Patriotism

I was always one of 'the smart ones', which sometimes meant I had opportunities others didn't.  For example, in middle school I participated in a field trip to a mental health hospital.  At least, I think that's what it was.  I mostly remember a magician performing various tricks (I got a deck of cards that showed all black jacks if you flipped it a certain way) and also talking about mental health.

Okay, it sounds weird when I type it out like this.  Especially as I find myself questioning the details...it was over 20 years ago now.  Despite distance and time, however, the magician said something that has stuck with me all these years.  He said that maturity was recognizing that your parents were flawed.  Imperfect.  And loving them anyway.


I would expand on that 'parents' bit, and say it applies to anyone or anything that you idolize and put on a pedestal.  See, if you love it only because you think it's perfect...then you are seeing only a partial image of what you love.  And you are at serious risk of becoming disappointed, cynical, and angry when the façade inevitably fails.


We are all...imperfect.  And there is something powerful in being able to admit our flaws, and knowing we are loved and accepted anyway.  Powerful and scary, of course.  We try so very hard to pretend they don't exist.  We don't want to be vulnerable, get embarrassed when someone sees us screw up.  And that is part of why it is so amazing, when someone does see all that, and accepts us anyway.


This view on love and relationships has it's downsides, of course.  It makes it harder for me to get swept away, since I believe/know that the initial chemistry/Eros is just that.  And in the back of my mind is the question of "what happens when we start seeing past that?"  Will this person really stand by me, even when they see me get short-tempered and curt?  And can I stand by them, in turn?  Can we expand from Eros into Agape and Phileo and Ludus and Storge kinds of love?


Still, it seems more...healthy.  Wholesome.  I think putting anyone or anything on a pedestal is a recipe for disaster.  You're just one eye-opening experience away from having it all crash down on you.  Besides, it's a lot of work living on a pedestal.  You have to be perfect, you can't make mistakes.  (It reminds me a bit of the movie The Full Monty, and the guy who couldn't admit to his wife that he'd lost his job...so he kept leaving the house every day pretending that he was gong to work.  His wife, in that case, couldn't be a comfort and support.  He was too busy keeping up appearances for her.)  Don't put them on a pedestal, but don't get cynical and go looking for flaws.  It's about accepting and loving anyway, not tearing people down for not being perfect.


But I titled this post 'Patriotism', because all of this is background for my love of country.  That is - I think putting America on a pedestal and insisting we're perfect (and awesome) is as superficial and shallow as that first stage of love.  It means acting as though any hint of criticism is an attack, as though anyone suggesting we do things different or better is somehow saying that our country is not worth supporting.


At the same time, there is a strand of exactly that in some critiques.  Yes, we have problems.  Boy, do we have problems.  And yet there's something to be said for a society where the majority of our people feel like it's safe to completely ignore politics.  Where we don't have to worry about losing our jobs or being turned in by a neighbor (or family member) if we insult Trump or Hillary.  Or Bush, or Obama, or any of our leaders. 


I struggle with my definition of love, sometimes.  I'll use work as an example.  Sure, there's always the honeymoon period.  The first year or so, where you think your work place is awesome and really enjoy being there.  When something comes to disillusion you, is it just paving the way for a more mature understanding of the company?  Or is it a true indication that something is wrong, that maybe this isn't the right fit, and maybe it's time to move on?  I thought I gave up on finding that 'perfect' place to work, you see.  And yet I find that there are still things that grow more irritating the longer I work here, to the point where I needed to make a change.


So anyways.  I'm writing this as a bit of an explanation for why I'm still taking a hiatus on national security.  It's not exactly about Trump's election.  (I'm worried about what will come, and not too thrilled he won...and yet I'm also kind of pleased at how much the DC establishment is freaking out about it.  It's complicated and I may try to explain more later.  It's like...I don't like racism, sexism, and his crude and inconsiderate behavior...but the reaction to his win seems to add weight to some long-standing conservative critiques that I'd previously dismissed.  And there are such radically conflicting perspectives that I have a hard time sorting it out.  But I'm digressing.)


I love my country.  I will shamelessly use my military service in support of that statement, because it disrupts the assumption that any criticism comes from a lack of patriotism. 


That said...there are times where I really question who we are and what we're doing.  I'm having a hard time finishing that book on Kissinger, for example, because so much of what he (and the establishment at that time.  I don't want to put it all one guy, he had support) did in Cambodia was just flat out wrong.  As in 'banality of evil' wrong.  Kind of made me sick to read it, which is sad to say about something that happened well before I was born and that I am completely unable to do anything about.  And yet he's considered a well-respected statesman!!!  Hillary was talking about how she has his support!!!  


The Wikipedia article I linked to said that "One of the key issues that prevented congressional inclusion was the embarrassing fact that five key members of both political parties had been privy to the information and had neither said nor done anything about it". 


This is the kind of thing that really bothers me, because it implies that this really isn't about one or two bad decisions.  It implies that the bi-partisan establishment consensus supported what happened.  And that even if it was only a few key players, the rest of the establishment would rather hush it up and carry on than actually do anything to prevent it from ever happening again.


It's also the kind of thing that makes me wonder if I'm naïve, in thinking that our nation is mostly a force for good in the world.  That maybe the corruption really has gone too deep.  It's the kind of thinking that, frankly, Donald Trump was able to tap into. (Even though what I just described has more in common with far left critiques.  Yes, I know.)


There's more I could get into here.  Hillary's e-mails.  Foreign policy.  Russian hacking.  The CIA and FBI and conflicting analysis thereof.  The establishment. 


A lot more.  But...I don't think I'll ever have the access to answer those sorts of questions.  Not really.  To give you one example of what I'm talking about - I posted something on Facebook about Russian hacking, as almost everything I heard indicated that the Russian government was really involved.  Only to have a friend (who has a clearance, has served at the Pentagon, and is now part of the new cyber command) say that there was reason to doubt their involvement.  I think she probably has the access to know...and if that's true, then wth is going on with all the news reports saying differently?


This happened before the election, I think it was in response to something I posted about Trump's comments during a debate.  And yet that was in the back of my mind during the more recent discussion about CIA and FBI analysis on Russian involvement.  If my friend is telling the truth, then the media and CIA are not.  Their narrative of Russian interference falls apart.  And what are the consequences of believing that narrative?  Of having a large and influential group blaming Russia?


And vice versa. If the media and CIA are telling the truth, then there's an alarmingly large and influential group of people who disagree...and what are the consequences of that?
Of course, now the news says that the FBI supports the CIA narrative of Russian interference.  So maybe there is a consensus.
Then again, my friend also said she knew members of the Secret Service who confirmed some of the negative stories about Hillary...and yet Secret Service leadership publicly discredited the book written by that ex-Secret Service guy making similar allegations.  Which says either the author was writing about second-hand accounts, or that Hillary has enough pull to make the Secret Service cover for her.  Or something.


There are a lot of things going on right now, and I'm not really sure what to say in the face of it.


So hey, I'm going back to school and studying computer science.  Maybe I can't shape the course of American national security, but I can at least learn something new and interesting and hopefully get a good (non-corporate) career out of it.

Further Updates

I've decided to go back to school, for a second bachelor's in Computer Science.   I've already been accepted to the online program at U of I, Springfield.  I've applied for my post 9/11 GI benefits, though I don't think I'll get 100% (my commitment from ROTC doesn't count towards time in service for this, so when they calculate the percentage it'll be based on the year or so after I finished that)

I feel -  good.  Yet terrified.  But good.

That is, it feels like the right decision.  I've got some more details to work out (I want to study Finance as well.  UIS has a finance minor, but not entirely online.  I might be able to transfer to U of I, Champaign Urbana later.  Maybe.  I've got options and possibilities.)

It feels right... but holy hell, what have I just gotten myself into?!?  I'm going to quit a rather decent paying job (with benefits!) to study something that will require calculus (which I haven't done in over twenty years) in a field where I -  a woman pushing 40 - will definitely not be the norm.  And what will this do to my finances?!?  I think I can find freelance work or a part time job to fill in the gaps, but I'm worried that three months from now I'll be kicking myself for doing something stupid.

So.  Yeah. 

Scary.  But exciting.

Update II

My week off was a good time to think about where I am, where I'm going, and where I want to be.  I'm going to take an indefinite break from writing about national security while I figure things out.

Bubbles

Wow!  Someone made a quiz that's supposed to tell how much of a bubble you live in.  The questions are kind of interesting, too.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/do-you-live-in-a-bubble-a-quiz-2/

Update

I've been on vacation for the past week, and finally made it home.  I visited with an old friend in Michigan, then drove to my Dad's place in Indiana.  We celebrated Thanksgiving yesterday (early), and I think it worked out fairly well. 

See,  Mom passed away six years ago and Dad has since remarried.  While our new step-mom is cool and all, Dad now has obligations to her side of the family that never existed before.  All of the children are still sort of feeling their way into what sort of relationships we're going to have with our newfound siblings.  Who the heck gets two step-brothers and three step-sisters when they're over 30!?!

Last year was a little odd, in that Dad celebrated Thanksgiving elsewhere, so my brothers and I had Thanksgiving (at Dad's house) on our own.  It didn't seem quite right.  This year, well...with work schedules and my vacation it just made sense to celebrate early.  I got to see three of my four brothers, plus a sister-in-law (and my Dad, step-mom, and a nephew from her side of the family).  I believe Dad did invite my new brothers and sisters as well, though they weren't able to do so this time. 

Of course, since we celebrated Thanksgiving early it means I can make other arrangements for the actual day.  I think I'll join my step-mom's family. 

Going to that sort of thing is part of how you transform strangers into family, you know?  It's slow and sometimes awkward, but in the end I think it's rather rewarding.

I have, of course, been paying close attention to the transition team and Trump's potential cabinet picks.  It's a bit like an itch that I just can't stop scratching.  I'm mostly lurking.  Listening, reading, still forming my own opinions on things.

Post Election

Since this seems to address some of the concerns raised in my previous post, I figured I'd place it here.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politics/donald-trump-60-minutes-first-interview/index.html?sr=fbCNN111316donald-trump-60-minutes-first-interview0809PMVODtop

Post-Election

It's now been a couple of days since the election, and the shock is wearing off.  There are a couple of different articles out there trying to understand what happened.  I've been quiet mostly because I've been reading, and lurking, and figuring out my own reaction.  I don't like to blog something when someone else has said it better, particularly when they've got data to back it up. 

So why post now?

Well, we're still seeing the after-effects.  Facebook posts from people terrified of what may come.  Or Trump supporters offended by exactly those same reactions.  Articles about horrid situations where people are harassed (and at least one where someone made up a story about being harassed, which of course some people will probably use to discredit the rest.)

I had a discussion with my Little this week, from Big Brothers Big Sisters.  A little background here - she's 12 years old.  White.  But most of her friends are black.  Her family is kind of rural, so she listens to country and rap and anything she doesn't consider 'old'.  (She made me listen to that Panda song).  After the election, she casually said that some of her friends were discussing killing themselves.  The way she said it, it didn't sound like she was actually considering it...but what the hell are 12 year old girls doing, talking about killing themselves because Trump got elected?  I don't know if the discussion was tied to the rumor of transgender teens committing suicide after his election.

People are scared. Genuinely worried about what will come.  On the one hand, it seems a little premature.  Trump hasn't even been inaugurated yet.  The hateful incidents that have occurred since the election aren't state sponsored.  It's just horrid people who are emboldened by Trump's win (and by state-sponsored, I don't just mean 'legal law enforcement'.  Regimes like Iran have sometimes used 'volunteers' to enforce behavior.  Sometimes states even pretend that they aren't behind it.)

That doesn't mean there's nothing to worry about, of course.  I think everyone will be keeping a very close eye on how Trump governs.  And will be paying close attention to anything that infringes on basic rights, or suggests rounding people up and putting them in internment camps, or suggests making people wear distinctive symbols.

At the same time - we've got a Republican president, Republican Senate, and Republican House.  If Trump proposes something illegal, will the Republican Congress really stop him?

The problem with writing this post is that I don't know how to do justice to both sides.  In a normal, run-of-the-mill situation, I would say let the Republicans run things.  They'll probably overextend, misread their support, make mistakes, and basically lose soon enough.  (Democrats and Republicans both tend to do this on a regular basis.)

And if it helps persuade people that some ideas don't work (like trickle-down economics), or that other ideas do, then so much the better.  And, of course, I could be wrong about what works and what doesn't...so maybe their proposals will actually work.

Point is, normally we have the time and strength to experiment a bit.  Go down a wrong path for a bit, and in the process prove that it's not going to get us where we want.

Only thing is, that works for policies that don't have the impact I described above.  If it's just a matter of lowering taxes on the rich and deregulating finance, well...we'll survive another financial crisis I suppose.  It'll make all the people who suffered under the Great Recession even more ticked off, and it would definitely create more suffering...but we'll survive.

But what about Muslims?  Or Mexicans?  I have a friend who married a Mexican, they have three children together.  He wrote a heart-breaking post describing some of the situations they've already faced...and she's here legally.  Here's a small excerpt:

The people supporting Trump have probably never had to justify their marriage to a DHS agent.
The people supporting Trump have never had to learn that their niece was crying because she's afraid the next President will deport her (completely legal) aunt.
The people supporting Trump will never have to explain to their children that yes, when people use those racial slurs, they are talking about mommy and they are talking about you.
The people supporting Trump don't know the bone-chilling, panic-attack inducing fear and helplessness that has consumed my family since one of the two major political parties chose as their Presidential candidate a man who has made overtly racist, unconstitutional anti-immigrant policies the cornerstone of his platform.

Can we honestly say that they have nothing to fear? 

Or what about gay marriage?  What if Congress decided to ban gay marriage again, and Trump's Supreme Court nominee ensures it's not declared unconstitutional?

As for me - I don't know what Trump is going to do.  He's been pretty unpredictable throughout the election.  He's contradicted himself and reversed policy positions so many times that I don't think we have any idea what we're truly going to get.

Sidebar - Political Scientist Hat

Someone on Facebook mentioned that Maine passed ranked choice voting.

This is the kind of dull and boring topic that I wish more people found interesting.  Especially if it forced us to consider different structures.

See, the rules we pass affect how politics are played.  Just as the rules in baseball, football and basketball do.  The NFL may decide to change where the line of scrimmage is on an extra point kick.  You're still playing football, but the decisions you make will be different.

Same thing in politics.  Americans have been complaining for years that we don't have a viable third party.  That our choices are often limited to two candidates that we don't really like, and are forced to pick the lesser of two evils.  (voting in the primaries is one way to help change that, but unfortunately the less politically active ones don't do that.)

There are some big systemic reasons why that happens.  Some have to do with the whole 'first past the post'  thing.  You have to have enough support to win, or you get nothing.  Even if you have support from a third of all the voters, if you didn't get the most votes you won't have any representation.  It also means people are afraid to vote their consciences, since a vote for that third party might allow your least favorite candidate to win instead.  (That's what Maine's new law would address.  Vote for your first choice.  Election officials will see if any candidate has a clear majority.  If not, they eliminate the candidate with the least support and assign those votes to their second choice, and so on until there's a candidate with a majority)

This may encourage more people to vote third party, but it still means those third parties have no influence unless they get a majority somewhere.

I personally like mixed member proportional representation, because you vote for your candidate and your preferred party... And the legislature is created to represent the proportion of those votes.  So you get your preferred candidate, AND if 20% of the population votes libertarian, or green, or constitution, or whatever... they also get a seat in the legislature.   It does mean you're more likely to build coalitions, but I think it's a little more clear how much support there is for, say, Christian Conservatives vs.  Libertarians and you don't have one party trying to meet the (sometimes conflicting) needs of both.

Our original rules are one part of this, and I don't think mixed member proportional representation was something anyone had thought of yet when we created the Constitution.  Unfortunately, there's been some changes that make it even more difficult for a viable third party.  (we've had third parties in the past, or rather one party would fall apart and get replaced by another.  The Federalist Party, Whigs, etc.)

Thing is, in their quest to continue winning elections the two major parties have voted in laws that consolidate their holds.  And make it even harder for a third party to win.  Gerrymandering is part of that, of course.  But so are laws that require more signatures to get on the ballot if you're not backed by the existing parties.  Then there's the media, which just doesn't give other parties the visibility and attention needed to get elected.

Our two parties do tend to co-opt issues that start gaining support, so it's not as though they're completely out of touch.  Plus we've got polls (when they ask the right questions and have an accurate method of analyzing the data).

Still, there's a reason the average American gets sick of being presented with choices that only barely match what we want.  (though that collective 'we'  is funny, in that the issue I care about most may not be what someone else cares about.  So we're both unhappy with our choices, but for different reasons)

One of the terms I dislike most come election time is the concept of a mandate.  Just because you won, doesn't mean you have a mandate for your full agenda.  You might have won because we're punishing the current party, or because most of us want decriminalized or legalized marijuana, but maybe we don't actually want to privatize social security.

Of course, given the muddle of a two party system (and the outsized influence of money), it's sort of a guessing game for the winners to figure out which promises to pursue first and hardest.  Sure, there's polling to help sort that out.  And some people may not have a specific preference, other than "Fix it",  but if you guess wrong then at the next election the voters will be voting to punish you.

Or just voting against you because the economy tanked. 

2016 Election

Well, I don't think we'll get the final results soon.  A couple of states are so close it wouldn't surprise me to see a recount. 

I have work tomorrow, so I'm heading to bed.  I'm sure there'll be a ton of updates when I wake up.  I wanted to say, though, that we really need a post election autopsy.  For both parties.  I don't ever want to see another election like this.

And if Hillary loses, I blame the Democratic Party.  No, not wikileaks.  Nor the FBI. 

Enough for now, I need to sleep.

Election Day

So tomorrow is the day.  It feels sort of like the reverse of Christmas.  I'm not really looking forward to it, but I'll be glad that it's over.

I'm not too interested in posting much right now and, just want to see what happens this week.

On top of the usual (I. E.  What happens when whoever wins?  How close will it be?  How will the losing side take it?) I have to admit the Russian situation also worries me.  I can't find the article I was reading earlier, it was discussing how the Russian fleet has reached Cyprus, and that they may have their alleged underwater Internet cable cutters along. 

How would this support Assad?

Well, I hope it's a boring week and that I'm just being silly.  Not really a lot I can do, regardless of what happens. 

Wait, and see, and vote tomorrow.

Third - the Economy

I said before that I'm not an expert on the economy, and I'm not.  I don't want to make it sound like I'm completely ignorant, so I'll go into a little bit more detail on what I do and don't know.

I took an undergraduate course in macroeconomics, so I know a bit about GDP, GNP, the multiplier effect of the money supply, etc.  I also took a graduate course on public policy and economics, so I'm somewhat familiar with some of the debates regarding Keynesian economics and various other topics.  The reason why I suggest taking what I say with a grain of salt is that I follow various economists , read various articles, and realized that I don't have a good sense for how it all fits together.  In particular, I'd like to understand the relationship between finance and economics.  Public finance (sovereign wealth funds, municipal bonds), private finance, international debt, and the relationship between the recent financial crisis and the economy at large.  Plus foreign exchange, floating currencies, hedges, futures, derivatives, trade, etc.  It's interesting that mutual funds are actually one of the biggest investors, except it's made up of a lot of little investors (i.e. people's 401Ks and retirement money)...except since most of those investors don't really know what they're doing they basically empower the people running the mutual funds to be a major part of the economy. 

I follow various economists and read articles on these topics mostly because that's the only way of learning.  Well, okay, it'd be better to go back to school...but short of that, all I can do is read and read and keep on reading.  Eventually I'll start making connections, build sort of an internal map of the various relationships, and then I'd feel like I could come up with something more effective w/regards to economic policy.  If I had to do it right now, I'd say go find an expert.

That said, there are a few points I think I can safely make.  First, under the "well, duh" category - we want a strong economy.  This isn't just for domestic purposes.  I really do think economics is a driving force behind military strength.  Sure, a nation with a weak economy can put more of their money into tanks and planes and things...but if they actually go to war, it'll be harder and harder to replace when they are inevitably destroyed.  Basically any long and drawn out war will favor the nation with the economic strength to continue the fight.  (This doesn't mean you can get by with poor generalship!  Or that how you fight doesn't matter.)  Just that a strong economy can better recover from military disasters, and there will probably be a military disaster of some sort in any prolonged fight.

The problem, of course, is that we don't know as much as we think about what makes an economy strong.  

So the first point - economics is mostly based on rational choice theory.  There are some economists who criticize this, and I'd like to know more about them.  I personally think rational choice theory doesn't match with my own personal experience.  All I have to do is consider how I pick out a new wine to drink.  Other than red or white, and a basic guesstimate on price (i.e. too cheap is probably not a good sign, but I'm not a wine connoisseur so it'd be a waste to spend too much), I generally wind up picking based on the packaging.  Give me a pretty label, or an interesting name, and I'll give it a try.  Is it a rational choice?  I suppose so...if you consider 'pretty packaging' an important part of that choice.  I'm definitely not researching any of the hundreds of different wine manufacturers to figure out who is rated the best for the product.  I might ask a salesperson for a recommendation, but that's about it.

Since rational choice theory is the foundation for a lot of economics, you could argue that the field of economics is based on a faulty premise.  Doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, it just means that it's a good idea to be slightly skeptical.

Second point.  I do, for the most part, support capitalism.  Capitalism was actually one solution to a social dilemma - that is, if a village shared common pastures there was a risk that they'd overgraze the pasture.  Privatizing the land made it more likely the land would be managed responsibly, since the owner has an interest in maintaining it's use over time.  So the heart of capitalism - private ownership, enforcement of contracts, the invisible hand, etc - are useful.  Yet there's a scenario I want to throw out there. A historical exception, and not one to base the entire economy on, but worth discussing.

If you take a castle under siege, the people being besieged have to ration their food.  Otherwise they'll eat everything too soon, start to starve, and eventually lose the castle entirely.  They might even beg the besiegers to enter so long as they bring bread.  In a situation like this, market forces aren't justified.  Since supply is constricted, prices would go through the roof.  Then only the wealthy could afford to buy food, which means the people manning the defenses (who most likely aren't that wealthy) will be short on food and be weaker than they should be.  Not only are the defenses less effective, a policy like this would increase the likelihood that someone would betray the castle.

So you have martial law, and food is rationed. In a similar fashion, during times of war we do understand/accept a certain amount of rationing.  At least, we did during World War II.

The point of this is to show that there are situations where capitalism is not always the answer.  That perhaps there are questions we need to ask, like whether we're dealing with scarcity (and the politics thereof), or whether we need to make sure our resources are going to the right places (i.e. the defenders on the wall).

A related point is that certain needs, like food and water, are so important that people will take a bad bargain if they have to.  Food, water - and information assymetries.  This is part of why modern slavery exists.  Sure, it's a bad bargain...but you need that food.  And if someone in the family gets ill, then you need that medicine. 
Capitalism, for the most part, says that trade benefits both parties.  After all, if I thought I was losing out on the deal I wouldn't go through with it.  If I thought the price was too high for a car, I won't buy it. 

The same doesn't always hold true for essentials.  Or it does hold true, except it puts the person with the resources in too powerful a position.

We need a strong economy, yet the truth is it's not trade deals and outsourcing that is causing our job loss.  Given the size of our economy there's incentives to manufacture material close to the point of sale.  The real issue is automation.  (And yes, I do work for a company that basically helps other businesses automate, so I'm part of this.)  This makes me think of the Luddites, and whatever happened to the families that lost their jobs?  Like, did the people too old to learn new trades fall into poverty?  Did their children successfully find jobs in another field?  Or did it cause certain families to fall into a permanent underclass?

That last one, to me, is one of the biggest concerns right now.  With the shrinking of the middle class and the reduction in social mobility, it seems like you either need to jump to the upper class (and soon), or risk having you and your family fall into a permanent underclass.  To me, that's an awful scenario, and not just morally either.  It would indicate a lot of future instability. 

Throughout most of our history, human structures take on a pyramid shape.  A lot of people at the bottom, a smaller group in the middle, and only a few at the very top.  On the one hand, we run into issues of bloat and inefficiency whenever that pyramid shape starts to look too much like ka cylinder (i.e. the military, where there seem to be more and more general officers per soldier).  On the other hand, I think computing and automation will sort of force some sort of change...the duties at the bottom are more and more likely to be handled by robots.  (As long as people have a way to make a living, I think this is a good idea, actually.  I find some of the jobs at the lower class a bit insulting to our human potential.  Not the ones that require craftsmanship and working with your hands.  That's actually kind of cool, and rewarding.  Unfortunately, a lot of these jobs are just sheer drudgery.)

Anyways.  Point is, we're coming to a point where all of this will have to change.  Manufacturing jobs are going away, and they're not coming back.  We can either think ahead, and find ways to mitigate the effects...or we can pretend nothing is wrong until a candidate like Trump comes along and forces us to deal with it. 

So to tie it all up - we need a strong economy.  We need wise public policy choices to help navigate through the changes that are coming our way (much of which would be tied to education and efforts to break the cycle of poverty), and we also need to create an environment that encourages business.  Not just in terms of tax rates, either. 

Fourth - American Ideals and Influences In Support Thereof

I wanted to go into more detail on the four goals I laid out, though I will take them in reverse order.  That's because the interconnectedness makes more sense (to me, at least) this way.

So what direction do we want to influence the world in?  Again, I think it's best to start with our foundation - the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

What's funny is that much of the Declaration is rather particular to the time and place where it was written.  I don't think we need to go into all the offenses of King George.  Instead, the most important (and most quoted) parts are from the second paragraph -

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

All men are created equal, currently in the broadest sense of the phrase.  That is - men, women, transgender, asexual, lesbian, gay - they're all created equal and are endowed with certain rights.  Unalienable rights, no less.


Such lofty words make our current politics seem so - small.  Little.  Petty.  How can our leaders claim to believe we are all created equal when they manipulate the system?  Clearly they don't think the opinions of certain people matter as much as others, clearly they do NOT think that we are all equal. 

But I digress.  It's an ideal, and not necessarily reality.  But it's the kind of ideal that lifts you up, makes you feel more.  Standing for this says something grand about us all.

And yet the Declaration is really rather vague on what those rights are.  Other than "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" at least.

The Constitution does a little more, though I really recommend reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers to get more of an understanding of the issues at the time, and what the Founding Fathers meant.  I had the depressing experience of trying to explain why this matters to someone who just didn't care.  For all that our patriots and politicians keep talking about the importance of the Constitution, how many of them can really discuss the Articles of Confederation?  And why their experience with the Articles led to the Constitution?  How many know that the Bill of Rights were not originally included.  That they were written as a response to the debate (captured in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers) where various people expressed their concern that the new government would be too powerful?  We had four years of debates about the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was added.

So what does that really mean for us, today?  Particularly with regards to foreign policy?

I think it's best to consider a little bit of history, actually.  I took a class in college on European History, from about the time of Napoleon on.  What I remember most was realizing that almost every hot spot in the world today had it's roots in the colonial era.  Boundaries were drawn with absolutely no regard for the ethnicity of the people inside them, so you had minorities ruling majorities (with the support of colonial powers.) 

This has created quite the mess.  The Kurds, for example, are one of the largest ethnic groups without a nation to call their own (and their neighbors are pretty nervous about ever letting them have a nation, since it would probably take chunks of their own territory).  The thing is, I don't think the quest for national self-determination is simply because of nationalism.

And I don't mean that in a universal 'we are all human' way, either.  Colonialism was disempowering because these outsiders weren't able to treat the local population with real respect.  From calling grown men 'boys', to forcing them to learn a different language, to give up their own traditions and beliefs...colonial subjects were not treated as equals.  It was often patronizing, demeaning, and insulting.  China knows this all too well, since they suffered their century of humiliation.  Japan saw what happened to China, that's part of why they had the Meiji Revolution.

Many ethnic groups seek self-determination because they don't believe they can maintain their way of life, their language, their religion, and their culture if they have anything less.

Unfortunately, this also runs counter to another trend - go big or go home.  The United States is powerful in part because of how large we are (physically, demographically, economically).  Russia, China, and India have similar strengths.  Europe - well, if they unify they might be comparable, but each state on it's own?  They're actually kind of small.  (I remember my shock to realize you can drive across Germany in five or six hours.  East to West.  That's about the size of Indiana.) 

Economically, the European powers are still very strong.  But the world is balancing out, catching up.  And when the rest of the world catches up, European states as individual nations are not going to be as powerful.  (Was it Cheney who indicated Europe wasn't quite as important as it used to be?  We don't often think that way, especially given our history with them.  Don't be too hasty in assuming they don't matter though.  Europe is still economically advanced and we do have a lot of commitments to them.)

This brings up another point, actually.  The United States isn't in decline.  It's just that as the world balances out, it feels like a decline.  We're not as comparatively strong as we used to be.  It's like being a billionaire in a world where more and more people are becoming millionaires and billionaires.  You still have a lot of money, you just don't have quite as overwhelming an amount of it.

Go big or go home.  I think that's part of what's going on with China's One Road project.  An economic block stretching across Eurasia could be extremely powerful.

Except...what to do with all this diversity?  All these groups that want to live their own way?  If you plan to go big, you're going to live in a multi-ethnic, pluralistic society.  Otherwise you will constantly have to waste resources, taking troops from one ethnicity and stationing them far away from home where they'll be loyal to the state and not to the (different) ethnicity around them.  And if you pull those troops out (in case of war, for example) what's to keep the people living their from trying to break away in their absence?

Point is - human rights are essential for creating a large, multi-ethnic and peaceful society. 

Our ideals, although we have not always lived up to them, mean we should treat every ethnic group, every nation, every culture with respect. 

That doesn't mean we pretend we're okay with things we're not, even (or perhaps especially) when it seems less important than achieving some of our other goals.  We ran into that dilemma in Afghanistan, particularly with the Afghan practice of bacha bazi. 

In situations like that, it's like a person who's loved one is making bad life choices.  You can tell them what you think, you can encourage them to do better, and you can cut off ties if that's what you need to do in order to make it clear you don't accept the behavior...but ultimately it's not about forcing them to do what you want.  It's about being sincere in expressing your thoughts, and explaining why you think that way...and making choices about how to spend your time and resources based on your views.

With nations, of course, the tools are different.  You can make a diplomatic statement condemning a practice.  You can provide support for any attempt at changing a practice.  You can reduce or cut off various ties (trade, military, diplomatic).  You can place sanctions on them - not to force them to do what you want, but as an indication that your nation will not be associated with that behavior.

Note that I did not list regime change or war as one of the options here.  For that, I again suggest just war theory. 

Tools in the Tool Box

I wanted to take a minute to list some of the tools at a nation's disposal, particularly one as large as the United States.

There's the obvious, of course.  Military might.  Sanctions.  War, deterrence, and alliances.

Then there's various versions of gift giving and exchange.  Military hardware. Experts (military and civilian).  USAID.  Training events (I've had a number of foreign soldiers go through military training with me, and I'm sure we've sent our soldiers through some foreign schools as well.)

Trade agreements.  Most Favored Nation status.  Tax policies, foreign and domestic.  Domestic policies that affect international trade (like protecting local farmers).  Loans.

Extradition treaties.  Cooperation on international criminal cases.

Humanitarian aid, disaster relief.

Immigration decisions.  Decisions on which countries citizens have what privileges when traveling to a foreign country (i.e. I can travel to Europe on a passport without getting a visa).  Foreign exchange programs.

International tribunals.  International law.  The United Nations, and resolutions at the UN.

Diplomacy.  Who has an embassy where.  Diplomatic statements on events occurring in other nations.  Official positions, and unofficial positions, as conveyed from an ambassador to another nation's leadership.

Espionage. Agreements for various levels of access to a nation's classified information. 

Information operations and propaganda (like supporting radio stations).

Special Ops, Black Ops, Grey Ops.

I'm sure I'm missing a few things here, but it's worth pausing to consider the full gamut of options before going on to the next bit.  Particularly since we focus so much on war and trade.

National Security - Goals

It's time to start putting this all together, with the usual caveats.  A) I am not an expert on all these topics, so take this with a grain of salt B) even expert opinion is sometimes wrong (for the longest time nations thought wealth was tied to how much gold was in your treasury, until Adam Smith came along.  There are some very good reasons why developing nations are skeptical of what the IMF and other organizations recommend  That doesn't mean we should ignore expert opinion entirely, just that we need to explore counter-opinions and understand dissenting views.)  With that said, I want to break this down into four initial categories, with more in-depth posts to follow - 

First and foremost, the right to self-defense should never be denied.  I think the strategy for that is fairly straightforward, at least with existential threats.  Cyberwarfare is still a bit of a wild card here, in that interference with our elections could be considered an existential threat and (depending on the severity) a potential cause for war. 

I'd recommend looking at just war theory for a better discussion of when to go to war and why.  In particular I wanted to discuss the importance of right intention.

Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Control of oil is not something that justifies war, under this criteria.  And it's not an existential threat (to the US at least, where we do have domestic sources.)  I would put any discussion of resource control into the next category. 

Second - there is competition for critical resources.  Those resources may change given time. (I personally think battery and solar technology has developed to the point where a focused effort could wean ourselves off oil, and I'm kind of disappointed not to hear more suggestions for doing so.  At least Tesla is trying to create the right ecosystem for that.  I monitor a few science sites that show tremendous progress in terms of battery storage, energy efficiency, and energy creation.  I won't judge those who used to think ensuring a reliable oil supply was critical to national security - though I may disagree with their strategy for doing so - but I think technology has developed to the point where this is no longer the case.  Or doesn't have to be.  I want that moon shot, dammit!  It would change the entire global geopolitical situation, and I want to figure that out rather than try working through this old and tired oil-addicted one.)

Anyways.  Regardless of whether it's oil or something else, there will probably always be something for nations to compete over.  Venetian mirrors, anyone?  Intellectual property?  Access to rare earth metals?  Access to prime asteroid mines?  Access to colonies on Mars?

The United States is a player in that competition, just like everyone else.  I'll go into that in more depth later.

Third - we need a healthy and strong economy.  I put this third in that self defense and critical resources can take priority in the short term, but in the long run having a strong economy helps significantly with the other two.  Each of these categories connects to the others, so the priorities may shift as needed.

And Fourth - we want to influence the world in the ways we think best.  Human rights, democracy, capitalism...I prefer my more generic first sentence because those ways can shift or change over time. 

National Security - A Review of Doctrines and Influences

If we're going to have a consistent strategy, we need to cover what policies have been in play throughout our history.

First, the concept that America should be the "city upon a hill".  It's basically a non-interventionist stance.  It says that we will lead by example, make our success an inspiration to other nations...and not go around trying to force other nations to become like us.  It has the advantage of allowing us to keep true to our values while not getting embroiled in war around the world, since the focus is internal rather than external.  The disadvantage is that we grew to be a global power, so we can't really pretend that our actions have no effect on the rest of the world.  What we do, who we support, who we shun...those all have an impact.  Having one standard for ourselves and another for the rest of the world is, again, dissonant. 

Next came the Monroe Doctrine, which basically opposed European colonialism in the Americas. 

The article shows there were a couple of other doctrines and expansions, but the next big one was the Roosevelt Corollary, which again had the US intervening against European powers...but also meant intervening in the smaller nations to our south.

If you read the link, you can see problems already with our policy.  Did opposing European influence mean opposing communism (especially Russia) during the Cold War?  Did that come at the expense of national sovereignty, leading us to interfere in ways just as bad as the European powers during the colonial era?  Was this a benevolent gesture, or a way of securing our own influence at the expense of our neighbors?  The United States was growing into a world power, and started using that power...and there's a lot of room for debate over how it was used.

Next I want to point out President Wilson's Fourteen Points and the influence of Wilsoniasm.  Even though his Fourteen Points didn't make it into the Treaty of Versailles (and the United States never joined the League of Nations) his beliefs still have influence today.

And finally, we need to talk about the Cold War and our strategy of containment and the Truman Doctrine.  This one is particularly interesting given our current relations with Russia.  NATO was originally created as part of our strategy to contain the Soviet Union, so Russia sees NATO expansion as a threat.  (There's also some debate over whether the Soviet Union was expansionist, or more concerned with controlling a large sphere of influence in order to prevent fighting on home territory.  The Eastern Front of World War II was particularly devastating.)

This post mostly just linked to articles with more in depth discussions of the various doctrines and corollaries.  That's because I don't see the point in typing up things you can read elsewhere.  It's important to know, though, for any discussion on how we should handle the challenges of today.  Those challenges, btw, include the growth of non-state actors (multi-national corporations, non-profit organizations, individuals able to influence matters on the global stage through hacking, and more) as well as the current balance of power.

One last thing about that.  There's another theory in international relations that basically says war is more likely to occur when you've got a great power in decline and a new rising power.  The Power Transition Theory seems to cover this, though it's not quite what I recall...the wikipedia article is more focused on hegemonic power.  The gist of it is this, though.  You get a nation like England back when it was a global empire, and weakening.  It still thinks of itself as a great nation and expects to have the same level of influence it always had.  Then you have rising nations, like Germany, who are beginning to exert themselves and expect to have influence in line with their strength.  This can lead to war, as the declining power doesn't want to give up what they have and the rising power wants the respect seen as their due.

This is part of why China's claim to a 'peaceful rise' was so important.  It basically said "we know we're growing more powerful and we expect to do so without going to war".  Given the current state of global affairs, I'm not entirely sure this is possible.  First of all, China has been stirring up national sentiment (though you could say that about us, as well, right?)...the problem with that is it's a bit like playing with fire.  If you encourage it too much, then nationalists will start wondering why you are letting other powers disrespect your great nation.  China has already had to suppress national sentiment w/regards to the South China Sea.  Most foreign policy analysts seem to think that China (and the United States) know that war would be devastating and have no intentions of letting it get that far, but the powers that be are not always as in control as they think.  Consider the history of a completely different nation - Japan - where nationalist young military leaders basically started the invasion of Manchuria without any orders from the central government.

National Security - More Musings

When discussing our national security strategy, I wanted to make a couple more points.  One is something I ponder, though I don't have any firm conclusions:

In Gladwell's book Blink, he talked about thin-slicing and the way that first impressions shape a relationship.  It reminds me of something Lois McMaster Bujold said in one of her science fiction books - start as you mean to go on.

I do think our initial reactions are important.  They set the tone, shape how relationships (personal or professional) play out.  I think you can change those patterns after the fact, but it's significantly harder.  Which means I think it's important to be true to ourselves at the very beginning.  Start as you mean to go on.

I think about this with regards to national security and our policies towards human rights.  We have said that we think human rights are important, but in practice we haven't acted as though it's true.  We'll compromise if it seems too difficult.  Push for human rights with an ally who controls a critical resource?  Not so much.  Hold firm when it might mean losing trade deals and risking war? Again, not so much.  Intervene when a nation is committing genocide? Just look at Rwanda, or any of the other historical examples.

There's a danger in saying that we should act differently.  It means we would have to commit to interventions abroad that we aren't really willing to do. Yet there's also a danger in compromising on this too much.  It makes us seem like we're all talk and no action.  Hypocritical.  That we don't really take it seriously.

This is the cognitive dissonance at the heart of our foreign policy.  In some cases, certain interest groups will push for action...they see how powerful we are and know we can influence things for the better.  But when it comes to putting troops on the ground and risking American lives, not so much.

It reminds me a bit of the American Civil War, actually.  Abolitionists wanted to end slavery - and who can blame them?  What compromise is worth letting one person suffer slavery a second longer than they have to?

But moving to act on that, to force an end to slavery in the South?  Not so much.  In some ways, the Southern fears of exactly that led to the Civil War.  We tried compromising a lot before the war came. As the United States expanded and new states were formed, there was a big debate over which ones would allow slavery and which ones wouldn't.  The Missouri Compromise was created to get around that, in the attempt to ease the fears of the slave-holding South by ensuring that half the new states would also be slave states (so that the slave states weren't outnumbered and wouldn't face the risk that the majority of free states would impose an end to slavery).  The compromise may have delayed the onset of the Civil War, but at what cost to existing slaves?

What's interesting is how it all ended, though.  The South basically let their fear of what might happen prompt them to secede from the Union in 1861 when Abraham Lincoln (who supported ending slavery) won the election.  Whether or not Lincoln could have ended slavery without the Civil War is something we will never know.  The attack on Fort Sumter kicked off the Civil War, and in the course of the war Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation.

I previously pointed out that we don't have to share the same values to live together comfortably, but there really was no middle ground between accepting slavery and believing that slavery should be eradicated. 

Human rights are kind of similar, in that you can't really agree that human rights matter AND agree that ignoring human rights is acceptable in certain situations.  We can overlook situations we don't want to deal with, deny that something is a problem, pretend that we can support human rights and at the same time support nations that don't share those values...but that's more a reflection on the human capacity for cognitive dissonance than any real room for compromise.

Could we have ended slavery without the Civil War?  If the South hadn't attacked Fort Sumter, if Lincoln tried ending slavery using our democratic political processes, could the (most likely slow) method of doing so truly be considered better, when it meant allowing people to continue living in slavery?  Would it have meant freedom without Jim Crow laws? 

I am not writing this to provide a clear answer, but because this is in the back of my mind as I consider what sort of foreign policy the US should use to support our ideals.  Compromising on these issues may help prevent war (or secure a critical resource), but it's done by overlooking real human suffering.  War might seem worse to a Union soldier who never suffered as a slave, whereas it probably isn't any worse to the ones still living in slavery. (Though we must consider Iraq when discussing this.  The argument I laid out is rather close to the neocon point of view, at least with regards to military intervention, which didn't seem to pan out very well.  Was that because Saddam's human rights violations weren't as bad as war?  Or was it because we executed the war so poorly?)

Update

It's the end of our fiscal year, which means time to give (and receive) reviews.  I've also been a bit busy, hanging out with some friend.  Celebrating Halloween.

I've promised myself to commit to some more job hunting, btw.  If anyone knows of a position I'd be suited for, send me a message.  You can do that here, or on my LinkedIn account, or Twitter, or Facebook.

And if any of my posts are useful, feel free to donate at the paypal link here.

I'll be posting some more on national security shortly.

In Other News

I find it very disturbing that I hear more about the North Dakota pipeline protests from Facebook and Twitter than my usual news sources.  

I think 2016 proves that the media no longer acts as the Fourth Estate. 

National Security, Trade

I compared our relationship to China with decisions on whether to unfriend people on Facebook, but that analogy will only carry you so far.  Nations, after all, can't exactly invite each other over to watch a movie together. :)

Nations show friendship in other ways.  Trade deals.  Military support.  Joint training exercises. And more.  (This article discussing our relationship with Saudi Arabia touches on some of it.)

This brings up a pretty important part, actually.  Namely, the role of business and trade in international relations.  This is not new.  The East India company, for example, had a very complicated relationship with the British government.  The Opium Wars are another example.

I think business - multi-national corporations in particular - have grown larger and have a significant impact on the foreign policy of today.  They may, as just one example, push for trade ties with China.  China has a large economic market with a lot of potential for growth, after all, and many businesses will take the risks of operating in China (i.e. the theft of their intellectual property, and other things) in order to get that foot in the door.  This, btw, isn't exactly new.  I came across a book once that described French efforts to steal the secrets of mirror-making from Venice back in the seventh century.  Mirrors!  We take them for granted now, but Venetians actually tried to make it illegal for artisans to leave and set up shop elsewhere.

Here in the United States we're used to thinking of the government as opposed to business, but when it comes to foreign policy they often work hand in hand.  So, for example, we have decisions about granting Most Favoured Nation status to various countries.  We also had business interests in building a pipeline through Afghanistan.

Two things I wanted to point out here.  The first is that our advantageous geopolitical situation does have some drawbacks.  Namely, the average American doesn't easily visit other countries.  If they do, most will go to Canada or Mexico (or take a cruise in the Caribbean), as plane tickets across the ocean are expensive.  The Americans you meet overseas are generally wealthier and more globally aware than the rest.  This may, perhaps, change a bit as the internet and modern communications make us all more connected...but for the most part Americans care more about domestic politics than anything going on in the foreign realm. 

It also means it's harder to persuade the general public that an issue is worth losing American lives over.  After all, what does it matter to us whether or not a pipeline is built in Afghanistan?  And comedians can easily get a laugh by showing how ignorant the average American is about foreign events (like where Aleppo is, or that there's a city called Aleppo and presidential candidates aren't debating about a leppo.  Gary Johnson is not the only one who doesn't know).

The second thing is that there is a point of view w/regards to international relations that thinks more trade ties will lead to peace.  The Trade Interdependence theory as tied to the Capitalist Peace Theory, to be specific.  I personally think this is more wishful thinking than reality, but I will be happy to be proven wrong. (I had an excellent textbook that covered various theories of war and really explored historical examples debunking those theories.  One of my greatest regrets is that I loaned it to someone taking the same class a semester later, and can't recall the title or author anymore.  While I'll admit certain things may make war less likely, I ultimately came to the conclusion that two nations go to war when they think they have more to gain from fighting than not.  I know, this sounds almost too simple to be worth mentioning.  Bear with me.  The point of this obvious explanation is that we can't count on trade ties, or democracy, or any sort of systemic change to create everlasting peace. Instead, we have to be aware of what a nation's interests are, and whether or not they think they can achieve those interests through fighting.  Note, as well, that I said both nations have to feel there is something to gain.  In some cases, what a nation has to gain is so important that we act as though there is no choice.  Self-defense, for example.)

I think we're coming close to a time when these theories will be put to the test.  That is, if our trade ties make World War Three so potentially disastrous that we manage to avoid it...then there may be some truth to the theory.  If we don't avoid it, then all our trade ties did was make it more painful when it happened.  And possibly made our opponents stronger than they'd have been, otherwise.

Makes you wonder what historians will be saying about us a couple hundred years in the future.

National Security

http://warontherocks.com/2016/08/lets-talk-about-americas-strategic-choices/?utm_content=buffer2b6a0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I finally joined twitter.  I avoided it for ages, but came across an article discussing Rukmini Callimachi's reporting on jihadist movements. 

Anyways, I came across the link above and it fits in well with my current theme.  I'm not sure I agree entirely.  I look forward to the rest of the series.

Clarity, Cosmopolitanism, and Foreign Policy

When I finally figured out what I wanted for my first tattoo, I went to the tattoo artist and tried to explain what I wanted.  A mountain lion, in profile.  It seemed so simple, right?  I could visualize it clearly in my head.  Except that I stumbled when I tried to explain it to the artist.  He told me to bring in an example of what I wanted...a picture or something.  (So I went prowling through the library, looking for a picture of a mountain lion.  And discovered that what I thought was classic and commonplace really wasn't.  It was hard to find a picture of what I wanted.)


Typing things out in a blog is sometimes similar.  I can see something quite clearly in my head.  It seems so bright, and shiny.  Then when I try to put that vision into words I stumble.  I want to get further into foreign policy suggestions, but I realized that the concepts don't flow together well yet.  Once again, I need to cover a few more things first. 


Kwame Appiah has a book called Cosmopolitanism that I recommend to anyone interested in this topic.  He made the point that we don't have to agree on everything in order to get along.  That is, we can have very different values.  Diverse opinions on what's best for our country.  And yet we can still live together peaceably enough. 


It reminds me a bit of my extended family, particularly during Thanksgiving.  I have relatives across the entire spectrum, politically speaking...and for the most part we can all sit down together and enjoy our Thanksgiving meal.  This does, however, presuppose that we all value our relationships more than our politics.


This year, this crazy election year, I have seen various friends on Facebook talk about unfriending or blocking people they disagree with.  They sometimes make very eloquent arguments for why they do so, and I'm not going to say they're wrong.  I will say, however, that it's not the choice I make.


I keep my Facebook feed pretty much wide open, for a couple of reasons.  One is that I don't want to deliberately create a bubble.  When you start curating your feed, filtering out the people who disagree with you, then you only hear part of the debate. 


In looking back, some of my most rewarding and interesting conversations have been with the friends and family across the political aisle.  (It helps that most of them are intelligent people with thoughtful positions.  I can't say it's often changed my mind, but it has added depth to my understanding of the issues.)  This is also, btw, why I don't like calling various people ReThuglicans or DemoRats or whatever the cutesy insult of the day is.


The choice I make can be good or bad, depending.  On the negative side - I don't take as strong a stand as the issues call for.  I am friends with people who don't always share my views, and who express views that some of my other friends would strongly disagree with.


On the other hand, I can sometimes have an impact that others don't.  Because I'm friends with people I disagree with.  (It helps that I don't fit neatly into political stereotypes.  It's harder to dismiss me as a bleeding heart liberal when I've served my country, in Iraq and Afghanistan.)


The point of what so far has been a more personal digression is this.  Some of the same issues (and strengths, and weaknesses) come into play when we decide how we are going to interact with another country.

Take China, for example.  We have very different values, particularly with regards to human rights.  Detaining booksellers from Hong Kong, simply because they sell books that criticize China?  Awful!  The Chinese government must be pretty weak, to find criticism so threatening.


Is this something we should ostracize them for, like banning our Facebook friends?  Is this something we can disagree on, and still sit down for Thanksgiving together? 


Are we better off engaging, maintaining relationships while making our disapproval known? 


Or are we better off cutting ties, so that we aren't supporting it or a part of it?

National Security and Poker

I wanted to cover one more topic before going into some guidelines/suggestions for our own strategies on national security.

There's an element of art, or gamesmanship, that I can only explain with poker.

Texas Hold 'Em, to be more precise.  (Again, I want to add the caveat that I'm not an expert poker player.  I have an uncle that plays much more seriously than I do, and I'm aware that I sometimes have tells that he can pick up on, for example.  And I don't always know the statistical likelihood of getting a winning hand, so sometimes I play when I probably should have folded and sometimes I fold when I might have done better to play).  In Texas Hold 'Em, each player has two cards that are hidden from the other players' view.  Five more are eventually revealed to the entire group, so you've got some intelligence that everyone can see and some intelligence that only you are aware of. 

You can make guesses about what the other players have, based on what's on the table and how they're playing.  (If they fold, they probably don't have anything that matches up well with what's on the table.  If they bet big, they might be holding on to a pocket pair of aces.  Or cards that play well with the flop, and might lead to a flush, a straight, or three of a kind.)

In addition to the mechanics of the game, however, a lot of poker is based on being able to read the players around you.  You can bluff, and perhaps win the pot with nothing.  Push other players out of the game when you don't really have anything.  But bluffing, in my experience, can also make you lose big.  That is, if the other player has a good enough hand to stay in the game they'll probably keep playing regardless of how big you bluff...and you're single ace is just not going to win the pot. 

Actually, when you're going head to head with someone there's a lot of quick games where each side knows their cards are bad (or good) and one side quickly folds.  Then you just slowly lose the money you have to put in the pot (with two people, you're always the small blind or the big blind, so you're going to keep losing money if you keep folding).  Then you either have to get really good cards or bluff.  So in those situations you can recoup your losses by bluffing, but if the other player has a worthwhile hand you can also lose big.  In my little bit of experience each round goes pretty quick until either both sides have good hands and commit to bidding (and one side doesn't have as good a hand as they think), or one side tries to bluff the other out and loses.  Otherwise whoever has the largest number of chips can probably outlast the other just by refusing to get sucked in unless their cards are great.

Like I keep saying, go find a real expert if you want a better discussion.

I brought this up, though, because there are some similarities to foreign policy.  There's some information only you know, there's some information everyone knows, and there's some information the other side has that you don't.  You're reputation and the signals you send can make a difference.  You might be able to bluff and get away with it.  Or you bluff, and they call your bluff, and you lose. 

Bluffing...

Sometimes it's worth bluffing and losing, just so the other side is aware that you sometimes bluff.  That's more if you want to sucker them in with a good hand, make them think you're bluffing when you're not.  And sometimes you also want to show that you've got the cards to back your actions up, so that they know it's not always a bluff.  That might make them back down in the future when you really don't have anything.

This is tied to two things.  First, Vietnam.  You could say that Vietnam was a situation where someone called our bluff.  That is, Vietnam wasn't an existential threat.  The American people stopped supporting it as the body count added up and didn't really see any reason to keep fighting for something that ultimately wasn't really a threat to us.  But losing in Vietnam meant more people questioned whether we really have as good a hand as we sometimes imply.  That did cause problems for us, because more people are likely to take the risk of calling our bluff, assuming it's a bluff.  This is part of the problem we have in Syria.  If we escalate our engagement there, are we really committed to it?  Or, if the body count adds up and we get tied up there for a decade or more, will our people eventually get tired of it and call for us to leave?  (Iraq adds to that analysis, since everyone and their mother saw that the American people were tired of it after five years of fighting.)  I would say that Vietnam was not an existential threat, and that it doesn't necessarily mean we're weak when it's important...but our government is still responsive to the will of the people and what we consider 'important' is not necessarily what our leadership claims it is.

Second, Syria and Russia today.  Russia is sending signals that they are very committed to keeping Assad in power.  Is it a bluff?  Can and will they back it up?  Do we have the commitment and resources to call that bluff, if it's a bluff in the first place?  Or do are they holding a pocket pair of aces, and will we wind up folding as soon as they reveal their hand?  Or do they have a pocket pair of aces, but the flop was all clubs and we've got a pocket pair of clubs?  In which case we'll have a showdown, but ultimately come out on top since our hand is better.

Does that make your head hurt?

What I wanted to get to, with all of that, is that some of our strategy is going to depend on how well we all are reading each other.  How well we know the cards we have, what educated guesses we can make about the cards the other side is holding, our estimates of whether the other side has a good hand or not, and whether we in turn decide to play, fold, or bluff.  It's not as straightforward as analyzing who has how strong of a military, because it depends as much on human psychology as it does on the actual cards in play.

Cyber Warfare

Cyberwarfare.  Everyone know that's the next big thing, but nobody seems to know how it will really play out.  (This is part of why I'd like to take some classes in computer science - to learn more about what's possible)

We know a bit about what we've seen so far.  Stuxnet.  The 2007 attack on Estonia.  Titan Rain.  Criminals that use cyber attacks to get money - through ransomware, DDOS attacks, and more. I also know a little, very little about what's possible.  Like the ability to hack someone's vehicle.

Cyberattacks are odd, in that it's hard to say if an attack is state-sponsored or based on individual criminal behavior.  Attributing an attack to state is...difficult.  Which also makes it hard to determine how a state should respond.  Would a cyberattack be grounds for war?  Would it lead to a more conventional response?  At this point, there's a lot of uncertainty about it.

I want to point out a couple of things.  DDOS attacks, to me at least, are more of a minor annoyance than a real threat.  I wasn't aware of the recent attack until after the fact, for example, because I was at work and wasn't trying to access any of the sites affected.  For me, as long as I can wait anywhere from a couple of hours or more, it's not a big deal.  Yet criminals are apparently able to make money off of these, because businesses lose money the entire time the system is down. (These issues, btw, raise questions about whether we want political leaders who have a poor understanding of computer issues.  It does not seem uncommon for older and more established politicians, for example, to be uncomfortable with smart phones and other aspects of the internet.)

While I heartily recommend talking to someone with real expertise on these issues, I do want to make a few points.

First, given what I said about how little Friday's DDOS attack affected me personally, some attacks are not really effective if you're able to unplug.  This is worth pointing out, as there still are a number of people who haven't moved into the internet world completely.  Granted, most of them are a bit older...but in my current job I am repeatedly astounded at how many of my employees are not comfortable with or familiar with what I used to consider basic computing skills.  I've had to assist them with figuring out how to get information over the internet - whether using a website to get a company award, or information on their retirement plans, and more. 

I do wonder whether cyberattacks would be more problematic in another twenty or thirty years, as people who know how to do things the old way are no longer around.  (For example - when I was in the military we all learned how to read maps.  Nowadays, many people use the GPS on their phones to navigate.  If an attack took down GPS, how many people could navigate using a map?)  Or take the example I used earlier where someone hacked a car.  Older cars might be safer, since they don't have all the computer chips and whatnot inside. 

It also means that EPM attacks are a very, very serious concern...since it would shut down a LOT of things we've become dependent on.

The importance of the internet is also worth pointing out, though again we still have old technology (like radios) that we can fall back on if need be.

I'm posting this more to point out the very large question mark we all should have with regards to cyberattacks, then to provide any real answers.  I think/hope that most countries are taking steps to secure any critical infrastructure, and have fallback plans in place in case computer chips and technology fail.  I believe the Department of Defense has taken steps to create a Cyber Command, and this could well become another branch (Air, Land, Sea...and now Cyber?)

Presidential Election 2016

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/opinion/sunday/the-dangers-of-hillary-clinton.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&referer=https://t.co/swZLfvqCfC

Nice to see something capture my opinion so very well.

Trade, Government Policy, and Economics

https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2016/10/preserving-sweet-life-minnesota

This is the first article I've ever read that really explains the issues tied to government agricultural subsidies. 

American National Strategy - Cont.

I discussed the rather conventional geopolitical scenario for the United States in my last post.  I wanted to discuss economics next.

Or rather, if we are talking about an existential threat, there's not a lot that we should truly be worried about.  But tanks can't fight if they don't have fuel.  People can't live if they can't get food.  And there's a lot more to security than just having a lot of tanks and planes and soldiers.

Economics - well.  I'm not an economist, and I recommend you take what I'm about to post with some skepticism, since I admit I am not an expert here.  (When I daydream, I sometimes imagine I was wealthy enough to just putz around taking classes in economics, computer science, and finance...and then blog here about any interesting intersectionality.  I don't want a degree in those fields, I just want to know them well enough to help build my understanding of the world we live in today.)

So anyways, there are two or three points I want to make about economics.  First, nations do compete for scarce resources.  Access to those resources may not quite count as an existential threat, or maybe it does.  I phrased it that way to make a point about how different countries view this issue.  One way of assessing our economic security is to see how capable we are of guaranteeing the resources we would need. (With regards to energy, for example, we have a somewhat mixed outlook.  We do have our own domestic energy supplies.  Oil, natural gas, etc.  Some of that has been aided by fracking, and where energy security fits in with environmental concerns is a debate worth having at some point.  But we are still a net consumer, not producer, of oil.  So even though we probably could tighten our belts and ration resources if need be, we would struggle to keep our current standard of living without external sources.  We are in a much better condition than Europe, however, and Russia's use of Gazprom in their foreign policy is something to pay attention to.) 

Btw, economic security isn't just about energy.  Or rare earth minerals, even.  It's also about the basics of food, water, and enough resources for a sustained wartime effort.  The US is in a good position, again, w/regards to food.  We are quite the breadbasket, after all.  I get a little fuzzy on exactly what is necessary here, but I do believe Athens lasted so long after their failed Sicilian Expedition in part because of their strong maritime trade-based economy.  And that it's worth paying attention to the debate on how effective the Anaconda Plan was during the Civil War.  There's also merit to those who point out that our enemies used very inexpensive IEDs to take out very expensive Strykers and other pieces of military equipment.  In a sustained effort, can we afford to keep spending millions of dollars on equipment that our enemies destroy using parts that only cost a couple hundred dollars?

Economic security, however, gets into tricky territory.  After all, our involvement with installing the shah in Iran was allegedly about oil security, and it rather backfired on us.

Second, I want to go into the importance of trade routes, and trade in general.  Given what's been going on in this election year, a lot of people are questioning the benefit of trade and globalization.  We have grown so interconnected, btw, that it's really hard to say who is dependent on what, and where.  That is, we have Toyota cars built in the United States.  American finished goods with subcomponents from China, Malaysia, Singapore, and more. 

Again, I want to emphasize that you should talk to a good economist if you're interested in the subject.  But I'll give a little anecdote that, oversimplified though it is, may be useful.

Picture the original independent farmstead.  The family living there grows their own food, weaves their own clothes, milks their own cows, builds their own houses with material from their own fields and nearby land.

Now picture a neighbor moves in close by.  The neighboring family has a field that isn't very good for planting, but is pretty good for pasturing cows.  So the second family decides to get a few more cows than they need for their own sake, and offers to sell the extra milk to their neighbors.  Those neighbors no longer need to keep their own cow, so maybe they sell the cow and turn the cow pasture into another field.  Now they're growing more corn or wheat or whatever than they need for themselves, so they can turn around and sell that to their neighbor.  Or take it to market. 

Trading that surplus benefits both families.  They're able to get more of what they need, they don't have to spend as much effort trying to do it all themselves, etc.  But trade also makes it harder to go back to true independence.  If disaster struck, the family that had sold their cow would have to invest in a new cow and turn a field back into pasture if they wanted to get their own milk again.

So anyways.  Trade is good, mostly.  But it leads to specialization and interdependence.  And when you throw in nationalism, elite gamemanship, imperialism, globalization and multi-national corporations then the benefits may go to one particular group more than the others (and hurt others more than they benefit by it.)

The third factor I wanted to discuss was trade routes.  Shipping, btw, is still one of the fastest and cheapest ways of getting material from point A to point B.  Basically you can fit a lot more product on a ship than you can on a train, plane, or truck.  You can't use trains and trucks to ship across the ocean, and planes just can't hold as much material.  So shipping lanes are pretty important.

Take a look at this map:



It kind of gives you a sense of the largest shipping routes and some key locations.  The Strait of Malacca, the Panama Canal, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Suez Canal are all areas where trade must either flow through a constricted area or take a very long way around.  Actually, here's a nice little article talking about 8 global choke points.  Primarily discussing the flow of oil, but more trade goods than just oil ship through these chokepoints.

If you pay attention to history and/or current events, most of these names should already be familiar.  I want to point to our history with Panama and the Panama Canal, though, because the transition from our control to Panama illustrates some strategic points.  Namely that we don't actually have to control these choke points, so long as we have the freedom to navigate through them.

This is part of why the South China Sea is so tense right now (the possibility of oil within the sea itself is also a factor).  We sail around to make a point of the freedom of the seas, China sees it as an infringement on their territory, and all it will take is one stupid hothead and a few leaders unable or unwilling to look weak and we could wind up in a war with China.  The thing of it is, though, that so long as everyone is able to sail through the Strait of Malacca (and so long as there is no unreasonable taxes or duties that effectively limit usage) it shouldn't actually matter to much who has nominal control.  I'm sure that betrays something about my own ignorance of the area...and perhaps it doesn't matter so much to us (given how far away we are), whereas to the small nations around there it could make a tremendous difference to their economy.

And, of course, there's always the fear that if China did control the straits and was hostile to the US, it would seriously impact our shipping.