Over the past several weeks there have generated a number of posts online and comments in other mediums about the possibility of Russia’s Vladimir Putin using tactical nuclear weapons to gain advantage on the battlefield, or at best, a strategic advantage in forcing Ukraine to negotiate a favorable peace settlement toward Russia or possibly an outright surrender. At this point, along with most of the other prognosticators, I would say the jury is still out. Now that Mariupol has fallen and it appears Russia has a land bridge from Russia through the Donbass region to the Crimean Peninsula, Putin may decide to curtail his military operations for now and call an end to the “Special Military Operation”. As I’ve written before, Putin can declare victory in having severely damaged the “Nazi” regime in Kyiv, securing the rights and independence of the Russians in the Donbass region, and sent a message by standing up to potential NATO adventurism against Russia. But Putin hasn’t achieved all of his goals, and critics predict his ouster by hardline war hawks and profit-weary oligarchs.

Which leads to this question: would an embattled, desperate Putin use nuclear weapons to win a war in the Ukraine or against any other country he tries to “reclaim?” To do this, we must first place the use of nuclear weapons in context with Russia’s warfighting doctrine, “Escalate to Deescalate”. This is the doctrine the Russians are prepared to use through the spectrum of conflict, from limited, conventional war, to full-scale conventional war, to limited nuclear war, and finally, to total nuclear war. Secondly, we must define nuclear war, and decide whether it can be kept limited?  More importantly, can escalation in the use of nuclear weapons be controlled in terms of destruction? This is a question hovering in the background since the first atomic bombs were dropped by the US on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to influence the Japanese into surrendering at the end of World War II.  

Since World War II, use of nuclear weapons has been threatened several times; however, saner minds prevailed, and the application was not attempted. There are several examples involving the US and the USSR and/or China and others, here are a few: Berlin blockade, 1958 – 1961; Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962; Chinese Intervention in the Korean War, 1950 – 1953; Defense of Khe Sanh during the Vietnam War; and US commitment to Israel during the 1973 Arab – Israeli War.  In more recent times, we now have Iran threatening nuclear war against Israel, the US and our Arab allies in the Middle East. Pakistan and India appear to have their own version of a Cold War with both sides holding enough weapons to ensure a state of mutually assured destruction (MAD). China threatens a nuclear response against any country helping Taiwan oppose a military operation by China to reunify the two. Finally, you have North Korea leaders threatening a nuclear attack against anyone who threatens them.

How do these threats actually translate into possible military use in a way that doesn’t trigger a full-scale nuclear war? In the case of Russia, according to numerous sources, the use of “tactical” nuclear weapons to achieve advantage in combat is simply an extension of using large scale conventional weapons. It is an escalation in force with the goal of the other side agreeing to Russian terms and then having Russia deescalate its military operations. The Russians have been seen to practice this form of escalation during military exercises. Russia could use “tactical” nuclear weapons to alter the situation of a conventional war if Russia is losing. This would allow Russia to regain a dominant posture in the war and allow Russia to control peace or de-escalation negotiations. In the most recent update to the government’s information paper, “Russia’s Nuclear Weapons: Doctrine, Forces, and Modernization”, April 21, 2022, the Congressional Research Service, points out another reason why Russia could employ nuclear weapons. This would be to counter “aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the existence of the state is in jeopardy.”  What constitutes “the existence of the state is in jeopardy”?  If Russia is on the verge of losing a conventional war and possibly the overthrow of the current government, does that constitute a risk to the existence of the state? I believe some commentators would say it is. If Putin were to think he was about to be deposed if he “loses” the war in the Ukraine, he very well might use “tactical” nuclear weapons to change the situation and show his strength and determination to win. Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted definition of “tactical” nuclear weapons or how they can be used without the risk of escalation.  

There is an implied ambiguity in differentiating between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.  Several criteria are used to try and describe the difference: warhead yield/explosive power, range, and the target being attacked.  Claiming a nuclear weapon is only being used for a tactical purpose to try and prevent the other side from launching strategic nuclear attack may be impossible as described below. One way of putting it is that one man’s tactical can be another man’s strategic. It’s about perception. A key point to remember is that regardless of the size of the nuclear weapon or where it is used, there will be nuclear contamination that will spread over a large area. That in itself could be considered a nuclear attack on a non-involved country and in the case of a NATO country, could be used to justify a NATO military response.  How could this happen?  A classic concept for tactical nuclear weapons is that they would be used on the battlefield to gain a tactical advantage.  Some possible uses: destroy an enemy strong point and open an area to attack, destroy an enemy airfield or port facility to prevent attacks from those locations, and/or destroy an attacking force breaching your defenses.  Any one of these in close proximity to a NATO country could lead to unintended nuclear fallout/contamination. Current yields for tactical nuclear weapons range from approximately 300 tons to 100+ kilotons. Many US weapons are thought to have variable yield settings that allow a weapon to be tailored to the size of the detonation needed to accomplish the desired effect. The Russians may have something similar or a broad spectrum of weapons with different yields. That said, remember that the yield for the Little Boy and Fat Man bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in the 15 to 20 kiloton range. Those weapons destroyed huge portions of both of those cities, resulted in tens of thousands of casualties, and influenced the Japanese government to surrender. The radioactive fallout from those weapons spread many miles from the detonation point. At the time, these weapons and targets were considered to be strategic in that they were designed/desired to get the Japanese to surrender. In today’s lexicon, strategic nuclear weapons are generally viewed as having larger warheads, longer range, and used to attack significant military, economic and political targets. Strategic nuclear weapons generally have yields in the megaton range. They are used for attacking counterforce/strategic weapons and countervalue/urban economic and political centers. Strategic weapons are generally viewed as weapons used to destroy an opponent’s ability to strike back and to destroy the country’s infrastructure, thereby “winning” the war. If this strike can be conducted before the enemy can launch most of its nuclear weapons, the attacker can greatly reduce the counterstrike damage from its enemy. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on which side of the attack you are on, the use of submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) by most of the nuclear capable countries all but assures a significant counterstrike to whichever nation launches first. As stated before, the nuclear fallout would spread for miles and contaminate the rest of the world. The key consideration if Putin uses a nuclear weapon is the nexus for deciding if it was tactical or strategic and what kind of world response should follow. If it’s a “tactical” weapon (low yield) used to defend against an overwhelming Ukrainian attack on Russian forces, it will be condemned, but it will not trigger a NATO response. If a nuclear weapon is used for any other purpose by the Russians, the probability of a NATO response will be high, and the risk of escalation will be great. This is something every person in the world will have a grave interest in, since once the nuclear genie is released into the world again, other countries may think it is okay to follow suit in other areas of conflict. 

With regard to Russian strategy, the difficult part is that the Ukrainian battlefield covers a large area and includes both countryside and urban areas. There are significant military, economic and political targets scattered throughout the country. And, even though there are no known nuclear counterforce resources in Ukraine, there are significant conventional forces that could eventually defeat the Russian invasion, and as previously discussed, lead to a threat “to the existence of the state” in Russia. Putin could use this to rationalize the use of “tactical” nuclear weapons. Depending on where a “tactical” nuclear weapon is detonated, it could also hold “strategic” implications in trying to force the Ukrainian government to submit to Russian territorial demands or possible surrender pending further nuclear strikes. This would force NATO to evaluate the possibility of Russia using the same strategy to force concessions against former Warsaw Pact countries, all of which are now in NATO. 

What is a scenario for what could happen?  Once this nuclear threshold is breached, the question is what would NATO do? If NATO responds with conventional force, Putin could use that as an excuse for “tactical” nuclear strikes against NATO assets in Poland, Slovakia, or Hungary that are next to Ukraine to keep NATO from resupplying Ukraine. Nuclear strikes there could possibly prompt retaliatory strikes against Russian targets near Ukraine  Keep in mind, these strikes do not have to originate from US sources, Great Britain and/or France could independently or in unison, launch aircraft borne nuclear bombs or SLBMs. The use of either of these two weapons systems will lead to ambiguity about who launched them and very well could lead to Russia launching nuclear retaliation strikes against a larger number of targets in NATO to include the US. The question then becomes can this be kept limited?  The answer is no.  Any attack on Russia or the US will result in a full-scale nuclear response. The decision times are too short, the analysis cannot be completed quickly enough, and the emotion of the situation will prompt a mass response. A bona fide attack, based on the currently available surveillance information will result in this decision.  

To sum this up, if Russia sticks by its doctrine of escalate to de-escalate, and the escalation leads to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, then the eventual escalation to a full-scale nuclear war becomes almost inevitable. If NATO were to back down and allow Russia to use nuclear weapons to gain their objectives in Ukraine, then I see no reason why Russia/Putin would not use the same strategy to gain further territorial concessions. We’ve seen this scenario before at the beginning of World War II with the Japanese expansion in China and then the Western Pacific, Italy’s use of force in Africa, and Germany’s territorial demands in Europe.  It wasn’t until the strong Western European countries and the U.S. finally committed to full-scale conventional war and eventually, in the case of Japan, strategic nuclear war, that they were able to bring an end to that conflict. The same situation is occurring in Europe today. At some point, NATO will have to strongly and unequivocally announce their intentions to use nuclear weapons to stop any use of nuclear weapons by Russia. If the Russians don’t believe this and use nuclear weapons, NATO must be prepared to respond in kind. At that point, it will be Russia’s decision on destroying the world as we know it. An alternative is surrendering and that would be a step too far, it would be accepting Russian and Chinese domination of the world. Hopefully, it won’t come to this.  Let’s close with a quote, a famous line from the movie Wargames concerning nuclear war, “A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”

Photo credit: Jonathan Borba

Why are we at war? At each others’ throats? After 100 billion minds, created over many billions of years, why can we not reconcile dissent?

We marvel at the Wonders of it all (only seven?), natural and human, that we see in the sky, from paint brushes, printed words, complex equations, and from seemingly insurmountable challenges resolved.

Though considerable accomplishments should be celebrated: jet propulsion to the moon, instantaneous knowledge and human contact from small devices, procedures and pills renouncing mortality – all are rendered common by the birth of a child, your child.

Months of discomfort, many unknowns, possibilities, pain . . . culminates in fibrous joy, elation. A tiny face, so innocent, skin so soft, a fleeting moment in time where nothing else matters, and hope is abundant.

But what of defects, dreams unrealized, little means of support -- worse, nonconsensual conception?

Thomas Malthus asked: How many of these miracles birthed before society is no longer sustainable, viable, exceptional?

Disease, plague, eugenics, sterilization, natural selection, abortion materialize . . . physical and ideological battlefields aplenty.

Was Eve framed? Where did some of the contributors of Y chromosomes go? Do they have the right to abandon this miracle? Mothers flourish with proper support, how is that realized?

It’s improbable that societal leaders will ever truly satisfy the issues brought forth by conception, childbirth, then child-raising, it’s too personal, and we are too tribal. But codify, organize, and direct we must, chaos ensues.

What we wholeheartedly must do is appreciate the sacrifices of mothers, the unique role women play in our lives, as we sort through what is fair and just. Embrace those you love, not just for one designated day, and do your best to seek tranquility.

Carl Sandberg stated: “A baby is God's opinion that life should go on.” Nothing we do in this plain will attain greater significance, anxiety, and pure joy than raising a child. That is the meaning of celebrating every mother. Every day.

The BIG picture … Ecology v Economy & Education

“The most pathetic person in the world is some one who has sight but no vision.” ― Helen Keller

Consider for a moment what EVERYONE seems to accept as axiomatic:

• At some point there was no HUMAN LIFE on planet earth.

Yet who doubts that there was order [Greek logos] of some sort on earth inspite of the absence of mankind? And if we think of the planet as a great household [Greek oikos or eco] with a range of accommodations for all its occupants [plant and animal], then we can probably also accept that eco-logos or ecology predates mankind.

This pre-human ecology is an important idea, because when mankind is introduced into the household, it is not qualitatively altered … the logos simply welcomes mankind into “the nature of things” … and mankind becomes part of and subject to ecology.

However, mankind has physical and psychological capabilities that are different from the other co-inhabitants of the household. And, by discovering and using these capabilities over time, mankind is able to initiate and sustain what appears to be a sequential domination of the household and its other inhabitants [including human kind] … as the alpha predator or the resident manager [Greek nomos]. And so, with mankind comes the notion of eco-nomos or economy.

Now ecology “knows” nothing of [neither is it altered to accommodate] man’s economy … it merely continues to follow its inexorable and pre-human course of bringing natural order to the household as conditions change … and this presents a REAL problem when man’s economy becomes separated from nature’s ecology, because such departures are unsustainable.

Time: the revealer of unsustainability

"If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." ― Stein’s Law

"The four most expensive words in the English language are, 'This time it's different.'" ― Sir John Templeton

“In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again.” ― John Maynard Keynes

At first glance, unsustainability does not seem like such a BIG problem. Afterall it merely means man is going to have to learn something new and to adjust … to change … to evolve. But it is not quite that simple because over time any departure by the nomos from the logos grows larger and larger. Think of two arrows shot from the same point but in slightly different directions. Over time, the distance between their paths becomes greater in correlation with the velocity of the arrows [which can be significant in a period of rapidly advancing technology]. If we look at the “arrows” in the following drawing of ecology and economy it will help us understand the divergence problem.

Each arrow begins in a part of the nomos and moves “through” [revealing parts of] the logos. The Greek word dia means “through” … and if we join this to the notion of the logos as the natural order, we get the complex word dia-logos or dialogue.

As we can now see, the very “nature of things” requires us to engage in dialogue with one another about the realities we face. The result of this dialogue is to help us discern more about the logos … so that we can conform our nomos to it more and more closely … which makes our nomos “more” sustainable. And if we extend time to include the entire period of human existence on the planet, we might say that we are merely part of an extended dialogue on sustainability … a Great Conversation … a conversation which, perhaps, was going on even before man arrived on the scene … which is why a liberal arts education still matters !!

Experiencing loss … or TBTF

“Don’t grieve. Anything you lose comes round in another form.” ― Rumi

What we have learned so far about the nature of things is quite encouraging … we have an opportunity to participate in dialogue … in the progressive exploration of and conformity to the logos over time … to learn. So what’s the problem?

The problem is “loss”. Because, as time passes and man learns, man also builds … including really big things like civilizations. And if the things built prove to be unsustainable because their foundation is faulty, man must lose them “for good” [so to speak] … so that something better [more along the line of the logos] can take their place. But loss means pain … and big loss means big pain … it always hurts to acknowledge and accept failure and loss so we can progress.

Indeed, we live in a time when our largest institutions [the very foundations of our nomos] are quite clearly failing … but we are in denial … and our panic-response is that they are TOO BIG TO FAIL … so we resolve to do “whatever it takes” [which changes dramatically as conditions worsen] to avoid the inevitable collapse … so that we will not have to change. We fight bravely [but unwisely] against nature [the logos] instead of

• submitting our flawed nomos to honest dialogue,

• articulating and acknowledging our errors and

• together [and justly] embracing the loss and change needed for progress.

One famous lament which captures the problem well is contained in the Hebrew scripture of Ecclesiastes where the teacher concludes that “all is vanity” … which some translate as “futility” but which literally means “wind” … and the requirement of “wind” in our lives is what Jesus explained to Nicodemus and what Bob Dylan examines in his song “Blowin’ in the Wind”.

Humility … keeping your head down

“He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” Micah 6:8

For the intrepid reader, the “requirement for failure” in order to “progress” can be examined in the ages-old philosophical dialogues about foundationalism and fallibilism which arise in every culture and were revisited and refreshed in the 20th century by thinkers like Karl Popper and RM Weaver [author of the very readable Ideas Have Consequences]. But rather than wade into philosophical waters at this time, let’s distill a principle from the dialogue which we will call humility in the face of the logos … and which some have summarized with this thought … “the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God” Proverbs 9:10.

At first, it is hard to see how humility and fear are good. Didn’t Jesus say “Fear not”? But these character qualities have two practical and powerful corollaries which are:

• build small and stay local [to limit the inevitable losses] when you can

• and, when you can’t, build so you can deconstruct and reconstitute when trouble arises [a nomadic approach of sorts that avoids constructing monoliths].

  Put another way,

• the real costs of centralized “economies of large scale” [like the Tower of Babel or Washington or Wallstreet] only become apparent when the buildings they inspire are on the verge of collapse … and

• the real benefits of decentralized communities only become attractive when the real costs of “large scale economies” begin to bite!

Now that we have discovered the vital importance of dialogue and humility for sustainable living, let’s pause and examine how these priceless attributes can be used to reconcile economy to ecology … to address man’s epistemological problem in a way that will lead us to see the role Education must play in our lives.

Education: from ignorance to knowledge ... and beyond

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" ― Isaac Asimov

“Before you become too entranced with gorgeous gadgets and mesmerizing video displays, let me remind you that information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom, and wisdom is not foresight. Each grows out of the other, and we need them all.” ― Arthur C. Clarke

A defining characteristic of human psychology is the ability to know there is much of which one is and will always be ignorant ... something we also call humility.

The Preacher in Ecclesiastes concluded that all our claims to knowledge are merely vanity. Descartes insisted we have an obligation to "doubt, as far as possible, all things" [which is the method he used to find his famous starting place for understanding reality - "I think therefore I am"]. So, as you can see, the alternative to ignorance is not as simple as it may initially appear.

For the sake of this dialogue, we will propose two potential paths for human thought and action:

• ignorance>humility>information>knowledge>wisdom>foresight>understanding> ???

• ignorance>information>vanity>knowledge>tech-knowledge> ???

... and for simplicity at the moment we will call them:

• the MORAL path - what SHOULD/must be done [focused on the means] and

• the INTELLECTUAL path - what CAN/may be done [focused on the ends].

The thoughtful reader will immediately see parallels with ancient stories like the Hebrew account of Eve’s apple and mankind's original sin or the Greek tale of Pandora's jar and the curse of unforeseen effects which both assert that a fatal danger accompanies seeking, acquiring and applying knowledge. What is this danger? 

The simple danger of knowledge

A little learning is a dangerous thing;

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

And drinking largely sobers us again.  ― Pope, Essay on Criticism

How much knowledge is enough? ... and when can you safely stop acquiring more knowledge before beginning to apply the little you have?

One reason you cannot safely stop is that the planet is organic which means each part is connected to and dependent on all the others … so that changes in anything change everything [unfortunately including all those things about which you have not yet acquired any/sufficient knowledge to understand WTH you are really doing]. You see the problem ?!

The compound danger of technology

tekhne - Greek for "art, skill, craft in work"

gnostikos - Greek for "knowing, good at knowing, able to discern"

The process of putting your limited knowledge to work is known as technology. And, as would be expected, technology itself requires acquiring even more knowledge which must then be applied ... until you can easily imagine the chain of explosions in knowledge that advancing technology unleashes.

The problem is that as technology advancement becomes entrenched, the original reasons for pursuing it [which arose from some fragments of unapplied, acquired knowledge] can become obscured as the technology begins to feed on itself and becomes an end in itself [ie. per se] ... a thoughtless quest to do what is POSSIBLE not what is MORAL.

A case study: fintech

The obvious contemporary example of technology going awry is fintech … financial technology. Most people do not even know the word has been coined … even though it is the controlling normative force [ie. arising from nomos] in the world today, because governments have finally learned that the consequences of  weapons technology are unsustainable.

The original reasons for pursuing fintech were embodied in Bitcoin … a blockchained, decentralized crypto currency … conceived and designed to provide ordinary people with a way to indirectly exchange goods and services while escaping the unrelenting encroachment of central bank financial plundering and federal government social control [ie. social credit and the people’s ledger] that have been built into the world's common currencies. And yet, as the new technology revealed new powers, those reasons were forgotten as central banks and central governments began to contemplate how to develop blockchained, centralized digital currencies to increase their plundering and control of the people. One insightful article put the 180 degree shift in purpose this way:

“[Central bank] digital currencies are set to upend paper [and private crypto] currencies, but it likely won't be the decentralized utopia some hope it will be.” ― Bye, paper currencies: How blockchain and fintech will soon transform money, The Future, Big Think, December 16, 2021

General and specific

We have briefly examined what we have called the moral and intellectual paths to the future. And what we have learned is NOT that morality must remain ignorant, but that it must temper our approach to knowledge. We used the words humility and vanity to make a distinction, but there are two other concepts we must examine before we move on … broad and narrow … or general and particular/specific.

Jesus said “Broad is the way that leads to destruction, but narrow is way that leads to life.” Some have interpreted this as a warning against all attempts to gain intelligence as misleading [for good reasons we have now seen]. But Jesus also said to his disciples, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

We might combine these two statements as follows: “If you have taken the narrow path by  humbly assuming that there are sustainable and unsustainable choices you must discern and make in life, then you MUST continue along that path if you wish to know the truth.”

So how does one “continue along the narrow path”? Consider this thought by AN Whitehead in Process and Reality:

“The true method of discovery is like the flight of an aeroplane. It starts from the ground of particular [narrow] observation; it makes a flight in the thin air of imaginative generalization [broad]; and it again lands for renewed observation rendered acute [narrowed] by rational interpretation.”

Whitehead goes on to apply this same principle of continuously moving back and forth between narrow and broad to two familiar approaches to knowledge:

“Religion is the translation of general ideas into particular thoughts, particular emotions, and particular purposes; it is directed to the end of stretching individual interest beyond its self-defeating particularity. …

“In the infancy of science ... the main stress [is] on the discovery of the most general ideas usefully applicable to the subject matter in question. ...  In their later stages, apart from occasional disturbances, most sciences accept without question the general notions in terms of which they develop ... [while] the main stress [shifts to] the adjustment and the direct verification of more special statements. In such periods scientists repudiate [religion]. …

“Philosophy frees itself from the taint of ineffectiveness by its close relations with [both] religion and with science, natural and sociological. It attains its chief importance by fusing the two, namely, religion and science, into one rational scheme of thought. …

Morality of outlook is inseparably conjoined with generality of outlook. The antithesis between the general good and the individual interest can be abolished only when the individual is such that its interest is the general good, thus exemplifying the loss of the minor intensities in order to find them again with finer composition in a wider sweep of interest.”

As we can now see, the task of the educator is no easy matter. But, perhaps, it can be summed up in two lessons which both arise from the same task of reconciling the general to the specific:

• GENERAL: Love the logos which connects and holds all thing together.

• SPECIFIC: Love all other things as you love yourself.

Tonight, two notably scandalous blueblood college basketball programs play for the national championship, their sins known but unprosecuted.  Too big to fail, I assume.  It seems difficult for the Haves to get into much trouble.  A few nights ago, we watched a movie imitating the ruthless handling of the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis on Wall Street.  Do you recall anyone on that street going to jail? Sin at that level has fancy derivatives.  When a presidential candidate fabricates an opponent’s wrongdoing – with help from the CIA and FBI -- America, we have a problem.  When ethics violations by local government officials are reported (not for prosecution, but for future political wrangling, I assume), why worry about Candor?  Getting at the truth through respectful, forthright dialectic has lost its place.  As I look over the landscape here and everywhere, polarization, one-sidedness, and obfuscation abound. 

When a tyrant fills a stadium with flag wavers and explains that he is at war because the enemy – to our minds, leaning West and led by a Jewish man – threatens Nazification of Russia, we have highlighted again how easily humans can be loyalized.  Truth, get in the back seat.  Selfish ambition has grabbed the wheel.

Recently hearing that the The Babylon Bee – spot-on jesting from the Right – got tossed off one of the monopoly social media platforms, I am left incredulous.  That publication is as cleverly benign as opining can be.  Are we going to stop conversing on hard topics?  If we are, the fight over policy that democracies encourage and manage could become unmanageable.  If we can’t war with words and memes (both correctable by facts/evidence/truth), we’ll pick up sticks and stones.  Not so far off.

I’m never been a fan of adverbs.  They so easily overstate matters.  Please, talking heads, we are utterly and absolutely disgusted by your intensifying matters beyond the facts, beyond what is reasonable, what is helpful! 

Having had genuine, avid interest in socio-economic and political discussion and problem solving since the newspaper made sense to me, I lament the size and scope of the intentional, uncorrected proffering of misinformation/disinformation we find ourselves subject to day in and day out.  We’re headed for something real ugly if we can’t read analysts and journalists resolved to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 

Are we careening because political hatred is exhilarating and power’s access to money so intoxicating?  Likely.  I am persuaded Candor, the online journal my cousin Steve and I started two years ago, is like trying to filter the Arkansas river with a bowl and handkerchief.  Too little, too late. 

All that not to suggest we didn’t enjoy every word we wrote and read of yours. 

A response to Mike George’s "Shades of the 1930s” March 5, 2022

My Dad used to say "Where goods and services do not cross borders, soldiers will." But we need to update Dad's rule of international relations to the following:

"Where honest money does not cross borders, soldiers will."

 What most people fail miserably to understand is the vital role of money in  our lives. Money is the basis for honest, voluntary, mutual exchange [markets]. It permits people who do not even know each other [indeed who may not have even lived at the same time] to benefit from one another's work through the division of labor. This is true across town as well as across the globe.

 But "ALL sorts of evil" [to quote the Apostle Paul] ALWAYS results when somebody begins tampering with the money on which division of labor and markets depend. Near the end of the last worldwide war, the nations of the world realized the need for honest money to sustain peaceful markets rather than military conflicts among nations. Unfortunately, AMERICANS were the ones chosen to be the global stakeholder ... to be trusted by everyone from children in Asia to old folks in Africa ... and at Bretton Woods the US$ became the world's reserve currency ... linked to nature and fairness by a golden redemption promise on which everyone could rely for fair and equal treatment in their labor upon the earth.

 I say "unfortunately" because AMERICANS betrayed the entire world in 1971 ... from children in Asia to old folks in Africa ... and unilaterally repudiated the world's sacred trust set out at Bretton Woods in what became known as the Nixon Shock.  Since that day of infamy when honest money died at the hands of Americans, "all sorts of evil" has befallen the entire world ... including the working families in America. That another world war should follow became as certain as night follows day.

 Those who wish to study history to understand the present need look back only 50 years ... and heed Micah 6 where the prophet explains that tolerating "dishonest scales and the treasures of wickedness" brings God's "curse" on everyone. And yet you will not hear this essential sermon preached in any pulpit in America. And if the prophet was right and if God is unchanged, it is only a matter of time until America becomes "a desolation ... and the scorn of the nations" for her adulterous betrayal of the people who labor the earth.

The Created Order included human dominion over the earth. What a cultivation that has been!  It became a fight quickly. Early reports reveal Cain and Abel “fought like brothers.” If siblings fight, everyone else is game. Compassion (anywhere you see it, be in awe; celebrate!) competes with survival and sweetens the competition; however, essentially we fight. Even the bacteria and viruses are often hostiles. But some make vaccines — and the dollars attached! Largely deserved. Competition feeds households; compassion feeds “homeless.”

America is the land of opportunity — no rigid caste systems, no king’s dictates or one-branch of government, not even conscripted military service — because all are welcomed to compete in the economy, and legal entry into the arena is usually not that daunting (regulatory agencies sometimes withstanding). However, the problem with competition is that some finish ahead of others — winners and losers. But, the opportunities and ease of entry are so appealing that the American spirit endures — “Go West, young man”; set out on your own; defy the odds makers; prove the naysayers wrong; have an idea and get some capital together; rags to riches! If America deepens its flirtation with Socialism, the causes will be related to diminished opportunity and regulatory labyrinth. Do you think the American electorate will submit to those who would end the competition, declare themselves in charge, and regulate the details of our lives? However, those anti-Americans will not lack the technical means of a future tyranny. Let’s stay awake.

Some decry privilege, though it’s a function of having more victories — battles over land, money, commodities — over time and passing it on to “your people”(generation after generation). Victories accumulate spoils/riches.  Even the C-suites and VPs and managers (don’t forget the assistant managers!) lay claim to titles and ensure others notice, though the old ones had more heft (king/queen, lord, vassal) — medals from the Grabfest. 

Athletics provide such a rewarding competition for some. The less athletic — but interested — are reduced to spectators, often uniformed in their team’s colors. Recently, I studied the behaviors and gestures of the fans seated (though often standing) at a high profile college basketball game, fans of all ages, hair lengths, fashion preferences, and facial expressions (the extremes of elation and dejection). How those fans — the colors easily identified the sides — fought for their team!

Team loyalties — pride-fueled opportunities to identify with winners (my favorite team’s fight song encouraged the fans to vehemently declare, “We’re going to beat the hell out of you” — rule over our emotions every evening (if you have the heart for it) and dominate on Sundays. The Church is losing the battle for Sunday.

Interestingly, athletics has remained largely immune from calling for equality and decrying privilege. (Sure, the salary caps keep the big cities from buying up all the talent.) Funny how that changes when the competition is less physically and more mentally demanding. We’re going to toss out the SAT? End college admissions requirements?  

Try as we may to reduce competition and enlarge compassion, superiority always finds an outlet for expression — and monetization!  

The whistle to start the daily competition will blow until that Last Day. Need a break: take a seat for nine innings  — competition at such gentle pace..

It is truly amazing that so many Americans, Europeans and other “democratic,” peace-loving nations are quietly sitting on their hands watching Russia use intimidation by threat of force, and then actually invade Ukraine. The world has seen all of this before with the prelude to World War II. Then as now, no one is willing to step up and try to face down the antagonist with anything other than diplomatic or economic sanctions. Many in the US want to remain isolationist as they did under President Roosevelt prior to WWII. The United Nations is showing no desire to get involved, very much like the League of Nations in response to Japanese, Italian and German warlords’ use of force to further their expansionist actions. The US and others sat on the sidelines until actually attacked, or until these nations realized that unless they allied with and joined the countries fighting against the aggressors, they were next on the conquest menu. Looking at relatively recent history and then comparing it to what’s happening in Ukraine today might prove predictive. 

In 1931, in what many believe was the opening conflict of WWII, the Japanese invaded Manchuria, Republic of China. This occurred after a Japanese fabricated incident where they blamed Chinese forces for blowing up a small section of railroad line owned by Japan near Mukden, China, on September 18, 1931. Under this pretext, Japan set up a puppet state called Manchukuo. China appealed to the League of Nations on September 22, however, Japan vetoed any actions by the League harmful to Japan’s expansionist ambitions. In disdain for the League of Nations after the Lytton Report was ratified, stating Japan had violated the territorial integrity of China, the Japanese walked out of the League and didn’t return. The League’s covenant had no provisions for creating a military force to combat aggression.  Japan then used further incidents to justify a full-blown attempt to conquer and occupy all of China. Last week, Russia voted against a UN Security Council resolution to denounce itself for its invasion of Ukraine.

Elsewhere in the world, in 1935 Italy made a second attempt to conquer Ethiopia.  This was part of Benito Mussolini’s attempt to reestablish the Roman Empire.  Again, there was an appeal to the League of Nations for aid. In 1936, Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie I, addressed the League and asked for help. Again, without provisions to provide military forces to aid Ethiopia, Ethiopia was left to appeal to individual nations for aid. Due to growing concerns over German intentions in Europe, Great Britain and France turned their backs on Ethiopia and tacitly allowed Italy to pursue their military campaign. Since the US was not a member of the League, it stayed out of the situation. 

As with recent 21st century unchallenged Russian land grabs, this acquiescence by the major powers gave Adolf Hitler the idea that he could do something similar in Europe. Like Mussolini, Hitler was out to return Germany to its previous size and prestige. Following World War I and the subsequent Treaty of Versailles, Germany lost territory and was restricted on how large its military could be and what weapons it could maintain. According to one source, this second function of the Treaty was covertly ignored shortly after World War I and then openly disregarded following the Nazis rise to power in the early 1930s. 

Starting in 1936, Germany began reclaiming territory forfeited under the Treaty of Versailles.  In March, Hitler’s forces moved into the Rhineland.  Britain and France did not intervene even though they had the right to under the Treaty.  Next came the annexation of Austria in March 1938. Ostensibly, the Germans claimed that 99% of Austrians wanted the union despite large minorities not being allowed to vote.  Later that year, Hitler, emboldened by the annexation of Austria, threatened a European war if the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia was not turned over to Germany. Unfortunately, this wasn’t enough for Hitler, as further described, on March 15, 1939, Hitler violated the Munich agreement and moved against the Czechoslovak state. Hitler, sensing the overwhelming desire of Britain and France to avoid another major war in Europe, felt he could now make demands for territorial concessions from Poland. Britain and France then knew that Hitler was not going to stop and pledged their support to Poland if Germany attacked.  “To justify the action, Nazi propagandists accused Poland of persecuting ethnic Germans living in Poland. They also falsely claimed that Poland was planning, with its allies Great Britain and France, to encircle and dismember Germany. According to the Holocaust Encyclopedia, the SS, in collusion with the German military, staged a phony attack on a German radio station. The Germans falsely accused the Poles of this attack. Hitler then used the action to launch a “retaliatory” campaign against Poland. 

With this as a backdrop, how does this compare to what is currently happening with regard to  Russian actions, and more importantly, to the actions of Vladimir Putin? The first and basic point to understand is that just like Mussolini and Hitler at the beginning of World War II, Putin wants to correct what he sees as a huge insult and reduction of the power and territory of Russia. To date, 14 former Soviet republics have gained independence from the former Soviet Union. This equates to approximately 24% of the landmass of the former Soviet Union.  

According to the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) in an article last month, Putin began declaring his intentions to restore Russia to its former greatness shortly after becoming President of Russia in 1991, taking pages out of Hitler’s WWII playbook.He started by “rebuilding the Russian military, modernizing and expanding Russia’s nuclear arsenal, reviving and expanding Russian intelligence services and activities, taking control of Russian media outlets, consolidating state industries, and undermining (and now openly crippling) any political opposition to his United Russia party.” All of this is along the lines of what Hitler did in preparing his war in Europe. Furthermore, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), what Putin wants is “… an end to NATO expansion, a rollback of previous expansion, a removal of American nuclear weapons from Europe, and a Russian sphere of influence.” This sphere of influence appears to be the return of now independent former Soviet republics and former Warsaw Pact countries. This would reestablish a buffer zone between Russia and the major NATO military powers in Western Europe. So far, the US and the rest of NATO have rejected these demands. Unfortunately, Ukraine did not pursue admission into NATO after it became independent.

Putin amplified his expansionist beliefs in an essay composed last July and in an address to the world on February 21. If Ukraine falls, and NATO and the UN do nothing militarily to try and stop Russia, it may set the stage for further attacks on other countries. The political and economic sanctions currently being implemented by the US and others may not be enough. Fortunately, except for Finland, there are no non-NATO countries adjacent to Russia or pro-Russian countries. Under the NATO charter, an attack on one is an attack on all and requires all NATO countries to aid Ukraine. If Poland and other nearby nations don’t give in, Putin would probably try an ultimatum with military force on these nations’ borders. He would only attack if he decides NATO will not respond due to his nuclear weapons threats. That decision will be based on NATO, the European Union, and the rest of the world’s response to actions in Ukraine.  This could also be a prelude to reoccupying the three now independent, former USSR, Baltic Republics of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.

What will the countries of the world do about Russian intervention in the Ukraine?  Economic sanctions are underway, and a number of NATO countries have stepped up their alert status and have provided military aid to Ukraine. The US has sent additional forces to some NATO countries and is also on a higher level of alert. China has not endorsed Russia’s military moves, but has recognized Russia’s security concerns. Will China use this Russian example to try and take back Taiwan with military force, i.e. reintegrating a breakaway province? Will North Korea try to make economic or territorial demands of South Korea to force reunification under North Korean rule? What will Iran do? Its leaders could use nuclear coercion in an attempt to rebuild the Persian Empire or a new Islamic Caliphate. Only time and diplomatic, economic, and military efforts will tell. 

Lieutenant Colonel Michael R. George (Retired) attended and then taught at the Air Command and Staff College (ACSC) – Developed the Nuclear Warfare curriculum for ACSC after the collapse of the Soviet Union and served on headquarters staffs at the Strategic Air Command (SAC), Offutt AFB, NE and the staff of the Joint Staff at the Pentagon

Illustration by Thuan Pham

The first time I heard someone seriously suggest that we are headed for a civil war, I felt an actual shock. It was similar to the shock I felt in March of 2020 when I heard that the powers that be were shutting down schools, gatherings, and essentially the entire economy. In both cases my immediate thought was “We can’t do that. They have no idea what damage they will do.”

The kind of military clash that occurred during the war between the states is simply not possible, or at least not survivable for our nation, in this age. There are no neat geographic lines in this current war to delineate which side we are on. There is no “territory” to take to indicate victory. There is another glaring difference. The Civil War was fought over states’ right to separate from the Union, not to take control of it.  If those who would promote civil war in our time would propose another confederation of states, how would that look on a map or in any view? How could it coexist with the remnant United States? Or would their intent be to take over the government? To take the nation’s capital by military means would mean the end of our republic in a real way. The United States would then be no different than those countries run by military regimes that we have long despised. And that is not even to consider the opportunities that such internal strife would create for malefactors in the world to extend control and solidify their grip on many countries around the globe.

It would be simplistic to believe that in 1861 all citizens who believed in states’ rights and/or slavery lived south of the Mason-Dixon Line and all those who opposed those beliefs lived in the North. Ideological divisions are even fuzzier in today’s United States. California is a good example, where geographically a large majority of the state is conservative but control of state politics is in the hands of the liberal coastal strip. In that example, who would fight whom, and how? Would the state’s National Guard be ordered to kill its own citizens? If the president of the US should choose to federalize the national guard, or use US military forces, which states would he command them to attack, and would they follow his orders?   

I believe we are already in a civil war. The civil war we are fighting must be fought in the way it is currently being fought if this republic is to survive. The battle is obviously over who will hold ultimate power, the federal government or the people, individually and through the power of the individual states granted by our Constitution. While we are dangerously close to federal takeover of virtually everything in our lives, we must resist the idea that we must destroy our political system to save it. President Trump’s brief success in rolling back much of the federal takeover shows that it can happen. The immediate reversal of many of those changes by the Biden administration demonstrates how tenuous any progress always is.  Recent Supreme Court decisions and changes in public opinion as to the current administration offer hope that there is much more resistance to federal usurpation than general news reporting would have had us believe for the last year or so. The upcoming midterm election may very well indicate which direction we will ultimately head. If the majority of our voters do not comprehend the idea of personal freedom or the real cost of giving it up, then no war can save us.

Families, neighbors, and towns divided by political and economic tumult, people turning to violence over compromise, and several congressional attempts to avoid wielding arms - sound like the year 1861? The American Civil War? Sure, but not the first one, at least according to the definition espoused by several historical authors, George Will for one. The American Revolutionary War led to tens of thousands of British Loyalists uprooted from their American colonial homes to Quebec, Nova Scotia, Spanish Florida, or Britain. Attempts to persuade George III to lower or remove taxes fell on indignant ears.

Migration and land redistribution are a by-product of war, and logistics often determine its outcome, as it also did during the War Between the States from 1861-65. Do characteristics of previous wars among people determined to separate from real or perceived tyranny mean that the U.S. headed for a third? The answer lies within.

One of the aspirations found in the Preamble to the Constitution is insurance of “domestic Tranquility.” Pause to consider what is necessary to realize that goal in your personal life, then attempt to scale that worldwide. Throughout the history of the world, a narrative of tremendous accomplishment and compassion — decidedly countered by as many or more vile actions — leads notable philosophers to conclude: Man is basically evil. During the Revolutionary War, rebellious Patriots sought out colonial British tax collectors and to some, poured heated pine tar on their naked bodies, and then rolled them in chicken feathers, adding insult to injury by parading the interlopers through town. Combatants were as likely or more to be stabbed to death with a bayonet than killed by buck and ball from erratic musket fire.

As for the more commonly known Civil War, by the summer of 1861, when 11 Southern states broke from the remaining Union’s 23, historian James McPherson writes that many soldiers, on both sides, were motivated by rage against the tyranny of the enemy government; rebel soldiers loathed pompous Northern politicians promoting high tariffs that harmed cotton profits, while Southern aristocrats insulted deep-seated patriotism of Union soldiers. Many Southern ministers stepped to the pulpit defending the practice of slavery using biblical references, catering to powerful plantation owners. Wrathful Northerner William Lloyd Garrison in 1844 demanded abolitionist-leaning states secede from those approving human bondage.

McPherson and others agree that millions entered the various battlefields seeking honor for their respective geographic regions, but freedom from slavery, or a guarantee of rights were not forefront on the minds of the millions who fought, over 600,00 of whom died. Minié balls and cannon fire led to around one-third of the battlefield deaths, some caused when wounded soldiers contracted gangrene or sepsis following crude amputations, rarely preceded by anesthesia. The other two-thirds died due to disease; war drains resources, soldiers and civilians suffer accordingly.

Today’s conflicts mirror those of history books in many ways, but modern ability to mass communicate quickly, convulsively, along with challenges that a global perspective present, have raised expectations of freedom, liberty, and the ever-expanding pursuit of happiness beyond societal competence. Our passions and desires seem infinite, leading us to inevitable injustices and inequities. How do we resolve these when we perpetually lose faith in our leadership?

Grand images of Utopia disappoint because we choose differing realities; the history of this nation has never really been about John Winthrop’s city on a hill, it’s been about survival, and most notably, attempting democracy at a level never experienced before by any sovereignty. Continue the fight, whatever your mission, you are entitled and guaranteed your well-earned opinion. But before calling for carnage and destruction, note that our natural constitution, based on the reflex to survive, is best suited to compromise and compassion. Those qualities line the path toward light, and enhance our ability to positively address perennial discontent.

The New Democrat who could even win Kansas’ 4th District to Congress

Governments must understand, then navigate, the tension between capital and labor, between individual rights and collective responsibilities, between justice and mercy. Oftentimes the solution going forward — rewarding individual merit and maintaining communal goodwill — is found in compromise, in taking good from both sides and finding a middle path.

I’m looking for The New Democrats, the rebirth of a party close to the people and willing to embrace the common sense of the common man (male and female) to reclaim the Middle of the political spectrum. I’m a Democrat because I’ve thought since my young adulthood — 50 years ago — that the collective has more responsibility to promote the general welfare than my Republican friends believe it to have. The commonwealth suffers when the common man is reduced to a laborer, to a necessary evil on the road to profit. Furthermore, generally, Democrats walk more easily in more shoes of others. They have more life experience with the population who live in the lower half of the median household income, enabling a deeper sympathy with others’ weaknesses. I’m an old Democrat who rarely votes for a candidate from that party because Democrats have neglected the common sense of the common folk in the middle of it all.

I know many current Republicans whose families once were solidly Democrat. Ron Estes can be beaten in a general election by a Democrat who holds to the below-numbered positions — because many registered Republicans (who cannot vote for a Democrat in Kansas’ closed primaries) will vote Democrat in a general election, if they can find a candidate with common sense.

1. Education

a. School choice

• A capable and skilled citizenry is in the interest of the collective, the commonwealth. School choice is the people’s issue. Many of us can’t afford a better education provider than what public tax revenue will pay for; whereas, the wealthy have the discretionary income to send their children off to the better schools. 

• Competition nearly always improves products and services. A free market enhances quality, minimizes costs, and rewards the best. Every shopper knows the benefits of competition — name the product! Poorly performing teachers and schools who displease their customer base are replaced by models with new claims, approaches, and resources — until the people are satisfied that the school is serving the child well.  Sometimes businesses are not able to sufficiently sell their product or service because the demand for that product or service is being better satisfied elsewhere/otherwise. C’est la vie.

• What is all the fuss about vouchers? Who has not felt the pressure of a little competition and responded with better performance, sometimes beyond what you thought you had in you? Public school advocates, I know you. You’ll respond. You have lots of ideas of your own about how a school ought to be run — if you only had the freedom and funds to fix it. Let the games begin! Fill the landscape with schools. Let the consumer choose.

• The word education comes from the Latin:  e + ducere, meaning “to lead out.” Children led out well are those who know themselves and have gained knowledge and honed skills commensurate with their strengths. A lot of new educational models and approaches and distinctions are going to be needed to account for the great diversity — increasingly understood — among the students, our children. Only a spirited competition will risk investing in the new, the potentially better.

• What about all of these expensive school campuses? How many schools could exist in the same building — and share cafeterias and gyms and playgrounds and science labs? Count the empty buildings in your downtown. Yes, a lot of old buildings are going to be fixed up — as new schools. Do you really think these great public school buildings are going to lie empty? A voucher-fueled competition would lead to smaller class size, more teachers, a need for more classrooms. 

• School sports? Some schools in the competitive environment I envision would focus on sports — better coaches, better consequences. But, what’s not right about the European model wherein the towns and neighborhoods form sports teams for numerous levels of ability? Private groups have no trouble developing competitive leagues for youth through grade 6. The athletes will find good places to play ball. Worry not. We love sports too much to let an improvement to education/schooling obstruct athletes at play.

  b. College costs:  

• In 2022, eighteen year olds are frequently not ready for the job competition of the adult world. Their education is not complete. They are not sufficiently trained for the jobs they are competing for. We have to ensure that the young are ready for success and self-sufficiency.  A high school diploma is rarely sufficient. We need to stay closely alongside the young adult a few years longer than we are currently.

• Why is schooling offered at public expense from ages 5 to 18, but costs so much at age 19? Why are student loans at higher interest rates than your mortgage? The symbiosis between colleges and banks is being lived out on the backs of college students.  

• The cost of college and trade school must come down. State legislatures must relieve families of the enormous debt that a college diploma places on young adults. Tuition for college or post-secondary job training leading to a bachelor’s or associate’s degree should be paid for from the public treasury. 

• We must encourage Industry to design and honor faster tracks to employment than a 120-hour/four-year degree. Industry must more deeply invest in the training of its future employees. To saddle young people with enormous debt so that they can “go to work” is just plain wrong.  

• We want the young to stay in town as adults and add to the local economy? We should spend like we mean it.

2. Women’s reproductive rights

• Abortion is the intentional termination of a developing human being. Intentionally ending an innocent human life ought to never be a granted right. Children, once conceived — in whatever messed-up circumstance — have a right to be born. If the mother does not want to take the baby home, the collective assumes financial responsibility for the birth and adoption of the child — and for the future assurance that the mother does not burden the collective in this manner often. The same means by which people willingly and surgically prevent pregnancy should be applied to those who over-burden the collective.

• Legal abortion has had a negative cumulative effect on our national spirit. We are more selfishly ambitious and less communitarian. The effect has been gradual and subtle, but a callus has grown over our collective soul. Our understanding of the value of human life has cheapened. Yes, unwanted pregnancy is highly disruptive, but not enough to warrant killing human life. We must come alongside the unwanted pregnancy and see that the child and mother are healthy and the newborn is adopted, if the parents do not wish or are unable to assume the responsibility of parenting.

• Though the inconvenience of unwanted pregnancy and the financial burden of an additional child are the chief causes of abortion, pregnancy suffered via rape and/or incest are the tough cases. The child should not be killed, but the consequences for rape might need significant readjustment.

3. The Economy:

• Yes, the American economy is essentially capitalistic. Capitalism is a powerfully productive engine. It incentivizes the individual. It fosters productivity and innovation. We want business owners and entrepreneurs and inventors to make money, good money. But the gap between the top and bottom is growing at an alarming rate. Some are simply making too darned much money, given what they do. And some are simply not making enough, given what they do.

• Competition improves productivity, quality, and sets prices, but also fosters inequality. Structured democracies or armed revolts — God forbid — correct excess inequality. However, cooperation has strong social and political value. We could use more of it.

• We, the people, have opportunity to tweak the excesses of capitalism, prevent its laissez-faire iterations. The love of money can be so strong that some cannot be trusted to keep the air and water clean, to keep the workplace safe, to produce products that when properly used do not harm the consumer. Where would this nation be without the past efforts of the Democratic Party in correcting the abuses of those who will put money before people? 

• Globalization of labor markets and technological replacement of human labor stagnate real wages. When economies become less local and more global, the worker more easily becomes a bottom line on stock portfolios, the means to an end — the love of money. There is no virtue in selfishness, Ayn Rand notwithstanding.

• If we are to have hope of restoring a national neighborliness, a widespread good feeling about America, then all able-bodied Americans of sound mind must be employed — and at a wage allowing them to raise a family that can meet its needs. When the worker becomes more a production cost than a human being, the community suffers. Hard work done well has but one color — green. Let’s put more of it in the wallets of regular folks than into Wall Street derivatives.

• Too many boardrooms in America’s corporate culture disrespect the American worker in search of greater profits and stock dividends. The American civilization is best preserved by hiring American workers and paying them appropriately. Those corporations that shift production to other countries in search of cheaper labor should be subject to organized boycott and public shaming. American-based companies cannot produce their stuff overseas and ship it back here, underselling product made in the USA, without a sharp penalty. 

• The richest will have to sacrifice profit if we are going to be a nation that holds together. People need to work— and at livable wages. I’m all for corporate jets and luxury automobiles. I just want the little guy to be able to buy a new pickup as well.

• As robots and outsourcing take more and more humans’ jobs, we will need each other. We will need to buy from each other. If the oligarchs are planning to appease us with a government check and cheap access to virtual reality, what will be the consequences? How many unproductive, self-absorbed people of working age do we need? When welfare creates a culture of dependency, what happens to the minds and hearts of the dependents? Discouragement, despondency, disability.

• To what degree will artificial intelligence and advanced technologies replace workers, eliminate jobs? The thought of several hundred thousand truckers no longer needed in the cab because an automaton is driving should be cause for pause.

• Yes, “the poor we will always have with us.” More and more spending will not prevent poverty. Some will remain poor regardless. Laziness will impoverish some. Drugs will ruin others. Criminal mischief will imprison too many. Mental deficits challenge indiscriminately. The DNA lottery can be terribly ruthless. Every species of the animal kingdom has the poor. But those who will work, those who will give their best effort regardless of the challenges — they should have a job and a living wage. If you will not work, you should not eat at public expense; but if you will work, you and yours should eat — well!

• The welfare state can alienate workers from work. A check for work not performed is subtly damaging to individual esteem. The loss of human initiative is tragic. Dependency on government is not good for self-concept. However, for those who can work but can also be easily replaced by a better worker: we must subsidize the wage of that person so that they can continue working and avoid complete dependency on public welfare.

• Massive increases in public funding of the unemployed create budgets that cannot be balanced. The safety net must be lowered for adults. The spring board must be lengthened and strengthened for the children. Spend more on the first quarter of life and less on the other three.

• Corporate America has created an economy wherein many families require both parents to work in order to sustain a middle-class lifestyle. It’s time the capitalists pay for the consequences of that creation. Industry will help pay for day-care at licensed providers through a tax on employers who have workers with children in day-care..

• The government should fund, in partnership with Industry, life-long learning/re-training opportunities for those who whose jobs have been replaced by machines/new methods or who have become unemployed due to an industry whose “time has passed.”

• We must intentionally, conscientiously, inconveniently at times, and probably more expensively, sow into local economies. Buy local. Buy from start-ups around you.

• Cheaper foreign labor has endangered national security. Computer chips and pharmaceuticals should be sufficiently produced in the USA. If the Chinese don’t make our semiconductors — and they should no longer — we’ll have the Taiwanese do it? Sure, and have to defend that island from the Chinese, who want it back more than any other piece of real estate? Sounds akin to Europe creating a dependency on Russia for natural gas.

• The oligarchic plutocracy has little use for nationalism. Why has no one organized an economic boycott of Chinese products? Buy American. Buy Western Hemisphere.

• When big corporations borrow cheap money to buy back their stock so that the stock options of executives soar is the height of elitism.

• Minimum wage: Eight dollars an hour? Seriously. One can’t live even out of mother’s basement on that wage.

• Restaurants are everywhere. The service industries are growing as American manufacturing wanes. Pay these people! Help them unionize. If a restaurant can’t afford to pay a decent wage — and you don’t have enough family to staff it — sorry. Find something else to do. If we’re always looking for the cheapest worker — and that often means someone who can sort of do the job, most of the time — the result is a loveless economy.

• Unions are essential to balance the clash of capital and labor. Laborers need power. Outsourcing and open borders pressure wages downward.

4. Immigration and borders 

• The Southern border is open for one reason — reducing the cost of labor. However, a shortage of labor is very good for the laborer.

• We need tightly controlled borders because Americans need to work — first. Illegal immigrants are here because American businesses want them here, yet we have many people, especially in our inner cities, who are not working.

• The illegal immigrant community has done quite well — survived and prospered, raised their next generation — without government welfare, without top wages, with language barriers. They’ve done so by hard work, healthy extended families, grit. Let their example be a lesson. And has their journey been any different than the English, Irish, Germans, Poles, and so forth who preceded them? No, except for its illegality.

• Immigration policy should strive to receive the best and the brightest through legal and careful screening. Take our time and get it right. Reward the immigrant spirit, but profile radicalism and criminality, please.

• A loose immigration policy can be like helping load up the Trojan Horse. Does having a pluralistic society mean you allow cultural enemies into your midst?

• A nation without borders ceases to be a nation. We must amend the Constitution to change the provision that a child born on American soil is automatically an American citizen. We must end American citizenship for children born in America to non-citizens. What other nations have that policy?

5. The Police

• Be grateful that some people among us want to be police officers. Even those who shout otherwise call the police first when danger looms, unless the ambulance or fire truck are more necessary. As for who becomes and stays a cop, we just need more of the good ones and fewer of the bad ones. George Floyd crying for his mother? Heartbreaking. We all get that.

• But arresting a lawbreaker can be a delicate violence, requiring keen sensitivity and careful maneuvering. Rare skills can be expensive. We need to spend a lot more on local police — and less on subsidizing wealthy real estate developers. The better the pay, the better the cop. With a surplus, we can weed out the bad ones.

6. Second Amendment and our guns:  

• Americans are safer when they have the freedom and means to protect their own. An armed citizenry discourages the emergence of autocrats and demagogues. Guns in the homes of the people keep the government from stepping outside the Constitution.  

• The Bill of Rights is quite clear on the right of Americans to protect and defend themselves, their family and their property.

• Yes, background checks. Yes, a month-long wait before carrying a gun purchase home.

• We should not be opposed to identifying and restricting those whose weapon cabinets should not include much more than a flyswatter. Some people’s mental state makes them a community health risk. A local, state, and national registry of those individuals should be required at every gun show and checked before purchases.

• Parents who have aided the gun acquisition of a young killer should face severe consequences.

7. Identity Politics – BIPOC and LGBQT

• Race and ethnicity and sexual orientation are largely categories of Nature’s workings, not essentially constructs of man. Each of us has strengths and weaknesses that are functions of our personal genetic codes. We each have linkage to larger gene pools, pools which themselves are subsets of more general genetic similarities. Who isn’t fascinated by the growing database of Ancestry.com? We should all, as individuals, love the race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation in which we find ourselves.

• Equality is relative to all Americans having an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The DNA lottery and differing levels of nurture and support will lead to vastly unequal results.   

• No two people are alike. No two people are equal — in any manner of accounting/measurement I can think of. Different is not equal. We are each a little different. So, to demand groups to be equal is to move further away from solutions. Every person must be treated as an individual. Measure strengths and weaknesses and help the individual identify career/vocational paths. School choice will be very helpful in creating sufficient avenues “to lead out” a growing diversity of students.

• The greatest intellectual mistake the American professoriate and their journalism department graduates have made in my lifetime is to proffer the notion that all cultures and people groups are essentially equal. That falsehood promotes unrealistic expectations that more funding/money/government oversight will not fix.

8. Health Care 

• In our global economy, many businesses cannot compete and provide health care for employees. So who will? Those employees for whom Industry pays their medical costs are highly privileged and decreasing in number. We all know that to get better from a serious illness, most of us will pay most anything. The free market does not work in medical care. The opportunity to gouge the public, bolstered by the ever-present love of money, is too great. In those cases, the government has to control prices and profits. Yes, research and development require industry to make significant profits, but profits tightly overseen by government regulators.

• Increased government oversight will bring down costs. Merit pay for doctors will be based on success rates. Reward the doctors and innovators, not stockholders.

• We need more doctors. The supply thereof is too low, therefore the cost for their services is too high — and demand will always be high. Medical school should be for the gifted and desirous, not only the gifted and desirous rich or those willing to accumulate huge debt. The federal and state governments should pay for qualified students to successfully complete medical school. Students whose medical school is paid for by government will spend the first 5 years of employment after residencies in locale decided by a placement agency, created legislatively in each state. Students may pay for their own schooling costs and avoid government placement, of course.

• Americans have considerable compassion. We wish the best for everyone. So, let’s recognize the inequalities in our current system of medical insurance: some employers pay for it; some don’t; some folks’ genes are better than others; some make too much money to qualify for ACA coverage, but pay terrible monthly fees for plans with very large deductibles. 

• Single-payer is coming if we don’t reduce current costs. Single-payer universal insurance coverage reduces the inequalities; an independent commission administers the claims and payments; the administrators are rewarded for uncovering fraud; medical services are charged at rates determined by the commissioners (rates vary according to local prices). But when costs have to be controlled, some unpopular decisions will be made. Do we spend $35,000 per month from public funds for a 90-year old’s leukemia medicine? Probably not. 

• Consumers need to be able to easily identify prices charged by various health providers.

9. Homelessness 

• Homelessness is largely a function of severe drug addiction or debilitating mental illness.  

• Do you want workers with good jobs living downtown — think Cargill on E. Douglas – while drug-abusers and the desperate camp on our streets, begging, even threatening?  

• The significantly mental ill (and we all have our challenges/”demons”) have been released from institutional care and find themselves in a fast-moving, highly competitive, draining world and end up roaming the street, cursing at whatever perceived injustices, tending for themselves.  This is not working.

• We need better staffed and more accommodating homes for those who cannot care for themselves. Everyone should have a home, a shelter, but not necessarily their own house. If you can’t pay for your own shelter and food, you accept some loss of freedom. I’m going to say: We need to re-institutionalize many of the homeless, but in a manner that a contemporary Ken Kesey will not be prompted to write about.

10. Marijuana and Illegal drugs

• Liberty champions the freedom to chart your own course. Yes, even the freedom to chart poorly and fail. Failure is frequently no one else’s fault but our own. Drug abuse is a lifestyle failure. We are becoming a larger culture having difficulty declaring some misbehaviors to be personal. If the family cannot/will not care for the failed, and care becomes the collective’s responsibility, allowing the failed to continue in their failure at public expense while living on the public streets is not helping our downtown development.

• Drugs on the street are too cheap. Too much supply. The War on Drugs was never more than a mild skirmish. We can get rid of meth and fentanyl and heroin on the streets, but not without some ugly arrests and much more vigilance, including of our national borders.

• Marijuana should be legalized and taxed. Methamphetamines, never. Have you not watched the devolution of a meth addict?  

•  Employers must be free to test their employees and require certain levels of sobriety and readiness to work. 

11. Taxes

• The common good can be quite expensive. And we must admit that some problems money will not fix, but also that taxation is a form of communal sacrifice, investing in the commonwealth. Disdain for taxation increases as affection for community decreases. Great wealth comes with obligation, if you want to live in a happy community.

• Why should income from investment be taxed at a lower rate than wages and tips? Because the investor is sweating more? Because they’re smarter? Because they should be rewarded for encouraging boards to cut jobs, downsize, outsource in order to enhance profits and pay better dividends? Tax capital gains more highly, especially short carries; however, eliminate the tax on capital gains, interest, and dividends for taxpayers with AGIs below $200,000. Raise the capital gains tax progressively and steeply thereafter. 

12. National security and American foreign policy

• “Walk softly and carry a big stick.”

• Are you comfortable with the American President having the power to decide — or feeling the pressure from treaties that decide for him/her — when to send American troops? Shouldn’t we stay disengaged unless Congress declares war, as the Constitution prescribes? Armies do not keep the peace. They wage war — until the enemy sues for peace. It has been a long run as the world’s policeman, but probably time to let other alliances work out their own regional issues. 

• We need to build a defense shield, a Reagan-esque “Star Wars,” with the same diligence and urgency by which we sent people to the moon. This will allow us to stay out of many conflicts.

• Some nations have such instability and history of turmoil that they cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. The prevention of their acquiring those weapons raises very difficult issues. Does anyone want to see the Nuclear Club grow in membership? North Korea and Pakistan are substantial members already — and their instability is profound. Will China stop flexing its muscles in the Far East? Japan needs to be free to work that out. South Korea is going to have to talk it over with the North. They may have to fight it out, but I don’t want my grandchildren doing it.

• The Asian hegemony might gain by appreciating Mutually Assured Destruction within their region. I’m sure the Chinese would treat a threat from Japan far more seriously than they would a threat from the USA. They have a little more history with each other. China needs to deal with serious negotiators from their own neighborhood. Let Japan and S. Korea and Taiwan arm themselves. We’ll see a more responsive China.

• We have punished Germany and Japan long enough. Let them manage their own defense.

• Do not try and resolve the animosity of Sunnis and Shi’ites. No amount of American firepower or military pressure is going to make them like each other. The loss of American life trying to get them to do so has been a tragically wasteful expenditure. To neglect the historical and religious contexts of their dispute is to conduct foreign policy by emotion.  

• We ended our dependence on foreign oil and must never go back to dependency.

13. Electoral reform:  until there’s a complete accounting of Zuckerberg’s 400 million dollar insertion into the grassroots of the November 2020 election, no one should say anything about the ethics of it. Get Big Money out of our elections!

My fellow Old Democrats, if you can help me identify and recruit young, clear-minded (Trump and Biden are septuagenarian marvels, if you’ll stop to find a little grace), charismatic, energetic (campaigns must be exhausting), and, above all, common-sensical New Democrats, we have a political party to refashion. Our democracy needs the wisdom that the Middle provides. To the helm!

With the recent test of a hypersonic cruise missile by the Chinese, there have been several questions asked about what this kind of weapon could be used for, and does it give the Chinese first-strike capability? The short answer to the first-strike nuclear question is “yes,” with help from other first-strike weapons.  

Historically, a first-strike weapon was a weapon that could reduce or eliminate an enemy’s nuclear retaliatory force to a level where the retaliatory strike is survivable. During the Cold War this resulted in the US and the USSR having huge offensive nuclear forces such that a retaliatory strike would always yield unsurvivable or unacceptable levels of damage. It was known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). A working definition of a first-strike weapon is any weapon that can be used to negate the use of an enemy’s nuclear weapons or negate or limit an enemy’s decision-making to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike.  

Over time, the US and the USSR/Russia have agreed to reductions in nuclear weapons (START I, START II and SORT) and to limit the deployment of anti-ballistic missile (ABM) programs (1972 ABM Treaty). The reduction in nuclear weapons reflected an understanding that the number of remaining nuclear weapons could cause unacceptable destruction if launched in a first, or retaliatory, strike. It appears that the US and Russia are both working toward reaching the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) pacts. Under new START policy, both sides agreed to following limits:

• 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments;

• 1,550 nuclear warheads on deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments (each such heavy bomber is counted as one warhead toward this limit);

• 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.

What other first strike weapons systems would be needed to make a hypersonic cruise missile an effective first strike weapon? The first weapon is a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS). The speed of the FOBS is what allows the supersonic combustion ramjet (SCRAMJET) to operate and power the cruise missile to Mach 5 in the atmosphere. To deploy the hypersonic cruise missile from the FOBS, the cruise missile must have a retrograde engine to slow it down and stabilize it for its flight. The FOBS’ speed also allows for a faster attack at a lower trajectory. An ICBM travels at about 15,000 mph and climbs to an altitude of about 1,000 miles. A FOBS travels at about 17,500 mph and only reaches an altitude of about 100 miles. By traveling faster and at a lower altitude it cuts the nominal weapons delivery time from 30 to 20 minutes. Reducing an enemies’ decision-making and execution time by over 30%.  

Other weapons necessary to help a hypersonic cruise missile be a first strike weapon are lasers/directed energy weapons, anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, and an effective, broad area coverage ABM system. Lasers/directed energy weapons are necessary to blind opposing surveillance systems to the launch of a FOBS. Use of lasers/directed energy weapons could be implemented in a way that is not readily apparent and does not elicit an immediate response or concern. If an attack on surveillance systems or the launch of a FOBS is readily identifiable, the enemy could use that to launch on warning and negate the advantage of the cruise missile. Similarly, ASAT use against a surveillance system would help hide the launch of a FOBS; however, deployment and use of an ASAT is closely monitored and could again lead to a launch-on-warning situation. The final first strike weapon is an ABM system. This is not a massive ABM system capable of shooting down all the incoming warheads of a retaliatory strike. It’s a system with enough weapons to defend the high value targets whose survival will allow a country to continue to operate after a nuclear exchange. Added together, these first strike weapons systems could allow a hypersonic cruise missile to be deployed and used to negate a possible retaliatory strike or reduce the retaliatory strike to an acceptable level. 

How can a nation defend against these first-strike weapons? First and foremost, countries need to protect their surveillance systems and ensure they have the means of detecting and categorizing missile/rocket launches in a timely manner.  

Elements of the Current U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense System 

• Ground-based Midcourse Defense

• Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense

• Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)

• Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3)

• Space-based Infrared System-High (SBIRS-HIGH)

Unfortunately, at this time, defense against the hypersonic cruise missile may not be available or effective. One of characteristics of the cruise missile is that it can maneuver or change course. Current ABM systems appear to have limited capability against maneuvering targets. It may be possible to engage the FOBS delivery vehicle before the cruise missile is deployed; however, once deployed and maneuvering it will be harder to track and engage.

Fortunately, hypersonic weapons testing is still being conducted and there are significant challenges to overcome before they can be fielded. One of the biggest challenges is building a missile and warhead that can withstand the 4,000 degree Farenheit temperature of hypersonic atmospheric flight. New construction materials will need to be created and tested. A second challenge will be navigation. Precision navigation will require significant electronic equipment hardened against the temperatures encountered. Finally, there are issues with maneuvering and aerodynamics at hypersonic speeds. New technology will have to be found to overcome the atmospheric pressure on the missile body and the flight controls. Hopefully, while this testing and development is going on, negotiations and treaties will commence to limit or eliminate hypersonic cruise missiles from nuclear warfare.

As stated, hypersonic cruise missiles could be a first strike weapon in nuclear warfare. There’s a historical precedent for how two nuclear weapons can influence the outcome of a war. There’s still a need to maintain nuclear deterrence through limiting the deployment of nuclear weapons. The U.S. must also look at the broader scope of how a first strike weapon is defined, and then find ways to limit their deployment and use. Finally, you must monitor the development of weapons systems by your adversaries if you want to know each nation’s capabilities. 

Tumult, turmoil, trepidation, the Three T's of pandemic-era education. The nation asks: what is being taught in our classrooms? The normative short answer? As much relevant information as possible, but not always what to then do with it.

Each state mandates subject-related curriculum paced to acknowledge the transient nature of students and families. Each school is packed with unique instructors, who mostly close their doors and teach their charges what the approved standards command, in ways they each see fit. Does each classroom provide the same educational experience for each pupil. No. When humans are involved, it doesn't work that way.

What should consistently happen is that teachers push students to learn core information about their subjects, and then encourage as much thought-provoking analysis of the knowledge gained. Will there be debate? Should controversial issues be covered? Absolutely. Can every aspect of a topic be thoroughly researched and discussed? No, not enough time, but for some issues, we should slow down and dig deeper.

The International Baccalaureate (IB) Program began developing in the post World War II era as diplomats wondered how to properly educate their children who were frequently whisked away to other countries, each with unique curriculum. By 1968, the IB Program was born, and one of its bedrock courses, perhaps the ribbon wrapped around the IB diploma, is Theory of Knowledge (TOK). The main product of the course is an essay that reflects the student’s understanding of the core areas of knowledge, and the process by which we validate and utilize information.

Sample prompts have included questions pertaining to the impact of international borders, the consequences of technology, and the differences between temporal, and immutable beliefs. Given that model, could a question seep into any classroom’s culture addressing the implications of teaching the tenets of Critical Race Theory, or climate change, or how to combat a life-threatening pandemic? Why not?

Our tendency is to avoid that which is controversial, and when negotiating the tangled web of single digit/tween/teen emotions and often haphazardly-gained knowledge, it seems far safer to steer discussion toward the center lane. That, as we’ve seen, provides its own inherent dangers.

What we need, and Candor participants, the Battling Bobs (Litan and Love), have been calling for, is a structured approach to handling difficult issues, one that can serve as more than a template, one that is our “muscle memory” approach to intellectual conflict management.

The recipe should include healthy doses of TOK strategies seeking agreement on what is true knowledge, and then practicing how to process the facts to reach meaningful conclusions. It should include the guardrails of civil discourse, and then take form in democracy-laden political movements that shape our laws and tendencies.

We must train our children, both at home and in the classroom, how to interact in positive ways, and it begins with better ways to resolve conflicts. Shying away from the issues that roil us is not the answer. Will we arrive at the correct answer? Complex social issues aren’t resolved with answers displayed in the back of a textbook, we must aggressively pursue them, and process is critical to that outcome.

The Big Book says God has secrets belonging only to Him and at depths of knowledge making some of His judgments untraceable (Romans 11.33).  That Distance from clarity can be a torment.  I want to watch us on His Screen with the Son of Man doing color commentary.  Life’s fascination is in the details, don’t we know, and They miss nothing!  (Yes, Trinitarian.)   Imagine the “movies” we have all starred in – and the Higher Audiences (including the “angels” – whatever they are exactly).  Of God’s directives to those legions made a little higher than us, do they more often hear regarding here “that will require some discipline” or “reward/encourage more of that”?

Biblical cosmogony from the first chapter of Christianity’s primary document declares the central function of Earth’s highest creature – Adam/Man, in tandem as male and female, powerfully complementary – to be God’s image bearer, representatives having rule and dominion, being fruitful and multiplying, keeping and cultivating the Earth as garden, bringing forth treasure from the soil, from plants, from animals.  The seed is received and fruitfulness results – easily, whether soil or womb.

God is on record playing serious games with us who have been made a “little lower.”  Job’s ordeals and Paul’s sifting were prompted by a proud, powerful entity testing God’s resolve to finish what had been started, to refine image-bearers who can withstand toil and trouble.  That Job and Peter had trials and challenges discussed and arranged beforehand in the Heavenlies stops me in my tracks time and again.  What is going on Up There?  Whatever is, God does not seem to be in a hurry – at all – to resolve human shortcoming and injustice and suffering, often en masse.  Are we that “fun” to watch?  Surely amusement is not behind it all.  But musing?  I think so.

Job was eventually double-blessed and Paul returned to the fold, as predicted.  High drama, indeed. Why wouldn’t it be true that you and I have also been protagonists/antagonists, major and minor actors in countless comedies and tragedies for Heavenly screening.  That “angels long to look into” the Divine’s orchestration of human redemption should fascinate us (I Peter 1:12). Why did they not get the same deal? (Biblically, grace extended to the angels [all males, fyi] is hard to find.)  

Humans, from the beginning, have been full of expression, pressing out, moving the tent pegs, increasing their hegemonies, managing the environment to meet needs and wants.  The Creator has watched our technological advance over much time: controlling fire, manufacturing wheels, shaping metals, refining sound through instrumentation, and now trading information all over the planet in nanoseconds. Routinely, cattle pens and slaughterhouses lead to dining tables with filled and garnished plates resembling fine wall art.  God watches us leave representations of ourselves, makings in our image (as He did), the sending forth of self-expression in words, numerals, images, and manufacturing  -- expressions in ever-increasing complexity, exactitude, and scope.

Dominion starts in sandboxes and treehouses, but He watches us standing intelligently over complicated and dangerous medical procedures. He watches us fly into space, photograph the ocean floor, and put nearly everyone in the driver’s seat of an automobile that can go 130 mph. God enjoyed watching Edison and Einstein at their labs and chalkboards, for sure.  They were discovering the intricate possibilities of living within the Created Order.  Lately, a virus ravaged the world (nothing new), but a few found it and made something to neutralize its lethality.

And if God made man over much time, (time and chance get nothing done without matter and design/information) and we discover stages along an “evolutionary” journey, who wouldn’t say, “what a spectacle” if we had eyes to see growth that miniscule and gradual and purposeful.

Having spent more time than I would have wished brooding over the Problem of Evil (a good and powerful God allowing so much suffering), I have found some solace pondering the satisfactions of God as Creator.  He is portrayed in Genesis 1 as gazing satisfyingly over “it all” and pronouncing early on “very good”!  Might viewing satisfaction be a current factor in the delay to restore all things?  Does He not delight in our rule and dominion over animals and minerals and electromagnetic, nuclear and gravitational forces?  How long, oh Lord, until the suffering stops? Until we inhabit Mars?  Why wouldn’t He want us to travel intergalactically?  I’m not expecting a soon Second Coming.  Too much yet for Man to discover!

Human history is replete with “small step{s} for man [that are] giant leap[s] for mankind.” God most and best knows just how “fearfully and wonderfully made” we are. We accomplish so much – each of us in our own manner and capacity – and oftentimes for “good” reasons. We incessantly discover, improve, extend, safeguard, heal and, yes, vaccinate! (Sorry.)

The Mind of God includes so much more than what has been revealed. The healing of the nations has been and will be quite a slow process.  As God watches current generations around the world moving amongst the races and colors so much more fluidly together, the view is surely “good.” Why the “hurry up”?  (Remember: a sizable portion of the angels do not welcome The End, but that’s another topic.) No one has the slightest idea when Jesus is returning (the last rites for dispensational premillennialism being performed more than two decades ago).  But, I’m glad to have found a significant place amongst my theological paradigms for an emphasis on God as Creator and the orderliness and wonder of it all. So much to do!  However, marana-tha – always.

Photo of the South China Sea, Credit: Taneli Lahtinen

China vs Taiwan : Where Are We and What Happens Next?

Of all the potential military conflict hotspots in the world, the one most worrisome is the potential invasion of Taiwan by the People's Republic of China (PRC). After reviewing some of the history of why this invasion may happen and comparing this possible invasion against some historical examples may point to why it could be a very bad idea. Along with the historical comparison, a limited comparison/correlation of forces between the PRC and the Republic of China (ROC, commonly referred to as Taiwan), with a small glimpse of what the U.S. could bring to the fight if the U.S. is involved with military forces; the U.S. possesses a better operating architecture and that could provide the advantage in a conflict, and that may determine whether expected allies join the battle. As we’ve all seen in the news, the PRC is making aggressive moves toward Taiwan and Taiwan’s leaders are giving every indication that they are ready to fight. For those of you who want a short course on the history of this conflict, read this BBC article: What's behind the China-Taiwan divide?. The bottom line is, the PRC thinks Taiwan is a rebellious, breakaway province and wants it back as an obedient part of the PRC. Can China achieve this using force if necessary? Maybe. 

The history of warfare is replete with many examples of countries starting wars based on bad assumptions and catastrophic outcomes. This was especially true in the 20th Century. Significant examples: Hitler invading Poland, assuming Britain and France would do nothing to help the Poles resulting in an earlier start to the war in Europe than Hitler was prepared to fight, especially on multiple fronts against multiple enemies. Allies quickly responded, including the British, French, and ultimately, the Russians and the United States. A second example is when North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, under the impression that South Korea was no longer within the United States’ sphere of interest resulting in the subsequent intervention by the U.S. and the United Nations (UN) and the stalemated border at the 38th parallel that remains today. Finally, and most recently, Iraq’s 1991 invasion of Kuwait, under the impression that the U.S. would not intervene in what was called an Iraqi internal affair resulting in the intervention by the U.S. and the UN and the destruction of a major portion of the Iraqi military and national infrastructure during the Gulf War. In all three cases the aggressors misunderstood the repercussions of their actions and the destruction that would befall them. The example of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is a close parallel to the situation today between the PRC and Taiwan.

Like Iraq, the PRC has overwhelming numbers, and in several respects, technological superiority over its potential enemy. Unfortunately for the PRC, it will have to cross the 80 mile-wide Taiwan Straits to reach Taiwan. With the intelligence likely available, preparation and assembling of forces will be known to Taiwan, the U.S. and potential allies, days if not weeks in advance. This will give the ROC a large amount of time to mobilize and be ready to defend itself and the U.S. ample time to begin deploying forces to the area. But it’s not just the distance the PRC has to travel, it’s what kind of ships they will have to deploy a large enough force to attempt an invasion with a realistic expectation of success. Using unclassified sources, it is surmised that the PRC will have to use commercial cargo ships to transport the troops and supplies they’ll need for the invasion. This would be similar to what the British had to do to invade the Falkland Islands in 1982. The major difference being the scope and size of the invasion of Taiwan will be incredibly larger than that of the Falklands. It will provide a very large target-rich environment for the ROC army, navy, and air force to engage and inflict huge numbers of casualties over an extended timeframe. This will be doubly destructive since the commercial shipping will have little, if any, defensive systems on board. In comparing forces, on paper, the PRC has approximately a 3 to 1 advantage in fighter aircraft. This is similar to what the Germans’ advantage over Britain was for the Battle of Britain. However, the PRC will have the same disadvantage the Germans had trying to fight an air war over England. PRC air pilots will have a substantial distance to fly to attack Taiwan, restricting the amount of time they can spend in the target area. In addition, a PRC aircraft shot down over Taiwan results in a lost aircraft and pilot. A ROC aircraft shot down over Taiwan could easily lead to that pilot being recovered and ready to fly again. The PRC advantage would also be seriously reduced if the U.S. commits aircraft carriers and deploys land-based fighters to Taiwan or nearby friendly countries. Using Desert Shield/Storm as a guide, the U.S. had two fighter wings and multiple ships deployed to Saudi Arabia within ten days of the decision to do so in order to attack any further Iraqi operations. In total, the U.S. deployed approximately 1,300 combat aircraft for Desert Storm and nearly 2,350 with allied aircraft. This would make it a fairly even numerical match with the PRC.   

If the numbers are about even, and the quality of equipment is essentially equal, what will be the collective advantage the ROC, the U.S., and any anticipated allies possess over the PRC? It will be the level of training, the better integration of command and control resources with the combat forces, and the decentralized way U.S. forces execute a war plan.

The U.S. trains for combat in realistic

exercises every year in the U.S. and with its allies around the world. Exercises like Red Flag, and the training done at the Naval Aviation Warfighting Development Center (In 1996, Top Gun training was integrated into the NAWDC) have been the cutting edge of how well U.S. air forces (Air Force, Navy and Marine) can fight. These exercises and training programs fully integrate previous lessons learned in aerial combat and inclusion of what we’ve learned of our potential enemies’ capabilities. In addition, as part of this training, our air forces fully integrate the command and control resources, reconnaissance, airborne warning and control, and other control assets, to improve the tactical efficiency and effectiveness of an air campaign in an electronic combat environment. The PRC does not appear to have these kinds of training programs, nor does it display the ability to act quickly during military events because the PRC’s military is highly centralized in making, ordering, and executing military operations. If the U.S. can disrupt or get inside the PRC decision loop, the Pentagon would be able to dictate how the air war, the naval war, and ultimately the ground war would be fought. 

Will the U.S. defend Taiwan if China attacks? In 1972 the US acknowledged the One China Policy where Taiwan was considered part of one greater China. In 1979 President Carter tried to break off relations with the ROC; however, Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act that maintained relations, but did not recognize Taiwan as a country. Since then, the U.S. position has vacillated on how much recognition and support the U.S. would provide Taiwan. This culminated in 2016 with a very obscured U.S. position, when then President Trump made a statement that the U.S. was not necessarily bound by the “One China” policy, but shortly thereafter, after a phone call with PRC Leader Xi Jinping, President Trump clarified his position and said the U.S. would honor the “One China” policy. Under President Biden, the United State’s position on the ROC appears to be under reconsideration again. According to news reports the U.S. has Marines and special forces in Taiwan helping train and prepare defenses, and they’ve been there for at least a year.

Just this past week, the U.S. approved a $1.8 billion weapons sale to Taiwan. This immediately brought out a multitude of editorials about what could happen next. On one extreme is the opinion that this weapons sale is futile and could prompt the PRC to attack Taiwan sooner than expected and draw the U.S. into a losing war. On the other extreme is the position that the US has a commitment to Taiwan and should be willing to fight up through a nuclear war to keep Taiwan free. The U.S. will intervene militarily and use its nuclear superiority as deterrence against China’s nuclear threat. After the debacle in Afghanistan, if the U.S. doesn’t aid Taiwan, it will lose whatever respect allies and enemies still hold. One of the first would probably be the United Kingdom. They recently sent the HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier strike group to participate with US and Japanese Self-Defense forces in a naval exercise in the Philippine Sea. In addition, Australia, South Korea, and Japan have voiced concerns about an attack on Taiwan and how it would affect the area’s economies and affect their access to world trade. Finally, there is a possibility that India could play a role, recent news reports describe a recent successful launch of an Indian intermediate range, nuclear capable missile. This would allow India to strike targets deep in China if a Taiwan conflict would escalate. 

Unfortunately, any support to Taiwan, especially military combat support, will have a devastating effect on the world’s economy. Based on the experiences in previous wars, one of the first actions the U.S. and its allies would take is to blockade shipping in or out of the PRC. This will lead to major naval engagements in conjunction with the massive air war fought to stop the PRC from landing or resupplying their invasion forces. Trade shipping in that part of the world would come to a stop.

Lastly, when could this happen? Most of the analysis in the press coming from U.S. intelligence sources say probably in the next four to six years. This timeline will probably be affected by who the U.S. elects for president in 2024. Electing a pro-Taiwan president might have the effect of forcing the PRC to attack Taiwan before that president takes office. That very likely won't happen in the next six months, not until the Chinese-hosted Winter Olympics’ final ceremony. With a lot of diplomacy and luck, it won’t happen at all.

China wants Taiwan back. It believes the Chinese military has the quantity and quality of forces to do it, unless the U.S. and its allies intervene. Even then, Chinese leaders think they can succeed. It will be a true test of the U.S., its allies, and the UN to see if the time and treasure spent on weapons systems and training can stop this potential latest attempt of occupying a sovereign state by force. It will be costly to both sides in casualties and to the worlds’ economy. Let’s hope it doesn’t occur.

Fascinating things happen when people will not let go of the past.  Their houses fill with useless things, piles of receipts, brochures and programs, old prescriptions and half-full jars of marmalade lying feet deep between submerged furniture.  Hoarding, an inability to part with inessential oddities, marks the need to persist.    

Our memories play tricks.  When a strange smell lights our minds, a recovered memory of a time when we were first surprised by such a scent visits us, and we are quickened.  The idea that perhaps we are inhabitants of a haunted spiritual house, one much bigger than we had assumed, teases us like a treasure map.  A memory that can explain every vague inflection of unease might be just out of reach, and so we dare not throw any clue away.  What other survivors of memory, isolated to an island by the dominating current of our passing days, alone in a semblance of innocence, untouched or examined, getting weaker every year, are straining at any sign of a visitor, full of news from the moments in which they too were part of the unconcerned cadence of thought.  They should spring up and warm us with their long repressed meditations, talkative once again!  

Memory, the iceberg, is constantly calving.    

Maybe the tour ships sent to the arctic seas are full of historians.  Enjoying the spectacle of the secretive giants, icebergs, showing their hand as if they knew something ponderous in their submerged secret parts, tourists must feel personal implication when the roar of rending ice marks the shearing off of the berg’s unity.  It is as if the iceberg were unable to maintain all of itself in the face of time and events, and so we know more about its future than its past, sharing in a voyeuristic appreciation of approaching dementia.  Gawkers line the shipboard rails, hovering above the abyssal regions as the ancient iceberg loses its mind.   Being in the company of icebergs is thrilling as spying on hoarders is titillating.  The swirling corona of items, the strata of semi-cogent debris have a resemblance to nature itself.  There is a logic, a law at work waiting to be discovered by some pioneer. 

Nature is essence at work.  Much is at work in the house of the one who never casts away, who only gathers.   The one who gathers is largely unknown, hopefully made knowable by evidence, the evidence of a life lived.   There is an empty gravitic center to the house of trash that differentiates it from the purely accidental town landfill, therefore the hoarder is the personification of a black hole.    A collapsing star is remarkable because it retains its power to attract as it loses its ability to radiate.  Pursuing this collapse would be dangerous, because it gains disruptive attraction as it falls inward.  We only know it is there because of the warping of light, the piles of stuff and the sucking in of all around, speeding inward toward a blank center that tells no tales.  Within the black hole lies a history that cannot be written, and within the house of the collapsing self lies a history that won’t be written. If only an historian could devote life and attention to compiling the history of each collapsing soul who cannot distinguish significance among their belongings, perhaps those souls could not collapse inward, but come into being. 

Historic archives abound in these haunted places, but lack a common interest.  They are immense archives of a life.  We wish Shakespeare had been messier.   The common interest of people exhibits itself in curation of the past, or perhaps more correctly in imagining the past.  The idea of what should be collected and what thrown away certainly defines an era.  A civilization that could no longer understand itself, could no longer understand what was trash and what was treasure, and one that kept everything because all things were worth the same, would be a story without a story teller.  The lack of historical consciousness brings about a reactive yearning for the lost past, and an ignorance of forces at work, like the calving of icebergs, or the monstrous gravity of a black hole.  

For some reason, people enjoy zoos.  I certainly do.  Wandering through the zoo now is different from wandering through the zoo in the nineteenth century.  Then, we would likely have seen animals in cages along a walkway, dangerous oddities placed in our path to remind us of the power of civilization.  Today, we pride ourselves on ‘habitats’, places arranged so that we may observe the creatures in situations that might exist in places where the animal is normally found.  Of course, this is situated by the zookeeper’s imagination.  

Like an historian, the zookeeper places the elements of the story, the zoo, in some way that connects them to what is important.  In a circular sort of way, this importance is in the mind of the zookeeper, but we know also that certain forces beyond imagination are at work.  No one of us imagined a rhinoceros into being among the crowd of creatures, but we know it is there.  It is up to us to make sense of it.  

 The zookeeper of people is an historian.  Certain things are up for display because they are deemed important.  Certain ways of displaying things are thought up, supposedly replying to the nature of those things.  Nature being the exposure of essence, we are involved in making some inferences about the essential nature of the creature being displayed.  We care for the exhibits, cleaning up around and after them, guarding against a return to chaos or incoherence.  We do this because for some reason people enjoy knowing about themselves, just as for some reason we enjoy knowing about animals.  

Is this activity necessary?   In one sense, yes, it comes from a need within.  In another sense, it doesn’t have to be.  Imagine history, like a zoo, abandoned because of war or upheaval, unvisited and unkempt.  Imagine a zoo that no one was interested in anymore because of pressing economic concerns, or perhaps just a dislike of predatory animals.  What happens to that zoo, that history?  The zoo doesn’t quietly disappear, and history is still there too, grown up with weeds, full of potential, self-cannibalistic and  feral.  A history with no one curating it, making sense of it, keeping the lions away from the gazelles, is a pile of appetites.  Those who stumble upon it after neglecting it will sometimes be surprised by a nest of poisonous vipers, left to brood over their nest while feeding on exotic and rare birds, who in turn disappear forever. Inexplicable now, certain beasts with certain habits will browse among the scattered bones of unimaginable creatures, and certain crowning predators will be accidentally loosed upon the unimaginative people who neglected them.  Once the past was entertaining and informative.  Those who were bored and inattentive will now find it gathered on their doorstep, unforeseen and hungry.  

And what of memory and the desire for happiness?  Neglecting the past does not remove the need of the soul to understand itself.  Failing to care for the past, both in our own lives and collectively, is a messy thing.  Living in a haunted house full of indecipherable details, no one having cared to collate and label, is what happens when the momentum of culture ceases, but the bow wave continues from behind, swamping life.  

The past will exert its force.  It is the job of culture to stay ahead of it, not to fall helplessly back into undifferentiated chaos.  

“It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution—some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.” F. Bastiat, The Law

Capitalists don’t like being branded as evil [aka “pandemic profiteers”] by POTUS and POTPRC but that’s what seems to be happening as Big Meat and Big Chips [among others] scramble to deal with official government responses to the shortages and rapidly rising prices of the products they supply to consumers in world markets. In a more or less assertive [but always entertaining] display of righteous indignation, they claim that those who blame them for the higher prices are ignorant of the “basic laws” of economics, which are free markets, supply and demand, price discovery and above all PROFIT. Indeed, they continue by offering proof that many in their ranks are unable to make a decent profit [they call it a return on their investment] in today’s markets. [I wonder what they think about the return the widow gets on her life $aving$ from the bank?]

Are capitalists evil?  Are socialists ignorant? The answer to both questions is a resounding YES !!

So the proper question is, WHEN are they evil and ignorant?

Perhaps, the only way to measure time is with a pendulum of some sort … something that in some way swings back and forth in some sort of “regular” motion. But as it swings further and further in ONE direction, even the experienced observer is tempted to think it will never reverse directions and go back. But just as it reaches an extreme, it suddenly and unexpectedly [as in “blowback”] reverses direction. And it reverses because there are “regulations” built into the natural world which … human evil and ignorance notwithstanding … arrest extremes and force things back towards their shared equilibrium. The Greeks understood this when they proposed “moderation in all things” but [as even they learned the hard way] that is easier said than done.

In his statement above, Bastiat appears to believe JUSTICE somehow provides the moderating influence that restrains evil and enlightens ignorance. But Bastiat failed to provide a clear explanation of just what justice is … other than that it is somehow connected to “law.”

In his writings “On Laws” and “On Duties,” Cicero, perhaps, comes closest to defining justice as a transaction between conscience and nature in which “right reason” is the medium of exchange. Anything less than this, he claims, is pretended justice which cannot maintain equilibrium and thus will not persist.

In answer then to Bastiat’s observation, there can be no “reign of justice” until somebody actually understands what it is and seeks it as Cicero recommended.

Indeed, perhaps it is the seeking per se [if done honestly] that is justice for all practical purposes. Counting on capitalists or socialists [or anyone else who uses words to justify self-interest] to do this is futile. Neither group has the vocabulary needed for the task. It will take BOTH coming together in HUMILITY BEFORE NATURE and turning loose of their fevered ambitions and their tainted words … and using their God-given ability to reason rightly to discover the new [or should we say eternal] words capable of guiding them together step by step and day by day along the way towards the truth which alone is sustainable because it alone is eternal.

Many of us have laughed at the joke styled around two people endangered by a wild, ferocious animal, though one of the two is less anxious because though he runs slower than the animal, he runs faster than his cohort. Competition is not a difficult comprehension.  It is the fruit of earliest lessons on the playground, the classroom – and throughout our lives. A month ago, local media outlet KSN was interviewing Eric Bienemy, a coach for the Kansas City Chiefs, as the camera focused on the training camp locker room door – “Hiring All Positions.”  Be the best or lose your spot. It creates Super Bowl champions.

In any economy, competition among suppliers benefits customers. Could you deny that the many Toyotas and Mazdas on the roadways have not been good for the Fords driving alongside?  What happens to TV cable rates when the two providers merge? Why do we have state and federal agencies/commissions to analyze and sanction business mergers? Monopolies never find a good reason for greater consumer choice. Why should the public education establishment respond to parental concerns when they know most parents can’t afford private options? The current establishment is a de facto monopoly, but monopolies work best only for the people who work within them. However, should good schools have anything to fear in a competitive environment? Don’t you wonder when people retort, “but with vouchers, the best students will leave the public schools”?

We cannot support excellence in education and deny increased competition. Government policy should promote competition among education suppliers because a greater breadth and depth of excellence will be the product when every school must answer the question, What more can we do to ensure that the customer picks us for their children’s education? Choices enhance, not erode, accountability. Choices strengthen the linkage between provider and consumer. School investors – taxpayers, like you – resemble any other investor: they want a favorable ROI; they want to get their money’s worth.

Choice is the American privilege. We push the cart up aisle after aisle putting into the basket one brand of this or that, each competing amidst an array of choices.  We choose our doctor, mechanic, lawyer, and hair stylist, but not the kids’ teachers – unless you’ve got the big bucks.

 If it is true that parental involvement is a crucial ingredient for school success, how do we get parents involved? Let them shop – and give them some money to shop with!  Make schools accountable to parents. Let parents pick the peers their children will hang out with eight hours per day, 165 days per year. And why should so many strain to pay tuition to schools that are not run by the state and pay taxes to financially support schools they do not agree with philosophically or pedagogically?

How many times have we seen video clips of disgusted parents in front of a school board in the throes of lament? In the private sector, the parent shows disgust, distrust, or thirst for a new approach by removing their child from your class list and shopping for a better product. That keeps a teaching staff on its toes. Competition is the fairest way of determining merit pay for teachers. Better costs more.

With vouchers comes a smorgasbord of educational institutions targeting every conceivable student group. If the state standards and oversight create product from the same dough with the same cookie cutter, creative destruction and innovation and experimentation suffer. No single system can recognize, approve, or meet the proliferating diversity of educational need that exists in every school district.

The purpose of education is in the Latin root of the word. Education is “leading out” the learner, sending them confidently and skilled into the larger culture. If the state wants a strong role in ensuring appropriate education, let the state pay for the increasingly sophisticated and accurate tests available to determine aptitudes, interests, strengths, and personality tendencies of every student, learners who have much to learn about themselves. Talk about “one size not fitting all”!  Every parent with more than one child knows that each is different. Talk of equality of outcome or equity becomes less important when we understand the nature of individualism, the peculiarity of every person. Decentralize. Particularize. Increase the number of education suppliers and watch the individual prosper and succeed.  

If America continues to look primarily to a single, state-run education system, don’t expect test scores to rise or customer satisfaction to increase. Finally, are the children failing or are we failing the children?   

As state and other local elections come up this November, I am again thinking about the two-party system we have in the United States. The people who lead the two parties may not be frustrated with the system, but I am. I once thought we needed to have more third party candidates, but as this video explains, our current system will always choke out third parties — because of the spoiler effect. Third parties often “rob” more votes from one of the two parties than from the other, leading to candidates winning elections with a minority of the vote.  (Remember Ross Perot.)  How many turn off their brains and simply vote “R” or “D.?” In many of the races other than President or maybe senator, we may not know a single thing about the candidates: “R” or “D” is all we need to know. 

Considering how to solve this duopoly problem, I had thought we needed to tear down the system and start over, but was often discouraged because my ideas lacked practicality and would result in so much upheaval that the change would not be worthwhile. Then, I was introduced to what can break us out of the two-party system. The beauty is that it can be done within our current system, without causing upheaval. This adjustment to our voting process is called ranked choice voting.

Ranked choice voting is not new. It goes at least as far back as the mid 1800s. Here is how it works: Let's say you have three candidates: A, B, and C. Instead of picking between the three as you would now, you rank all three of them. Let's say C is your first choice, B is your second choice, and A is your final choice. And let’s say that when the votes are counted, C gets over 50 percent of the first place votes. In this case, the election is over. C got the majority of votes, and therefore C won the election.

What happens if C gets 40 percent of the first place slots, B gets 39 percent of the first place slots, and A gets 21 percent of the first place slots? In this system the person who has the least amount of first place slots drops out of the race. This means that everyone who voted for A now has their vote changed to their second-ranked candidate. After counting again, it is found out that B has 59 percent of the vote and C has 41. The people who ranked A first were able to vote for whom they really wanted, but also did not have to worry about throwing away their vote. In a traditional vote, the prevailing current system, C would have won even if a majority did not vote for him or her.  Therefore, voting for A in the first place is discouraged.  Candidates A, those who have likely left one of the two parties over differences less severe than their differences with the other party, are discouraged from running for office because voters hate to waste their vote

Locally, we must institute this kind of voting system. The issues in our cities and state are not the same as they are in Washington, and we need our candidates working in their local area and not being overly concerned  with demonstrating party loyalty. The way it is now, if you run a race in Kansas that requires you to pick a party, your views are funneled into only two positions on most issues and the party platforms contain positions not easily changed. If you are a Republican, you will be pro-life, not believe in human-caused climate change, believe in trickle-down economics, support Donald Trump, and the list continues. If you run as a Democrat, you have to be pro-choice, want action on climate, want to bolster the social safety net, want to raise taxes on the rich, and so forth. 

I am afraid we are becoming dumber and meaner all the time in politics. We are discouraged from considering views outside of what our political party says is correct. The parties have long realized that the best way to get elected is by getting people to hate and fear the other team. I believe that ranked choice voting is our best chance to make a plausible change to the system that will force us out of this terrible duopoly that only corrals and separates us into two, highly contrasting factions. I would so love to pick up my ballot this November and see five candidates with nuanced views and actually have to think about which candidates I would like the most and which I would like the least without worrying about my vote being wasted. 

Thoughts from a historical Perspective

This is turning into a debacle that will defy description for years to come.  As you’re hearing now, an evacuation operation like the one going on in Kabul is complicated, takes time to accomplish, and requires sufficient resources to complete.  The question is, why didn’t the U.S. government plan for this from the start?  Why didn’t it push to evacuate more Americans and Afghan supporters of our military operations out of the country earlier as President Trump proposed and had started to do?  The mindset whereby you set a date to accomplish a goal and then do little or nothing to make sure the goal can be reached is doomed to failure.  In addition, why was there so little if any coordination with our NATO allies in conducting the withdrawal?  The only thing President Biden did do right was send troops back into Afghanistan to protect our people.  Unfortunately, it appears to be too little, too late.  President Biden’s blaming President Trump for “the deal” creating this situation is completely at odds with his statements about making his own decisions and doing what he deems best.  He could have changed “the deal” when he saw that the Taliban were not living up to it.  But I digress.  The crux of the issue is not what is happening, but why is it happening at all, and what does this portend for the future?

Before beginning a discussion on Afghanistan, I want to tell you of my background in what is termed Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations (NEO).  I have 60 plus years of experience with the US Air Force.  My father was an Air Force veteran and I was active duty for 20 years and taught in an Air Force education program for 21 years.  I’ve completed five military service schools including Air War College and the Joint Forces Staff College where things like NEO operations are discussed.  From a casualty standpoint, NEOs are the most dangerous and daunting of operations.  If things go badly, you could lose a large number of American civilians including a number of military dependents.  You also run the risk of incurring a number of military casualties.  As in all military operations, this is a possibility and it is an accepted risk.

My first exposure to a NEO was as a dependent in the summer of 1964.  My father was being transferred to England and we were waiting for a flight to England from Maguire AFB, NJ.  While at Maguire, several planeloads of Air Force dependents were flown into the base from Wheelus Airbase, Libya.  My mother volunteered to help families settle into the temporary housing at Maguire pending what would happen with them next.  Almost all of the families arrived without their military sponsor/parent, just the wives and children.  I distinctly remember one of the wives describing the situation at Wheelus when they left.  Military buses came into the housing area to pick up the dependents.  They were allowed one suitcase per person.  The buses took them to the airfield where they waited to board aircraft to get them out. They then flew to other US bases in Europe until they could be put on flights to the US.  The wife telling the story also added that as they left the housing area, Libyans were rushing in to take any property left behind.  In looking back on what happened and why, the NEO from Libya was part of the continuing hostility which would lead to further wars between Israel and Arab nations.  Whereas our presence in Libya and at Wheelus was primarily to counter USSR military actions, it was also seen as support for Israel and there was significant Arab pressure on Libya to force the US to leave.  The pressure was strong enough to make that happen and we evacuated Libya. Eventually there was a military coup in 1969 and Muammar al-Qaddafi became the leader of Libya.  Most importantly from a “what did we lose” perspective, I find no records of any casualties during this NEO.  The only losses were in military equipment and personal belongings left behind.  Why did it happen this way?  Again, looking at the records, the US had advance warning of what was going to happen.  US security forces controlled the airbase and Libyan Security forces loyal to the government controlled outside of the base and worked with the US forces to control the entry to the base.  Finally, there were no apparent terrorist attacks attempted. It worked as planned and executed.  That is critical to the success of any NEO.  It is when unplanned events happen that the operation can start to take unwanted losses. To put this in perspective with what is happening in Afghanistan, there were approximately 9,000 Americans evacuated over time. Approximately 6,300 evacuated initially and the remainder over time until all Americans wanting to leave departed in 1970. One final consideration, the US was seen to have a considerable military response capability and the resolve to use it if the NEO was interfered with by Libya..

My second near-NEO situation happened in the summer of 1974.  I was attending college and taking AFROTC at the time.  My family was stationed in Athens, Greece. In the summer of 1974, Greece and Turkey had a military altercation over the island of Cypress.  One of the main Greek Airbases was co-located at the Athens International Airport with the US Athenai Airbase.  Athens was within striking distance of Turkish attack aircraft and according to one report, a lost Turkish fighter overflew Athens during the war. Fortunately, combat between Greece and Turkey stayed in the vicinity of Cypress and no attacks were made against each other’s home country.  However, the US, not knowing if fighting would escalate, floated the idea of evacuating all US citizens from Greece.  Keep in mind, Greece and Turkey were, and continue to be, NATO allies. The US quickly discounted trying to evacuate US citizens and told everyone to keep a low profile and stay away from military installations.

My third experience with a NEO was as a staff officer assigned to the Joint Staff, the Pentagon, in 1994 during the Yemeni Civil War.  In May 1994 with increased fighting in Yemen, the State Department advised the 5,000 US citizens to leave Yemen.  Military transport aircraft flew into the northern capital of Sanaa and 360 people were evacuated.  When we looked at what it would take to move in forces to control the airport and to transport the remaining Americans from all over Yemen to Sanaa it was determined to be unsupportable.  Similar to the situation described in the previous paragraph, the US was not an antagonist in this situation, and it was determined that US citizens should keep a low profile and stay away from potential targets.  The State Department then used diplomatic pressure with a veiled threat of force to settle the situation and allow any Americans who wanted to leave to do so.

What are the common characteristics of these three situations and how do they apply to NEOs.   First and foremost, these are time-sensitive operations that need to be executed quickly. To my knowledge, every Unified/Theater command has NEO plans on the shelf ready to execute.  Unfortunately, the military and political decisions required to put a NEO in action can significantly alter the plan and require undesirable changes, or in the case of a NEO from Athens or Yemen, the decision to stay in place and hope for a political/diplomatic solution. Secondly, you need a secure base to operate from and when I say secure, it has to be defendable against any possible threats.  In almost all cases this requires the agreement of the host country and the non-belligerence of that country’s populace. If you don’t have this, you may have to fight your way in and fight for what you need to control while the NEO is executed.  Finally, you have to have the resources to go out and bring the Americans into the operating base. Again, you need to have an agreement with the host nation and non-interference from the local populace for this to work. Now how does this apply to what’s happening in Afghanistan.

Let me just say to start, President Biden’s position that he is ending a 20-year war that accomplished its original goal of stopping al Queda and the likes of Osama bin Laden from being able to do another 9/11 type attack lacks logic and defies facts that are becoming more and more apparent. With regard to NEO operations, the first problem is that the US is an antagonist in this situation, at least with the Taliban who are now in-charge.

By allowing the Taliban to retake the country, it automatically sets up a situation where terrorists, be they al Queda, ISIS or other radical Islamist group, it will have refuge. Without a US/NATO friendly government in Afghanistan, these groups will return. According to the news outlets, several of them are already there and in the case of ISIS-K may have already begun attacking US forces.  In my opinion, it will only be a short matter of time before the next caliphate is declared and we will see something like ISIS arise in Afghanistan.  Our interests and those of our allies will again come under attack.  There will be a return to the suicide types of attacks we’ve seen in the Middle East, Europe and here in North America. In addition, I believe that the next target of expansion may be Pakistan, and it has nuclear weapons.  Let me also add that the idea posed by some in the Biden administration that the Taliban will need to play nice or they won’t get the international aid they need to rebuild their country neglects to consider that the Taliban may have all the finances they’ll need from the opium traffic coming out of Afghanistan. Similarly, it doesn’t address the clandestine money from supporters of other Islamic fundamentalist groups. Now how does this fit into what I’ve talked about concerning NEO operations?

First of all, I don’t see why the Biden Administration went into this operation in a time sensitive manner. This is particularly true when you consider the evacuation of all Americans was negotiated under the Trump administration and could have occurred at a low rate reduction over time for the past eight months. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration didn’t see how quickly the Afghan government would fall to the Taliban, therefore, time sensitivity didn’t come into play until three weeks ago.  Remember, the Biden Administration proclaimed on a number of occasions that the Taliban wouldn’t be able to overthrow the current government in anything short of a several months. They were way off.

Secondly, they chose to evacuate from an indefensible location, the Kabul International Airport. It’s indefensible for a couple of reasons.  Pres Biden didn’t deploy enough troops to provide adequate defense to try and keep the local populace and potential bad guys from getting right up to the fence where the good guys are bunched together.  Instead of the US having an outer defensive perimeter, we’ve left that to the Taliban, counting on them to protect us until the evacuation is complete.  Unfortunately, as we’ve just seen, bad guys can get in close and use some pretty powerful weapons to wreak havoc on soft targets, i.e., masses of people.  Could this have been prevented or at least mitigated, absolutely.  I have to agree with the on-screen TV analysts that point out that much of this evacuation should have been done from Bagram Airbase about 40 miles north of Kabul.  From all reports it was highly defensible and our main airbase for US operations.  While this may not have gotten the support of the Taliban, the general populace would not have interfered.  

Finally, the last piece is the most troubling and will, in my opinion cost us a number of American casualties, was the lack of a plan to get Americans from all over Afghanistan to the Kabul airport for evacuation.  From the pictures of the airport, ground convoys wouldn’t work, too much traffic both in vehicles and crowds.  Helicopter pickups have worked, but there doesn’t appear to be a coordinated effort to get Americans to places where they can be picked up.  Had we held Bagram, the traffic problem would have been greatly reduced and we would have had a large operating area to fly helicopters out to pick up isolated Americans.  Finally, we would have had a large area to bring in Afghan allies needing evacuation.  All of this would need the backup of a credible military response if the Taliban or other group interfered with the operation.  I’m not sure we have the force necessary to be credible in this situation.  As it stands, I believe we are going to leave thousands of Americans and Afghan allies behind. 

The final piece of this fiasco somewhat related to a NEO is the evacuation of the Afghan military and civilians who gave us support during the last 20 years.  Many Americans want to help them get out, but it isn’t going to happen.  By starting the NEO in earnest as late as happened, there isn’t enough time to get them out and meet the 31 August deadline set by Pres Biden.  This lack of support for our Afghan allies will translate into a lack of trust and confidence from the governments and militaries of other countries who we have sworn to help.

Beyond what’s happening in Afghanistan, the critical question then, is what will Pres Biden do next?  This notion that he seems to have of getting the US out of long-term military involvements and/or the need to not use US military forces in conflicts at all is deeply disturbing.  Will he turn on South Korea next?  We’re coming up on the 70th anniversary of the armistice that stopped the major fighting in Korea.  Will Pres Biden now say we’ve been there long enough and it’s time to leave, South Korea can defend itself?  We still have over 28,000 military there to dissuade North Korea from attacking.  Is that no longer relevant?

An even bigger question is what will we do in NATO?  We have over 320,000 troops in Europe to help keep the peace.  We’ve used those troops and/or their military resources several times: peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia, providing support to Israel in previous wars and massive deployments to the Gulf Wars.  This is in addition to being a counter to any Russian expansion using military force.  Are these things not needed anymore?

Finally, what will we do if China tries to take Taiwan by force?  Going back to the end of World War II we’ve help protect Taiwan from mainland aggression.  It wasn’t until 1979 that we formally recognized the Peoples Republic of China as the government of China.  Up until then we recognized Taiwan as the government of China.  China is being very bellicose about taking Taiwan back, using force if necessary.  It is also using the situation in Afghanistan to tell Taiwan that America will not help them in a conflict. What will Pres Biden do if it comes to an attack on Taiwan?

I feel that Pres Biden has some deep-seated intentions on changing the role of the US in world affairs and they are not in line with historical US policies or practices.  I feel he plans to withdraw the US military from any potential conflict area using the excuse that he doesn’t want any American sons or daughters to die in someone else’s conflict. If this is true, he has completely lost his sense of reality and is putting our allies and ultimately our country at risk of attack by any number of hostile groups or countries. As many politicians and members of the military have stated numerous times, it is better to fight on the enemies territory than it is to bring the fight to the US. As a closing thought, former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates said it best, "I think he (President Biden) has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” and in my opinion, he will continue to be that way.