A Fate Worse Than Death

I recently saw this video from Lt Col Mike Drowley, an A-10 pilot and Weapons Officer.  It's excellent and it sums up the standard of every aviator I know, when it comes to protecting our guys on the ground. I do honestly mean standard. I am proud to say that I have never in my career, met an aviator that I thought would give anything less (or who wouldn't at least die trying to give the same), to protect our brothers on the ground.

There are fates worse than death.  When we also realize, and act on, the idea that there are fates worse than career death, we will then be able to build an amazing Air Force.

Lt Col Drowley said that he "swore" to never let anything happen to those military members on the ground.  I never swore such an oath with my mouth, but I certainly did with my heart.  But I did, and Lt Col Drowley also did, swear an actual oath with our mouths.  That was an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

It's also a fate worse than death to watch our citizens (even the long-haired hippie Occupy protestor, or the the clean cut Tea Party protestor, and even the nutty Fred Phelps church member, or perhaps some American citizen Muslim who presents no imminent threat but is on a kill list--or at least as reported by media sources) lose their Constitutional rights to free speech and due process on our watch.

Nobody ever said defending America would be easy. But for those who swore to do so, there is a fate worse than death.  And there is even a fate worse than death on foreign soil defending American soldiers, a fate where you forgot who you were really defending, and forgot your nation and why you were fighting in the first place.

The Welsh Have a Saying - The Proof Is in Da Pudding

So many times I hear, "He seemed to really care, he really listened to me.  It was refreshing."

I think, THE MIRROR.

Never been to any fancy schools, but I have learned, after a decade of trying to find a companion I could respect, that some women are gifted at using the mirror.  They are masters of appearance.  If, however, you are interested in more than how they look, and if you sincerely attempt to get to know them and their value system, they will do their best to reflect back to you what they think you want to see.  Like a mirror to whatever audience, they are interested in shaping an appearance to please.  They are gifted at "listening" but they really don't share your values despite their sincere looking head nods and facial expressions.  You feel like they listen, you feel like they get you.  But they are creating a deception.  Of course it's not just the fairer sex who do this.

It's also the primary skill of the politician, to include many commanders.  To make you feel like they know where you're coming from, which they probably do, and more importantly to make you feel like they care, which they probably don't.  But as long as you feel like they understand you, then when they are at the helm, you'll make excuses for their failures.  They weren't ready, they weren't competent enough, they were too nice, it was the situation they couldn't control, it was other people.  It wasn't them though, you know them, they tried, they care.  You don't want to admit to yourself that their actions, which are nothing like what they said, are not the result of a failure, but rather the result of a well crafted deception.  You don't want to acknowledge that when you tried to get to know them and their value system, they held up a mirror so you could see yourself, all the while never actually caring about what you care about.  You don't want to admit that you know nothing about them.

I remember some physically attractive women I dated a long time ago before I knew their merits, before thankfully finding a superior person and marrying her as fast as I could (and in ten years of marriage have never met a woman who ever came close).  These other women looked good on the surface, they were pretty, they could talk a good game and they said the right things in social situations.  They were fine arm candy.  But my attempts to ask thoughtful questions to understand them, were met with the mirror.  Like stealth, they seemed to absorb or deflect my signals seeking to map out who they were.  But they sure looked good on the surface.  I was wise enough to not fall for the illusion, and I could ferret out the dishonesty.  Young men, approach your dating life like it's a great investigation.  Know yourself, and then get to really know the other.  Woe to him who can't see beyond nice speeches and a shiny reflection of himself...

So that brings me to this.  Welcome.  I hope you're not like so many before you, above you, and below you.  We need a real leader.  If you're it, I'll be your biggest fan.

The Military Hippie Divide

Awhile back I blogged about how military public servants and "activists" should be more similar.  One takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution and to demonstrate courage, while the other exercises those Constitutional rights, and uses the most basic machinery of a democracy to strengthen our liberty here at home, and often does so with great courage, in the sad face of batons and pepper spray and worse.

There should be an affinity between the two groups.  Instead, there is distrust and caricature.  One group is part of "the system" and the other is a band of unemployed America-hating "dirty long-haired hippies."  Some military folks even celebrate citizens being beaten and pepper sprayed while exercising their First Amendment rights, and even joke about employing munitions on them.  I think the image of the hippie spitting on the returning Vietnam veteran has done great harm, but I think the problem is much more than that.  I think the "hippies" are right, those who they pay to protect their freedom, and who swore before God to do so, are in large part failing.  We are seeing many failures across the spectrum of our nation, but these failures are much more important in systems that wage the tools of violence.  I think these voices of concern are democracy's feedback session to those of us who raised our hands and took the oath.

Prior to this past weekend, I had never been to an "activist" meeting, or a protest or anything of that nature.  I keep putting the word "activist" in quotes, because I don't really like the term, as it sets some Americans apart for simply being good Americans by exercising their rights and attempting to guide the government they pay for.  Regardless of the semantics, I traveled to Austin, Texas to be a part of the Peaceful Streets Project's Police Accountability Summit and to share some technologies that Americans can use to protect themselves against those number of police officers who lie, and who ignore their oaths to the Constitution by violating the rights of the citizens who pay them.

It was an interesting experience.  The event was impressive and more than two hundred people showed up.  There were several great speakers, and the folks who put the event on were truly amazing.  I witnessed some great organizational and people skills, and some truly great communication.  The crowd was very diverse.  There were libertarians, Occupy folks, conservatives, liberals, anarchists, whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, the well to do, the standard middle class, the poor and the homeless.  I met many great Americans, and I met just a couple of individuals who I would classify as conspiracy theorist and perhaps a bit "out there."  I was very pleased, and relieved, that violence was not even hinted at, by any in their discussion of the problems and possible solutions.  I actually felt like I had a real connection that traced back to the days of Martin Luther King and the many nameless who moved the ball forward for liberty in this nation.  That was a nice feeling.

I had some of my media-reinforced stereotypes shattered.  Case in point, when I met two folks who looked and sounded like "rednecks" who might be found in a duck blind cursing activists.  I found out that the two gentleman were representatives from Occupy Austin, and I found myself wondering what real difference there might be between the Tea Party and the Occupy movement.  These were just impressions.

What was more interesting to me, was that there were some who were clearly suspicious of your humble blogger, because of my chosen occupation.  That was interesting.  I don't typically experience that in my day to day experience.  I don't blame them, of course, when they are a group that exercises their rights and are vocal and who, in their supervision and ownership of their government, often gets pepper sprayed, unlawfully arrested, herded into "free speech zones," and disparaged by those wearing a variety of uniforms.  I can understand their mistrust.

But it makes me sad, because Americans on the street and their public servants in uniform, should share an affinity and a common bond.  Whatever our personal politics, we should be able to agree on the basics, that we are a free nation of citizens who enjoy inviolable rights.  Despite the diversity in beliefs at this "activist" event, that was a rock solid anchor point that all there shared.  While I certainly didn't agree with the politics or philosophies of many at the event, we all agreed on the basics that make America a success and stronger for our diverse opinions.  In fact, the event was organized to cover those basics.  It wasn't about personal politics or viewpoints from the left and the right, it concentrated on the very essential core of what it means to be an American living in a free nation.

I was very proud to be a part of this event.  It was a real American experience, and it put a human touch on the freedoms that I, as a military officer, do in fact, and without question, fight for.  I hope my brothers-in-arms will one day soon get the opportunity to similarly experience this America we swear to support and defend, with our lives if necessary.

Resiliency Training and Providing Tools

Recently the Secretary of Defense spoke, saying that while high level leaders can develop programs and fund research like neuroscience studies, it falls on the junior leaders to prevent suicides.  I have always been taught that the role of higher leadership is to provide the tools necessary to execute the mission, and for lower leadership to execute the mission with the tools provided.  I'm assuming the Sec Def believes that preventing suicides is part of the military mission, and that junior leaders have the tools necessary to do so.  So far, all I have seen are reminders of support agencies, and CBT-ish resiliency training that may check a box, but doesn't actually serve a useful purpose.

I recently watched the movie Shrink with Kevin Spacey and Robin Williams.  It can be viewed streaming over Netflix.  I found it interesting that the movie centered on suicide and the struggle to understand why somebody would take their life, and leave hurt and questions behind for their loved ones.  There was no convenient answer in that movie, only continued questions.

In resiliency training we hear a bit about how selfish the decision to take one's life is, and the hurt it leaves behind for loved ones.  The movie certainly did a good job of showing that hurt.  But I have to wonder how many in the military who take their lives, actually leave behind loved ones?  How many are married with children?  I don't know the answer, but I am curious.  A spouse can provide a great support system.  How many who have killed themselves had one?  How many were single?

I'd love to know the answer to that question.

If the numbers bear out that most who commit suicide are single (and I would guess that to be the case), then I think that may be a valuable clue.  It would certainly deflate the "leaving loved ones behind" argument as some kind of deterrent (obviously not an effective one for those who take their lives).  Sure, everybody has parents, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect children to feel entitled to live for their parents' sake.  More importantly, it might lead us to ask why these warriors were single and didn't have a loved one to stand behind them.  Did they live in less than metropolitan places with limited dating options?  Did they have limited time to develop the human relationships that so many require to get through tough times?  Was the fact they worked shift work, with little to no time off, somehow an impediment to getting to know another person enough to forge a lifelong bond?

I don't know the answers to these questions, though I have suspicions.  My gut and limited experience tells me that working conditions in the military are not conducive to developing intimate relationships with others, and that the inability to develop a meaningful loving-support relationship exacerbates stress for people, and some people feel the only way to escape the pain is to take their own lives.  I'll go further and guess that those people don't feel they are leaving behind loved ones of value  Why not?

My gut also tells me that the high level decision makers who put the responsibility of preventing suicide on junior leaders, are more than likely married with children from a time and circumstance that was far more conducive to a happy life than what many in the military live today.

If I am correct, then I believe the responsibility lies not with junior leaders, but with leadership charged with providing resources to those junior leaders.

I could be wrong.  It's a complicated issue.

Why We Serve?

I just read some statements from a retired Air Force National Guard O-5, that I think crystallize the problem with the military, and government today.  Why serve?  Why hold a position in the government?  What does it mean to serve?  According to this former A-10 pilot and commander:

...if anyone says they are serving their country because of the things they have an opinion on or believe are true they [sic] it can be logically inferred by those holding a contrary view that what they believe in is wrong and even treasonous.

It is therefore totally inappropriate to drape oneslf [sic] in the flag and use their military service as a weapon to defend their beliefs, whatever side of an issue they happen to fall. Personal beliefs are personal.

Put another way, if somebody serves because of their beliefs, then another person who doesn't believe those things may find those beliefs wrong or even treasonous.  Therefore it's inappropriate to use military service as a defense for those beliefs.

I don't buy the logic, but what troubles me more is the apparent implication that people should "serve their country" for reasons that have nothing to do with belief on what is true, or right, or righteous.

For example, the belief that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Or the belief that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.  Or the belief that government cannot abridge the freedom of the press, or take life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.  And, of course, the belief that a government and society that recognizes these truths above, is worth living in and worth defending by force when necessary.  The retired full bird appears to believe that defending these beliefs is not a good reason to  sign up for military service (though the oath of office requires signing on to these beliefs for expressly that purpose).

To believe that "serving" your country has nothing to do with beliefs, or truth, is to deny serving your country.  It is no wonder our government is failing the American people, and the actions and professions of so many public servants who raised their hands, appear to be made and spoke, without concern for what is believed to be right and true.

It's unfortunate that some who have taken the oath, and been given so much authority and responsibility, "serve" for reasons that have nothing to do with American ideals.

Administration Declassifies Ops In Yemen and Elsewhere

 
What a shocker. We've taken direct action against targets in Yemen and Somalia? I'm glad it's declassified so that the American people can now "know" what the enemy, and the media, have already known for quite some time now.

I have to wonder why this commonly known information has only been officially admitted to now? If the media and the enemy already know something, why then the "official" secrecy?

Burden of Command & the Cheap Seats

An article written, and advertised on the cover of The Air Force Times, by Air Force Captain Lawrence Wilson, has started to become a bit of a discussion point. In his article, Wilson essentially defends the flight suit, and the aviator, but also totes a hierarchy that stretches beyond rank and position into fabric, and he comes off a bit as a blow hard who gets some basic points wrong.  He did make some good points.  He also made some poor ones, the worst being his statement that the flight suit itself somehow "commands" respect.

More interesting than his article, as related in the forum of BaseOps.Net, is the fact that shortly after Wilson's article was published, his base commander (who actually commands whether wearing his flight suit, or not), made a decision to ban flight suits from being worn on his base, unless the person was performing flight related duties.  Not a popular decision as the thread above highlights.

I'm in the cheap seats, and I can see (I think) two sides of this issue.  Was the wing commander being punitive and retaliatory, punishing every rated person on base for an unpoplular stance taken by one?  Or was he reacting to a public relations (read "leadership") issue, and doing what he could do quickly, to let all concerned know that the actual hierarchy of his base doesn't subscribe to the juvenile opinion of Captain Wilson?  Or was his decision unrelated to the article, and simply interesting timing?  Who knows.  At the end of the day, it doesn't matter.  It's his base and his decision is perfectly within his realm.  Still, as the thread above demonstrates, people are a bit energized by this issue.  I think this serves as an opportunity to be reminded that those of us in the cheap seats don't have access to the many factors that go into decision making as a commander.

It's easy, very easy, to lob grenades from below when you don't have all the information, and more importantly, when you don't have the pressure of command on your shoulders.  They call it burden of command for a reason, and it's easy to consider a commander's job easy, or command decisions simple, when you aren't in the hot seat.  This shouldn't at all stifle those below from telling the boss when he or she is wrong.  But when you can see both sides, and you're in the cheap seats, that's actually a good time to shut up and color.

This is something I have to remind myself frequently.

NDAA & The Chilling Effect

In my previous blog post, I discussed the judiciary's halting of provisions of the NDAA that would allow the military to unconstitutionally arrest American citizens indefinitely based on mere suspicion, and to unconstitutionally deny Americans the right to a lawyer. Judge Forrest found portions of the NDAA troublesome regarding its effect on the First Amendment, and mentioned the chilling effect the law would have on people, including the journalist plaintiffs. Who is going to speak out and criticize the government if they can be labeled a domestic terrorist, and disappeared without recourse? The fact alone that the government claims the power to disappear Americans without charge or trial, would be enough to make many journalists and concerned citizens become silent. That is the chilling effect on First Amendment rights enjoyed by Americans, and this finding by Judge Forrest reminded me of a documentary I had seen on Netflix, entitled, End of America. Turns out the documentary is available online for free, and is posted above. While the narrator makes a glaring mistake on the origin of possee comitatus, the documentary is very well done and gives an interesting perspective on the chilling effect noted by Judge Forrest.  The documentary includes excellent contributions by several Americans including retired General James Cullen, the former Chief Judge of the United States Army.

It's important for military professionals to stay informed about trends to turn our military apparatus inward, so that we can be ready and prepared to honor our oaths to support and defend the Constitution should there be a conflict between what we are ordered to do, and what is Constitutionally permissible.  This is the reason our profession is different from that of the Wall Street banker, or the Enron employee.

Thank God for the Judicial Branch

Edit: Ironic blog post title is ironic.  The stay mentioned in this blog post was overturned on appeal, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.  Sadly, this draconian claimed executive power remains intact.

This past Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Forrest put a screeching halt to the provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which would allow the military to capture and "indefinitely detain" any American citizen who was merely suspected, even in secret, of aiding terrorists or other "associated forces."  While the language of the NDAA was vague and broad, and led some to say that the bill did not strip Americans of the Fifth Amendment right to due process of law, others thought the bill attempted to do exactly that.  Those who read these unconstitutional powers into the bill include advocates and sponsors of the bill, as well as Congressmen who decried it as unconstitutional.  The bill was hurriedly passed in Congress over the holidays, and signed into law by the President on 31 December, 2011.

Now the judiciary has weighed in.  Federal Judge Forrest heard the case of Hedges v. Obama, and issued an injunction on the government employing its claimed power to arrest and indefinitely imprison Americans without charge or trial.  The government did not call any witnesses, or offer any documentation, but it did oppose the plaintiff's seeking of an injunction based on standing.  Unlike the father of an American who sought a similar injunction to keep the government from assassinating his son, the court found the plaintiff in this case did have standing.  The government argued, as did some legal commentators, that the NDAA did nothing new.  The government did not explain, however, why new legislation was required if it actually did nothing new.  Judge Forrest wrote in her opinion that the government's position was that the law was mere "redundancy" and did not add anything to the government's powers.  She was not swayed, stating that the law, "tries to do too much with too little--it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass Constitutional muster."

She found that the American plaintiffs had "a reasonable fear of future government action" and "demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to their constitutional challenges; they have put forward specific evidence of actual and threatened irreparable harm; the balance of the equities and the public interest favors issuance of preliminary relief (particularly, but not only, in light of the fact that the Government’s entire position is premised on the assertion that §1021 does nothing new--that it simply reaffirms the AUMF; in which case, preliminarily enjoining enforcement should not remove any enforcement tools from those the Government currently assumes are within its arsenal)."

Judge Katherine Forrest deserves a great deal of credit for doing her job correctly, in accordance with her oath to support and defend the Constitution.  An oath that is equally required by the Constitution of executive and judicial officers.  The judge's opinion can be found here.

Fox News Panel Against Drones in the United States

 

I would have never expected all three on a Fox News discussion panel to be vehemently against drones being used in the United States.  Or to mention agreeing with the ACLU...