An Open Letter to those who “Stand with LTC Vindman”

On social media, I saw a few people post LTC Vindman’s picture along with the “I Stand” caption.  It gave me pause as I passed by without comment, but it has troubled me to the point I now feel compelled to respond with a warning Be Careful What You Ask For.

For those who dislike the President and believe he should be removed, that is okay.  It is one of the many rights you have as a citizen.  For those who are not citizens, you have the same right of opinion, and increasingly the Democratic party is arguing you should have the right to remove him as well.  The way to remove a President you don’t like is through the election process, not through a coup.

What has separated the U.S. military from so many other countries is the idea that our military is apolitical. 

Since our original rebellion, the oath administered to our soldiers has stated allegiance to the nation.  After the Civil War, the oath was changed to establish allegiance to the Constitution.  That oath, with some changes, remains in effect today.  The current oath of office was approved by the Congress in 1960 and has been in effect since 1962.  It reads…

I, [STATE YOUR NAME], having been appointed a [RANK] in the United States [BRANCH OF SERVICE], do solemnly swear [OR AFFIRM] that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.

This is the oath LTC Vindman affirmed upon his commissioning.  You can judge for yourselves whether or not his action was in support of the Constitution or an act of political rebellion against a President he didn’t like.

If you, like so many of the opposition, believe he had the moral right and authority to rise up against the duly elected President over what is a political and policy difference then you are agreeing that any military member has the right to use his or her office to attempt to overthrow the President.  And make no mistake, LTC Vindman was clearly standing on his military platform when he testified at the Intelligence Committee.

We historically think of military coups as the violent overthrow of the leader, either elected or not, the replacement of one dictator for another.  Consider the rhetoric coming out from the Democratic party about President Trump.  How often do the party and the media depict him as a dictator?  But, is that true?

Has he sent the Congress home?  Has he not been constrained by the checks and balances we have historically had in place?  Can he spend money the Congress hasn’t authorized?  Clearly, the answer to these questions is no, so where do we come up with the idea he is a dictator? 

If he is a dictator then is it okay for the military to overthrow the government as other military leaders have done through history?  That is what you support when you Stand with LTC Vindman.  Think carefully about that.  I don’t think you will like the outcome.

A Few Thoughts on the News

In response to the killing of Qassem Soleimani, leader of Iran’s Quds Force, one commentator pointed out Iran as a kingdom/country has been around for a few thousand years to explain why this airstrike was a dangerous thing and would not alter the path the country was on.  The statement is, in my opinion, a curious one.  Rome was around for a long time, the British Empire was around for a long time, but technically modern Iran hasn’t been around all that long.  Its current history can be traced back to 1979 with the Islamic Revolution led by the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.  Before that was the Pahlevi dynasty which ran from 1925 until its overthrow in 1979, and before that, we had Persia and a variety of governments dating back to about 7,000 BC.

So, while we have volumes of history, including how the Greeks dealt with the Persians, what is really relevant is how the current theocracy fits into the game.  And that remains somewhat of an unknown.

Candidly, we the United States, as we bumble through our diplomacy with what can at best be described as inconsistent expectations and promises are as much to blame for the problems as Iran is.  Every President seems to handle the tensions with Iran differently.  The Democratic Presidents believe if they are just empathetic the regime will behave as most western nations behave.  The Republicans tend to see Iran as an evil nation bent on our destruction.  Of course, the “Death to America” rhetoric of the state would seem to support that view, but for many, that’s just silly talk and surely, they don’t mean it.  The UN (led by the U.S.) has made the theocracy of Iran the subject of economic sanctions since 1979 when they thought taking over the American Embassy and holding hostage its personnel was a good way to show they were pissed at the U.S. for helping the Shah escape and providing his with end of life medical care.  Of course, the idea he may have left Iran with a planeload of gold as part of his retirement package or that we held Iranian assets, hostage, for years hoping they would come to see the error of their ways should not have been much of an issue, but it seems to have been one for the Ayatollahs who run the country.

Then, of course, we come to nuclear weapons.  How can you claim to be a world power or return to the halcyon days of the Persian Empire if you don’t have a bomb that can destroy the earth (for context see “The Mouse That Roared”)?  We have nuclear weapons, Russia, China, Great Britain, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and who knows who else all have nuclear weapons, to Iran’s thinking why not them?  The fact they fund and support terrorists to attack those whose theology they disagree with shouldn’t be a concern now, should it?

All this brings us back to today when the news and social media sites are filled with tons of newly minted experts in foreign policy, international law, diplomacy, and insider knowledge of a nation-state that has remained fairly closed to outside influence for the past 40 years. We now have, thanks to Twitter, such luminaries as Rose McGowen (perhaps best known for her role in that TV classic “Charmed”)[1] speaking for what she claims to be 52% of Americans asking Iran not to kill us for the actions of our President.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favor of another war.  But then again, I’m not in favor of letting those who would do us harm to go around doing bad stuff without fear of suffering some dire consequence.  Keep in mind we are already engaged in a “Global War on Terror” that started on 9/11/2001.  (By the way, the war on terror actually started well before that but it was an undeclared war from when the PLO and Red Army Faction began killing people.)  As far as I know, Congress hasn’t been too terribly concerned about the War Powers Act when previous Presidents were bombing the heck out terrorist leaders, or when we invaded the sovereign space of Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden or calling in Drone strikes on guys running around in West Africa.  As the Babylon Bee® noted in its opinion section: “Trump Is Doing The Right Thing, But He’s Doing It As Trump, Which Means It’s Still Bad,” which pretty much sums up the dialogue of today. 

• For all those who see this as an act of war, but raised no concern when we killed bin Laden – just sit down. (p.s. I know one was a terrorist leader and the other an Iranian General, but the difference is lost in the middle east politics.)
• For all those who see this as a great act of the President – maybe consider the 2^nd and 3^rd order possibilities before you get too excited.
• For all those politicians who see the President's actions as unlawful -- maybe you should resign in protest and let your actions speak louder than your words.
• For all those like Rose McGowen who are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome – seek professional help before you tweet again.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_McGowan

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.

Do We Know What We Know?

Space, the final frontier.

In March 2018 the President proposed creating a “Space Force” which would be like the Air Force, except for Space[1].  I doubt he came up with this idea all by himself, while resting between his twitter storms, so the question is why is this now becoming a thing?  Will we, or do we, intend to make Space a place for overt state versus state offensive military operations?  A friend recently suggested we do.  Perhaps we already have – since we have so many military assets in space.

Let’s start with what we know about Space and the current laws.  First and foremost, Space is really pretty big.  I suppose technically we are talking about everything from about 188 km (73.2 miles)[2] to the edge of the ever-expanding universe.  Covering our activities in this domain is the Space Treaty[3] signed and ratified by the U.S. in 1967.  In simple terms the treaty forms the basis for current space law, holds the nation-states responsible for activities (either governmental or commercial) originating from that nation-state, prohibits the placement of “weapons of mass destruction” in space or on the moon, and calls for the human explorers to be considered “envoys of mankind.”  Since this is a UN treaty I am not sure how much it actually deters a rouge power if that power chose to ignore it, but as a signatory, we do have legal obligations as we consider the roles and missions of our newly proposed Space Force.

It seems to me we are kind of where we were in the late 1930s when proponents of an independent U.S. air power began actively lobbying for a separate Air Force, and in turn, their fair share of the military budget.  It was then we began to see the predominant military air power theorists argue that air power should be a co-equal to the Army and the Navy and that air power alone could bring an adversary to the peace table and end a war.  At best, history has shown unless we are willing to take the consideration of civilian humanity out of the equation and just bomb the country into oblivion this is a flawed assumption.  At worst it is just wrong since unless we are willing to turn the land into a nuclear wasteland somebody has to eventually occupy the space and fill in the political vacuum we’ve created.

On the other side of the coin, control of the air domain is absolutely essential to allow U.S. ground and sea forces to maneuver and operate effectively.  Control of the space domain, at least within the standard orbital sphere, is equally essential to our success or failure in any sort of national engagement.  If we lose control of that space our assets essential for intelligence, communication, and navigation are lost, and so is our ability to operate within the domains below it.  So far, both commercial and military enterprises have placed only limited resources towards independent redundant capabilities in all those areas, and our reliance on those assets in space grows daily.

For the sake of argument let’s assume we create this Space Force to control and exploit what the U.S. Air Force today calls the “high ground.”  What exactly would their mission be? Within military parlance controlling the high ground has always been essential for successful military operations.  We put castles and fortresses on hills for two reasons, they can better see what is coming at them, and attacking forces would have to fight uphill to overcome them.  What exactly would we need to do to control the high ground in Space, is it even possible without completely eliminating all potential opponents.

What happens to global stability if we, operating singularly or with allies, choose to place offensive weapons in space to destroy another nation's access or use those weapons to target our adversaries’ capabilities in the air, sea and land environments.  To me, that is the $64,000-question.  It raises the same questions for the risk of war that emerged with the cold war when the two opposing sides developed extensive nuclear arsenals – ostensibly for the defense of their homelands.  Fortunately for us, reasonable men found ways to hold that power in check despite the tensions that arose. 

We successfully avoided that nuclear war because the political stakes were so high, and the politicians in charge had all seen the cost of war up close and personal.  The same cannot be said of today’s politicians or the societies they control.  The political elite no longer understands what war really means from a social and economic standpoint.  On top of that, we have a new breed of non-state actors with access to the technology once only available to large governments who create a whole new wild card in the game.

I am not sure how increasing the federal bureaucracy through the creation of new layers of command and building yet another force that will fight for funding for its own academy and the obligatory NCAA Division I football team will ensure we can effectively protect our interests in the Space domain.

---

[1] https://gizmodo.com/trump-proposes-a-space-force-which-is-like-the-air-for-1823746231

[2] https://futurism.com/where-does-earth-end-and-space-begin/

[3] https://history.nasa.gov/1967treaty.html

Tilt-Rotors: Good but Sliced Bread is Still Better.

In the 1980’s the concept vehicle V-15 proved that tilt-rotor technology had matured to the point that maybe we could build a vehicle to overcome the speed and range shortfalls of the helicopter.  After much development, strong lobbying efforts by industry to overcome Congressional skepticism, and the normal growing pains of any new advanced technology, we have proved the V-22 Osprey brings a new dimension to the battlefield.

Operations worldwide have shown it to be more rugged than its critics foretold, and suitable for a wider range of missions than even its supporters imagined, but it is not the be all, end all of small cargo aircraft.  It is pretty expensive to operate and maintain, and it is not able to fit in even our largest cargo aircraft so getting to the remote areas where we go means it has to ride on a ship, or fly there itself.

Now the Army is looking to replace the ubiquitous UH-60 with a next generation of vertical-lift helicopters and Bell/Lockheed Martin’s entry is the V-280 Valor.  A new generation tilt-rotor that looks like the offspring of an Osprey and a Blackhawk. I would say if we had all the forward basing we had in the cold war this would be an almost ideal replacement, but we don’t.

So as the Army plans for its rapid deployments the long pole in its planning will the answer to the age-old question.  “How long will it take to get my stuff to the battle?”  It was the Union’s General Nathan Bedford Forrest who coined the axiom “Get there firstest, with the mostest” as his strategy.  That is sound advice, especially in today’s world where most US military is now garrisoned in the good old US of A. 

Today, we can cram at least two Blackhawks in a C-17 and I think four will go in a C­-5.  Traveling at Mach .8 (~450 kts) they will arrive significantly quicker than if the aircraft self-deploy at Mach .4 (~220 kts).  Even with tear down and build up the force will be ready to operate before the self-deploying assets are ready because you are not burning flight hours on either the aircraft or the crews.

The V-280’s competition is the Lockheed Martin-Sikorsky S-97 Raider.  Due to consolidation within the aerospace business we have a unique situation where one Lockheed Martin division is now competing against another Lockheed Martin division.  It is as if Lockheed Martin can’t lose.

The Winds of Political Change

It is remarkable how fast winds of the political rhetoric shift.  We have gone from "Everyone should serve in the military" to "No one has a 'right' to serve in the military," on the one side and "The military should be abolished" to "We should be allowed in," on the other.  All in a few short months.

Culture Change.

One of the pages I follow on Facebook had a post in praise of the new Secretary of the Air Force and the leadership vision she brings.  It shared this article.  New Air Force secretary presses for a culture change in her service. Please forgive me, but I have to suppress something that ranges from an inner chuckle to an outright laugh. 

I entered active service in 1974 and after retirement in 1996 spent the next twenty years working as a civilian for the Air Force.  In those forty plus years I can’t recall a time the Air Force was not experiencing some kind of culture change.

Sometimes the changes came so quickly we hadn’t even began the last one, before the new one had replaced it.  I often wondered if we wouldn’t be better off with a chameleon type uniform to show our ability to change.

I would like to borrow Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s poem, “How do I love thee?” to capture my view on this.

How do I change thee?

How do I change thee? Let me count the ways.

I change thee to size, strength, and mission so large

My soul can reach, while I am in charge

For the ends and purpose of political grace.

I change thee to the level my days allow

Most quiet change, by rule and wile

I change thee often, as airman’s lives I beguile

I change thee haphazardly, as if I am the night

I change thee with passion put to use

For I have but a short time to make it right

In my ego, and with childlike faith

I change thee with words, oft times out of place,

With promotions, selections, wisdom implied; and if the President smiles

I shall change thee for a longer while.

Don’t get me wrong, there are things that need to change in the Air Force, but with each new administration the Department’s need to bend to a new management style, a new political agenda, or to correct a real or imagined need means the service can never reach efficiency in either its organization or its leadership.

Perhaps I am too old to appreciate the dynamics at play, and it is the easy out to believe that, but I wasn’t too old when the Air Force changed from being led by airman who believed the nuclear bomber was supreme to airman who thought fighters were the only way to go.  At the end of the day that transition led the Air Force to carry nuclear bombs from North Dakota to Louisiana without realizing they were on the aircraft.  We had a culture change were regulations were no longer regulating, but just kind of giving advice; if you cared to read it.  (Kind of like the new SECAF suggests)

I was there when the culture was changed to tell our airman that doing your job was the number one priority, and rated officers should focus on being the best they could be and the rest would be taken care of.  I was also there when those same airmen were let go during downsizing, or passed over for promotion because someone else had spent less time flying and more time doing other things that impressed the squadron commander.

I was there when the Air Force management philosophy changed to reflect the current fads in manufacturing.  When management styles were defined in a box, quality management was job 1, when everyone should have 7 habits, when evaluation forms had rankings (or not), when officer evaluations needed secret key words, or when the Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) should weigh this or that aspect heavier or lighter based on how many people could get promoted.  Because at the end of the day, everything is about promotion, isn’t it?

Break-Break:  Just a random thought here.  In celebrating the 4^th of July, a friend who knew his family history, pointed out one of his ancestors had fought the entire Revolutionary war as a private.  He had lived through the winter at Valley Forge and participated as a part of the Colonial Army for four long years without promotion.  It was wrong of me, but my first thought was he probably had problems with the Weighted Revolutionary Army Promotion System (WRAPS) testing.

Somehow, I’ve missed the culture change where rated officers in the Air Force actually learn how to lead airman by example from the time they are Lieutenants.  For almost all pilots, or navigators/weapon system officers/combat system officers/pick your term, the first time they get to really be in charge of another individual to the point of controlling their life is when they are Lieutenant Colonels with 14 to 18-years of service.  Even then if you are a fighter pilot you are in charge of 24 type A personality pilots who want to fly and will avoid almost anything that threatens that choice.  Non-rated officers, on the other hand, have to deal with the young kids almost from their first day, but at the end of their careers they will never be the Chief of Staff.

All the previous aside, there are cultural changes that are critical and the question is how to separate them from the politically motivated changes that are never truly embraced by the average airman?

For example, when I entered the service we were learning to embrace racial equality.  Although the service had been technically integrated since President Truman’s Executive Order 9981, issued in 1948, the 1960’s had taught us discrimination was still an issue.  We had annual training on this issue during the 1970s.  Did this solve the problem?  Some would say yes, some no, but what I’ve seen is the military services have embraced equality to a far larger degree than civil society because of the need for discipline and harmony within a combat unit far outweighs personal bias. 

I believe, despite the changing winds of the political climate, the same will be said for the acceptance of the homosexual communities, unless or until they begin to disrupt good order and discipline.

How do we bring young airman who’ve grown up being sheltered from reality into a culture that demands we face the reality of the world on a daily basis?

As Bob Dillion so eloquently put it, “The times they are a ‘changing.” I wonder how we effectively change the military culture, when the civil culture doesn’t know what right is?

American Sniper (a few thoughts)

-->

I’ve listened to the criticism from individuals I have no use for.  Individuals who serve no purpose other than to condemn the United States while they make themselves rich from its largess.  They condemn what they don’t understand, for their lives are small and filled only with distain for those who do not share their same petty views.

Today my wife and I enjoyed the movie “American Sniper” a magnificent memorial to Chief Petty Officer Chris Kyle, produced and directed by American legend Clint Eastwood.  It was a dramatic testament to conflict that celebrates his combat, but understates the psychological conflict that so many veterans must fight if they are to survive in life, and the flaws that make an individual human.  I certainly understand the compromises a movie must make in the telling of a story; perhaps someday we will better understand those inner battles.

Through my career I was privileged to work with, and support, America’s elite warriors. These are men who had courage far beyond mine, men who placed themselves as shields to protect the weak and the helpless.   As a nation we’ve always had those that stood ready to risk all for a good far greater than the average person can understand, and for that same time we’ve had small and petty opportunist’s to condemn them, seeking their own personal gain.

For those who’ve been lucky enough not to know war first hand, and I count myself in that group, we can never appreciate what separates men like Kyle from the average, or what holds them together when the carnage ends.  There was a Navy Commander I worked with once, he was also a SEAL, and he carried with him the scares of a failed operation as part of our rescue in Granada.  We talked once about that operation and the courage of his team as they went into the Op.  His humility about his role, and the courage behind that humility was for me awe-inspiring.

Each morning I watch as the next generation of courageous young men and woman are shaped into warriors who will pick up the shield of defense.  I pray that those voters who will never  make the life or death decisions these warriors will, have the courage to elect leaders who honor their courage and realize the cost to the nation when they throw these young people away as a cost of doing business, or because their lives mean so little when compared to political aspirations.