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.