Anatomy of an "Art" Project (for Art for the Cure of Cystic Fibrosis)

I have always been interested in the creative process -- the conceptualization of an idea and the output that the idea generates. Because of this interest I have intermittently dabbled with "art."

I don't consider myself an artist. I create "things" -- also called installations. I have an idea, I roughly sketch it out and build it from soup-to-nuts. The installation usually ends up on a canvas in some fashion, so most people call it art.

Back to the creative process idea... My sister-in-law hosts a yearly fundraiser in honor of my late wife (Robyn Bennett). The event is called Art for the Cure of Cystic Fibrosis and this year is its third anniversary.

I resolved to create something for the event this year and had the idea to document that creative process in various stages of completion.

It started with this sketch. I don't exactly remember the date of the sketch, but the idea is at least four years old. Note that the sketch is on an Art News subscription card. I usually get ideas leafing through art magazines. I realize it's a little tough to read, but you can get a feel for how simple the process starts.
Next I build the stretcher from carefully selected 2x4's. I rip the 2x4's in half with a table saw and miter the ends.
The next step is to assemble the stretcher and cover it with a thin piece of board to provide stability for the canvas -- I tend to pour globs of paint on the canvas, and glue and bolt objects to the canvas.
Below is the assembled stretcher.
The next step is to stretch the canvas over the stretcher. The next three pictures show the canvas, canvas underneath the stretcher, and the canvas stapled to the stretcher.

Now it's time to make that sketch a reality.

The finished product - "An Abstract View of Michigan Stadium on a Sunny Day"


My purpose here is to raise awareness for the Art For the Cure of Cystic Fibrosis event, and better yet, awareness for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Please check out both by following their hyperlinks.

If you have a few extra bucks, please make a contribution to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. If you are interested in a fun evening, and happen to be in Ann Arbor, MI on 30 May, please join me at Art for the Cure -- and buy my installation for a good cause.

You can also follow Art for the Cure of Cystic Fibrosis on Facebook.

The Strategic Corporal

OPINION: “Leadership, Petraeus Style,” by Paula D. Broadwell, Boston Globe, 21 April 2009

In Petraeus’s words, ”we must continually think about the relatively junior officer who has to make a huge decision, often with life or death consequences, in the blink of an eye. There is no substitute for flexible, adaptive leaders. The key to all that we did in Iraq was leaders – especially young leaders – who repeatedly rose to the occasion and took on tasks for which they’d had little or no training.”

For folks in the military, junior officers or junior enlisted men making decisions is not a new idea. The principle of pushing responsibility down to the lowest level for decision is a staple of military training -- empower subordinates to make decisions in the absence of direct supervision.

To exercise this principle effectively the military uses a couple of concepts, which when taken together, allow for timely decisions.

The first concept is mission-type tactics. Mission-type tactics is nothing more than a commander giving a subordinate a goal (mission), the resources and time to accomplish the goal, and letting the subordinate figure out how to make it happen.

The second concept is commander’s intent. In a nutshell, commander’s intent is how the commander envisions his battlespace at the completion of his mission -- his end state. The commander communicates this to subordinates so, in the absence of any guidance, they have the ability to continue to make timely decisions with a broad understanding of what the “boss” would have them do given particular circumstances.

Mission-type tactics and commander's intent allow for quick and timely decisions. A good decision executed in a timely manner is better than a perfect decision executed too late. This philosophy has proven correct time and again, with no better examples than the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In both conflicts, U.S. servicemembers, usually aged between 18 and 24, are making the split-second life and death decisions referred to above by General David Patraeus. Compound this with the twenty-four hour news cycle and instant global communications, and the decisions are truly strategic in nature.

Because of the strategic nature of the decisions these young American patriots are forced to make, they are often referred to as "strategic corporals."

Doh! What Were They Thinking?: Air Force One “Photo Op” In NYC

DUMB: “Jet Flyover Frightens New Yorkers,” by A.G. Sulzberger and Matthew. Ward, New York Times, 28 April 2009

It was supposed to be a photo opportunity, a showcase of Air Force One alongside the sweep of New York City skyline.

Other images of the plane, taken at picturesque sites like Mount Rushmore, are sold as souvenirs and used in promotional materials.

Witnesses described the engine roar as the planes swooped by office towers close enough to rattle the windows and prompt evacuations at scores of buildings. Some sobbed as they made their way to the street.

“We ran like hell.”

Obviously, the folks in the Air Force and at the White House Military Office were not thinking.

Hmm, let’s see…let’s take a large aircraft and conduct a low altitude flight through downtown Manhattan – site of the worst American terrorist attack in history, which, by the way was perpetrated by terrorists flying large airplanes. Oh, and let’s keep it a secret, telling only one person in the mayor’s office and the New York City Police Department – further, telling them that they can only tell folks with a “need to know.”

What a colossally BAD idea.

I could understand the secrecy and “need to know” caveats if the president was actually on the aircraft, but some Air Force flunky pilot followed by an F-16…!? Where is the need for secrecy here?

I think the Air Force just missed an opportunity for some great publicity. Why not tell everyone you are flying Air Force One (It’s actually only Air Force One when the president is aboard, but why get technical?) over the city for a photo op? Get all of NYC out on the side walks to greet you and take pictures. What a great recruiting tool.

Had this been Marine One (the presidents helicopter), USMC probably would have purchased billboards advertising the event, offered a battalion of Marines in dress uniform for crowd control, and had recruiters signing up new recruits all over the city.

But, that’s why the Marines are the Marines and the Air Force…well, they are not the Marines.

Photo courtesy of New York Times and Jim Brown

Let’s Not Forget the Timothy McVeigh Example…

HOMELAND SECURITY: “Veterans a Focus of FBI Extremist Probe,” by Cam Simpson and Gary Fields, Wall Street Journal, 17 April 2009; and “The Enemies Within,” by Charles M. Blow, New York Times, 18 April 2009

The Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier this year launched a nationwide operation targeting white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups," including a focus on veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to memos sent from bureau headquarters to field offices.

Some Republican lawmakers, talk-show hosts and veterans groups complained this week after the internal DHS assessment cited the potential for …extremists groups to target returning combat veterans for recruitment.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, said… he was offended that veterans were characterized as potential domestic terrorists.

…“although individuals with military backgrounds constitute a small percentage of white supremacist extremists, they frequently occupy leadership roles.”

I really don’t understand the uproar associated with this issue. The bottom line is that this is an attempt to get out front of a potential problem.

As a U.S. Marine, I welcome this type of policing of the force – as long as the spirit is to identify those trending toward white supremacy/domestic terror groups and not to start a “witch hunt,” which is a very fine line.

Blow sums this issue up nicely, “If they only recruit a few, that is still too many. Terrorists have shown the world time and again that a few well-trained men is all it takes.”

A marginally trained, former member of the military is infinitely more dangerous in one of these organizations than someone without prior military service.

Let’s not forget Timothy McVeigh…

Potential Afghanistan Tipping Point?

AFGHANISTAN: “We’re Sick of War: A Taliban Leader Risks His Life to Point Out a New Route to Peace,” by Tom Coghlan, London Times, 15 April 2009

Facing another bloody summer of fighting in Helmand province, the Taliban commander uttered words that could cost him his life. “We all want peace. We want to put down our guns,” he said quietly.

As the conflict enters its eighth summer Nato is hoping that it can exploit such popular disillusion. Mullah Mansoor (not his real name), however, is simply looking for a way out. “Local people do not like the Taliban or the Western forces, they even don’t like us local Taliban” he conceded. “They say to us, ‘if you want to go to Paradise fight in the desert, fight in the mountains but don’t fight in my house’. My wish is just to have peace and security in my area.”

If Mansoor’s position is widely held within the Taliban community, this is the type of fissure that the U.S. military will exploit.

The article states that Mansoor is a “…mid-level Taliban commander,” which begs the question: How widely held is his position within the Taliban?”

There are a number of challenges to solving the AF-PAK problem, every opportunity to create daylight between the Taliban and the people of Afghanistan, and the Taliban and the U.S. goal of a stable region should be exploited. After all, exploiting mid-level leader disenchantment with their current situation is how the Awakening movement started in Iraq.

In non-conventional military operations it is exceedingly difficult to know when and where opportunities for success will present themselves, and even more difficult to measure the effectiveness of those opportunities once identified. It’s difficult to know where the “tipping point” will be reached, and what little pieces of the puzzle will lead to it.

Also see Measuring NATO Effectiveness in Afghanistan?

Why Don't People Like Tom Friedman?

OPINION: "In the Age of Pirates," by Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 15 April 2008; and "Another Friedman Special," by Hooman Majd, Huffington Post, 15 April 2009

This is not the great age of diplomacy.

But this is increasingly an age of pirates, failed states, nonstate actors and nation-building — the stuff of snipers, drones and generals, not diplomats.

As such, I fear we are sliding into commitments in Afghanistan and Pakistan without a real national debate about the ends or the means or the exits. That is a recipe for trouble.

Once again, Tom Friedman takes a complicated topic and makes it understandable for folks that don't work in the foreign policy or national security fields. In this case, Friedman posits that the U.S. has four big problem countries -- Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea -- and no good solutions, or solutions that require more than the U.S. is willing to invest. The Obama administrations solution is to do just enough to avoid collapse but not enough to solve problems, which is really no solution. This solution is essentially just kicking the can down the road with hope that time will solve the problem.

If instead the students at Friedman's school are taught that it's not about pulling levers or demanding things of foreigners, but about negotiating according to the culture and customs of both parties, of understanding that problems cannot be solved in this "flat world" without considering the vital interests of all parties, then we might have a shot. It's not, as Mr. Friedman fears, about adopting a "middle ground," it's about fundamental change, as Mr. Obama promised in his campaign and as he is slowly, but surely, delivering. Iran, for one, appears to be patiently waiting.

Hooman Majd makes some good points in his "rebuttal" of Friedman. However, I think he misses Friedman's main point: the unwillingness of the U.S. to make the appropriate investment to solve problems in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea. Ultimately, his rational argument is lost in the petty sniping and, borderline, professional jealousy he directs toward Friedman.

Why Pro Athletes Lose All Their Money

SPORTS: "The Fight Begins as Spotlight Dims," by Mitch Albom, Detroit Free Press, 12 April 2009

A recent Sports Illustrated story revealed that by the time they have been retired for two years, 78% of former NFL players have gone bankruopt or are suffering financial duress, and within five years of retirement, 60% of former NBA players are broke. Divorce rates among pro athletes are as high as 80% -- and much of that happens after the shoes are hung up and the real world calls.

Next time you say pro athletes have it made, remember the life that comes after you have it made. Ask yourself this: Would you rather spend 40 years on Earth looking ahead or looking behind?

The above statistics from the Sports Illustrated article blew my mind. What those statistics suggest to me is that the NFL and NBA are doing a poor job of taking care of their people -- not preparing them for the "real world."

Below are some "genius" investment opportunities made by pro athletes:

"...invested almost $70,000 in an invention: an inflatable raft that would sit under furniture. The pitch was that when high-rainfall areas were flooded, consumers could pump up the device, allowing a sofa to float and remain dry."

"...sank $300,000 into the Rock N' Roll Café, a theme restaurant in New England designed to ride the wave of the Hard Rock Cafe and Planet Hollywood franchises. One of his advisers pitched the idea as "fail-proof, with no downsides,"..."

"...squandered a fortune funding not only that inspirational movie but also the music label COZ Records; a cosmetics procedure whereby oxygen was absorbed into the skin; a plan to create nationwide phone-card dispensers; and...shops dubbed It's in the Name, where tourists could buy framed calligraphy of names or proverbs of their choice."

How about child support payments:

"Former NBA forward Shawn Kemp (who has at least seven children by six women) and, more recently, Travis Henry (nine by nine) have seen their fortunes sapped by monthly child-support payments in the tens of thousands of dollars."

Moral of the story: Exceptional athletic ability and extreme wealth does not equate to common sense.

Guest Post: Bush’s Greatest Legacy?

by Roger Underhill

I got stuck the other day in the middle of a locker room conversation between three guys. One of them was going off about how mean people have been toward George W. Bush and how history will end up being good to him. The other two guys were just kind of listening and going along with what he was saying. This guy just kept going: he felt the “liberal media” was being overly harsh toward Bush and his legacy and he then rattled off a number of items that he thought people would look back on in 20-30 years and think fondly of W. He mentioned things like Bush’s reluctant, but positive step toward environmental issues, global trade, his strong response after 9/11, etc.

As this guy was going off, I found it really hard to bite my lip and suck it up – you know how it is in the locker room: if you’re not a part of the original conversation, it’s tough to barge in, especially when it’s a passionate conversation about politics. I felt like telling this guy that he’s full of shit and saying that it will be the opposite – that Bush did so many horrible things domestically and internationally that we don’t even know about yet, that his legacy will be trashed for decades to come. In short, that he will be acknowledged as one of our worst presidents ever.

Again, I didn’t say anything, but this conversation really got me thinking: what will Bush’s legacy be? Did he do anything really great, things that we aren’t even aware of yet? Or will it be the opposite, that he did so many wonderful things behind the scenes that all of this will gradually come to fruition and he will be more respected with time. Who really knows, but as more and more CIA and legal briefs come out about the U.S. secretly using torture techniques against al Qaeda, as well as how far out-of-bounds Bush’s domestic wire-tapping policy was, it’s easier to believe that it will turn out to be the former and not the latter. One thing that is clear, however, is that America’s reputation is weakened, along with its resources, moral authority, political power and presence in the world.

Then I got to thinking about President Obama and his current initiatives and policies to reverse a number of Bush’s policies. As I read the papers about Obama’s trips overseas and his meetings with other presidents – and recalling my own experiences of being in Berlin, Germany last year when Obama gave his speech in front of 250,000 spectators – the contrast to Bush could not be stronger. The world craves Obama’s - and now America’s - new Weltanschaung and it is quite incredible the reception that he is getting around the world. It’s also amazing the opportunities he has now to shape America’s policies and to significantly impact the country’s future direction.

And Obama can do all of this because of the majorities the Democrats have in Congress, which are largely a direct result of Bush. Clearly, both the 2006 and 2008 election cycles were all about Bush, with the Republicans losing major seats, and the White House, out of response to 8 years of Bush and his policies. Not to mention that for the first time ever, America elected a black man.

Therefore, I’m now in the camp that Bush’s greatest legacy may be his successor, Barack Obama. If it wasn’t for Bush and eight years of his policies, Obama might have never had a chance to put his stamp on the country. Indeed, he might have never been able to be elected. It’s clear that the majority of Americans were through with Bush and tired of his hawkish ways of governing and were therefore, looking for a fresh start. This created the context for Obama’s election.

Whether Obama can lead the country out of this current economic mess and help it regain the strong reputation it had pre-Bush remains to be seen. A lot of work needs to be done. However, if he can and it all does work out, we may have Bush to thank.

Guest posts are the opinions of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Random Thoughts publisher.

Interesting Pirate Fix

SOMALIA: “Somalia Says: Let Us Handle the Pirates,” by Edmund Sanders, Los Angeles Times, 15 April 2009

During a visit to Mogadishu this week, Rep. Donald M. Payne (D-N.J.) said providing direct assistance to allow Somalis to crack down on pirates might cost the international community less, especially after accounting for rising insurance premiums and the cost of using warships.

"It's a lot cheaper to deal with this on the land before these guys get into the water," Payne said. He said he planned to seek funding in Congress.

Payne called the hesitation by the international community understandable. Since 1991, numerous transitional governments have risen and fallen in Somalia amid infighting, corruption and human rights abuses. Donors want to see whether the current government does any better, he said.

This makes sense to me. Since the Maersk Alabama was hijacked last week, the U.S. has had at least three ships and countless man hours off the coast of Somalia. I don’t even want to guess how much that is costing the U.S. tax payer. Funding and training the Somalis seems like a good opportunity, and very well may be a cheep, but quality solution – maybe they will sustain a government and start acting like a sovereign nation. Then again, it is Somalia…

Also see: Bold Call for Obama, Even Bolder Call for Bainbridge Skipper

Gates and the Defense Budget

DEFENSE: “Inside the War Against Robert Gates,” by Thomas P.M. Barnett, Esquire, 14 April 2009

Cognizant that our military might in conventional, big-war capabilities was driving all of our real-time opponents toward pronouncedly asymmetrical, small-wars strategies, Gates decided to end…the Defense Department's institutional bias against preparing for such "low-intensity" scenarios. Low intensity, he understands, has become the all-too-intense norm of modern warfare.

This is long overdue. As a knuckle dragging Marine, I have little use for gilded $140 million aircraft that do everything, when a much cheaper airplane that can do most everything is good enough. As Barnett points out, the reason we are in this position is because no near peer can stand toe-to-toe with us. The only way to slow down the U.S. military is to go unconventional – roadside bombs, snipers, hit-and-run tactics, etc.

In other words, is the Pentagon really in the business of making this world a safer place for America and its citizens? Or is it just some freewheeling job-creation scheme sponsored by the federal government and ignorant of the world's trends in global security?

This is the bazillion (not million) dollar question. The reason previous secretaries of defense have not been able to change the paradigm. However, I would argue that Gates is in the “perfect storm” to make this change. He has two unconventional wars being waged, a burgeoning Somalia pirate problem, and a crappy economy.

America hasn't fought a war against another great power since 1945, coincidentally the year we obtained and first used nuclear weapons. Since then, no two great powers armed with nukes have ever gone to war — one of the longest droughts since nation-states were invented. Since the Cold War, meanwhile, our global-security environment has witnessed a serious ratcheting-up of transnational terrorism, failed states, internal strife, and all the accompanying interventions by outside great powers and international organizations.

History does not lie. However, for some reason, those that would continue to push for over budget technology that may, or may not, eventually work always roll out the China threat. The Chinese defense budget (at least what they declare) is about $70 billion (more likely north of $100 billion). The U.S. defense budget is about $515 billion. Not too mention the current technology the U.S. has so outpaces any near peer, it would be decades before someone was able to match it.

But you ask, “What about staying ahead of the curve?”

And neither does Gates, who offers a sensible breakdown of his budget proposal as being 10 percent small wars-centric, 50 percent large wars-centric, and 40 percent dual-use. As bureaucratic tipping points go, this mix strikes me as supremely sensible — even conservative.

In actuality, the budget is not being cut, it’s just being reapportioned. Fifty percent of the budget will still go towards high tech weaponry for near peer wars. Gates’ budget plan just forces the Pentagon to be very precise with the weapon systems chosen for development.

Also see:

Gates Against the Establishment

Gates the Pragmatist

The Socialism Theme Continued

OPINION: “Rush Builds a Revolution,” by Harold Meyerson, Washington Post, 15 April 2009

According to a Rasmussen poll released last week, 37 percent of Americans under age 30 prefer capitalism, 33 percent prefer socialism and 30 percent are undecided. Among all Americans, 53 percent prefer capitalism, 20 percent prefer socialism and 27 percent are undecided.

I find those statistics pretty amazing – 33% of Americans under age 30 prefer socialism!!? Now, with all polls, you can read the numbers how you will, but it’s still pretty interesting. I would suspect the reason why younger Americans prefer socialism is because they weren’t around when the Cold War was in full bloom. Therefore, they weren’t beaten to parade rest with the evil empire rhetoric. Also, you can't discount the affect of the greed of the Wall Street crowd.

Also see: Somewhere in the Middle

The Netbook Revolution???

TECHNOLOGY: "Pimp My Netbook," by Brian Caulfield, Forbes.com, 14 April 2009

Many computer manufacturers are hoping these low-cost laptops won't hurt the margins they like to get on their fuller-featured machines. Tough luck. Research analyst Gartner predicts sales of low-cost netbooks will double to 21 million units in 2009 from 11.7 million units last year. Overall PC sales, by contrast, are expected to fall 9.2%.

And netbooks are growing more capable, even as they continue to fall in price. "People love them because they are usable PCs for a lot of purposes," says Gordon Haff, Gordon Haff, principal IT advisor at Illuminata, in Nashua, N.H.

I purchased a netbook (ASUS EeePC 901 1000HE) back in February and love it. It’s the perfect computing platform for me. It’s small enough to take anywhere, has enough power and memory to get the job done, and battery life is awesome. The other benefit of the netbook is price – you can get a good netbook for less than $400. For me, and I primarily use the cloud for my computing requirements, it’s a perfect fit. If you’re a gamer, or into multi-media stuff, the netbook is probably not for you.

Also see: To Netbook, Or Not To Netbook

Holbrooke and Mullen's Af-Pak Trip

Diplomatic: “The Diplomatic Surge: Can Obama’s Team Tame the Taliban?,” by Joe Klein, Time.com, 9 April 2009; “A Short Fuse in Pakistan,” by David Ignatius, Washington Post, 10 April 2009; and “Holbrook of South Asia,” by Matthew Kaminski, Wall Street Journal, 11 April 2009

In a recent trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan (Af-Pak), Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, President Obama’s special envoy to the region, and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took Obama’s new “regional” Af-Pak strategy to the people of both countries.

What Holbrooke and Mullen learned was not necessarily unique, but what was unique was who they learned it from. Instead of the usual round of private meetings with government officials, which were conducted, additional meetings with farmers, tribal leaders, women legislators, rule-of-law advocates, journalists, the local diplomatic corps, and religious leaders provided the two with the best insight into the complexities of the Af-Pak problem.

What they learned in Afghanistan

• U.S. military plan for developing other than opium crops is undermining a USAID plan to do the same thing
• U.S. Army National Guard farmer-soldier teams are having a positive impact in remote Afghan districts – helping to plant and protect crops
• Afghans believe the Taliban is being supported by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), which is supported by American funding
• There is a growing comparison by the Afghan people of the U.S. military to the Russian military as a result of collateral deaths from air strikes and direct action raids

What they learned in Pakistan

• The Zardari government is unwilling to admit the extent of Pakistan’s terror problem
• U.S. Predator drone strikes are alienating the population
• U.S. should channel aid through the tribal chiefs, rather than the Pakistani government
• U.S. should train the Frontier Corps, rather than rely on the Pakistani army, who are seen as outsiders in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas
• To curb the militant Islamic madrassas, the U.S. should help improve public schools in the region

During the trip, Mullen repeated on multiple occasions, “We’ve developed the best counterinsurgency capability in the world.”

The key tenants of that counterinsurgency capability are to protect the public and build civil order. Exactly the types of things that would resolve the majority of the issues highlighted above.

Bold Call for Obama, Even Bolder Call for Bainbridge Skipper

Military: “An Early Military Victory for Obama,” by Michael D. Shear, Washington Post, 13 April 2009

“Our authorities came directly from the president.  And the number one authority for incidents if we were going to respond was if the captain’s life was in immediate danger.”

That was the quote from Vice Admiral William Gortney, commander of the Navy’s 5^th Fleet, and responsible for maritime activity off the coast of Somalia.

According to the Post article, Obama escalated the rules of engagement (ROE’s) twice for military forces.  ROE’s govern what actions the military can, and can’t, undertake within the scope of an operation.

On Friday, Obama first authorized “appropriate force to save the life of the captain.”  On Saturday morning, he went further, granting authority to an “additional set of U.S. forces to engage in potential emergency actions.”

Essentially, with the escalation to the “additional set of U.S. forces” Obama gave the SEALs the green light to take action against the pirates.

It was a bold call by Obama, but I would argue that the even bolder decision came from the skipper of the USS Bainbridge, Commander Frank Castellano.

As the Bainbridge commanding officer, Castellano had the overall authority for the decision to allow the snipers to take the shots that killed the Somali pirates --no small decision giving the high stakes game that was playing out.

Having conducted sniper shoots aboard Navy ships, I can tell you that making three, simultaneous, precision head shots at the reported 100 feet was nothing short of amazing.  Even in calm waters, the Bainbridge would still have been “rolling,” not to mention the independent movement of the life boat, and the fact it was dusk.

While this situation had a happy ending, and has turned into a military victory for Obama, a slight twitch from Mother Nature and it could have been a drastically different outcome.

Kudos to Obama for giving the military reasonable ROE, to Castellano for trusting his SEALs, and to the SEALs for executing flawlessly.

Is the Obama Administration Mulling a Preemptive Attack into Somalia?

National Security: "Obama Team Mulls Aims of Somali Extremists," by Greg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, 11 April 2009

Somalia has been in the spotlight this week with the hijacking of a U.S. flagged cargo ship by Somali pirates, and the subsequent kidnapping of its skipper. Additionally, it appears Somalia has been on the Obama national security team radar for more than pirate activity.

According to the Washington Post, Obama's national security team has been discussing the al Shabab extremist group. The al Shabab group is a complicated problem for Obama for a number of reasons:

1. The al Shabab leadership have ties to al Qaeda
2. There are Americans and Europeans in its camps
3. The U.S. has no evidence al Shabab is planning attacks outside Somalia -- the groups main interests are in battling Ethiopian occupiers and the Somali government

What I find interesting, given the above information, is that the Obama team is considering a preemptive strike. The information from the Post article was derived from unnamed sources within the administration. "Unnamed sources" usually means one of two things: 1. The administration is prepping the U.S. for a preemptive strike by "leaking" it to the media; or 2. The unnamed sources are concerned about the direction of the discussions and hope to influence them by leaking plans to the media.

The Post article mentioned that also under consideration was increased financial pressure and diplomatic activity, including stepped-up efforts to resolve the larger political turmoil in Somalia. Huh? How do you execute any of that with a failed state -- a failed state where we have had zero progress since a tragic (Blackhawk Down) intervention in 1993?

A preemptive attack against the al Shabab camps in Somalia would mark the administration's first military strike outside the Iraq and Afghanistan-Pakistan war zones.

The other thing I find ironic with this situation, when combined with the pirate problem, is that, once again, the U.S. finds itself bitten by a failed intervention. As always, if we don't do the job correctly the first time, we end up going back and doing it again -- and it's usually twice as hard the second time around.

If Obama does decide to strike the al Shabab camps, how will the U.S. population react? How will the world community react? Will they see a strike as a continuation of the Bush administrations preemptive foreign policy?

Also see: Some Things Don’t Change: The Military Hammer
Photo credit: AFP

Harvard and ROTC

OPINION: “Harvard and the Marines,” by Joseph Kristol and Daniel West, Wall Street Journal, 8 April 2009; and “Ivies and Military Could Learn a Lot From Each Other,” by Frank Schaeffer, Boston Globe, 9 April 2009

Forty years ago today, ROTC was purged from Harvard’s campus under pressure from violent student activism as a knee-jerk reaction to the Vietnam War.

I read the above articles with great disdain. I have known about the Harvard/ROTC issue for some time, but these articles brought to the forefront a torrent of discontent.

It’s mind boggling that a university of the, supposed, caliber of Harvard continues to follow a flawed policy of not allowing ROTC programs to actively form on its campus.

The below quotes from the above authors eloquently articulate the silliness of Harvard’s policy.

The issue is no longer Vietnam, but President Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars gays from openly serving in the military. Because of that policy, the university classifies ROTC as a discriminatory organization and has severed all remnants of support.

Harvard, where ROTC was founded in 1916 and which once boasted over 1,000 participants, is now home to only 29 cadets and midshipmen, spread over four years and four branches of service. Recruitment opportunities are deliberately limited, and the student handbook cautions students against joining ROTC, remarking that the program is "inconsistent with Harvard's values."

The same Harvard that once produced 10 recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, and warrior-scholars such as Teddy Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, now turns its back on its proud, patriotic history.

The lesson the Ivy League teaches has become: I am the most important person in any room. The lesson the US military teaches: the person standing next to me is more important than I am.

… the Ivy League schools have mostly produced a nonserving generation of bankers, hedge fund managers, etc. who are helping destroy our economy.

Their admission policy seems to admit mostly "winners" who will make useful alumni as the years go by. "Useful" is defined as earning the most money and/or academic prestige, not service - unlike, say, the Marine Corps, which has enough self-confidence in its training methods to believe that it can take just about any American and turn him into a good Marine.

Military service entails sacrifice, but it is also the best opportunity most privileged Americans will ever have for the sort of character development that leads to people wanting to help our country, rather than just striving to profit from it.

As a U.S. Marine, I am obviously biased on this issue. Truth be told, ROTC was the last thing I wanted to be involved with while going to school -- I completed my military training requirements during summer breaks. However, I respected those who opted for ROTC during the school year.

If I step out of uniform to look at this from a “Joe Civilian” point of view, I find it hard to believe that Mr. Civilian -- liberal, conservative, male, female, etc. -- would not question the logic of Harvard’s policy.

While you may not agree with decisions made by political leadership, it’s difficult to not support the development of future military leaders – those tasked with ensuring we maintain our freedoms.

As with all things, I’m sure there are a number of competing interests here, but the simple fact that there are not ROTC programs at Harvard is enough to raise my ire.

ROTC is “inconsistent with Harvard’s values”…!!!? Come on! ROTC is what Harvard values should be built on.

Also, see
Somewhere in the Middle

Contemplating the 2006 Hizballah-Israeli War

National Security: "Short '06 Lebanon War Stokes Pentagon Debate," by Greg Jaffe, Washington Post, 6 April 09; and "The Sacred Leviathan," by Thomas P.M. Barnett, thomaspmbarnett.com, 7 April 09

The below excerpt is taken from a short paper I wrote in the Fall of 2006 for a masters course in national security studies. The above references make for interesting comparisons on the importance of this war.

“The victory that Hizballah achieved in Lebanon will have earthshaking regional consequences that will have an impact much beyond the borders of Lebanon itself.” (Yasser Abuhilalah, Jordanian Daily Al Ghad, 15 August 2006)

The recent success of the terror group Hizballah against the Israeli army, which supposedly is pound for pound the best army in the world, has caused many security experts to take pause. For thirty-four days Hizballah fought the Israeli army to a draw; something that would have been unfathomable in previous Middle East conflicts given the advanced nature of Israeli weapons and tactics. Some would argue that Hizballah is not a state sponsored terror group and falls more in line with the above articulated networked terror group. However, Hizballah’s recent war with Israel suggests that, while Hizballah does not draw its political ideology from a state sponsor, it most assuredly receives significant monetary and military weapons and training support from a state sponsor (Iran and Syria) and draws significant environmental support from its physical presence in a state (Lebanon). The achievement of Hizballah suggests that a new emerging organizational trend has surfaced which could serve as a template for future Middle Eastern terror groups.

Formed in 1982 by Shiite militants and Iranian Revolutionary Guards to fight the Israeli invasion of the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in eastern Lebanon, Hizballah has morphed into a complex organization. According to Fawaz Trabulsi, a Lebanese professor of militia studies, the current Hizballah organization is compartmentalized, “They have a military and intelligence organization totally separated from the political organization.” (Cody) This compartmentalization along with a number of other organizational standards within Hizballah contributed to the success the terror group experienced in their recent war with Israel.

Hizballah’s strongest weapon is the organization and discipline of its supporters. Hizballah is assessed to have as many as 3,000 highly trained “regular” army members and another 10,000 to 12,000 supporters throughout southern Lebanon who provide logistical and military support. According to Timor Goskel, a longtime adviser of UN forces in Lebanon, after each Israeli strike in the recent conflict, Hizballah workers swept in and cleared away rubble from streets and blown-up bridges (Jervis). These actions showed a complex level of coordination not seen in the civil war of the 1970’s and ‘80’s (Jervis).

Additionally, the 3,000 regular Hizballah army fighters displayed a level of dedication and training not experienced by any force the Israeli army had fought. According to Brigadier General Nehushtan, a member of the Israeli army’s general staff, the Hizballah leadership carefully studied military history, including the Vietnam War, and set up a training program with help from Iranian intelligence and military officers with years of experience in the Iran-Iraq war (Cody). The training was matched to weapons that proved effective against the Israeli army equipment (Cody). The Hizballah fighters were armed with sophisticated Russian anti-tank weapons and thousands of missiles and rockets all controlled by sophisticated computerized command posts (Jervis).

Finally, the Hizballah social welfare program within Lebanon almost assures the terror group of continued success following the massive destruction the Israeli forces inflicted during the war. The group has an extensive network of hospitals, clinics, and schools. The charity work by the group has created a zealous following and makes Hizballah a “formidable political force in the region.” (Jervis)

The recent Hizballah war with Israel has brought to the forefront a template for a new state sponsored terror group. In this example, Hizballah, backed by Iranian and Syrian financing and military training and weapons, along with environmental support of the Lebanese populace, executed a thirty-four day war in which the mighty Israeli armed forces were fought to a draw; possibly changing the balance of power in the Middle East.

Gates Against the Establishment

Defense: “Gates Seeks Sharp Turn in Spending,” by Greg Jaffe and Shailagh Murray, Washington Post, 7 April 2009; “Military Budget Reflects a Shift in U.S. Strategy,” by Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times, 7 April 2009; “Pentagon Pushes Weapon Cuts,” by August Cole and Yochi J. Dreazen, Wall Street Journal, 7 April 2009; and “Gates: Champion of Our Troops,” by Ralph Peters, New York Post, 7 April 2009

Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired the first round in what will likely be an ugly battle to overhaul defense spending. Gates, to be sure, is not the first defense chief to take on the so-called iron triangle of defense contractors, lawmakers and military service executives – nor will he be the last.

However, Gates may be in a “perfect storm” which will make his battle somewhat more reasonable. The U.S. has been fighting an irregular war in Iraq for going on seven years and is ramping up irregular warfare efforts in Afghanistan, and is currently mired in an economic downturn.

There is a saying in the military that, “Troops in contact trumps everything else.” Gates is using this rationale to justify some of his cuts. The troops currently in contact are fighting irregular conflicts and have limited use for gilded high tech weapons systems. According to Gates, what they need are more troops and intelligence collecting platforms.

Additionally, as one of the results of a poor economy, President Obama has vowed to reign in defense spending. Instead of adding to the defense budget to pay for limited value high tech weapons systems for fighting a near peer opponent, Gates is targeting those programs in order to funnel funding to current irregular warfare initiatives.

Gates, in comments made yesterday, said his plan represents “one of those rare chances to match virtue to necessity; to critically and ruthlessly separate appetites from real requirements.”

Major Proposed Cuts

-Limit the DDG 1000 destroyer purchase to three ships

-Halt production on the F-22 fighter at 187

-Dramatically cut back on the Future Combat System

Major Proposed Adds/Saves

-Low tech tools, such as the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP)

-Surveillance technology, such as Predator unmanned drones

-Funding to pay for planned increase in Army and Marine personnel

Congressional Response

According to the Washington Post,

“The initial response on Capitol Hill was restrained, reflecting Gates’s credibility among Republicans, the president’s popularity and the fact that midterm congressional elections are still 18 months away.”

In remarks Gates said, “My hope is that members of Congress will rise above parochial interests and consider what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole.”

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton said Gate’s plan was “a good-faith effort,” but that “the buck stops with Congress.”

Senators Joe Lieberman and Jim Inhoffe urged in a letter “not to allow deep cuts in U.S. missile defense programs that are critically important to protecting our homeland…” Lieberman added that the decision to stop building F-22’s “would result in the loss of thousands of jobs…”

My Take

The pragmatic Gates strikes again. Prioritizing spending to meet the realistic enemy we are likely to be fighting…? What a blinding flash of the obvious. However, as noted in all of the referenced articles, what Gates has proposed and what he is likely to get through Congress are two different animals. The politicians will fight like crazy to keep their constituents whole. I wish they could take politics out of the equation and do what is best for the troops.

Also, see

Gates the Pragmatist

"Cutting" the DoD Budget???