How Not to Fix the Military

Fred Kaplan and Phil Carter have published ten recommendations in Slate on "How to Fix the Military". I am not overly impressed. It is the same old tired boilerplate that has been around for years, better at finding problems than analyzing them or recommending good solutions.

I suppose my biggest gripe comes from having been employeed as a systems analyst. They are looking at symptoms announcing generic solutions for the symptoms. Of course when the underlying problem is not addressed fixing the symptom is not effective. One of the reasons these sorts of recommendations often go nowhere is that people recognize they are not likely to be effective even if they do not see the actual problem.

Several of their recommendations are directly related to the Iraq War and being prepared to conduct similar wars in the future. Iraq will soon (all fingers tightly crossed) be the last war. At least they did not include the bromide that the military always prepares to fight the last war. Since the M-2 Crystal ball is stuck in development we have to expect that the next war could be any of several types of war, including one like Iraq. Their proposals seem to be for organizing to fight small insurrections, police actions, and campaigns against second rate powers. While that is a real possibility it is not a certainty and I am not certain that these would be the most likely possibilities or the most dangerous threats to the US.





They recommend overhauling the Budget. A good idea. The budget is Congresses. Most of these problems come from the way the Congress likes to manage the budget, which may or may not be a good way to mange civilian agencies. They consider several ideas that might be good ideas if the Congress will approve them but provide no rational as to why the Congress would consider them a good way to manage defense policy. A lot of the overlapping items they comment on are the type of thing that the Congress likes because ovewrlaping forces agencies to go back to the Congress for resolution. A major improvement here has to start with a commitment by Congress to a different way of doing business.


They say there needs to be a “bottom up” review of the defense budget. This is bad systems analysis. The review should be “top down.” To be fair it sounds like they are calling a “top down” review a “bottom up” review. A real “bottom up” overhaul is just the thing to perpetrate the problems they are commenting on.

A top down solution starts with what do we want/expect/need the military to do to be militarily effective in accomplishing national policy Then for each successive level down analyze against that standard.

A bottom up approach looks at all the neet technology (or what factories are in what congressional districts), that is the bottom, and tries to figure out how to build up from that. This sort of approach produces results that are often described as resembling a bowl of spaghetti. This is the method behind former Secretary Rumsfeld’s “transformation” policies. Realistically any review will contain some of both thus someone will get to republish the boiler plate in a few years. Hopefully we will have enough “top down” to get something that works, and enough “bottom up” to gets the votes in Congress to pass it.


A good example comes from the their discussion of the F-22 fighter.

Our whole military war fightning ability depends on maintaining air superiority. Something the US forces have held since 1943 or 1944, so long that we take it for granted.

The F22 fighter is an air superiority fighter. The current F-15 and the F-22 are what will maintain air superiority against any challenge for the near future. A number of foriegn Air Forces are developing fighters that can compete against the F-15. and the F-22 is the standard against which they are developing new planes. Even if what they develop cannont beat the F-22 it will be able to beat the ageing F-15's. A few years ago the Indian Air force bested F-15’s in war games (admittedly under rules proposed by the Indian Air Force.)

A top down approach asks “How do we maintain air superiority in the short term and long term? Is the F-22 the way to do it?” There is a lot of discussion on the issue by people who know a lot more about the question than I do. I suspect the result will be the F-22 as a mid-term solution because the F-15's are getting too old, and some sort of unmanned aircraft (which should be less expensive) for the long run which can't be developed in time for the mid-term. There are other recommendations that address the problem.

The authors are looking at it from the bottom up, F-22’s are expensive and are not much use in street fighting in Baghdad, which is about as bottom as you can get. They comment that one reason the Air Force likes the F-22 is it provides planes for pilots to fly, which is true, but irrelevant to deciding how to maintain air superiority. But with out control of the air, Baghdad would be a very different battle and a future battle may not be winnable.



They have several suggestions that are related to the military personnel systems. They have some good ideas. Some of there suggestions are platitudes. The military personnel system is a complex interrelated labyrinth. It has good features. It has bad features. In many cases the bad feature is a side product of the good feature. You can’t fix the bad feature without possibly hurting the good feature. The system comes from decisions made starting in the 1920’s and especially after WWII. I think a good look at it is necessary, but a change with a hope to be effective will have to be a root and branch change, not the modest changes they are proposing, and which may only bring a new set of equally difficult problems.



One of the things the next adminsitration will have to do is a major look at long term defense policies and programs. These authors have done better in the past. This is not helpful.


HT: Diodotus of Elected Swineherd who has a recommendation that is always cogent.

Update May 10, 2011
See Also
Carriers in the West Pacific
Book Review: Echof Battle

Divine Mercy Sunday

The Liturgy of St. James is one ot the three Divine Liturgies used in the Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Churches. The least used and oldest (2d Century ?) it’s use is becoming more common though traditionally it has been reserved for October 23, the feast day of St James, and in Jerusalem on the Sunday after Easter. It is also an ancestor of the Syriac liturgies used in many other Eastern Churches.

The hymn that opens the Eucharistic Liturgy is of exceptional beauty and has been adapted into one of the most sublime hymns in English.


“Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence” performed by John Michael Talbot.

Here is the hymn sung in Carpatho-Rusyn Chant by Michael Tagge




Cherubic Hymn of of St. James Liturgy sung in Carpatho-Rusyn Chant by Michael Tagge.



Update August 4, 2011: The orginal video was pulled by You Tube. I put up a different one of John Michael Talbot and added the second video

The Republicans Might Be In Trouble.

In the last election the Republicans got support from


Swift Boats for Truth

Who energized an latent issue that concerned many voters of voting age.

However, this time it is the totlot and sandbox set that is buzzing with an extremely critical issue from


Swift Kids for Truth






I guess it’s called building for the future.

The Speech

For the rest of the Presidential Campaign, it some one refers to “The Speech” with the definite article and no other reference they are talking about Senator Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech on race. It is nothing against the Senator to point out that the the racist comments by Rev Wright that made the speech necessary are not improving the tone of the campaign. As an example of oratory it will, I’m sure, remain one of the best of the century, especially considering he did not use his favorite pulpit style. Click and enjoy a master at work.



Politically the speech undoubtedly is doing much to repair the damage that Rev. Wrights comments caused in Democratic Party ranks generally and Senator Obama’s base specifically. He seems to be recovering any ground lost in the race for the Democratic Nomination. But at least for now, he has dropped several points relative to Senator McCain in the polls for the general election.

I think the speech is also likely to give a reason for the disaffected conservatives who are unenthusiastic about Senator McCain to vote, if not exactly for McCain, against the Democratic candidate. Some Clinton supporters may find it gives a reason to their initial dislike for Obama and they may sit out the election, vote for Nadar, or even Senator McCain. It seems very doubtful it will promote the hope of greater racial healing senator Obama would like.



In a somewhat angry post Jay Anderson of
Catholics in the Public Square provides a good example.

Anderson quotes Senator Obama as trying to explain why white’s views on race caused many (traditionally Democratic voters) to support the “Reagan Coalition”

... In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding... (The emphasis is Anderson’s)




Anderson comments:


So, in those 3 paragraphs cited above, Obama regurgitates the tired old leftist meme that the only thing that could possibly explain traditional Democrat voters supporting Ronald Reagan - thereby forging the "Reagan Coalition" - was because Reagan "made us comfortable in our prejudices".

I have heard that sort of explanation by persons of left leaning tendency to explaining behavior of right leaning persons. If they had listened to them they would have known the explanation, at best, lacks substance. Unfortunately Anderson sees the error of Obama’s comments as so obvious to him and his readers that he does not elaborate.

Catholics in the Public Square is a conserative Catholic site that has regularly accused the leading Republican candidates of not being sufficiently pro-life or conservative. They frequently get comments from readers who plan to sit out the election because they do not see McCain as sufficiently pro-life or conserative.


One of Senator Obama's examples was school busing in Boston during the 1970's that helped create Reagan Democrats, which is a good point to see why Obamas comments miss the point and provoke such anger.

In the early 50’s a Mr. Brown of Topeka Kansas was very upset that his daughter had to be bussed across town because of her race when there was a equally good school just down the street. He sued the School board. In the famous case of “Brown vs School Board” the Supreme Court decided in his favor and ordered that the schools be desegregated “with all deliberate speed”.

This was explained in the white community as overturning the previous Supreme Court decision in Plessey vs Ferguson which had imposed the “separate but equal” doctrine that the Topeka School Board had relied on in setting up segregated schools. It was pointed out that in his dissent to Plessey Justice Harlan stated the “the constitution is color blind.” Many in the white community came away with the idea that in overturning Plessey the Court said that the Constitution is color blind and that basing decisions on where children go to school based on race is unconstitutional. This interpretation was well received in the second to fourth generation immigrant communities that Senator Obama was talking about at the beginning of the quote. They were in full agreement with Mr. Brown that busing a child across town because of their race was wrong, and even if they were not inclined to use the word - racist.

This is not what the court ruled. The court did not reject basing decisions on race, just that “separate but equal” was an unacceptable way base decisions on race. And going beyond what would be necessary to resolve Mr. Brown’s grievance, that integrated classrooms was a desirable thing in itself. It provided no reason to say that bussing children across town based on race to promote integregration was unacceptable.

So in Boston, relying on what the Court actually ruled, a judge ordered the Boston schools not just be officially desegragated but have integrated schools with a constant ratio of races accross all classrooms. However because of the geographic size and housing patterns in Boston this could only be done by bussing children all over town based on their race. The order was enforced with such vigor that it’s proponents did not even question the (in extreme cases) that having a child on a school bus (segregated because it was moving students of one race to another part of town) for four hours a day may more than wipe any putative good that would come from an integrated classroom.

The reason that the Boston school bussing helped create Reagan Coalition was the perceived self-righteous hypocrisy and dishonesty of the Democratic leadership in apparently doing just what the Topeka School Board did, busing children across town based on their race. And doing so in a manner that seemed they were more concenred about statistical equivlance than children. They considered that if it was wrong in one case (and believed that Mr. Brown was right) it is equally wrong in the other. If it was racist in one case it was racist in the other. They would have voted against Jim Crow also.

This is just one example, but since the 1970’s the programs supported in the name affirmative action and fighting racism ran counter to the arguments used to convince the white community to support the Civil Rights movement in the 50’s and 60’s. Martin Luther King's famous quote that a child should be judged on the content of her character and not the color of her skin resounded well in white communities that had been immigrants in the recent past, they were often judged on their nationality rather than the content of there character and did not like it. But the forced integration plans like Boston seemed to be judging people on their race, not the content of their character, and the leadership of the Democratic party seemed to be calling them racists for supporting the very arguments the Civil Rights movement used to sell the Civil Rights movement to the white community. It should also be noted that the demographics that contributed to the Reagan Democrats are providing strong support to Senator Clinton.

If Senator Obama does not realize this, his attempt at a national discussion on race will be throwing gasoline on simering fire, and his campaign and possible election will most likely promote “A Less Perfect Union!”



I’m not sure how Anderson was planning to vote, but it sure seems Senator Obama has given Anderson and friends a reason, holding their noses if necessary, to vote for Senator McCain (that is vote against Senator Obama).

! ! T r u e l y - H e _ i s _ R I S E N ! !

A Happy and Blessed Easter to one and all!

Good Friday

The God of curved space, the dry
God, is not going to help us, but the son
whose blood spattered
the hem of his mother's robe.


"Looking at Stars" From Let Evening Come by Jane Kenyon
HT: Michael Gerson

Tried - First Station

V: We adore Thee, O Christ, and we bless Thee

R: For by Thy holy cross Thou hast redeemed the world.

From the Gospel according to Matthew 27:22-23,26

Pilate said to them, "Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Messiah?" All of them said, "Let him be crucified!" Then he asked, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Let him be crucified!" So he released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.

MEDITATION

The Judge of the world, who will come again to judge us all, stands there, dishonored and defenseless before the earthly judge. Pilate is not utterly evil. He knows that the condemned man is innocent, and he looks for a way to free him. But his heart is divided. And in the end he lets his own position, his own self-interest, prevail over what is right. Nor are the men who are shouting and demanding the death of Jesus utterly evil. Many of them, on the day of Pentecost, will feel "cut to the heart" (Acts 2:37), when Peter will say to them: "Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God... you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law" (Acts 2:22ff.). But at that moment they are caught up in the crowd. They are shouting because everyone else is shouting, and they are shouting the same thing that everyone else is shouting. And in this way, justice is trampled underfoot by weakness, cowardice and fear of the diktat of the ruling mindset. The quiet voice of conscience is drowned out by the cries of the crowd. Evil draws its power from indecision and concern for what other people think.

PRAYER

Lord, you were condemned to death because fear of what other people may think suppressed the voice of conscience. So too, throughout history, the innocent have always been maltreated, condemned and killed. How many times have we ourselves preferred success to the truth, our reputation to justice? Strengthen the quiet voice of our conscience, your own voice, in our lives. Look at me as you looked at Peter after his denial. Let your gaze penetrate our hearts and indicate the direction our lives must take. On the day of Pentecost you stirred the hearts of those who, on Good Friday, clamored for your death, and you brought them to conversion. In this way you gave hope to all. Grant us, ever anew, the grace of conversion.

All

Our Father Who art in Heaven
Hallowed be thy Name
Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done
On Earth as it is Heaven.
Give us this day, our daily bread
And forgive us our trespasses
As we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation
But deliver us from Evil.

Amen


OFFICE FOR THE LITURGICAL CELEBRATIONS OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
WAY OF THE CROSS AT THE COLOSSEUM
GOOD FRIDAY 2005
MEDITATIONS AND PRAYERS
BY CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER

Tried: First Station
Taking the Cross: Second Station

HT: Charlotte was Both