Update no.767

Update from the Heartland

No.767

22.8.16 – 28.8.16

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

            This was another rather thin Update edition this week.  About the only item that inspired me to write this week, beyond working on the first draft of my To So Few book 5 – Deflection manuscript (2/3 complete), was the exchange in the Comments Section below with a long-time contributor and friend.  The shenanigans going on this week in this quadrennial episode of the silly season were disgusting rather than inspiring.  And, what is worse, the candidates we should be hearing from are kept too distant from our senses.  The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) corporation, claims the 15% polling threshold is “based on studies that determined that such a threshold allowed for other candidates that had enough ‘public support’ to retain the purpose of the debates, that is ‘voter education.’”  I can find no citation to or offering of the CPD “studies” they are basing their position upon in this instance.  There must be a qualification threshold or we would have 15, 20 or more people who might claim to be candidates.  The conundrum in this question is quite like a Catch-22, i.e., you cannot get polling recognition without being in the debates, and you cannot be in the debates without meeting the polling threshold.  Perhaps a better threshold criterion might be qualification for ballot placement in all 50 states.  We need Johnson and Stein in the presidential debates beside the Republican and Democratic nominees.  Let us have some real debates.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.766:

Comment to the Blog:

“Congratulations on publishing your new book.  Certainly we still have lessons to learn from World War II or from somewhere.  We are still fighting ‘wars,’ nowadays undeclared and not supported by the public.

“I still refuse to diagnose whether Mr. Trump has a mental illness.  Whatever his motivations and internal issues, he must know by now that his current course leads over a cliff. (I see his apology as the stirrings of a long-neglected conscience.) I no longer believe Trump wants to be President.

“I agree with Dr. Stein on reducing the size of the U.S. military.  We spend over eight times as much on our military as the second-largest force, China.  Four times the size of your largest potential foe would still be too much.  We can find better uses for the money and the people right here at home.

“The apparent mental stability you observed in Dr. Stein may very well decide the election.  Both major party candidates are fragile, subject to embarrassing lawsuits, ongoing criminal investigations, and patterns of personality issues.  I have seen the Libertarian candidate, Governor Gary Johnson, briefly in an interview, and he seems a worthwhile opponent to Dr. Stein.  While I disagree sharply with him on corporate issues, he does seem stable, knowledgeable and capable of rational thought.”

My response to the Blog:

            Thank you for your kind and generous words.  We share that opinion, probably from different perspectives.  In the Postscript to the book, I offer lessons learned, as I see them; one is “Half Measures” and “Military Forces” that illuminate the mistakes of what we must avoid.

            Re: the Republican nominee.  Perhaps, but he is still out there slinging mud and his particular brand of excrement, as he has been for the last year.

            I agree in part, the Defense bureaucracy can and should be reduced substantially.  Some of the reduction has to come from Congress, to stop forcing DoD to buy equipment they did not request and do not need.  However, as we have seen in the recent commitments of military combat forces, the combat arms have been contracted too far already, which means when divisions and wings are committed, they are invariably over-stretched.  As a consequence, they are inherently weakened by dissipation.  We could argue that combat units should not be committed to overseas conflicts, but to me, that is a ridiculous, isolationist mentality.

            Re: Jill Stein.  You may well be correct.  Today, if I ranked the candidates in terms of acceptable, personal traits for responsible national / international leadership, I would say:

Stein

Johnson

Clinton___

Trump

. . . the Republican nominee being below the threshold of acceptable.

In political terms, i.e., the approach to governance in the complex environment in which we live, I would say:

Johnson

Clinton

Stein____

Trump

I need to gain confidence in Jill Stein.  I’m just not there, yet.  We need all four of them to face off in the public debates.

. . . Round two:

“We are in agreement except, of course, on the size of the military.  That's a function of how we see the role of the military.  I believe we should keep our noses out of others' business to the maximum extent consistent with national interest.  You might be surprised how many ‘insurgents’ and what not would decide against fighting were it not for U.S. weapons, advisors, and in the end, the U.S. to fight their battles.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Actually, we agree in principle.  I believe strongly we have committed military forces to combat far too many times in my lifetime under the aegis of “proportional response,” which is another phrase for half-measures.  The military should never be committed to combat unless it is the last resort, and then, if it is committed, it should be given the authority to win as quickly as possible.  “Proportional response” simply gets many good American citizens killed to feed political sensitivities.  If we are going to fight a war, we should declare war and mobilize the nation for total war, again, to succeed as quickly as possible, to minimize loss of life; the worst, more recent example . . . the Battle for Iraq.  War is not just about defeating the enemy on the battlefield, it is also about winning the peace – the best example – the Marshall Plan – to rebuild Europe and Japan.  That is precisely where the Battle for Iraq failed miserably, based on the truly naïve notion that all Iraqis wanted Saddam gone and would magically become democratic and peaceful.  The success of Germany and Japan today are lasting testaments to the success of winning the peace after the Second Great War.  So, when we say contracting the military, I am all in favor of contracting the bureaucracy and truly wasteful spending by Congress, but NOT supportive of contracting the combat arms (which I happen to believe are too small already).

 . . . Round three:

“I just want to point out specifically that your ‘Battle for Iraq’ highlights the need for understanding far beyond the surface-level intelligence of any given situation. Iraq might have been united under Darius or possibly the Hittites, but it's been a very long time. We could have known that with very little effort.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            Actually, the Intelligence Community (IC) has known, recognized, analyzed and articulated the sectarian divisions within Iraq since well before even I worked on the dark side.  In fact, I could argue we have known about those sectarian divides in Iraq since the days of the British Mandate (1920-1932).  While I was not within the Bush (43) administration when those decisions were made, I believe they chose to emphasize the wrong voices [and ignore the history the IC clearly had available], as it supported their political objectives.  The intelligence process is rarely a precise practice, as it often has to assess what other human beings are thinking and what they intend to do.  The failure to listen became painfully obvious when we witnessed the rampant, widespread looting and lawlessness after the collapse of the Hussein regime (and we did virtually nothing, because we had insufficient forces to police the country); that to me was the exclamation point on the fallacy of the Rummie-induced operations plan for IRAQI FREEDOM – won the battle, lost the peace.  We endure the consequences today.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)