see recommendation.

            Our administration has shown itself very willing to discard due process. They have already deported American citizens, adults and children. This callous attitude toward due process and human rights does not warrant my trust. Their willingness to deport citizens without cause, other than being brown and in the wrong place and wrong time, has eroded my trust. They must take steps to show that they understand due process and the roles of the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative branches. When they have trampled on due process, they have infringed upon the role of the judiciary. This lack of respect for the constitutional roles of government concerns me greatly. What is to stop them from detaining and then deporting me?

            This cavalier attitude towards due process and other civil liberties has eroded trust, and the administration needs to take appropriate measures to rebuild that trust. This does not mean that they need to give up on their stated goals; they just need to move the levers of government according to the Constitution and laws of the land. A population which does not trust its government will soon feel adrift and unattached. In this time, we need to work together to address the multitude of challenges that lay before us. This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of good leadership and strength of character; both of which seem in short supply these days.

Budgets Speak

 

            Each month Christy and I engage in a small, but important, ritual. She sits down and sorts out the details of our budget. We set goals together, but she handles the heavy lifting of developing the detailed plan. She records it on a card and gives it to me. Then I fulfill my portion of the Robinson Budgetary Process, better known as the RBP. I go online and move money and pay bills via the internet. It is a small part, but it is my part, and I enjoy doing it. If you were to examine them, those cards speak loudly about our priorities as a couple.

            Peruse those cards and you will get a good picture of what we think is important. On each card you will find house and auto payments. Since we live on a dirt road that is frequently covered in snow during the winter and Christy often drives to Lubbock by herself, I support the expense of a good all-wheel-drive car. You will find out which charities we support and from that data glean a bit about where our heart lies. What we do with our share of this world’s resources says a lot about our morality. We are among the blessed who enjoy more resources than we need. And truth be told, for most Americans that is the case. Oh, we may get ourselves into such a situation that every dollar is spoken for; but, that is more due to our rapacious appetite than our actual physical needs. Just as our budgetary plans reveal what is important to us, our nation’s budget reveals our corporate priorities.

            A scan of the most recent budget proposals from the House of Representatives and the White House says much about what we consider important. Evidently, we consider providing tax relief to the wealthiest much more important than taking care of the most vulnerable in our society. Despite our protestations regarding deficit spending, we’re quite willing to add another trillion or so to the national debt to fund tax relief for the wealthiest and defense industries. We do not mind cutting out support for women, infants, and children. Medicaid designed to ensure that weakest among us do not go without basic healthcare is less important than a new weapons system…or two…or three. Protecting the environment, something we all depend on, does not rate very highly in our estimation, nor does improving our infrastructure, another thing we all depend upon. Our draconian reductions to the USAID budget send a very clear message to the world.

            We just do not care about those who suffer. All foreign aid consumed 1.17% of the budget in 2023.¹ Despite this rather parsimonious effort, our current administration has gone to great lengths to not only eradicate those funds, it has also sought to shutter the USAID department. These actions speak loudly concerning our priorities. They tell the world that we just do not care about those who suffer. We have no interest in the problems that they face. We cannot really justify these reductions as part of a plan to address the problems of our own people since we’re cutting what we spend to help our own population or poor families.

            If we want to be a nation known for our compassionate care for those who are less off, we must be willing to adjust our budget to reflect that. Contrary to popular belief, most taxpayers in the U.S. enjoy a lower tax rate than most of the rest of the world.² We think we’re highly taxed; however, an examination of the data shows otherwise. We also like to think that current government programs transfer wealth from the top to the bottom. Again, the data shows that is not the case.³ If we want to make judicious decisions regarding the construction of our budget, we must do so from an informed perspective.

            We must carefully think through our societal goals and the budgetary decisions that support those goals. For those of us who have the means, will we willingly allocate the funds needed to help the less off, or will we simply hoard our blessings to satiate our own desires. I believe that there are adequate resources to enable us to enjoy a high standard of living while helping those who are less off. After all, all of us have received help of some sort or another in our journey. We should willingly help those who are less well off. While we make lofty sounding pronouncements about concern for those less fortunate, our budget speaks more loudly. We wring our hands and spill much ink over a national debt; however, our budget shows that we do not really care. We like to believe that our economic system enables people to move from poverty to middle class; yet, our budget erects or strengthens barriers to such transitions. We talk about protecting the American Farmer, while we eviscerate the mechanisms and programs that support rural life. Our words paint one picture while our actions seek to erase that reality.

            If we want to live in a nation which fosters the spread of democracy, shows compassion for the weakest, and builds a thriving middle class, we must address our budget. Future generations will well understand our hypocrisy. They will read our words and evaluate them by our actions. I suspect that they will find us wanting in moral courage and strength of character.

           

1. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/06/what-the-data-says-about-us-foreign-aid/

2.  https://www.worlddata.info/income-taxes.php

3.  https://www.epi.org/explorer/international

Free Speech Anyone?

 

            Free speech is a tricky thing. I enjoy free speech when it is mine. After all, I’m a reasonable guy who always thinks things through carefully. Ask any of my friends…shoot you can even ask my wife and kids. They will tell you that I always say things that are worth listening to. Right?

            One of the things that I discovered as a soldier was that I had given up a certain amount of my free speech. Army Regulations prohibited me from speaking out against the President, members of congress, Army leadership, and other members of the government. And should you think these were empty unenforced rules, I had a fellow officer and friend cashiered for attending a political rally in uniform. There was no discussion, no appeals, no second chances. He was summarily dismissed from the service. If this sounds harsh, remember that as soldiers we serve all presidents, no matter the party and no matter our personal political inclinations. So as a soldier, I had to always remember that I needed to be circumspect in the words that I let slip from my lips. So as someone who’s had to self-censor, I’ve watched the ongoing battle of wills between President Trump and certain schools with great interest. After all, this is fundamentally about freedom of speech. Do not be fooled by various proclamations and news reports. At its core, this conflict is about free speech and its exercise.

            President Trump and many others in the Republican (MAGA) Party find fault with higher education in general and the Ivy League specifically. They make grandiose claims about these universities being totally devoted to liberalism. With grave speech they trot out a seemingly endless parade of examples of how far out of mainstream thought these schools are. They also provide many examples of how more conservative students are hounded and abused by their professors and fellow students. And while such behavior is unacceptable, it does not represent the student experience as a whole. Again, this is a battle over free speech. While it is true that the academic world is predominantly liberal; it is not one vast sea of blue with only the occasional island of red. A dispassionate examination of the data reveals a more complex picture. Any university worthy of the name university seeks to broaden its ideological makeup. A diverse faculty and student population leads to a vibrant and thriving educational institution. This diversity supports the academic ideal.

            In a clash of ideas free speech enables competing ideas a full voice. Ideally each side provides the idea and supports it with data. Unfortunately, in this method one of the ideas is found wanting and rejected, leaving the rejected side feeling…well, rejected. None of us like losing. The bitter sting of defeat should lead us to introspection and reexamination of our logic and data.

            The academic world is built on this principle. Someone develops an idea, does the appropriate research, develops their argument, and then presents their proposal for examination by recognized experts in their field. If their idea survives then it is accepted into the cannon. One of the keystone components of this system is a dedication to the truth, no matter where it leads. Unfortunately for many, their proposals do not pass muster and are discarded. If that is the case then one must revisit your idea and evidence, seeking the means to strengthen your case. This rigorous competition leads to a fuller understanding of our world and how we best interact with it, which is why the actions of our current administration in relation to the university world concerns me.

            The administration seeks to shape the academic world through various types of coercion. These tactics include cutting off all government support, denying foreign students visas, and dictating university policy. Of course, the government may deny a specific grant application for pursuit in an area it does not support; but, to simply cut off all funding is the tactic of a bully and will have a deleterious effect on important other research efforts. All of these are an unacceptable intrusion into the academic world.

            Our nation has built a constellation of universities which draw the brightest students from around the world. As a nation and culture, we profit greatly from this system. We should not tear it down simply because of a perceived liberal bias. If we want to change the university world, we must engage it in the realm of ideas. To coerce a university into submission through such oppressive tactics transforms it from an educational institution into a propaganda arm of the government, an organization not to be trusted. To continue to pursue this process is to demean the academic freedom and free speech. The current administration takes umbrage at the criticism coming from the academic community, which it feels is unfair. Perhaps some of the criticism is unfair. The solution lies not in persecution but in academic engagement.

Memes Rarely Communicate (Or Posting Responsibly)

 

            As a teacher of English at both the High School and College level, I often lectured my students concerning the meaning of words and the need to choose their words carefully. Words have very specific meanings and when communicating we must invest the time required to identify, select, and use the word that carries the exact meaning we desire. Clearly communicating a position or concept takes time and effort; both things most of us find in short supply. This is why we often resort to using Memes. These pictures coupled with a few short, often sarcastic, phrases attempt to communicate large ideas or policies with one hasty viewing. Many memes are simply humorous and highly successful in generating a chuckle, occasionally even a belly laugh. Often these humorous memes take advantage incongruencies or congruencies of the English language. I do not fault those memes. What I find distressing are those memes which abuse the language, especially in word choice.

            Often those who compose memes sling about words such as “Marxist,” “Fascist,” “Communist,” “terrorist,” “radical,” “reactionary,” and others. These words do not truly communicate. Rather, they inflame. Sometimes I do not think we want to communicate or convince. We just enjoy stirring things up. I often see such things shared under the line, “Watch how ______ owns the libs/conservatives.” We let our political inclinations and intellectual laziness guide our word choice. And in our current cultural and political milieu this tends to separate instead of illuminating or bringing together. We often employ words that we would find nearly impossible to define with any accuracy, especially political words. We use them to shore up our own bona fides within our circle or to provoke those who we disagree with.

            Such practices are intellectually dishonest and do not serve the nation well. Currently, we desperately need to find common ground. Instead of using social media platforms to communicate ideas and build consensus, we’re deepening the chasm which separates the various constituencies that make up our political landscape. At a time when we need to come together, we’re pulling apart. This is due in large part to the reckless way we use social media, embracing the relative anonymity of the internet world.

            Most of us do not create the meme, we just “share” it. In our minds this puts some distance between us and the offended. When taken to task for our intellectual dishonesty, we blame the offended. “Well, you just have thin skin.” We ridicule others for being “easily triggered.” As if that somehow absolves us from our coarse, rude, or dishonest behavior. Often memes, especially the political ones, traffic in lies and fabrications. The creator makes the casual assumption that the reader either is ignorant of the facts or is unwilling to make the effort to verify. When we share these kinds of memes we share in the lie and the resultant cultural chaos. Simply passing it off as a joke, after all they shouldn’t be so easily offended, does not absolve us of our guilt. We are responsible for how we use available media.

            Scripture reminds us that “to whom much is given, much is expected,” Luke 12:48. The modern internet is a tremendous resource. With it I can communicate near instantaneously with people around the globe. I can conduct legitimate research into any subject my mind can conceive. With my smart-phone I can access and share data any time and almost any place. Sadly, this astounding capability also enable me to spread lies and disinformation just as easily. For those of us who are Christians, are we truly comfortable with how we use this tool? Do we glorify the Lord and further the spread of His kingdom through our postings and sharings? For those of us who do not claim the name of Christ, how will our children, grandchildren, and other future generations judge our behaviors? Are we improving things or are we contributing to the chaotic erosion of things that are good and meaningful in our culture? Perhaps if we thought a bit more about the veracity and potential impact of our postings we might hesitate before hitting post, send, or like. Are we moving our society, culture, nation, and neighborhood in a good direction? Have we carefully considered our word choice? Do we even think, or are we simply enjoying the momentary rush of being sarcastic? These are questions we ought to consider as we navigate this brave new digital landscape.

A Hat or A Plane?

 

            As a retired Army Officer, I often sport a hat emblazoned with U.S. Army Retired. I like wearing it. After all, I spent twenty-seven years as a soldier, NCO, and officer. Due to our current cultural climate, many people stop and thank me for my service, to which I reply, “It was my honor and privilege to serve.” And it was.

            Not everyone can serve, and many who start a career shipwreck their service on a variety of different shoals, drug use, DWI, excessive debt, and a variety of other improprieties. Serving our nation in the military is a privilege. Sometimes a person’s behavior limits or curtails the privilege to serve. Among the behaviors is accepting a gift, or emolument. Marriam-Webster defines emolument as: the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites. Interestingly the older meaning of emolument is an advantage.

            Most of the time, this does not figure in an officer’s career. But as a member of the Signal Corps, this played a fairly significant role in my career. As a Signal Officer, I constantly dealt with contractors. I oversaw contractors in the fulfillment of their contract. I worked with contractors seeking to renew their contract. I also worked with contractors seeking to procure a contract for equipment and services. Due to this role, I attended numerous training sessions and briefings concerning how to interact with contractors, and in all of them we were warned about accepting gifts, or emoluments, from contractors. The general rule of thumb was that if the price of the gift exceeded the price of a baseball cap, I could not accept it. Regularly I had to graciously refuse a gift, once a contractor offered to take me and my wife on a nice golf outing in Germany. But most of the time they knew the rules and acted accordingly. We had to ensure that we did not even give the appearance of inappropriate behavior; which makes the President considering accepting the Qatari offer of a 747 rather stunning.

            Article II, Section 1, Clause 7, better known as the emoluments clause, states: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them. As reported, the Qatari gift of the 747 would go from Air Force One to the Presidential Library and be available for President Trump’s personal use after he leaves office. It is hard for me to accept the idea that somehow this is akin to picking up a put in golf. Even some in his own party are very uncomfortable with such blatant disregard for the constitution.

            President Clinton allowed generous donners to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom and appropriately endured a lengthy investigation. Our leaders must not allow even the whiff of impropriety to cloud their ability to discharge the duties of their office. For our president to even consider accepting such a “gift” calls into question his judgement regarding any other transaction with the Qatari government. It also erodes trust in his decision-making process for all other transactions.

            It is a privilege to serve, and we need leaders who understand that concept and willingly embrace the stringent nature of public service. Public office should not be considered an opportunity to enrich oneself at the expense of propriety, the voters, and trust in our national institutions. Congress needs to step in and investigate. If we allow the president to flout the constitution, how can we hold others accountable to the same document and standard. If we enable such behavior, we enable institutionalized graft and corruption.

How could we then look at junior officers and tell them, “Do not accept anything more expensive than a baseball cap?”

Due Process Part II

 

            As a young private in the Army, I felt that my rights were often trampled on, and they were. As a soldier, you give up many rights. I found that I could not say anything that came to my mind. I could not wear my hair as long as I liked, nor could I grow a beard. My moustache had to conform to what someone else thought was appropriate. My sergeants told me what to wear and what to do. Someone off in the deep dark bowls of PERSCOM (Personnel Support Command) told me where to live. I endured all of these constraints in order to say I was a soldier. But one of the few rights I still enjoyed was due process.

Once when I was in trouble, I was hauled in front of my company commander. The first thing that he did was to read me my rights. Knowing that I had behaved badly, we’ll not go into the details here, I threw myself on his mercy. He, in turn, handed me over to the 1SG for extra duty. I learned my lesson and did not make the same mistake again. But, had I desired, he would have provided me with a lawyer to give me counsel. Later in my  soldierly career as a commander, I periodically read my troops their rights and afforded them due process. Sometimes, I knew the end from the beginning. I knew my troops; however, I always allowed the process to play out. It was important to do so. After all, just having the power did not excuse abusing it.

One of President Trump’s campaign promises was to round up and deport undocumented immigrants. He now pursues the fulfillment of that promise with great vigor. In his haste, he willingly tramples on due process and civil rights.

“We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years.” President Trump on Truth Social

One of the challenges of living in a civilized law-abiding society is that it is often inconvenient and takes time and effort. After all, it is much simpler to form a posse and then string-‘em-up. Why bother with the process of a trial? Sadly, group think rarely provides good answers to difficult questions. Though imperfect, the judicial process provides the best protection for individuals and society. In any culture, the weak need protection from the strong. As President Truman said,

“The guilty as well as the innocent are entitled to due process of law. They are entitled to a fair trial. They are entitled to counsel. They are entitled to fair treatment from the police. The law enforcement officer has the same duty as the citizen-indeed, he has a higher duty-to abide by the letter and spirit of our Constitution and laws. You yourselves must be careful to obey the letter of the law. You yourselves must be intellectually honest in the enforcement of the law.” Harry S. Truman

When we discard due process, the weak innocent fall victim to haste and animus. This is the case with a two-year-old girl known in court papers only as V.M.L. Her mother, a citizen of Honduras was deported. Her father, a U.S. citizen sought to keep his daughter, another U.S. citizen, here. Again, in its haste, the Trump Administration has deported someone who had every right to remain in our nation, this time a citizen. As a nation we have the responsibility to protect the weakest among us.

“Never violate a woman, nor harm a child. Do not lie, cheat or steal. These things are for lesser men. Protect the weak against the evil [and] strong. And never allow thoughts of gain to lead you into the pursuit of evil.” David Gemmell

            A two-year-old girl poses no threat to our nation. We do not know about her mother as she was denied due process, that messy and inconvenient thing. But that process is what protects all of us, the strong as well as the weak. We must speak up for the weakest in our society. Our strength as a nation does not flow from our weapons, manufacturing prowess, or large bank accounts. It flows from our willingness to shoulder the burden of doing the right thing, even when it is inconvenient. We claim to be a law-abiding nation whose legal system is founded upon Judeo-Christian morality. We need to remember this passage from Proverbs, a great book of wisdom:

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” – Proverbs 31:8-9

 

Fixing a Mistake to Restore Due Process

I have made many mistakes in my life, some large and egregious others minor and inconsequential. Large or small, the best thing that I could do after making a mistake was to admit it and then do my best to correct it. Fortunately, most of my failings were such that I could immediately apply a remedy. A few, that I’d rather not detail, were of such a nature that I could not repair the wrong. Such is not the case with the U.S. government and Abrego Garcia.

Scooped up in an aggressive ICE raid, Abrego Garcia was improperly deported to El Salvador. The Trump administration admits the mistake, citing an administrative error, yet they refuse to take the steps necessary to rectify their mistake, even in the face of a Supreme Court requirement. They have even used the fig-leaf of getting the president of El Salvador to publicly refuse as their most current reason. Such a callus refusal to observe due process and right and obvious wrong ought to sound the klaxon in the hearts, minds, and souls of Americans.

Garcia arrived on our shores seeking refuge from the criminal gang life in his home country and was granted protected status by our government. For that same government to refuse to correct an administrative error, leaving him incarcerated on foreign soil strikes at the foundational structures of freedom, due process, checks and balances. What is to keep the executive branch from denying me due process should they make a mistake?  I understand the reluctance to correct an error. I do not enjoy admitting that I’m wrong; however, adult behavior requires it when I make a mistake. For the current administration to simply ignore another branch of government is unacceptable, no matter which party one belongs to.

All of us should clamor for the immediate return of Mr. Garcia. If we fail to register our displeasure at this, we fail to help the most helpless in their time of extreme need. We all have much at stake in this issue. How can we stand for freedom if we continue to allow our government to sweep up individuals and deport them to incarceration based on flimsy evidence and no chance to plead their case or have appropriate representation? Much of the evidence used is grounded on tattoos and in the case of Mr. Garcia an assumed connection based on an incorrect identification of his location. Despite all of this and a Supreme Court requirement to facilitate his return, the administration refuses to return him and afford him the due process required by our legal system.

Due process is a critical component of our legal system. It is the mechanism which protects individuals from incorrect prosecution and incarceration. Though it takes time and effort, it keeps us from wrongly punishing individuals, citizens and aliens alike. The current administration seems bent on ignoring due process. Those of us who claim the name of Christ must cry out. Scripture reminds us of how the Lord looks at this issue:

33 “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 19:33-34 English Standard Version

Our brutal treatment of these individuals does not reflect our commitment to law, order, justice, and protection of the weak. We need to reaffirm our commitment to these foundational concepts. These are the things that make a nation great; not the heartless exercise of power and might. We need to revisit the Sonnet by Emma Lazarus found on the Statue of Liberty:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, 

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

 “…Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” Jesus of Nazareth in Luke 12:48b

As a shavetail lieutenant, my position required that I secure a Top-Secret clearance. As I have a somewhat colorful past, I was concerned about making it through the investigation process. But since I told them the truth up front, they were not surprised when they came across the random skeleton or two…or three. I was quite excited when I was finally allowed behind the “green-door." After reading about a million pages explaining how to handle classified material, including a large section devoted to the penalties of divulging national secrets, I signed on several dotted lines and was granted access. 

        What a let-down. I expected more exiting information. But hey, I was just a Second-Lieutenant and in the Army you start small. As my career progressed, I gained more responsibility and earned more trust, and the stakes grew higher and the information much more sensitive. I also learned a great deal about the systems we use to keep our secrets and why they are so important. Eventually towards the end of my career, I worked at very high levels requiring detailed excursions into my background to ensure that I was indeed trustworthy. To whom much is given, much is required. That is why the recent leak and ensuing chaos grieves me so.

This failure reveals significant problems within the current administration. When we circumvent the clearance granting system and the associated investigations, we assume great risk. This failure reveals three problem areas.

First, when we hire inexperienced and untrained individuals, they often make mistakes. As an inexperienced lieutenant, I had no idea about the complexity of how we gather, investigate, protect, and exploit sensitive information. Understanding how the various levels of classification interact and the human, physical, and automated systems we use to both disseminate and protect sensitive information takes time. Individuals with no experience must willingly take the time to learn how all this works, and accept the guidance of more experienced individuals.

Second, when we grant prideful individuals access, we assume great risk. Hubris leads individuals to believe that they know better. Our current cultural milieu tends to disdain education and experience. Large swaths of our society disregard not only those with more training and experience but the process of gaining knowledge and understanding. Disrespect for the systems, processes, and procedures leads to taking shortcuts and inevitable mistakes. In the realm of national defense and shortcuts and mistakes lead to lost opportunities and lives. An enemy just knowing that we know puts lives in peril. In this arena, we must take long-term goals and objectives into account.

  Third, people in leadership must act responsibly. If our overarching objective is to tear down and destroy without a clear picture of what the new looks like, then we often ruin things that we truly want to keep. Reductions in force may be a necessary and laudable goal, but great responsibility requires the ability to manage a variety of often competing requirements. Understanding this and making appropriate and responsible decisions takes intellectual and emotional maturity; traits normally born out of long experience.  Those who are simply infatuated with the exercise of power often take steps or shortcuts which do not serve our nation well. 

This world is a dangerous and complicated place. Understanding how to best use and leverage our enormous power takes great wisdom. Simply swaggering around and assuming that you know better because of a title granted not from experience, but from political expedience, does not serve the nation well. A myopic viewpoint which acts without careful consideration misses opportunities and frequently embraces vulnerabilities through impetuousness. Those in positions of power and leadership must forgo arrogant belligerence and assuming that they know better simply because they express disdain for those and what came before. Positions of great responsibility and power require teachable leaders equipped with wisdom and patience. Positions, such as the Secretary of Defense, require much more than simple fealty to the president and a desire to raze things to the ground. We need thoughtful men and women who not only seek to implement the President’s agenda but also keep the nation’s safety in mind. 

Checks and Balances

“He who saves his country does not violate any Law,” President Trump on X

I enlisted in the Army as a private in February of 1981. I brought with me a rather romanticized idea of what life as a soldier would be like. Soon reality dashed a bucket of cold water on my ardor. I often chafed under what I felt was poor leadership. In my self-centered worldview, I thought I could do a better job. Eventually, I was able to earn my commission and entered the Army at the exalted rank of Second Lieutenant. Soon I ran into what seemed like a sea of command, regulatory, and administrative checks on what I wanted to do. But I soon realized that they were there for a reason. As an officer, I enjoyed significant power over those of lessor rank, a power that was easily abused. The checks on my power existed to ensure that I properly used the power given to me. Over time I progressed in rank, enjoying more power but also better understanding the checks and balances levied upon me. Our Constitution provides checks and balances to protect the weaker from the whims of the more powerful.

Those who framed our foundational documents intimately understood the perils of unbridled power, having lived under a monarch. They set up our government with a system of checks and balances to ensure that the stronger did not run over the weaker. While these checks and balances make our government frustratingly slow and cumbersome at times, they ensure that those entrusted with power do not use that power in harmful or selfish ways. The executive, legislative, and judicial branch all have roles to play in ensuring that all citizens enjoy the “the Blessings of Liberty.” As much as they frustrate, leaders must respect the constraints of the checks and balances system.

"Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power," Vice-President Vance on X

  We have a legal system to determine whether an official is exercising their power appropriately. As an officer in the Army, I was required to justify my actions legally to the Judge Advocate General, the Inspector General, and to Congress. Fortunately for me, almost always I was vindicated after an appropriate investigation. I never enjoyed the process but submitted. Over the years I have watched senior leaders grapple with the system.

Presidents of both parties have found the checks and balances system onerous; however, they have come to terms with it. They fumed and sought out ways to make the system work in their favor. Sometimes they succeeded and at other times they failed. But in the end, recognizing the benefits of the system, and they complied. Now we have a president and supporting administration who seem inclined to just ignore the system. Additionally, it appears that they are considering trying to impeach justices that do not agree with them.

“There needs to be an immediate wave of judicial impeachments, not just one,” Mr. Musk on X

The checks and balances system was created for such a time as this. As a nation which respects the rule of law, we should not seek to discard those with whom we disagree. Disagreement is not illegal. Our governmental system works well, those who enjoy positions of responsibility must respect our system and work within its confines. To do otherwise damages one of the pillars that supports our society, respect for the rule of law, and the benefits such respect brings. The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow and exceedingly fine…on purpose. 

What Makes a Nation Great?

Nobody wants to be second rate. As a longtime fan of the Dallas Cowboys, I’ve learned to swallow my pride. I still wear my Cowboys hat, you know the one with star on it, but I take quite a bit of ribbing from my friends here in New Mexico. Since it is just a sports team, I do not lose sleep over their second-rate status; however, other things are more important. During the 2016 presidential campaign red “Make America Great Again” hats entered the national cultural landscape. Since then, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what makes a nation great.

Some would argue that military might makes a nation great. As a professional soldier of over twenty-five years, that appeals to me. After all, I spent a great portion of my adult professional life doing my best to ensure our Army was the best. Yet, I hesitate to say that a strong military makes a nation great. There are other things to consider.

Some cite industrial strength or Gross-Domestic-Product (GDP) as the hallmark of a great nation. Again, there is a certain appeal to this measure. After all, our ability to make and sell things helps secure a decent standard of living…one hopes. Our nation, with its abundant natural resources and strong well educated labor pool, can make good things and make them in abundance. But GDP does not fully capture a nation’s greatness; perhaps, we should consider science.

Again, a nation’s ability to expand our understanding of our globe, how we interact with it, and how we understand the universe beyond and inside does not fully identify greatness. While scientific prowess certainly is important, legions of men and women in lab-coats do not necessarily signify a great nation. After all, there have been a variety of nations which truly expanded our understanding of the universe, but did not achieve greatness. Does cultural achievement accrue to national greatness?

For centuries, France and other European countries dominated the world cultural scene. All the good culture sprang from Europe. Rightly or wrongly, eventually the U.S. supplanted Europe. Hollywood, New York, and other locals in the U.S. developed into cultural centers for arts of all types. While excellence in the arts makes our lives richer, if everyone can enjoy or participate, I’m not convinced that cultural eminence makes a nation great. What about governmental efficiency?

Governmental efficiency is a good thing. As someone who spent a significant amount of time in government, I like governmental efficiency. It makes things work smoothly and on time. It can also save money. But does it elevate a nation to greatness? Does a devotion to finding the most efficient way to complete a task lead us to greatness in any field? After all, sometimes elevating efficiency results in individuals being crushed or consumed in the process. So, what makes a nation great?

Empathy, our ability to feel another’s pain certainly helps make a nation great. When we have the emotional maturity to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes we tend to develop practices and procedures that help instead of harm. Closely related to empathy is sympathy, the ability to feel sorrow for someone else’s misfortune. Again, when we sympathize, we work towards helping others instead of looking the other way when we see misfortunate ones. These things take courage.

Courage is another trait of great nations. We must have courage to take the risk to do great things. Courage requires that we assume risk. Courage also requires that we take the long view and willingly labor for a goal that others will enjoy. Courage demands that we fully understand and embrace our moral center, even when others decry it. A community of courageous men and women build great nations.

Great nations foster a sense of community. They build ties that reduce the feelings of otherness. Small nations, led by small people, confuse community with conformity. Community does not require sameness. A strong sense of community springs from shared values and goals, a sense of working together to bring everyone along and leave no one behind. Like shared values, great nations enjoy shared morals.

A group of shared moral values need not descend into some sort of legalistically enforceable code. A nation does not need a shared faith to share moral values. Everyone supports such universal values as honesty, integrity, compassion, hard-work, justice, respect, and trustworthiness. Of course there are others, but virtually all of us can agree with this list. Shared moral values help a nation work together, building a sense of community, and finding common ground to work together. As an extension of moral values, great nations take care of the weakest members of society.

Great nations recognize and protect the most vulnerable of their citizenry. Those existing on the margins of a society need the most protection. Those of us with wealth and power do not exist in a state of fear. This sense of well-being helps us to achieve our true and full potential. Great nations extend protections to the weak, knowing that the powerful often ignore or run over the weak in their race to accrue more wealth and power. These protections stem from an innate cultural compassion and often lead to some of the greatest advances in other areas when those marginalized find the avenues to reach their full potential.

Interestingly the traits that make a nation great are character traits. Just as with people, it is not our cash reserves, gleaming cities, powerful military, or other physical things that make a nation great. It is our ability to live into the things that make people great that elevate us to great nation status. The nature of our character as a people makes us great. When our national character embodies the traits captured in our foundational documents, The Declaration of Independence, The Preamble of the Constitution, Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, Martin Luther King Jr’s I have a Dream Speech, and others, we will approach greatness as a nation, as a civilization, and as a people. 

Friends and Neighbors

Blessed are they who have the gift of making friends, for it is one of God’s best gifts. It involves many things, but above all, the power of going out of one’s self and appreciating whatever is noble and loving in another. Thomas Hughes

During twenty-seven years in the Army, I served in many different assignments with our allies. These included: Canada, Great Britian, Australia, Germany, Italy, France, Switzerland, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Lithuania, Poland, and others that I’ve certainly forgotten. I was almost always impressed with the soldiers from other nations. In fact, I can only think of one officer that did not impress me. He was lazy as the day is long. Once another officer remarked that if we were to throw him over the wall of the FOB, it would hurt Al Queda more than his work did; but, his hard charging and highly professional sergeant more than made up for any perceived deficits. These men and women made significant contributions to the success of our assigned missions, sometime at great peril. In my last assignment. I worked in USARNORTH (U.S. Army North) the Army component command of NORAD/NORTHCOM. In this command I worked closely with Canadians as part of our unified command in defense of North America. Again, I always felt like the Canadians not only sent their best, but they also shouldered significant burdens as part of our defense.

To hear President Trump say that he thinks we should make Canada our fifty-first state, or that he wants to crush them economically offends and saddens me. When I taught geography and history, I always enjoyed pointing out to my students that our border with Canada was the worlds longest unguarded border in the world. Ours is a common and peaceful border shared between good neighbors, friends and in many cases, family. I also proudly shared with my students the fact that portions of my family tree were Maple, complete with bright red leaves in the fall. I take great comfort in the fact that I have friends who hail from Canada.

In this convoluted intertwined and often chaotic and dangerous world, we need friends. Despite our wealth and associated power, we cannot go it alone. We need good strong friends, especially these days. We do not need any more enemies. There are enough who wish us ill will, we need not manufacture any more. We need to strengthen the ties that bind us, not weaken them. As the old bard says, 

Those friends thou has, and their adoption tried,

Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel.

William Shakespeare

We need to take actions that build up, not tear down. Sometimes we need to take the long view, and understand that in true friendship is one sometimes gives and sacrifices. True friendship is not a transactional, or a quid-pro-quo, relationship. Interestingly, in one assignment where I worked with diplomats from various nations, one of them told me that American diplomats took actions that they believed would bear fruit in fifty years, and diplomats from Great Britian took actions they believed would bear fruit in one-hundred or more years! In friendships, one must deal honorably and kindly. After all, Jesus the great teacher once said, 31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them. Luke 6:31 English Standard Version So we should take a more measured approach with our great friends to the North. We should not disparage and insult them.

To my friends who would say that it is just rhetoric, I would point out that divisive derogatory words tear down, not build up. We need to strengthen the ties that bind us together, not erode them with corrosive speech. To my friends who might criticize me for taking a dim view of the actions of part of my country, I would point out that sometimes we make mistakes as a nation, and we must be big enough to own up to them and alter our course. Sometimes friendship brings benefits that are not measured by dollars in an accountant’s ledger. 

The Right Words

Recently a friend posted an essay on Facebook which started, “All my friends who hate President Trump read this.” This is not unusual. A few months ago, other friends were posting things that said, “All my friends who hate Vice President Kamala read this.” Unfortunately, this seems to be de  rigueur in speech these days. We’ve all seen people say that someone who disagrees with them should be taken out and hung, and that someone who takes issue with a governmental policy should leave the country. This kind of speech is not limited to one party. People on either end of the political spectrum, or in the middle, say such things. We seem given to polemic speech, and I’m not sure why. I find this disheartening, especially when I see people who I know consider themselves Christians posting such things. The following scripture comes to mind:

6 Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. Colossians 4:6 English Standard Version

I know that some of my friends who are not Christians may raise an eyebrow at this, so perhaps we can also consider the following quote:

But hushed be every thought that springs

        From out the bitterness of things.

William Wordsworth

Or perhaps this one that is a bit older:

He can never speak well who knows not how to hold his peace. Plutarch

When we engage in such invective speech, we only gratify ourselves. Our diatribe falls on stone ears. For example, if I’m not a supporter of President Trump and a friend posts something that starts, “All my friends who hate President Trump read this,” I’m probably not going to read it. After all, even if I do not support him, I do not hate him. The word hate is a very strong word. Merriam-Webster defines hate as: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury or extreme dislike or disgust : antipathy, loathing. Truthfully, I do not know any politicians well enough to hate them. I may disagree with their policies, but hatred requires a certain level of intimacy that we will not reach. Such language shuts doors. If I see that kind of post, I do not read it because I know that I don’t feel that emotion towards the person talked about. Hate is a penultimate emotion, similar to loath. Yet, we throw it around as if it was as common as putting on your socks. The casual use of the word hate builds walls, closes doors, and demeans meaningful conversation. When we accuse each other of hatred, we make it very hard to engage in constructive dialogue. We should eschew recklessly flinging hate-stones at each other. We should also avoid making disagreement something more than it is.

Disagreeing with something our government does is not being traitorous or a sign that one should decamp to a new country. Along with belligerent speech we’ve embraced the idea that we all must think the same way. I often see people accusing someone who thinks differently of being disloyal or worse. Christy, my wife of forty years, and I disagree on various things; some as simple as what to eat and some difficult thorny theological issues. Yet in those forty years, I’ve never slept on the couch. Long ago we learned that we do not have to agree on everything to enjoy a deep meaningful relationship. Disagreement does not necessarily sever all ties. There have been times in which listening to each other moderated or even changed our opinions. As a nation, we need to develop the emotional and mental ability to listen carefully to what someone says.  When we listen, truly listen, we show honor and respect to the person speaking…or writing…or posting. We need not fear someone who disagrees with us.

12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:12

As President Franklin Roosevelt said in his inauguration speech in 1933:

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is … fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

It is interesting to note that Roosevelt tapped into a long line of thinkers, Montaigne, Bacon, and others who identified fear as the significant problem. We can also look at the old bard who said it this way:

Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind;

The thief doth fear each bush an officer.

William Shakespeare

Fear makes us small, timid individuals who lash out at every perceived wrong or slight. We need to be bigger individuals; men and women who understand the real problems that stalk our nation and civilization. Fear, prejudice, ignorance, and greed stand as the root of the ills that plague us. There are others, but I’d rather not get too metaphysical in this essay. We desperately need to listen more to each other. Perhaps then, we might find that we’re much more like the other side than we realize. We might also find solutions to the various challenges we face. 

Character Counts and Truth Matters

There is an old adage in the Army which goes, “A unit assumes the character traits of its commander,” and this is true. During my time in the service, I served under many commanders; some good, some bad, and some indifferent. Though most enjoy the privilege of command, some officers do not make the cut. Their character and actions render them untrustworthy. While there are multiple facets that go into the screening process, one of the most common failures is an inability to tell the truth. This shows up in a variety of ways; but, at the core lies a fearfulness which leads one to obfuscate or prevaricate. The Army does not want an officer with significant character flaws influencing their command. As time passes, a commander exerts tremendous influence on their subordinates. From one degree to another, subordinates emulate their commander. I’ve worked for commanding officers who exemplified the highest standards of character and professionalism. Their units soon took on those excellent character traits. I had a sterling commander replaced by a mean-spirited churlish officer who viewed the command as a stepping stool for bigger and better things. Inexorably the battalion changed, becoming a dark and dangerous place to work, a place where officers, NCOs, and soldiers frequently turned on each other to gain some sort of advantage. This is why character counts and truth matters.

Our duly elected president is not a man of high character. I know that some will use the moral-equivalency argument to dismiss this; but, to do so is disingenuous. Yes, we are all failed individuals. None of us are perfect; but, some of us have a higher quality of character than others. We use the moral-equivalency argument as a mere fig-leaf designed to avoid having to account for character flaws. The failures of past individuals in power is no excuse to accept current failure. No matter how you measure, President Trump does not set the example of a man of high moral fiber. One of his most glaring failures is his mendacity. This is not some sort of stress-induced failure. His public life is littered with fabrication and lies. And while we all fail at one time or another, his public utterances are a continual stream of falsehoods. If I was still in the Army and he was a subordinate, I could not in good conscience assign him a position of authority due to his deceitfulness. Yet, here we are with him as our president, influencing the executive branch remaking it in his own image.

Those in his cabinet, and other high-ranking departmental officials, must agree to his continual lie that he won the election in 2020, despite all the evidence to the contrary. They must embrace this untruth to serve. Consequently, we have an entire cabinet and many other high-ranking officials who are untethered to the truth. This mendacity renders any communications from the executive branch suspect. How can I trust them when they had to promulgate a lie just to get the job. I must view anything that they say with suspicion, even when they say or do something that I agree with. This outrageous behavior continues.

Most recently the President, his spokesman, and staff blame the Ukraine for causing the invasion by Russia. This blatant lie has reverberated around the globe, shocking and angering. Eager to secure the President’s goodwill, many in the blogosphere have engaged in a wide variety of machinations in order to support this fabrication. Whatever the geopolitical cause, Russia did invade the Ukraine and to say otherwise only further erodes trust and confidence in our governmental institutions. Despite the passage of time, character and the ability to handle the truth remain foundational traits for a leader. We must call on leaders at all levels to strengthen their character and cleave unto the truth. If we fail to do so, we will live with chaos, and it will continue until we demand better behavior from our leaders. 

A Reduction In Force

I enlisted in the Army in 1981. In 1988 I received my commission as a 2LT and shipped out to Germany. In 1989 the USSR called it quits and folded up shop. In 1989 the Army had eighteen active divisions. There were two full Corps in Germany. Once the Soviet Union evaporated, congress wanted to cash in on what was called, “The Peace Dividend.” In a few short years the Army shed over 300,000 active-duty positions. It was quite unlike the draw-down at the end of the Vietnam war. The draw-down at the end of the Vietnam conflict was chaotic and poorly thought out, leaving the Army dispirited, confused, and hollow. Army leadership determined to learn from those mistakes and did their best to conduct the Reduction In Force (RIF) without destroying our combat capability. In many ways they succeeded, in others not so much.

Shedding over 300,000 soldiers meant that many highly qualified personnel were cut loose in the prime of their careers. The Army employed a variety of strategies to ensure that those who did stay were the best qualified. For example, my year group of lieutenants went through a board just to determine if we would be allowed to compete for captain. The Army tightened up standards for promotion, raising the bar. They also offered a variety of financial inducements to leave the service. While not everything ran smoothly, for the most part the plans worked well and the draw-down took place with a minimum of disorder. As with any significant reduction in personnel, there were moments of tension while awaiting the results of a board. In the mid-nineties, the Army emerged from the process leaner and still combat ready. All of this to say that we may make serious reductions in personnel without undue chaos.

Reducing the size of the government workforce may be a laudable goal. But making important personnel and services decisions in great haste may not serve the needs of the nation well. Contrary to popular belief, the governmental workforce is not some bloated behemoth in which employees take home large paychecks without producing much. In my twenty-seven years of active service, the majority of people that I worked with, military and civilian, worked diligently at the tasks assigned. Of course there were exceptions. But they were exactly that exception. To simply pluck numbers out of the air, without thought, study, or planning will not leave us with a lean efficient workforce. It may well disrupt key functions on which many of us rely. 

Watching Mr. Musk and President Trump engage in reducing the numbers of federal employees makes me glad that I am no longer in the federal workforce. They have done nothing to prepare government employees for this process. They send out haphazard emails, which often do not make sense. They have ignored various legal requirements designed to protect workers. While their actions may satisfy some primal adolescent urge to display power, they do very little to reduce the personnel footprint while maintaining critical expertise and functions. Slapdash lay-offs and firings result in a dispirited workforce and often send the wrong people away. We may very well lose significant expertise in our haste. We will then find replacing the lost knowledge very difficult. After all, who wants to join a workforce where one is dismissed without cause.

One of the things that made the Army draw-down of the nineties work was that we were all in it together. I knew that those above me were facing the same sorts of challenges I faced. Congress tasked us with drastic reductions in force structure, and we girded up our loins and went to work. It was not fun. It was not easy, but we did it. What I see going on under the current administration, is two rich men going after a workforce with little knowledge or understanding of what their employees do. They seem to have no real plan and have given little thought to the repercussions of their actions. They will not suffer the consequences of their actions. At the end of the day, they will be able to go home to their mansions and live out lives of luxury and privilege with little thought to the lives they impeded through their ill-conceived actions.