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.