revengeofareasonablemind

We Don’t Get to be Tired of War August 26, 2014

In recent weeks, we have heard repeatedly from media pundits and legislators that the United States is “tired of war” or “war weary.”  It is as though Americans have some choice in addressing the relentless hostility directed toward us and our interests around the world from fanatical Islamic terrorists.  Well, such a notion is wrong, unreasonable and deserving a comment in the revenge of a reasonable mind.  

If the United States were isolated, completely non-dependent on other countries or peoples for energy, raw materials of any kind and impervious to outside mischief, then there might be some justification to saying we’re tired of war.  Unfortunately, the U.S. is an integral, functioning part of a global society, if for no other reason than because we are dependent on the continuous social, economic and geopolitical transactions with other countries and peoples.  We do not live in a bubble of national self-sufficiency.  Though there have been those citizens, even senators on the fringe of reality that advocate isolationism, such a position is neither realistic, a useful concept nor attainable.  

So, what do we as a nation need to be doing?  First, stop this whining, “we’re tired of war.”  The hostility we face from fanatical, murderous, Islamic terrorists demands that we don’t get to be tired of war. It’s silly.  We may hate war and the need to do despicable, horrible things to other human beings in combat.  That is perfectly legitimate.  Yet, surviving in the world we are in drives us to such an undesirable recourse.  Second, the U.S. must have a standard that will guide our military involvement in defeating those who would work to do us harm.  Today the most malignant and immediately threatening are those engaged in fanatical terrorism in the name of Islam.  But, that may not always be the case.  Consequently, we need a practical and moral, military engagement barometer.  When the United States sets its course on engaging in hostilities, whether carrying out airstrikes against the Islamic State known variously as Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) – describing an area far greater than Syria – or carrying out bombing missions actually into Syria we should have a means of testing whether such actions are the right thing to do.

The most succinct, unambiguous and understandable were former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger’s six major “tests” for the use of force explained in a National Press Club speech in 1984.  Sure, that was during the cold war, but the measures are as relevant today.  His six tests were: 1) is there a vital national interest at stake?; 2) is America willing to commit the resources necessary to ‘win’ (which assumes we know what “winning” is ); 3) are there clearly defined political and military objectives; 4) will we continually reassess the relationship between objectives and size of forces; 5) is there assurance of support form the American public and Congress; and 6) have we exhausted options other than force?  Let’s look at each of these one at a time through the lens of threat of ISIS.

Are the United States vital national interests at stake?  ISIS has described clearly, loudly and enthusiastically its intentions to destroy American and all that it stands for.  Its front line foot soldier predict boldly an Islamic flag flying over the White House. “The Islamic terrorists trying to carve their own state out of Syria and Iraq present the greatest threat we’ve seen since 9/11,” Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said on ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday.  Additionally,  Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes said regarding the beheading of american journalist James Foley,”the brutal execution of Him Foley represented an affront, an attack, not just on him, but he’s an American and we see that as an attack on our country when one of our own is killed like that.” I think we can answer this question with a resounding, yes.

Is America willing to commit the resources necessary to ‘win?’  The enormous and growing national debt and the pervasive point of view that defense funding must be held in check notwithstanding, the acknowledged magnitude of the threat posed by ISIS supports a commitment of the necessary resources to defeat ISIS.  Yes, is the answer to this question.

Are there are clearly defined political and military objectives?  Despite the fact that ISIS has managed to gobble up a considerable amount of real estate relatively unopposed and its real estate claim is in the middle of two existing countries, establishing clearly defined political and military objectives is possible.  The political objective would be to secure assistance or at a minimum tacit approval by other world leaders supporting U.S. military action to remove ISIS as a geopolitical malignant force in the middle east.  ISIS’s mere presence creates a destabilizing influence that must be addressed.  ISIS is not a state, but a highly organized, well equipped (with confiscated U.S. weapons) and fanatically dedicated army.  Defeating such an army is a well defined military objective.  This question can be answered, yes.

Will we continually reassess the relationship between objectives and size of forces?  Assessing the level of forces to meet objectives is one of the criteria that is much more certain.  Yet, with the current administration’s penchant for eschewing use of military force, committing more than the forces deemed to be adequate is less likely than not having enough.  A significant part of having objectives is knowing when they’ve been achieved.  This is not an arbitrary date for withdrawal.  It is a clear understanding of what tasks when accomplished constitute success. Our defense forces are capable of establishing a definition of winning, whether the White House can is another question.  Having said this, however, I’d have to put this question in the “yes” category. 

Is there assurance of support form the American public and Congress? Absent leadership from President Obama, sentiment is growing stronger for decisive action against ISIS according to the Wall Street Journal.  Though 42 percent of the American public say they need more information before developing an opinion whether to go after ISIS with stronger military action, former administration members are publicly calling for escalating U.S. airstrikes; taking the fight against ISIS into Syria.  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has explained that there is no way to defeat ISIS without going into Syria.  The video of the beheading of James Foley has prompted an upswell in calls by congressional leadership for immediate military action against ISIS.  But, we are left with what does winning look like.  If it looks like destroying the capability of the organization ISIS and its members to ever present a threat to the U.S., its allies and friends, the answer to this question is, well maybe.

And, have we exhausted options other than force?  The question in this case may be irrelevant, since the crazed, evil that ISIS represents has not presented itself in a manner that would respond to anything that falls into the category civilized discourse or transaction.  ISIS wants to completely eliminate any society or vestige of a society that does not think precisely as they do.  There is no space for coexistence.  There are simply no options other than force.  Let’s do the tally.  By my count, I have five “yeses” and one well maybe.  Good enough for me.  The real question is would such a guide be good enough for the current administration.  So far the President has been disengaged, aloof even, at best indecisive.  Rear Admiral John Kirby the DoD Press Secretary came out on Friday to provide “clarity” to what the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had been saying about “long-term strategy” in dealing with ISIS.  What he did was to present administration and Department of Defense thinking that will, “need to have a regional approach here and interagency and an international approach about this threat proposed by this particular extremist group, ISIL, and that — and that this was — this would take time to develop this kind of multilateral and multinational approach to dealing with this threat.” In plain english, this gobbledegook means we haven’t figured out what to do, but we are going to involve a whole lot of people and take a very long time.

The one aspect of the test for the use of military force outlined above is that the administration using the guide should be willing to make a decision…quickly.  Otherwise, the U.S. approach to the ISIS threat will be just one disconnected reaction after another.  Which is more than ample justification for revenge of a reasonable mind.  

Move Over Alice, the White House has Landed in Wonderland August 21, 2014

Ok, I’m back.  I must tell you that over the past year and some months I’ve had the exact opposite of writers block.  I’ve had writers sensory overload.  My brain could not sort out and prioritize the unbelievable amount per unit time of lunacy on which a reasonable mind can and must take revenge.

But, today my senses were bombarded with what clearly is a focused onslaught of a common theme.  First, I was reading the cover article on the latest edition of Defense News entitled “The Evolving Obama Doctrine:  Limited Bombing Raids, Stronger Partnerships,” and then I listened to a Fox News story where Eric Holder the Attorney General of the United States (remember this location – the United States – it will be important later in this Blog) explain how his Justice Department (DoJ) is opening a criminal investigation into, “the brutal execution (read beheading) by Islamic State militants [ISIS] of American journalist James Foley.”

I know what you are thinking.  “What do these two issues have to do with one another, what is so crystalizing about them that merits, suddenly, a blog?”  Fair question.  Now think of the phrase, “total break from reality.”  Are you beginning to get the idea?

Let’s take the Defense News piece first.  The authors would posit that somehow the Obama Administration has an organized, integrated foreign and defense policy that at one time was nascent and is evolving into something mature.  This notion is completely divorced from reality.  Defenders of the Administration want us to believe that limited bombing, except with drones in northern Pakistan and Yemen, and stronger partnerships (what partnerships?) are emblematic of a iterative and systematic application of policy.  Even the article suggests that if there was a move toward “stronger partnership” the Administration officials designated to explain it to a congressional committee were, “unable to clearly describe the president’s vision for it.” The evidence, however, that Defense News provides that there has been a sea state change that warrants the description “Evolving Obama Doctrine” is the airstrikes that are recently taking place against the Islamic State to help save Iraqi minorities.  This one event is the cause celebre for establishing the idea that there is some new evolving doctrine.  That is a test of credulity or reality, as I’ve said. The Obama Administration simply reacted with the least commitment possible to address the growing harangue from the American people for some sort of action.  This is not a doctrine it is the international policy equivalent of whack-a-mole.  If President Obama really had such a doctrine as the Defense News suggests, it would have been evident with airstrikes on ISIS while they were rolling out of Syria and down the highway toward Mosul.

Now, what in the name of heaven is Eric Holder doing, taking a break form the photo ops in Ferguson, MO, and talking about how his Department of Justice is going to hold the ISIS Islamic terrorist who beheaded James Foley accountable?  He really thinks that some how middle of Iraq is in the US DoJ jurisdiction.  Remember, he’s the attorney general of what country?  The United States, that’s right.  But, Mr. Holder is not put off by geography.   His DoJ is opening “a criminal investigation;” an investigation, not even an apprehension.   He seems struck by the idea that the war (vice criminal act) raging between ISIS Islamic, murdering, terrorists and anyone in Syria or Iraq (or ultimately the US) that does not accept their brand of Islam is a law enforcement issue.  Worse, while AG Holder is basking in the press corps lights waxing wise on how his folks are putting out an All Points Bulletin for any information leading to the apprehension and arrest of the hooded ISIS terrorist so we can treat him like Al Capone or Willy Sutton, his law enforcement model may not be fairing so well in other quarters.

We are learning that the Benghazi attack terrorist suspect, Abu Khattala, identified clearly in videos of the scene, that is now in US custody and the US judicial system may be catching a break (in stead of a Hellfire Missile).  There is speculation that there is a lack of evidence to tie him directly to the attack, video notwithstanding and consequently the government’s case could be weak.  So much for the Benghazi model.  You’ll remember the speedy identification and arrest approach that took over 18 months of knowing exactly where the suspect was because he kept giving interviews to the press, most notably CNN.  Make no mistake, what we have here is a war pitting eleventh century fanatical, organized Islamic terrorists against modern-day western civilization.  What the Obama Administration is doing is not so far removed from what might have been the case if Franklin Roosevelt’s attorney general Frank Biddle told General Eisenhower on June 5, 1944 to “hang loose on that Normandy thing you’ve got planned.  I have issued arrest warrants for German generals Modal, von Rundstedt and Rommel as well as that pesky fuhrer Hitler.  We’ll bring these criminals to justice.”

Alice, it’s going to be a little crowded in Wonderland now that the White House shares your space.  The failure at any pretense of addressing reality in seeking to shore up US national security puts all of us at significant risk of terrorist acts on US soil far worse than we experienced on September 11, 2001.  However, we have an Administration whose pollyanna view of the world and willingness to put the security of of each American on the alter of political expediency is frightening and will do us in.