Morning Fog

Sexual Assault In The Military: Two Societies

An intriguing question is why the problem of sexual assault in the U.S. military has persisted so long and not effectively been dealth with?  It's often pointed out how integration of our military forces was achieved overnight with the stroke of a pen.  (That perception is erroneous and exaggerated, but nevertheless "more or less"  true.)   What's different?

I find clues in the composition of our military forces.  Could it be that the switch to an all-volunteer force, approved by cowering politicians to save their reputations (and see how well that worked out!) has created a force isolated unto itself, a "warrior" culture that feels entitled to make its own rules?  One that - not just in matters of assault, but in broader ways as well - scoffs at "civilian control?"  What about that McChrystal guy, for example?  Is there a difference between him and, say, George C. Marshall? 

Nowadays, we often hear complaints from the military and their groupies that the civilian population doesn't really know much about the military, hasn't experienced military service, isn't making sacrifices -- true enough, and damaging to the social fabric.  But the reverse is also true -- our servicemen and women are also isolated, and don't know much about civilians. 

In this area, at least, we can do something to slow or reverse the trend toward increasingly segmented, isolated, self-interested subcultures.  It's called conscription. 

Entitlements - A House Of Cards?

Shortly after my last post ("Those Pesky Entitlements"), the House of Reprehensibles voted to undo the tiny cuts that Congress had agreed to only a few weeks earlier as part of the big "bipartisan" budget deal.  The Senate, perhaps the slowest-moving force on earth short of geologic change, approved the same unraveling of the carefully wrought deal just a day later. 

On this general topic of entitlement enablers, read Ruth Marcus's "Bipartisan Caving on Military Pension Cut."  

It's all timely further proof, if any were needed, that there is no cure in sight for our burgeoning outlays for senior, military, and corporate entitlements.  These programs are a "house of cards" - not in the sense of a fragile, easily collapsible structure (far from it) - but in the sense of the popular Netflix series, which draws a realistic portrait of how things get done in Washington.

There is no harm - in fact, a lot of good - in guaranteeing that our senior citizens (broadly defined, i.e., to include veterans) should benefit from a system that helps them maintain quality of life in retirement.  However, we need to do a far better job of defining what contribution that requires from them.  And equally if not more important, we need a system by which those contributions are sequestered from Congressional meddling.   How different a picture of Social Security might we have today if the so-called "trust fund" had actually been established and insulated from Congressinal robbery?    

The Entitled Military

When stories came out a couple of days ago about the budget agreement, I checked some of the reader comments on the Washington Post website.

Prominent among the early ones were a number of comments from (presumably) service members or veterans.  They were not positive.  One memorable one opined that those who voted for the legislation imposing very minor cuts on military pensions were guilty of treason.  Mere civilians daring to cut a few bucks from our bloated military pension system?  How dare they!

There is no better evidence of the danger to democracy that arises from dependence on a "professional" military.  Professional they may be, and there's no question that they perform their duties with dedicated effectiveness.  For now. 

Yet the sense of entitlement is clear -- and just as clearly unwarranted.  Many people may not realize that the military's generous pension - which they can collect after only 20 years of service -- is paid fully by U.S. taxpayers with NO contribution from the beneficiaries themselves.  [They do pay into, and collect, social security.]  Contrast to the civilian government (I paid 7% of my salary throughout my working life for a less generous pension than the military had at the time) and you see what a "sense of entitlement" really is. 

These protests merely demonstrate unequivocally how necessary entitlement reform in the military is -- not to mention the crying need for a system that, if not relying entirely on conscription, can still produce a military force that involves both "professional" servicepeople AND the "old-fashioned" citizen soldier -- both in positions of authority.

The Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire - both succumbed to the pressures of trying to pay increasingly demanding military forces for their increasingly costly defense, often receiving less and less actual defense as time went on.  The U.S. is not an "empire," but is fairly comparable to these equivalent world powers.  Let's not follow their example. 

One Small Step For Bipartisanship

It appears the compromise agreement hammered out by Reps. Paul Ryan and Patti Murray a while back will effectively be passed by both houses of Congress.  It's only a small step - perhaps could be passed only because it was so small - and as news reports are pointing out, it doesn't eliminate the possibility of a coming fight over the budget, nor another government shutdown -- not yet.

Still, it suggests that extremists are backing away from their "ideal" positions toward a slightly more realistic willingness to compromise.  There are other signs, too:  in Virginia, last month's election for Attorney-General had produced a historically close outcome between the Republican Obenshain and the Democrat Herring (the latter leading by just 162 votes).  A recount began this week, which began to produce a clearer lead for Herring; Obenshain now has conceded the race, although under a rather weird Virginia law he might have sought to pickle Herring by having the outcome decided in the Republican-dominated state Assembly.  That he chose not to try also reflects a bit of reason returning to government.

  

Cruz Missile?

Texas Senator Ted Cruz is certainly the man of the hour, especially, but not only, in rural Texas.  Rational Republicans are concerned by him; the folks at home love him; Democrats malign him publicly but secretly, I'm sure, absolutely love him. 

It's not so surprising.  Populist demagogues have always had this same effect.  In earlier times, their influence was local or regional, and they couldn't become nationally famous so quickly; but their power within their localities might last for decades.  

On the other hand, today's breed of demagogue can rise rapidly to national prominence.  That's what's happened with Senator Ted.  But I predict his moment on the stage will be all the shorter because national exposure of ridiculous characters tends to lead to their political demise.  Their political views reflect all the erudition and sophistication of a sixth-grader, and while it's only to be expected that ignorant rednecks will love another ignorant redneck, their fierce declarations seldom stand up to the bigger stage.   As they soar into open air, they explode like a Chinese firework, or a missile. 

 

 

Still, we should not be complacent.  This guy is bad news.  He reminds me most of Sen. Joseph McCarthy.  He even looks like him, with the "do" so reminiscent of the 1950s, the intense sincerity of the eyes.   McCarthy did a lot of damage before his Senate colleagues finally woke up; and even today, you can find McCarthy deniers on the web -- McCarthy was maligned, he was right, he was railroaded by a conspiracy of ... well, whatever. 

Let's not do this again.

 

 

 

 

Rural Universities To Lose ROTC

The Army's recent decision to close a small number of ROTC programs in smaller universities, and spend the money elsewhere (in more urban areas), sounds at first glance like good money management.  The Army says these smaller programs, most of which are in the South, haven't produced enough second lieutenants, and the money could be spent better elsewhere.  Fair enough, if that's true.

From my own experience as an ROTC grad, and in the army, the decision seems counterintuitive, however.  In the army it seemed for some reason that about 50% of the officers I met came from (mostly rural) parts of Ohio, but beyond that, a huge percentage of the rest came from various southern states.  I wonder if the number of fresh-minted second lieutenants produced may be less important than statistics indicating what percentage of grads from these small programs actually remain in the service. 

Can't say if the Army has looked at that.  It would be interesting to know.

Things have definitely changed since my day, though. In the 1960s universities were falling all over each other in a rush to drop ROTC programs.  Now, many of those that did have restored them, and the military, as the referenced article indicates, is finding bigger universities in urban areas a much richer recruiting ground than rural ones.

Nidal Hassan's Victims

The trial of Nidal Hassan, the Muslim/Psychiatrist U.S. Army Major who unloaded very literally on people at Ft. Hood, Texas two years ago, is now going forward.  It will be interesting to follow, mainly for seeing how Hassan, who is acting as his own attorney, will try to defend himself.   It's difficult to imagine him avoiding being convicted and facing death, but it may be entertaining to see him try.

More interesting still, to me, is a news report I saw online somewhere yesterday.  The story line was that military victims who survived but were injured by Hassan's depredations are upset and (according to some stories) complaining bitterly that they aren't being nominated for Purple Hearts. 

Well, those of us who have served, I believe, understand immediately that these victims aren't Purple Heart material.  A Purple Heart comes from combat. Facing the enemy and getting wounded.  Period.   No one faced an enemy; they weren't in combat mode.   This wasn't combat. And if some suggest it was, because it was part of the "war on terrorism," I'd beg to differ - that phrase is sloppy because it's not really a war, but all indications are that this was not terrorism either.  Hassan's victims are exactly like the victims of any other domestic violence (say, to take the latest example, the guy who mowed people down with his car on Venice beach).  The only difference is that this particular incident occurred on an Army base.

Worse than the hopeless longing for a Purple Heart was the additional report that [some?] victims were most concerned about receiving a Purple Heart because it brings with it additional pay and benefits, especially in retirement. 

Wow.  I just hope these reports are nothing more than journalistic excess, the fruit of some reporter's imagination.   If American soldiers actually made such a suggestion, the suggestion it makes to me is that professionalization has turned an army into a bureaucracy.  Of course structurally it always was, but the people in it, the men and women in uniform, used to take pride in putting duty first - and second.  It's hard to imagine the issue of pension benefits arising in such a discussion 30-40 years ago.

Chalk up another sad effect of abandoning the draft. 

More On The Erral Of Snowden

A week since my last post, the latest leaker of secrets, Edward Snowden, remains in the news, though his story is rapidly beginning to decompose as he finds himself trapped in Moscow airport.  (To be trapped in any airport for any length of time sounds like unimaginable torture, but hey, the Moscow airport?  No picnic, I'm sure.  And maybe his just desserts.)  But I digress...

Anyway, last week I suggested that to apply the term "whistleblower" to Snowden was a complete misunderstanding of what "whistleblower" means.  One of the writers who had promulgated that mistaken view was the Washington, DC area journalist who keyboards the regular column "Federal Diary," Joe Davidson.

Thus I want to pass along one writer's rebuttal of the "whistleblower" red herring, similar to my own but possibly more persuasively stated.  I quote here former NSA employee Dennis Barton's letter in full since it is buried in Davidson's column this week amongst several other topics:

"The basic premise of your column of Thursday, June 20 — i.e., that Edward Snowden is a whistleblower — is complete nonsense. (I can think of a better noun, but a family newspaper probably wouldn’t like it.)

A whistleblower is someone who exposes some type of fraud, waste or abuse in an activity that isn’t being managed or operated properly. In this case, we have classified programs that were created, implemented, staffed and funded by officials who were authorized to do those things and who knew and understood all the reasons for doing so. From all accounts, those programs were being operated and managed as intended. When a cleared government employee or contractor compromises such programs because of a philosophical disagreement, that isn’t whistleblowing, that is treason. The intelligence community needs to find a way to weed out any employees or potential employees who don’t understand the difference."

I would add that the matter of "understanding the reasons" is key.  Even if we assume Snowden acted from noble motivation (an assumption not supported by his behavior), it would be fairly evident that he saw the picture only from his narrow, individual perspective and took it upon himself to make the judgment that no serious harm would result from the massive "leaking" of systemic information on intelligence-gathering. 

Privacy In The Contemporary World

Gee, another uproar over something the government's doing?  I guess we must be in the second term of some President or another.  It's become kind of a rule that things start to unravel, or appear to, in the second term.

I'm personally not too upset about the telephone records issue.  It's generic data and it's being gathered for reasons of national security, in an era where we face threats of terrorism and industrial espionage.  The same people who have their tidies in a twist over the Verizon-NSA furor still expect 100% security from being blown away by a terrorist bomb, but they fail to explain how the government can do that if modern avenues of intelligence gathering are to be closed to it.

Suspicion of government is quintessentially American.  But it skews our concept of privacy in very odd ways.  We don't begrudge providing all sorts of personal data online to big companies like GM, Prudential, J.C. Penney, and Google, which are collecting and using the same kind of generic, non-individual-specific information that's involved in the current telephone brouhaha.  Many of us, particularly the young and inexperienced, are happy to put every detail of our social life, health, feelings, and passions on FaceBook (with photos, no less) but think it's an invasion for the state to put our photo on a driver's license. 

The government, whose functionaries we elect, has a (largely undeserved) reputation for inefficiency; big business, over whose functionaries we have no control, has a (largely undeserved) reputation for extreme efficiency.  Both reputations are unreliable stereotypes but if they were true, which entity would be the greater danger to our collective well-being?

Double Double-Think

Doublethink and its bosom buddy doubletalk are common in politics.  Columnists aren't immune, either, though.

In "Get Rid of the Trust Funds" in today's Washington Post, economic columnist Robert Samuelson points out some double-talk when he argues that focusing public attention on the health of the social security and medicare "trust funds" is deceptive because it suggests these imaginary funds really exist and are funded separately from other spending. 

I credit him for making a darned good case, too, at least until he gets to the point of saying that "A dollar spent on Social Security or Medicare can’t be spent on border control, highways, school lunches, financial regulation, military readiness or the Forest Service." (emphasis added).  Samuelson's basic point is true, but the reference to military readiness is another instance of the same self-deceptive doublethink that he's complaining about, because such a large part of our defense budget consists of yet another "entitlement," one that lacks an imaginary trust fund, but nevertheless fails to  pay for itself as many assume it does.

Speaking of doublethink where military readiness is concerned, let's go back to politicians.  Right across the page from Samuelson's piece, a Congressman named Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, blames Obama for even thinking about reductions in defense funding, and sings his own version of the well-known tune "We Can't Ever Spend Too Much Mon-ee/On Our Beloved Darling Militar-ee."   Maybe getting carried away by his own rhetoric, Buck provides the perfect example of the doublethink affecting our deliberations on this topic:   "We have passed 51 straight annual defense bills, all with the express purpose of providing the American people the peace they deserve" (emphasis added).

Gee, Buck, really?  If so, we must conclude that our annual defense bills have miserably failed to achieve their purpose.  Peace?  From Vietnam to now, it's almost easier to enumerate the years when we were NOT at war, than those when we were. We deceive ourselves with the myth that our constant military engagement in foreign lands is necessary for our "defense," but it hasn't given us peace, and it's this kind of sloppy thinking that will cause us, some day, to "pay the price ...if we do not change course" (to use Buck's own words).