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.

 

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.

Institutional Damage

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bullies Need Not Apply

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allies: Condemnation or Cooperation

 

            I watched the Twin Towers collapse on a TV in the Operations (G-3)section of First Armored Division, 1AD Old Ironsides, in Wiesbaden, Germany. Like everyone else, the sight of the towering office buildings collapsing in dust and rubble horrified me. I knew that my world would never be the same…and it wasn’t. A few days later, I was among those invited to the German Army headquarters for a briefing by their division commander (please note that the German Army has restructured greatly since 2001 and I’m not sure if the Panzer Division headquarters is still near Wiesbaden.).

            The German Commanding General gave the opening remarks. Here is a summary of what he said, “For years, you stood between us and aggression by the Soviet Union. Your presence secured our safety. We owe you a significant debt. Now, we can in some small way repay a portion of that debt. We consider the recent attack on New York an attack on us. We understand that you will need help orchestrating your response. You have all my resources available to help in the upcoming operations. Please know that I am the only one who can say “no.” No one on my staff has the authority to say “no.” If they do, all you have to do is pick up your phone and call me. My phone number is…”

            While my work did not require much from the German Army. Some of my peers reported great support and assistance when they asked. What I did see was German soldiers replacing our MPs at checkpoints, base entry gates, and on patrol in on our bases and housing areas. I also witnessed the Bundesbhan (German Railroad), rearranging schedules to allow us the ability to quickly move material to the ports. If you’ve ever lived or traveled in Germany, you know what a sacrifice it is to disrupt train schedules. At the ports our ships were given priority. Our allies, the Germans, sacrificed greatly in support of our operations. This is something we should never forget.

            When I deployed to Iraq in the Spring of 2003, I fought alongside our NATO partners and several other nations who joined in the fray, supporting us with their lives and treasure. Later after 1AD redeployed to Germany, I served in Combined Joint Task Force 7, CJTF-7. I well remember the day when our Italian contingent suffered a significant attack, losing a significant number of men. We all mourned the loss together. I went outside the wire with Australian and British armies. I never felt like I was serving with second-rate soldiers. In a later deployment to Iraq, I served in Multi-National Corps Iraq, MNC-I. Again, I served alongside Canadians, Australians, British, and Samoans. All allies dedicated to supporting us with their lives and their treasure. I learned to depend upon them for their support and professionalism. This is something we should never forget.

            In a later assignment, I served in United States Army South, USARSO. In this assignment I served alongside our partners in South America. I went on counter-drug operations with various allies including, Panamanians, Nicaraguans, Hondurans, Colombians, Bolivians, Brazilians, and the French. Again, united to stem the flow of narcotics into our nation, all these allies sacrificed to help us. I remember standing in a forward base in Bolivia training their soldiers on anti-mine procedures. These men risked life and limb daily for almost no pay. Their uniforms were threadbare and their equipment ancient…but well maintained. They were our allies in the ongoing war on drugs. This is something we should never forget.

            Again in a later assignment, I served in United States Army North ARNORTH, a component of NORAD-NORTHCOM. I was privileged to serve alongside Canadians, protecting our nations against a possible aggression from across the North Pole. These professional men and women helped us guard our freedom. This is something we should never forget.

            Recently I’ve seen many postings denigrating our allies. They usually focus on two things: one a lack of commitment in the form of time, effort, and particularly money and two a lack of cultural commonality. I’d like to address both issues.

            While it is true that for years most NATO member nations did not reach the desired military spending level of 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), in recent years their spending has increased. Currently all nations spend the desired 2% with six spending over 3%. The changing world situation and President Trump’s efforts have generated this increase. As a point of comparison, the U.S. spent about 3.2% of GDP in 2025. While our total expenditure dwarfs the rest in raw dollars, in percentage of GDP we’re not that far ahead of our fellow NATO allies. As the global situation increased in volatility, our allies have responded appropriately. We must remember that national interests, as perceived in the country, govern such decisions. Their culture may or may not be as willing to devote precious resources to military efforts.

            Many people seem suddenly concerned about cultural differences. Here, I’d like to share the Marrium-Webster definition of ally as a noun:

1.     a sovereign or state associated with another by treaty or league

2.     one that is associated with another as a helper : a person or group that provides assistance and support in an ongoing effort, activity, or struggle

You will note that neither definition includes discussion of shared cultural values. I can attest to the fact that when the bullets snapped past my ears, I never checked on the cultural mores of my allies. All I really cared about was did they have my flank and were they putting rounds downrange in earnest. Yes, it is easier to work with someone who shares my cultural ideas, but it is not required. One of the great lessons all soldiers learn is that mission focus is paramount and at the end of the day, you can successfully work with someone who views the world quite differently than you do. Once while working with the Canadians, I found that their field rations included a small bottle of wine! Serving with the Brits and Aussies, I had to make the difficult cultural adjustment to the daily beer ration. Some cultural sacrifices are greater than others. I have worked with people from all over the globe with quite divergent backgrounds and beliefs. Some even became my friends. I needed them and they needed me.

            Our world is vastly more complex and interconnected than most of us think. We cannot, and should not, seek to either go it alone or bully others into submitting to our desires. We need one another. Cooperation requires listening and sometimes sacrifice. We need to stop feeding our isolationist tendencies and instead broaden our view and roll up our sleeves and work with others toward our shared goals and missions.

Not A Training Ground

 

            In my writing, I try and explore the ideas and concepts that shape our society and world. Though I’m not always successful, I try to direct my ramblings away from individuals and party. As a politically independent voter, unaffiliated with any one party, I find grappling with the concepts and philosophies that shape our world more satisfying since neither party accurately represents how I feel. But today I must set that aside to speak to something directly; something that I feel cannot go unaddressed.

            In a meeting with our highest military leaders the president said, “We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.”

            As a veteran of twenty-two years of commissioned service in the Regular Army, with multiple combat tours, I find this statement appalling. It goes against everything I was ever taught about being a soldier, an officer, a leader, and a citizen.

            Our citizens and cities are not, I repeat not, training aids for the military. For our president and commander in chief to say such a thing astounds me. The practice of deploying troops into a city, without the request of civilian authorities, to engage in some nebulous version of law-enforcement goes against our cultural norms and is legally tenuous at best. Now to say that these deployments should be considered some sort of training exercise is beyond the pale of normality.

            Training is where you practice, where you make mistakes, and where you hone the skills needed to win wars and survive on the battlefield. To think of subjecting our citizenry to such a chaotic environment baffles me. Our fellow citizens are not some sort of training aid that we can use indiscriminately. If we want to train, then use the appropriate training environment, one in which mistakes do not result in casualties and property destruction. For our president to make such an off-handed callous remark not only astounds, it also alarms.

            Soldiers, NCOs, and Officers all take an oath to follow the “lawful” orders of the president. Earlier in that oath is a line that reads, “…to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” For the president, the commander in chief, to so casually put the military into a position fraught with legal and moral conflict is unconscionable. Continually sending troops into cities puts soldiers and the citizenry into positions of potential conflict for no reason. Such conflicts would potentially pit friends against friends, fathers against sons or daughters, and neighbor against neighbor. In a society already struggling to bridge seemingly impossible chasms, such deployments exacerbate the struggle to find common ground and solve difficult problems. The statement reveals a casual disregard for the very people the President has sworn to protect and a lack of understanding about the role and purpose of the military.

            Our military exists to defeat the enemy on the battlefield, and contrary to what our President and Secretary of Defense say, they are quite good at it. Our military is neither a prop designed to elicit an effect from an audience, nor is it a pseudo police force or shock troops designed to put down an imagined insider attack. Troops are not trained in law-enforcement.

            Law-enforcement is a difficult and at times very dangerous line of work. It takes special men and women to engage in this type of duty. Law-enforcement takes subtle skills in engaging the population while separating them from criminal elements. If we believe that our cities are dangerous places, a fact which current data does not necessarily support, then we should hire, train, and deploy more law-enforcement officers. We should also spend more money on those social services which help reduce crime through education and job training. We do not need knee jerk responses to difficult and convoluted problems.

            Deploying troops may sound good to certain elements of the President’s base, but it does nothing to solve the long-term problems that we face. Additionally, it increases the divide our nation currently grapples with. Instead of posturing, we need leadership that rolls up its sleeves and engages in the difficult work of solving problems in ways that bring people together.

Free Speech and Criticism

 

            My experiences as an officer, as a leader, in the Army forced me to develop a thick skin. As a private and specialist, I thought my leaders were somehow immune to criticism from below. As an officer, I found that the criticism seemed unending from above and below. My rank did not serve as a shield, rather as a magnet attracting various forms of criticism. Sometimes it seemed to verge on abuse. This was especially apparent in the dreaded forum of the sensing session. In these sessions, the Inspector General (IG) would sit down with the subordinates of my organization and ask them their unvarnished opinions regarding my command climate and general fitness as a commander. Later they would sit down with me and review the results, always a challenging experience.

            Later as a teacher in a High School and a Community College, I learned about the civilian version of the “sensing session.” Each semester, I was required to submit to end of course reviews. Students, under the protection of anonymity, submitted critiques of my instruction. Again, I needed a thick skin. But interestingly, I found both types of criticism useful in helping me become a better instructor and leader. That is one of the many challenges of leadership. Leaders must develop the ability to absorb criticism and possibly learn from what others say.

            As I watch our current administration employ various tactics designed to stifle criticism, I am quite disappointed. Leaders and teachers need broad shoulders, shoulders, capable of withstanding criticism and disparaging remarks. To respond by censoring critics through any means reveals a small churlish spirit; one unsuited to the mantel of command or leadership. To bully, whether through verbal counter attacks or some other legal tool, is not the response of a true leader. The administration employs a number of tactics, verbal attacks, lawsuits, and regulatory threats designed to stifle critical voices and encourage their base. All of these reveal serious leadership flaws.

            True leaders understand that they are imperfect fallible humans. Even the best, most adept, leaders need input and guidance. Using bellicose speech and other pressure tactics does not show strength; those tactics show cowardice and insecurity. As a commander, leader of troops, I enjoyed a variety of retaliatory tools. To use them would have revealed my weakness as a leader, undermined the chain of command, and resulted in a poorly performing unit. Instead, I needed to carefully listen and make appropriate adjustments. As a teacher, I usually knew who wrote the critical reviews. By the end of a semester, I could recognize individual students’ style; and in a small community college the chances were quite good that I would see the students again. In both cases, if I swallowed my pride and hurt feelings, I found that the critiques helped me improve. But it is hard to swallow your pride.

            So, I well understand the urge to lash out at the critic. But I also understand the desperate need of our culture to see the example of a true leader, a statesman. Leaders, statesmen, put the needs of their nation above their own feelings. We all desire to feel loved and appreciated; but, leaders must often make decisions that others find unacceptable. As a leader in the Army, I often made decisions that my subordinates did not like, working late to prepare for an important exercise or mission, for example. As a teacher, I made assignments that my students did not want to complete or assigned grades that students did not appreciate; but, that was part of my responsibilities. So when they complained about their lot whether it be poor grades or long work hours, I did not hold it against them. After all, I understood their plight. But that did not change the state of things and for me to retaliate against them would not have been right.

            And that is the crux of my disappointment with the administration’s response to perceived censure. At this time, we desperately need broad-shouldered strong leaders who can stand the negative comments. No matter what they do, someone will complain. That is all part of the role of being a leader. Good leaders understand this, shrug off the petty complaints and take the worthy comments to heart and perhaps even redirect their actions and policies. So let us abandon threats and frivolous lawsuits designed to badger and bully. Instead, let us embrace thoughtful considered policy that works towards the best result for all of us in the republic. As my mother used to say, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

The Tanker and Poetry

 

            “Sir, I’m just a DAT. I can’t understand that.”

            It was the early ‘90s at what was then Fort Hood, Texas. I was serving as the Signal Officer in an Armor Battalion, 3-66 Armor to be exact and training a young officer on how to use his radio. Now, I’m not a technically oriented person; however, the Army in all its collective wisdom decided that I would be a Signal Officer. In fact, my first assignment as an officer was to 5^th Signal Command, a fixed station unit which used satellite and terrestrial microwave technologies to extend voice and data communications from the supporting base to tactical units deployed to Europe and around the globe. Survival as an officer in such a highly technical organization required mastery of many different technologies and the leadership required to employ them. I was in over my head. Survival and promotion required that I learn and study. Fortunately, I served alongside some of the best NCOs and technicians in the free world who made my success their success. I went from that heady technical world into the tactical army replete with the hulking M1A1 Abrams and all the associated heavy machinery of armored warfare, and as the Signal Officer I was required to master a new set of technologies, FM and AM radio and the various computer systems required to shoot, move, and communicate. I also had to teach the tankers to do the same.

            DAT stands for Dumb Ass Tanker, a moniker the tankers tossed around with great aplomb and pride; though it was not a term they would accept from a non-tanker such as myself. The M1A1 Abrams is an incredibly complex piece of equipment. It uses a turbine engine, taken from the aviation world and modified to drive the 50-ton behemoth. Properly employed, an Abrams equipped battalion is an incredibly lethal organization able to rapidly kill and destroy over amazing distances. To appropriately fight such a tank or organization requires the mastery of many different skills and is not, repeat not,  possible for those of limited intellect. Though they loved to wrap themselves in the mantle of the DAT, tankers, good tankers, are among the smartest individuals to wear the uniform. Years later, after I retired from the Army, I plunged into a new world.

            I sought to satiate my innate abilities and teach English and Social Studies in the High School and Junior College arena. This required a return to school. So, I found myself in Graduate School. On a whim I signed up for a course Poetry, Form and Function. Dr. John Poch, the professor, asked me to stop by for a chat before the semester started. He informed me that this class was not sitting around and chatting about poems over coffee. While we would read and discuss the great poems through the ages, we would be required to write a poem each walk, using a particular form…none of them free-form. He wanted to see if I was willing to work in such a highly technical environment. Again, I was in quite over my head; however, with his help I learned and grew. I found that the world of poetry was much more technical and thrilling than I had ever known. I never became a great poet, that required a level of commitment, inspiration, and ability I was either unwilling or unable to summon. But I found a new love of the world of poetry, especially the Metaphysical poets of the seventeenth century. This new world of letters, social studies, and education required mastery of a new set of skills for survival.

            Success in any field of endeavor requires mastery of skills. It has always been that way and always will be that way. Pick any field and you will find that success hinges upon mastery. Blue-collar, white-collar, or techie, it does not matter. Mastery leads to success. My grandfathers and uncles, all blue-collar men were masters of their chosen trades. My father, a history professor, was a master of his chosen trade. And mastery, requires an intensive effort to understand the intricacies of craft, intellectual prowess in other words. The world is and has always been a complex place impervious to easy formulas or pat answers. This is what makes developing a political philosophy based on memes so hazardous.

            A meme is an amusing or interesting item (such as a captioned picture or video) or genre of items that is spread widely online especially through social media.¹ These fill the social media world and often induce a good laugh. But many people are starting to develop their political or religious world view through data gathered from memes. A recent opinion piece in the New York Times detailed this cultural shift. ² And while this article focused on conservative efforts in this arena, liberal groups display the same sorts of changes. “Influencers” seek to inform their audience through memes, claiming that modern youth do not have the attention span or time to consume and digest political material presented in more traditional formats. They claim to influence their target audience via memes and other similar formats, and they appear to be quite successful in their stated goal. But there is one glaring problem.

            The issues surrounding political theory defy easy explanation via meme. The problems we face as a nation or culture are much more complex. They always have been. This is not some sort of new societal geopolitical problem. A study of history reveals that once you get more than two people living together, problems become very complicated, refusing easy definitions and solutions. All of us love easy definitions and simple solutions; however, the real world does not work that way. It is impossible to compress a serious problem, such as the Israeli Palestinian conflict or progressive tax theory, into a short catchy phrase which entertains.

            We live in a complex world with many competing constituencies. Finding solutions which adequately services these, sometimes widely divergent, groups takes knowledge, understanding, time, and wisdom. You cannot employ a shortcut, but that is exactly what many “influencers” claim to do. They posit a new generation, which understands the world intuitively and is able to bypass the work of learning. They claim that “only young people know what the new world is like.”³ They purposefully sell an entire generation short and pander to its baser more ill-informed instincts.

            Such a crass and self-serving paradigm leads to faulty myopic policy which ultimately separates and does not serve the nation or society as a whole. Good policy takes thoughtful communication between stakeholders. Comprehensive strategy and programs require some level of compromise. Memes corrode compromise by creating cartoonish representatives of “the other” which bear little resemblance to actual people or groups. We need to stop flinging such snarky and sarcastic images at each other, claiming to have “owned” the opposition. Good governance, governance which serves the greater good for the greatest number of people, takes time, effort, intelligence, cooperation, and wisdom. We ought to jettison memes as a means of creating policy and building consensus, putting them in their proper place, a tidbit of humor that causes a chuckle. Let us leave the real work of developing a coherent and cogent policy to thoughtful consideration and hard work.       

           

1.  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meme

2. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/opinion/trolling-democracy.html

3.  https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/opinion/trolling-democracy.html

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.

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