To Interrogate or To Kill

My thoughts were once again drawn to the question of whether Bush or Obama is more contemptible in regard to prosecution of efforts to deal with terrorists by a short blurb in the Atlantic Wire.  The piece is actually about a book by a former CIA guy claiming there is real benefit to enhanced interrogation techniques and that this benefit was that American lives were saved.  I find this claim hard to really accept given recent reports to just the opposite, but am willing to look at the argument and as always to compel my fellow man to provide empirical proof in some form (In God I Trust, the rest of you better bring proof). 

But, in the midst of considering the merits of his book, "The former head of the CIA's Clandestine Service Jose Rodriguez says President Obama is waging the nation's war against radical Islam in a far more brutal manner than his predecessor President George W. Bush," (Atlantic Wire 4/30/2012).  What is at the core of this statement?  Well, it really is simple, is it worse to kill them all and let God sort out the innocents, or is it worse to capture, harshly question (torture for those who can't read into the words), eventually adjudicate, illegally wiretap,  eavesdrop, etc.?  The Obama plan is marked by the former, while the Bush plan was marked by the latter.  Personally, I detest them both.  Of course, for my two cents, people can be taught to withstand torture, people will tell you anything to be relieved of pain, and killing people without first even thinking about capture is wrong--There never was even a single thought about capturing Al-Awlaki, just a decision by Obama to have him executed without trial. 

U.S. Presidential Scandals

The news that Chuck Colson died recently made me start thinking about U.S. Presidential scandals.  Was Watergate the worst?  What other scandals might have been the worst if they happened at a turbulent time in U.S. history or in a digital communication media age? 

GeneralStudiesDegree.net has compiled a list that they call the 10 Biggest Presidential Scandals.  I do not agree with their ordering/ranking.  I do concur, however, that these are the 10 biggest U.S. Presidential scandals.

In ordering and for my two cents, I cannot help but believe that The Whiskey Ring (#5) and Credit Mobilier (#4) would have been much bigger scandals than either Watergate (#1) or Monica Lewinsky (#2) if these had happened in an era of digital communications.  I personally also find Truman's Freezer (#9) to be more heinous than Sally Hemings (#5--so Jefferson messing around outside of wedlock is #5, but Clinton having an affair is #2?).  Personally Warrantless Wiretapping (#8) is overstated--while it is true they govt. is able to listen without a warrant, the material collected cannot be acted upon without a warrant--but were it not overstated this scandal(?) would be number 1 in my book. 

So, I guess my top 10:

1.   Teapot Dome
2.   Truman's Freezer
3.   Credit Mobilier 
4.   Iran-Contra
5.   The Whiskey Ring
6.   Watergate
7.   Monica Lewinsky
8.   The Plame Affair
9.   Sally Hemings
10. Warrantless Wiretapping (which could alternately be number 1, given specific circumstances) 

Women and Combat Arms Positions

In an article in the Marine Corps Times on April 18th, the Corps and the world is informed that as part of the extensive review of jobs women can do in the USMC a test run will be held of placing female officers in the USMC Infantry Officers Course and allowing some enlisted women to also attend infantry training.  I was asked by an officer in the USMC what my two cents is on this particular issue.  Well, I thought in typical two cents fashion I would respond generally with consideration about women in combat arms roles.

First, why shouldn't women get the opportunity to engage in combat arms professions?  Conventions of modern western society have placed women on the pedestal, not capabilities.  Should we forget Amazons, Boudica, Joan of Arc?  The Soviets regularly placed women in combat roles (they fought effectively in WWII, not so much indicated about their performances elsewhere).  The Israelis have women in combat arms today in the IDF. 

Ok, so historically and in terms of capability women do prove themselves capable of handling combat situations.  Don't give me arguments about a weaker sex, I know just as many men as women who can't handle carrying the ruck for long distances.  My biggest concern is how men react to women in combat--biologically, psychologically?  For instance, the Israelis found that men's combat effectiveness drops because they are too worried about protecting the females in the unit.  The answer in most armed forces using women has been to have gender separate units that are trained to do the same job.  The biggest problem is society--we do not react very well when our husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, nephews, cousins, friends either don't come home or come home permanently scarred and/or disabled.  How will society react when we are talking about their wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, nieces, cousins, friends come home scarred and/or disabled or simply don't come home? 

So, my two cents, I am not sure I have one.  I am torn on the issue: gender neutrality does not bother me,  gender neutrality does bother me.  I would not, however, want my own daughter to take up the honorable profession of combat arms and my son better be absolutely certain that taking up the profession is his calling in life.

Fun Stuff

As a father of two boys--I understand.

Partitioning a Country--Sudanese Example

So, what happens when you partition a state as a means of dealing with a protracted ethnic/civil war?  For my two cents, not much good comes of partition.  I was not enamored of the idea of creating South Sudan, for while it appears a solution to a decades long struggle claiming way too many lives, it does not end the enmity between the parties involved.  Particualrly problematic is that the creation of South Sudan left unclear borders and unclear division of oil resources.  Now, what has happened?  South Sudan and Sudan are fighting over control of oil fields.  So what was an intrastate conflict is now an interstate conflict.  Once again, partition has failed to yield desired results.

Read about it here. 

A New Evita

Argentina's government has announced plans to nationalize YPF, the largest oil company in Argentina.  Of course this throws a monkey wrench into Spain based Respol's plan to sell of YPF (yes, the Spanish company owns YPF) to Sinopec (China Petrochemical Corp).  So, are the Argentines trying to get the best of Respol and make the deal with Sinopec directly?  Latin American leaders are mixed in response.  Felipe Calderon (President of Mexico) expressed concern because PEMEX (oh wait, a nationalized oil company) has a 10% stake in YPF.  Hugo Chavez (President of Venezuela) applauded the move.

But interesting was criticism in La Razon calling this Kirchener's dirty war.  Also pointed out by an article in Reuters was that another news venue, El Periodico, called Kirchner (or Fernandez, as Argentine President Cristina Fernandez Kirchner prefers to be referred to these days) "The New Evita".  Apparently Kirchner announced the nationalization of YPF in a room decorated with large pictures of Eva Peron.  Is Kirchner trying to rally the population around her?  Is the Eva Peron comparison fair?  Lots of questions, I am personally not the best qualified to answer.  But, for my own two cents, it is never a good idea to nationalize industries.

Sorry to Be Proven Correct--at this time

BEIRUT (AP) — An advance team of U.N. observers was negotiating the ground rules with Syrian authorities Monday for monitoring the country's 5-day-old cease-fire, which appeared to be rapidly unraveling as regime forces pounded the opposition stronghold of Homs with artillery shells and mortars, activists said.

Even though the overall level of violence across Syria has dropped significantly since the truce took effect, government attacks over the weekend raised new doubts about President Bashar Assad's commitment to special envoy Kofi Annan's plan to end 13 months of violence and launch talks on the country's political future.

What does President Assad have to lose?  Will any country in the world invade if he defies the cease-fire?  If any country intervenes what will the end result be--Assad still in power, damage repaired with foreign funds?  Assad out of power (living in exile on millions of US dollars), damage repaired by foreign funds, uncertain government future?  If no country intervenes what will the end result be--Assad still in control, population broken, damage repaired by foreign funds?  Assad removed (possibly killed), damage repaired by foreign funds, uncertain government future?   Given four real possibilities, what do you think Assad will choose to do in the coming days, weeks, months?

Why I Love My Job

Quite frankly what I study and teach is most often a source of depression.  International security studies and particular emphasis on conflict processes means I study and teach about the dark side of humanity.  Believing man to be a fallen creature (most of us being slightly higher in moral fiber than dogs in heat) does not help my take on contemporary human society.  I mean if you study barbed wire, bombs and bullets used by man as tools to subjugate or kill our fellow man, you are not in for many pleasant hours of reading, studying, and teaching.

But ah the teaching.  See, teaching is not really the word either.  I am a trainer.  I train bright young minds on the means of gathering and analyzing information.  I train bright young minds on how to understand difficult techniques for cutting through and comprehending the massive amounts of information that are made available each day to find the important information and correctly apply this information to understanding human behavior in the political realm. 

Training is about the subject, yes.  But more importantly and more enjoyably, training is about the receiver of the effort--my students.  My students are the reason I love my job.  Bright young men and women, at a small, conservative, Christian liberal arts college.  Most of my students are not in the morally reprehensible categories of mankind (indeed, I am more morally reprehensible than most of my students).  My students provide me with great discussions and arguments, they force me to be more mentally agile and intellectually nimble.  The least intelligent of my students challenge me to find ways to make difficult techniques and information accessible.  The most intelligent force me to keep studying and researching.  So, I love my job because of my students.

Additionally, while I am quite sure that much of what is happening in our world is not working for the betterment of mankind, my students make me eternally optimistic.  I believe they will help put pieces of the puzzle in place.  I believe they can find solutions to problems that plague mankind.  I certainly know they can do no worse than my own generation--which I believe has added much to the problems and done little to solve the puzzles.  So, while I may not understand, nor agree, with much of the changes my students insist are needed in how we communicate, how we transmit information, etc.  I am edified daily by their growth and how they exemplify progress of the human mind and spirit.  So, current and former students, take my statements here for what they are, my two cents as it is, a great thank you, for you are the reason I love my job.

Next USAF Chief

Interesting stuff about the Air Force lining out who will be the next Chief of Staff.  My mentor blogs about this process and "picking on the Air Force" here.  AOL news has an article here.

Personally, I have met the current Chief, Gen. Norton Schwarz.  I have heard him speak twice on the Air Force mission and direction for the near future.  I have listened to him answer questions from staff officers, and students at the USAF War College.  I came away impressed by his forthright demeanor and agility in handling tough questions.  I came away less than enthusiastic about his seeming lackadaisical attitude about the specific needs of the Air Force and the cost-effectiveness of current Air Force programs.

I do, like Steve Saideman (mentioned above) find some of the language regarding what the AF is looking for in a new chief to be funny.  But, I recognize that a lot of the language game here is military speak for the purpose of feeding the egos of the generals within the USAF.   

• The ability to effectively advocate for Air Force capabilities and who is not apologetic for those capabilities;
• Someone who is not a "lapdog" to the SECDEF and simply does what the SECDEF says regardless if it is not the best way forward;
• Someone who understands that "jointness" requires four separate and distinct services, and that the CSAF role is to advocate for the unique benefits and capabilities that the Air Force provides for the nation;
• Someone who does not "go along to get along" thinking that is "jointness;
• Someone who can restore the innovative nature of the Air Force -- the last four years saw the chief eliminate those who pushed new ideas, concepts, and technologies in favor of "yes" men (and women);
• Someone who can get AF acquisition back on track and focus on cost-effectiveness, not simply cost elimination.

I find the statements about jointness funny, but credible.  Jointness does not mean giving up your identity for a mixed military force structure.  The Chief of the AF needs to recognize that fact and carry on.  Innovation was the realm of uniqueness in the USAF, it needs to be recaptured and that means getting rid of yes-men and women?  Not sure about all of this, but hope the guys and gals in Air Force blue get a new chief worthy of their efforts.

Syrian Ceasefire?

Ok, anyone who knows me understands the general contempt I have toward Kofi Annan (worthless as an under Sec-Gen of the UN, worse as Sec Gen), but does anyone really believe that the ceasefire and solution negotiated by Annan will really happen/work?  Hours before they are supposed to be ceasing hostilities the Syrian military initiates a new offensive and bombardment against Homs.  And what is up with "safe zones"?

At present the Syrian government shows no sign of letting up.  At best al-Assad's decision is to use heavy force right up to the deadline (typical in cases where ceasefires have been negotiated).  At worst al-Assad played Annan for the blithering idiot he often showed himself to be as an under sec-gen and sec-gen of the UN. 

Now, the second issue I mentioned is that of "safe zones".  Do we all remember how well safe zones worked in the Balkans?  Ask the Danish government that fell?  Ask the Canadians (wow me saying something nice about Canadians--sort of) who tried to deal with the mess after the Danes left.  Better yet, ask all the people who got killed because safe zones herded them into one place as ready targets for artillery attacks--oh yeah, can't ask the dead much.

Of course this is my two cents, but would someone quit letting Kofi Annan get people killed around the world?  And please, someone tell me again what the utility of a safe zone really is? 

Back to Work

I have returned from San Diego.  The meetings went well and friends, colleagues, and mentor are doing well.  Even made it to a Padres game--they lost but the fireworks display was great after the game.