Living in the Age of Ultimatums

I am not sure when this age began but it must have been a long time ago.  The thing is it has become a lot more popular this century.  It used to be nations issued ultimatums, then it filtered down to parents, then celebrities, and now former celebrities.  The only problem is what does one do when their ultimatum falls on deaf ears?  Do they believe enough in their position to actually move forward with the threat?

From my chair, it appears most don’t, unless they put the ball in someone else’s hand.  For example, how many of our privileged elite threatened to move to Canada if Donald Trump were elected President?  Once elected, exactly how many fled Southern California, their Chicago/New York penthouses, or their properties in the Hamptons and the Cape?  For all the vilification and threats, I can’t recall a single famous person making the trek north to seek sanctuary from the Donald.

Fortunately for most of them, the organizations who call themselves news outlets are more interested in polling and their own ratings than actually holding people accountable for their words.  Shows like “The View” still exist, Barbara Streisand is still holed up in your palace in Southern California, and Oprah is still interviewing former princes and their mates from the comfort of her stateside estates.

We are living is a world of “Cancel Culture” but this is really just an outcome of the whole idea we get to make ultimatums and everyone must listen to us, because the progressive movement has told us we all have value, unless it is an opinion they don’t like.

This latest spat of ultimatums falls into two groups.  The first is pure silliness, the second may have greater ramifications.  Let’s deal with the silliness first.

Spotify is one of those music streaming services that has become so popular.  From what I understand it’s like those old time AM/FM radio stations, although you can choose your own music to listen to and as long as you are connected to the internet of all things you can hear them through your earbuds.  Obviously, Spotify exists to make money, just like those old time AM/FM stations did.  The question will always be, what makes them the most money?  Radio stations used to play Glenn Miller, then they moved to Rock and Roll, then Country, and then talk/news, all in the hopes of a larger audience share.  I can assume Spotify keeps track of who listens to what on their service.

So, when a 76-year-old hippy got upset with one of the talk radio shows on Spotify he did what all celebrities do these days.  He issued an ultimatum!  It is him or me! Spotify, to their credit looked at the financial implications and told the hippy, it was nice, but don’t let the door hit you on the way out. This created a fervor among other aging hippies who’ve chosen to follow their friend out the door.  Since most of them are millionaires, I don’t expect any of them will suffer real financial discomfort, but ask yourself, when was the last time you actually had to listen to Neil Young, Peter Frampton, or Joni Mitchell or your day wasn’t complete? 

Now we come to the second set of ultimatums!  The one with greater implications.

President Biden, I assume at the urgings of his son’s financial interests in the Ukraine, has told Russian President Putin, there would be serious actions if Russia was to invade the Ukraine.  To back up that ultimatum he has alerted troops to prepare to deploy, and is busy sending a lot of military equipment to the Ukraine to help them prepare for the invasion.  Of course, along the way he has said he wouldn’t be sending troops to the Ukraine, just military hardware.  The question is what will happen if this threat of action is viewed as the same empty threats Biden has made in the past, and our actions are viewed with the incompetence we showed as we bungled our way out of Afghanistan?

Now putting ourselves into the shoes of Putin, and I don’t do this lightly.  From his perspective the expansion of NATO into the former Warsaw Pact countries can certainly be viewed as a threat, especially if you consider the historical view of Russians in authoritarian regimes where anything that threatens their absolute authority is a concern. The question then is for Europe, more than the United States.  How do you expand the European Union to offer the economic and defense advantages of western Europe without threatening Russia?

For the United States, with our history of involvement in the internal affairs of other nations, how do we make a convincing argument we are not interested in the overthrow of yet another regime?  Or are we? If so, why?  At this point, do we even know what is in our national interest?

Well That Starts the New Year Off with a Bang.

I’ve been on a Christmas road trip and only briefly paying attention to the news and Social Media while enjoying the grandchildren and catching a cold.  But I’ve apparently missed the big fireworks when Iranian backed groups in Iraq stormed the U.S. Embassy and in response, the U.S. used a drone strike to kill an Iranian General and his Iraqi counterpart at the Baghdad Airport. 

It amazes me on how predictably the commentary unfolded in the news media, and how incapable we are of moving from our polarized positions into one where people agree a military response was appropriate and correct.  Then, of course, we have the politicians weighing in with their opinions on what the President should have done, or what he failed to do to keep them in the loop.  Of course, to an outsider, my view of their concerns vanished quite a while ago as they began a non-stop campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the voter’s choice and the election.  Now every statement is viewed as just another complaint from those powerless to change the dynamic because they hate the facts before them.

The first I knew of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad was a news broadcast that announced Iraqi “mourners” were storming the embassy and the staff had been evacuated and asked the administration to send help.  Some on the left, like Joy Reid, called this “Trumps Benghazi” implying the Iraqi Embassy would suffer the same fate as the Libyan Consulate.  Fortunately, for the Americans most affected by this event, the current President’s response was far more effective than that of Obama, Biden, and Clinton when it came to protecting Americans serving in the State Department in a dangerous area.

With elements of the USMC and the USA’s rapid deployment force (elements of the 82^nd Airborne Division) mobilized and deployed to the embassy it appears, at least for the immediate future the “mourners” have decided to mourn somewhere else.

Following the deployment of forces for the protection of the embassy there was a drone strike at the Baghdad Airport that killed what the Washington Post described as “Iran’s most revered military leader.”  From where I sit that was a strange way to describe a man who has been condemned for his brutality towards Americans and even his own countrymen.  It really makes me wonder about the editorial mindset of the Washington Post, and only serves to reinforce for the President’s supporters his claim they are “Fake News” or just an anti-American propaganda machine.

The ending of this little experience in international diplomacy has not yet been written, but then again real life never seems to match the neat and tidy endings of novels.  In the coming days, we will learn more about what Iran will do, and what the U.S. will do to counter them.  What I am pretty certain of is the left will continue to vilify any U.S. action, or lack of action, for their own purpose, and the right will continue to defend any response, or lack of response, to support the President. 

The bottom line from most political pundits should be, which approach plays better for the average American?  Unfortunately, we are well beyond rational thought in our politics these days.

-->

The Weinberger Doctrine.

When Should We Use Military Force?

I served in the USAF for just under 22 years, and in that time, I saw us end the Vietnam war, engage in a number of brief military operations (with varying success), and fight a short, but violent, conventional war to reestablish Kuwait sovereignty.  Along the way, there were a number of Secretaries of Defense, most of whom made some impacts that may have been newsworthy at the time but left little impression on me.  There is one exception to this and he was Ronald Reagan’s first SECDEF – Casper Weinberger.

In supporting the President, he along with the Secretary of State George Schultz created the conditions to broker an international reduction in Nuclear Arms between the Soviet Union and the United States and NATO with the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces talks.  But their shared strategic vision would ultimately lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Yet, despite these successes for America, he was routinely criticized by President Reagan’s political opponents in the Congress.

During his tenure, we saw the military forces of the United States begin the rebuilding and modernization the Nixon/Ford and Carter administrations had put off after the withdrawal from Vietnam as they dealt with the inflation caused by unbalanced federal spending.

But what I find to be his greatest contribution was something I doubt any of our modern politicians have a clue about.  When it first came out it was known as the Weinberger Doctrine.  It was a simple set of statements on when and how the US should use its military force.  They are listed here.

1. The United States should not commit forces to combat overseas unless the particular engagement or occasion is deemed vital to our national interest or that of our allies.
2. If we decide it is necessary to put combat troops into a given situation, we should do so wholeheartedly, and with the clear intention of winning. If we are unwilling to commit the forces or resources necessary to achieve our objectives, we should not commit them at all.
3. If we do decide to commit forces to combat overseas, we should have clearly defined political and military objectives.
4. The relationship between our objectives and the forces we have committed–their size, composition, and disposition–must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5. Before the U.S. commits forces abroad, there must be some reasonable assurance we will have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress.
6. The commitment of U.S. forces to combat should be a last resort.

What I think we are seeing today are the choices of a generation of politicians and statesmen who’ve not had the military experience to know the true cost in the human capital of a shrinking military as an instrument of national policy.  The one thing this current war without end will do is change that as more veterans enter into political office.  I just wonder what lessons and experience they will bring as they rise to positions of greater authority.

Unfortunately for us, there is no clear path for disengagement when administrations change or popular support wains.  Sadly, it seems for most of our politicians the commitment of American lives is not an important determination in their political decision making.  They think in much grander, and opaquer, terms where the morality of their position can be justified within the broader context of national security.

What Should We Do About Puerto Rico?

Edited to correct my poor geography -- confusing the Dominian Republic and Puerto Rico's relationship to Haiti.

My Senator, Bill Nelson, posted a criticism on FB of Governor Rick Scott his opponent in the upcoming election, saying he (Scott) wasn’t sure what he would have done differently to aid Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria’s devastation.  He (Nelson) then went on to talk about how the citizens of Puerto Rico are suffering still, while also pointing out the news is reporting the actual death toll from the storm could be 10-times greater than initially reported by the government of the island.  Clearly, Senator Nelson is playing to a significant voting block in Florida with these statements, but it started me thinking about the island and our relationship with it.

For those who weren’t there at the time, or who may have slept through Mr. Sanford’s 10th-grade history class let’s review how we came to be associated with this little island.

Back when we believed in Manifest Destiny and the sugar barons ruled the economy they argued the Spanish were a thorn in our side, so we found an excuse to go to war with them and hopefully resolve the whole “who’s in charge of what” in the Western Hemisphere.  We didn’t like what Spain was doing in Cuba, and we (mostly Republicans) thought we should have our own colonies.  Like any good war we needed a rallying cry, and, for some reason, the state of Maine was asked to blow up its battleship.  Fortunately for us, they did so in the harbor of Havana Cuba and off we went with the plea “Remember - The Maine.”

As wars go, it wasn’t much of a war.  Spain wasn’t really up to a big fight and when we defeated the Spanish fleets in the Caribbean and the Philippines, and they saw the whites of Teddy Roosevelt’s eyes (oh wait, wrong war), they gave up and gave us a bunch of stuff we could call our own.  In the treaty ending the war, they renounced all right to Cuba, ceded us Guam and Puerto Rico, and sold us the Philippines at the bargain basement price of $20 million[1].  The rest, as they say, is history.

To bring us up to modern times, the oppressive Spanish dictatorship of Cuba was overthrown and replaced by a few oppressive Cuban dictatorships backed by the criminal underworld we created with Prohibition, which in turn was overthrown by a communist (oppressive) dictatorship in the late 1950s and early 1960s.  The Philippines was granted their independence at the end of the Second World War and has had a kind of up and down experience with democracy and rebellions since then.  Guam and Puerto Rico have pretty much remained colonies (unincorporated territories if that sounds better) of the US since Spain moved out.  As such, they have limits on their self-rule and autonomy, but on the bright side are not subject to the same taxation requirements placed on the fifty states by the Federal government.

Although both Guam and Puerto Rico share common status, let’s forget about Guam for a while, they are way over on the other side of the world and except for an occasional Georgia (Democratic) Congressman’s concern over the island tipping over if we put too many military personnel on it we (the Congress) don’t give them too much thought other than to reflect on where America’s day starts.

But Puerto Rico is much closer with far more emigres settling here in the states than Guamanians.  As an unincorporated territory, the citizens of Puerto Rico have a legal right to come to the 50 states and settle down as full citizens.  They actually have more rights here than they do in their homeland, but they also are subject to that whole taxation thing.

The confusing thing is they seem to want it both ways.  They field their own Olympic team and want their own seat at the UN, but when it comes to voting for independence they don’t seem that anxious to change.  It is as if they want all the stuff the US government can do for them, but like most of us if they can get it for free why would they change?

The Congress and the US Courts have wrestled for years with what kind of relationship should exist between the US and its territory.  The citizens of Puerto Rico have held a number of referendums on the same subject.  Since WW2 there have been at least three referendums with regard to the island's status.  In the 1998 vote, the citizens were given the choice of statehood, commonwealth, independence and none of the above.  The majority voted for none of the above, effectively saying maintain the current status.  In 2012 they again voted, this time choosing statehood, but over 500,000 blank ballots left the vote in question so the Congress chose to ignore the vote.[2]

There are two parties today in PR, the Partido Popular Democratcio, or Popular Democratic Party (PPD) and the Partido Nuevo Progrsista, or New Progressive Party (PNP).  The PPD has been the party in power since at least 1998, and while promising to seek a change in status has actually worked to maintain the status quo.  One could speculate that the graft and corruption evident in the post Hurricane Maria recovery effort is one reason why.  The PNP has promised to push for statehood, but so far, as is seen in the 2012 referendum they’ve not really had much success.  Cynically, I would suggest even if they were to become the party in power there is a fundamental concept in the Caribbean and South American politics that would ensure little changes; specifically, the idea that family comes before all else. 

If the politician in power has the ability to skim off the cream for the family, or direct income or jobs to the family then that is what usually happens.  Whether it is good for the country is irrelevant, if it is good for the family it is what must be done.  It is not unique to PR, we see the same thing in Venezuela, or Jamaica, or Haiti as the worst-case example.  Heck, we see it here in the US as well so perhaps it’s not just a Caribbean thing.  The Clintons have long enjoyed the idea that if they can get people to give them money they will make sure the family prospers.

With our kind of “in limbo” relationship with the island where they have some autonomy and self-rule, after a disaster is it the U.S. governments job to come in and take over or should we just send them money and equipment to fix their own problems?  It appears we’ve sent them money and tools, but now a year later they are still struggling to repair their infrastructure and some believe we should send them more money and equipment, since the stuff we sent initially hasn’t solved all their problems. 

How much money will it take?  I am reminded of an old joke as the answer, “If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.”

---

[1] https://www.history.com/topics/spanish-american-war

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Puerto_Rico

Actionable Intelligence

This past week has been filled with riots and violence against US interests in the Middle East.  An Ambassador and his security detail have been killed, US Embassies assaulted, American businesses destroyed…and it is likely to continue for a while.

Since we are just about to enter the heart of the Presidential campaign we will have a lot of public debate about who knew what, when they knew it, and why didn’t they act on it?  I am sure we will hear more about how the President communicated his concern with the Egyptian President and this has led to moderation in the protests against the embassy in Cairo, but it won’t undo the damage.  All who follow this long war should understand that fact.

What we saw was the US government’s first response to try and calm the situation with public support of the protests, as if to say we agree they have a legitimate right to destroy what they disagree with.  I think Neville Chamberlain would be proud of this approach.  It certainly worked well for him in his dealings with the Third Reich, just as it did with the Department of State efforts here.

I understand that we had information to suggest these events were being choreographed before they came to be, but took no action to stop them, because the very senior decision makers were focused on other matters.  That seems to be the universal problem with intelligence.  The people, who can actually do something with it, usually don’t.  

The question that I think will go unanswered is can the Department of State, and this administration, ever come to grips with the fact the Arab world really doesn’t like us, and all our dealings with them must be based on that knowledge?  With the collapse of the Soviet Union we gained a limited degree of freedom in our leadership role.  We have squandered whatever freedom to maneuver we may have had by not recognizing the threat of fundamental Islam, and soon the emergence of China will signal the return of a bi-polar world where they will take an increasingly aggressive approach at challenging our national interests.  Will they ever be able to act on the intelligence indications before we are overwhelmed?