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.

A Golden Statue

 

          As a teacher of English Literature and a retired Army operator in Information Operations, I understand the importance of symbology, especially in the visual arena. While verbal symbology is potent, visual symbology is much more powerful. The American public turned against the war in Vietnam due in large part to powerful images streaming from the small Southeast Asian country into our living rooms via the evening news. Careers are often made and broken over the publication of images. So, it is with great chagrin, sadness, but no surprise the I viewed the images of golden statues of President Trump.

 

          As a Christian, I cannot help but call to mind the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego found in Daniel 3:16-28. Now of course, no one that I know of is being called out and thrown into the fiery furnace for their failure to bow down to these images; but, they still give me great pause. What are we saying as a nation when we tolerate and even applaud such blatant self-aggrandizement and adulation bordering on worship? I also know that the President did not ask for the golden statue of him holding up a Bitcoin on the National Mall, but neither did he do anything to stop it. But he did actively share the AI generated picture of a heroic sized golden statue, complete with hundreds of miniature versions for sale, in an imagined recovered Gaza. These images reveal something significant about the character of our president.

            He is a man given over to vanity. The vast majority of us would, and should, recoil at the thought of a supersize golden statue of ourselves. It would make us hesitate, to gulp, and say, “Perhaps not.” Our president however, revels in such over-the-top exaltation. And the worst part is that we encourage this behavior. We simply act as if this level of conceit is normal and acceptable. I do not blame the President for such hubris; instead, I blame those of us who insist on accepting and supporting such vain displays. As the old prophet Hosea said, “They have sown the wind, they shall reap the whirlwind.” Hosea 8:7a

 

            In our culture, our society, we sowed the wind when we stopped demanding a high level of character in our leaders, whether it be political, cultural, or sports. We sowed the wind when

we stopped expecting people to be polite, excusing boorish behavior. We sowed the wind when we started passing off crassness as edgy humor. We sowed the wind when we lowered our standards for entertainment, calling vulgar baseness avant-garde. We sowed the wind when we evaluate education solely on its ability to increase earning potential instead of its ability to improve one’s ability to act as a good citizen. We sowed the wind when we started evaluating a person on the contents of their bank account instead of the content of their character. We sowed the wind when we decided that it was acceptable to round up and detain in substandard conditions certain classes of people rather than provide them with the due process of law guaranteed by our constitution and other legal instruments. We sowed the wind when we handed over the reins of government to men and women not because of their abilities, character, or vote but instead due to their wealth and obsequiousness. We’ve sown the wind.

            So again, I do not blame our President or those around him. They’re only doing the things that we’ve allowed. They are the fruit of the seeds we have planted. When we turned our heads and looked away, we planted seeds. When we sighed and accepted a lower standard of behavior, we planted seeds. We need to think about the seeds that we are planting.

 

           Instead of the seeds of callousness, apathy, and injustice, let us plant seeds of
compassion, justice, activity, and mercy. When we take the time and effort to plant those seeds, we will all enjoy the fruits of a just and honorable society, where our leaders serve the larger body with compassion and fairness.

                      

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.

Due Process

 

            You and I enjoy civil liberties. They provide the foundation of our free and open society. They are so important that we enumerated ten of them in the Bill of Rights, ten specific liberties guaranteed under our constitution, nine of which pertain to personal liberties. Among our constitutional rights is the right to “due process of law,” found in the Fifth Amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In short, we live in a country where the powerful state finds itself constrained. Due process ensures that you and I can walk the streets, conduct business, or relax in our homes free from the fear that some government agent will come along and spirit us away into some dark cell to rot away without recourse. At least that is the intent.

Recent actions by our current administration call this into question. Due process separates law enforcement from judicial proceedings. Law enforcement officials are not charged with or equipped to determine guilt or innocence. They gather facts and when appropriate make an arrest. Then the judiciary takes over to determine guilt or innocence. If the person is found guilty then the judiciary sets an appropriate punishment. I know that this all sounds like a high school civics class…which is ironic since my teaching certificate includes all social studies…but we seem to have forgotten the basic structure of our government.

I frequently hear or read people saying, “Well, they are illegal aliens so they have broken the law and should be deported.”

The problem with that statement is that the people in question may or may not be here illegally. These people have been denied their due process. We have courts set up to determine someone’s status and adjudicate the process. We are circumventing our constitutionally mandated system for convenience sake; or perhaps to satiate some sort of desire for vengeance against an amorphous them or as a salve to our fear of some imagined invasion. We must remember that we do not follow our laws out of expediency. We follow them because they are just, protect the weak, and lead to a more civilized society. The protections of our system, while not perfect, are there to keep all of us safe, even the illegal aliens. The Supreme Court has ruled that even illegal aliens enjoy the protection of due process. Due process in some form or fashion applies to all of us. Due process protects us from government overreach.

When we turn away from the violations of due process currently taking place, we diminish our society and culture. History will judge us on how well we protect the weak, not the lethality of our military, manufactory prowess, size of our bank accounts, or the value of the Dow-Jones. Dismissing violations of due process will also eventually lead to personal jeopardy. Already U.S. citizens have been detained and deported without due process. The longer we fail to stand up for what is right, the greater our personal peril. Not much stands between you and me and unlawful incarceration should the administration turn its baleful eye on us. But we should not protest these actions which diminish due process out of fear. We should protest because it is the right thing to do.

Those of us who enjoy the current protections afforded by the structure of our society and our positions within it must speak out for the weaker members of our society and culture. Above all, they need our support in this time of peril. Looking away from their suffering reveals our own culpability and smallness of character. Affording undocumented aliens the protections of due process not only follows law and precedent, it also displays kindness and compassion, both characteristics of a civil society. In their case, due process does not grant them a free pass, it merely ensures that they are protected from an overzealous administrative branch. At the end of the process, should they be ineligible for legal resident status, they may be deported. But we should not circumvent the system just to appease our baser urgings. We are better than that. After all, if through our inaction we show that we do not care, they may come for us.

Shouting Past Each Other

            I frequently post essays detailing my thoughts on current culture, society, and political machinations. Normally, I try to focus on ideas that undergird our culture and political decisions and not on specific individuals or their decisions. I try to raise ideas and let readers draw their own conclusions. But recently, I did take the time to criticize a specific policy and the decision that flowed from it.

            As expected, it infuriated some readers, pushing them to respond. I expected this and was not overly concerned. After all, if I enjoy freedom of speech, so should others. What surprised me was the virulence of some of the responses. I was also taken aback by the ad hominem attacks. One respondent demanded that I leave the country, moving to some unspecified place where I would learn the error of my ways and come groveling back, seeking forgiveness for my ignorance and boorish behavior. I was also a bit surprised at the vulgar language bandied about by some of the authors. Now, not all who responded negatively did so with vituperative vigor. Some respondents were gracious and careful in their wording, seeking to convince me with evidence and carefully constructed arguments. These were efficacious, forcing me to do more research and even adjust my thinking. One friend even approached me via a different platform, which resulted in an online conversation. What was the reason they chose another venue? They did not want to enflame the already burning passions. The result, again I was able to improve my understanding and further adjust my thinking. This one post and the associated exchanges reveal what is wrong and what is right in our current political communications model.

            What is wrong? We let our own ideological litmus test rule our passions. Anger replaces thoughtful measured response. If someone says or believes something we find unacceptable, we consider them the enemy and attack their character. We unleash withering broadsides comprised of angry attacks on the person with very little in the way of facts or other possibilities. We use language that is more fit for a barroom brawl than for a collegial debate. Our aim? Humiliation and validation. We seek to humiliate anyone that disagrees with us, and we desperately want validation from those who think the same as we do. We’re quite content to batter each other across the great divide we’ve constructed through our own intransigence.

            This mindset of intransigence and consigning all those who think differently to the enemy camp hobbles our national discourse, our politics, and our government. We accept boorish behavior from our elected officials and the accompanying policy failure as status quo. Oh, we blame those who think otherwise; but, we fail to own up to our own role in digging the dividing canyon and resultant chaos. We’ve forgotten the power of a well-spoken thoughtful word adroitly delivered.

            Returning to my recent experience. Those who sought to savage and pillory me had no real effect on my ideological construct. Their baseless attacks on my character and intelligence so obscured their ideas as to render them impotent. My friends who approached me with thoughtful words, appropriate facts, and well-reasoned ideas forced me to reconsider and reshape my worldview. Their words were powerful in effect, which is what we need. We do not need more braggadocios posturing. We do not need digital bullies who engage in personal attack when confronted with an idea or opinion that they do not like. If we’re ever going to find our way out of the morass which so stifles the goodness of our land, we must recover our ability to engage in civil discourse and even entertain ideas which, at first blush, we do not agree with. When we do that, we can start making good progress towards solving the problems that so vex us. 

Good News, Bad News

 

            I spent almost ten years wearing the “Green Tab” in the Army. The “Green Tab” was a small piece of green felt that I pinned around my epilate underneath my rank insignia, indicating that I was a troop leader. It also meant that I was responsible to my commander for the behavior, good or ill, of my troops. I was also responsible for the equipment and facilities I was signed for. As a second lieutenant I was responsible for over one hundred soldiers, NCOs, and a handful of civilian contractors. I was accountable for four buildings and millions of dollars of communications equipment. Additionally, I was responsible for communications links that sprawled across Europe and at times other parts of the world. The load only increased as I moved up the ladder. As part of this, I often had to bring my superiors bad news, always an experience full of trepidation. During the eighties and early nineties, some commanders embraced a zero-defect style of command. They considered any bad news a failure of one sort or another on my part. Bringing them bad news was always a journey through a minefield full of ambushes; consequently, their subordinates tended to drag their feet when delivering bad news. Often, they did not have a full understanding of how things were in their command; due in part to the hesitancy of their subordinates to deliver bad news and their unwillingness to deal appropriately with problems. Dealing with problems is a significant part of leadership.

            As a leader we must solve problems, and shooting the messenger is not a good way to solve problems. After you shoot a few messengers, they stop telling you the truth. They know that you do not really want to understand what is going on You simply want to feel good. I had one supervisor who had a sign on his wall which read, “If it looks good, it probably is.” That summed up his zero-defect view of the world quite well. In the late nineties, I took over a recruiting company, which was known across the command as a very problematic company. The commander had stopped caring and let things slide for a long time. Following the example set by the commander, most of the NCOs had stopped caring and did little to complete their mission. Before I took command, my commander pulled me aside and told me that I should, “Clean house.”

            One of the problems that I found was several NCOs who espoused racist attitudes and regularly used inappropriate language and actively sought to enlist young men and women that also embraced such an unacceptable attitude. It was evident that this problem was a cancer that infected the company, even into the leadership. It was so bad that it had drawn the interest of the local chapter of the NAACP. Gathering the evidence, I approached my commander with this disturbing news.

            Fortunately for me, he was not the kind of commander who would shoot the messenger. Instead, he, with clear eyes, assimilated the information, and together we took the actions necessary to root out the sickness and rectify the situation. Our willingness to confront the problem head on and take appropriate action to hold the guilty individuals accountable so impressed the NAACP representatives that instead of pillorying us, they applauded our actions. All this was due to my commander’s ability to absorb bad news, develop a plan, and then take affirmative action. Had he been a “shoot the messenger” kind of leader, the problem would have festered.

            Good leaders understand that at times they must deal with bad news. Dealing with bad news takes courage and fortitude. Beating up the bearers of bad news causes them to either keep it to themselves or to shade, color, or lie about it so that it is no longer bad. Either way, problems languish without a solution, often hidden from sight. Sooner or later, they will manifest themselves and usually are much worse and harder to solve due to the delay. We need fearless leaders that can face up to problems and then labor to solve them, not leaders who shoot the messenger.

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