Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 24, 2025

Rage Triggered by Incompetence

I originally wrote this piece in May 2024, but did not post or otherwise disclose this writing at the request of the person who was most directly impacted.  What is not captured here is that in July 2024 the Board of Trustees assured that the insitution's President reigned for personal reasons and stepped headlong into the chasm that had been created, to the point that one of their own, Mr. David Heacock, became acting President and indeed pulled us back from the brink.  For that reason I am now posting this reflection of the circumstances of that time as it ought to be an object lesson that, as I saw in my second tour in Iraq, leadership matters and we can, indeed, turn from rage to stalwart resolve and actions for the better.

 

20 May 2024


Today something I have dreaded, happened.  I had rage, serious rage, return.  One could call this post-dramatic stress, and that might be right, but is something that really has hit me strongly.  The reason for being “triggered” is acute, but the circumstances are absolutely not unique.  That said, this is rivaling one of the worst experiences with leadership that I have had in my entire life.

 

To begin, then, let’s first give the backstory.  For those that know me, know that I am a 20 plus year US Army veteran.  Thanks to serving in combat for two tours, I often wear my Operation Iraqi Freedom hat as I come and go.  But let me tell you, my two tours in combat, when it came to leadership, couldn’t be more starkly different.  Someday, when I write my recollections of my service, the working title will be “A Tale of Two Tours:  An Engineer Officer in Combat during Operation Iraqi Freedom” and I have more or less decided on the opening, borrowing from Charles Dickens (and the book from which my working title is drawn), “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times …”[1]  Rather than try to put into text the tale of my first tour in Iraq, I will share with you a message (sermon) I gave about it, that was recorded on video because we were in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic lock-downs during the summer of 2020:  https://youtu.be/5R2f7z8Ejjk?si=uBxMwY8X_i8_9WxV&t=623.  Starting at the 6:23 mark and going until 17:33, I recall a vivid memory that I will never be able to fully get out of my head.  I did not “change the names to protect the innocent”, if you are wondering.[2]  And to be succinct, this is the PG version of events, as I don’t get into the graphic details, and as a part of a sermon on the issues of passing judgement, well, it made no sense to get into those details.  I will just say that was the early bottom.  And it was just one of many reasons to have long lasting anger about the tour, especially the leadership above me, and their utter failures, misjudgments, and incompetence, in the face of very real needs for strong leadership, people of strong moral character, and a willingness to have a vision for more than their own benefits and their own careers or legacies.  Rage is simply the best word that I have about what happened to me and to those that stood with me in the midst of unspeakable challenges, brutally harsh conditions, and a nearly impossible mission because of the failures of these supposed leaders.

 

It is to this past that I am triggered.  To a past that literally nearly killed people because of the failures of leadership that I witnessed, in my then fairly early career as a military officer.  Lessons that I learned and cannot unlearn about leadership.  Its lessons like how one can ascertain the leadership capabilities of someone else, one need only look at those that said someone else surrounds themselves with.  Are they surrounded with those that are going to challenge the leader and each other such that the leader can distil, from vigorous yet honest debate, the best path forward?  Or are they wanting a coterie of those that simply are “yes” people and/or sycophants that stoke the ego of the person in charge, being uncritical and unwilling to stop failures moral, ethical, legal, or otherwise, either among themselves or by the supposed leader?  Or are they surrounded by a brutish bunch that are out for self-interest, caught up in pet theories, doctrinaire to a fault, and unwilling to acknowledge, never mind apologize for, mistakes made?  Or are they wanting to be seen as the “smartest person in the room” by ensuring those around them can never challenge them or that they are ignorant of the failures and incompetence of those around them because they so clearly have no interest in getting the ground truth?  Yes, you can see very clearly who is a leader and is not, if you ask these questions and more.  And the rage I feel is based on many more lessons I have learned in and out of combat, some of the worst examples came from this first tour in Iraq.

 

So, what has me enraged?  Simply put, I am a part of an institution that is at a precipice.  While no one is being asked to put their life on the line for this organization, it is an organization that has, for me (and many others) deep and abiding roots.  It is an organization that should it fail, will have devastating effects on the livelihoods of those it employs, devastating effects on the very economic foundation of the community it resides within, and devastating effects on those that found their very selves while traversing a very influential part of their lives on its campus(es).  As an institution, it should not be in the conversation about these lackluster possibilities, given its focus on engineering, business, the sciences, and other national needs.  It is a haven for those that take seriously their future and it has, at its bones, the results, amazing results, which prove it can stand the test of time.  It is here, when as an industry many are in much worst starting positions, worse inherent fundamentals, and seeing many failures result in utter shuttering of their enterprises, that this otherwise “ahead of the game” institution is experiencing some of the worst leadership failures and tolerance of utter incompetence, negating all of its advantages.  As I relayed to a Vice President as little as 8 months ago, the institution had about 2 years of runway, financially, culturally, and humanly, to get on the right track.  But it’s hard to see how the choices that have been made in interim have done anything more than to squander even that limited set of benefits.

 

And today’s exceptionally poor choice took the cake; well fecal pie in actuality.  One of the saving graces of the institution in question has been its ability to capitalize on professional graduate education.  It has been able to leverage its position as a well-respected and, in several areas, foremost institution for engineering, science and business, to attract and educate those seeking a degree beyond the bachelor’s degree.  And while undergraduate enrollment has been slipping, and this year in free fall, since 2016, the professional graduate enrollment numbers have been steady, if not climbing, through the same period.  At the helm of this stable, “going well despite other headwinds,” result has been two good stewards for this effort, with the most recent being a woman of unassuming but fantastic abilities (leadership, academic, research, business, and more).  Repeating, in other words, basically saving the bacon of the institution has been a remarkable person, unparalleled in emotional, never mind raw, intelligence, wise well beyond her years, capable of doing twice as much with half the resources, and putting her loyalty in the institution as an alum, and as a member of the institution’s very DNA, above her own self-interests.  Full disclosure, the person directly involved, whom I just lavished significant praise, is a personal friend whom I have known since we were undergrads at the same institution we now serve.  That said, regardless of personal feeling, the facts are incontrovertible.  To this person, the President, after having snubbed her once and putting in a completely unqualified person in a position above her, was again highly insulted by telling her, and I quote:  “As a part of your role as Dean of the Graduate Studies,[3] you have done a commendable job in overseeing graduate recruiting.[4]  It is in Clarkson’s best interest moving forward[5] to centralize admissions under one Vice President.[6]  The decision has been made to do that under the VP of Strategic Enrollment Management.[7]”  So, to shorten, you’re doing an amazing job, let’s give it to a guy[8] who is failing at what he is supposed to be doing, because I don’t give a crap about actual results.

 

My response, once reading the memo that was perfunctorily sent to her, was “Bullshit!”  I went on to say, “So it’s working (well), so I need to fuck it up.  Well done [President’s first name].”  Long and short this is the kind of ineptitude, failure of leadership, and doubling down on incompetence that I loathe, and in other situations has resulted in the near death of those in combat.  There is no good reason to do this, NONE!  This is pure unadulterated failure to see the forest for the trees.  It’s doubling down on failure.  It’s the sickest, darkest, and most profound mockery of any semblance of leadership I have seen since those dark days I experienced in Iraq in 2003-2004.  But unlike then, I no longer have the rose tinted glasses, nor, given the situation, the obligation to sit quietly by within the restrictions of the chain of command.  I am many years wiser and many leadership experiences older, to know what pseudo-leadership is and what true leadership looks like.  This is no Lee Iacocca that has come to this institution to pull us out of our doldrums, this is another Bernie Madoff that is playing it for all he and those that go along with him can get.  It’s horrible, and it’s wrong.  It needs to end.

 

And this is even more why I am enraged.  I am not fully sure how to cut through the bullshit.  As a part of a group of loyalists trying to right the ship, we seem to be in an endless cycle of plugging yet another hole created by the administration, using the deck gun to shoot another self-inflicted hole through the hull.  The ship need not leak this bad, but they are incapable of doing anything more than doing harm.  One would hope that the trustees, who are supposed to be asking the hard questions, looking out for the long term future of the institution, supposed to be making sure that it remains there in perpetuity, and not taking anything for granted, cut through the façade.  I/we need to figure that out, I/we really do.  Because, as much as it can be the hardest thing in the world, doing the harder right over the easier wrong, in the end, does win the day.  That is the lesson of the second of two combat tours has taught me.  Leadership matters, and despite the problems, true leaders can and will come to the fore.  So as much as I am angry, ready to lash out, it is that discipline that I have honed for too many years, which will serve us well.  The path (gate) may be narrow, but it exists.  It seems now to be a light, yet dimly seen, in the distance.  I just pray it becomes brighter, clearer, and stronger, soon.

 



[1] Charles Dickens, Tale of Two Cities, full quote:  “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.”

[2] And candidly, do not apologize.  The leadership failures were so utter, that I would be glad to stand in any court to relay the same tale, eternal or otherwise.

[3] Note:  the position is actually the “Dean of the Graduate School” (cf. University Organization Chart).  The President can’t even cite the proper name of the organization she is in charge of operating, which he is supposedly overseeing.

[4] Acknowledgement here that she is achieving success, well beyond what ought to be expected.

[5] “best interest moving forward”:  to be succinct there is nearly no evidence that the person making this decision actually knows what the best interests of the institution in question are.  Since his hiring, he has not secured one major donation nor has he done anything other than create an environment of distrust and austerity, often self-fulfilling.

[6] What basis is there for this?  None is given, and there is no evidence that there will be better results otherwise.  Basically, this is just not true.  Other examples of centralization over the last several years have proven disastrous.

[7] Who has been responsible for the lowest incoming class enrollment since the late 1980s or early 1990s.

[8] And it is a guy, not a gal.

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

“Mr. Cheney, you’re dead wrong!”


Originally written on 22 April 2009, Edited for posting 14 March 2018

I have continued to watch, with great disgust and mirth, the bantering that is occurring on the question of what to do about torture in our republic.  To me there is no question:  a government of “we the people,”[i] should not, cannot, and will not ever approve or condone a policy that makes torture, in even its most simplistic and relatively innocuous form, legal and permissible in the main.  And with all due respect to the former Vice President of these United States, I don’t give a damn how much valuable information you collect in the execution of “enhanced interrogation techniques,”[ii] such a policy, one he seems to endorse (and frankly should know better not to), puts this nation, and those that defend it, in grave danger.

Now you ask, how can I make such a strong condemnation of a past administration and even more so the opinion of a former senior leader therein?  Well let me start with the fact that I was a Soldier, an American Soldier.  I served in uniform 20 plus years, of that 7 was on active duty, and more importantly, 2 plus years of it have been in Iraq.  I have voluntarily said that if it came to it, I would lay down my life to defend this country and the constitution that defines it.  And with an ever smaller minority of people in our population, I have backed this up with action.  Actions that include the award of a Combat Action Badge; an award I hope you can understand, is not something I was looking to receive.  Beyond my personal imposition, I was a leader of Soldiers, a Commissioned Officer and a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army.  This means I had the weighty responsibility of not only being ready to answer my country’s call personally, but I have led Soldiers and have led them in combat.  I have been responsible for sending soldiers home without significant portions of their bodies intact and I have had to pull together those that remain after such a loss to fight on for another 9 months, or more, of the same.  I have done all this in the very den of savagery that the former administrations have sought and this present one seeks to defeat.  I have met, first-hand, the insurgent, the terrorist, and the one that would tear down the foundations of what we call dear.  I know from personal experience what can happen when I, or any person who seeks to represent these United States around the world, fails to live up to the highest ideals that our Founding Father’s intended us to uphold.  And I know, because I am a student of history, what has happened to nations, who hold such ideals that start to toboggan down the slippery slope in arrogance, thinking they are above common morals, the laws they have endorsed fully, and even themselves.

We have stated clearly from the beginning that we hold certain truths self evident, certain inalienable rights, among them and chiefly, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”[iii]  We specifically provided protections against such things as “unreasonable searches and seizures”[iv] and “cruel and unusual punishment.”[v]  These are not negotiable founding principles, these cannot get in our way when we find them inconvenient, because if and when they do, my dear citizens, we are then saying that we are redefining what it is to be American, and in a very real sense saying, that what we formerly said was true is utterly false.  When we do this, and we do it as if we were not changing a thing (as if one could not see plain through it that we are moving the Gibraltar’s of our founding faith) it is as if we think we don’t have to be held accountable.  There is a word for this: Hypocrisy.  And my fellow Americans, any endorsement of torture in the policy of this nation, in the laws we pass, in the excuses we make for it, is just that, a Great Hypocrisy.  And unlike any other nation on earth that commits hypocrisy, and every group of peoples on this planet does this (especially our enemies), our role as the “leader of the free world”[vi] and a nation “conceived in liberty”[vii] sets us center stage and magnifies this hypocrisy to a degree that history can never match.  Precisely because we have elevated ourselves and our ideals to such a high podium that the world is jealous and jaded that we could ever live up to them, our hypocrisies, our sins, only prove that we are false, liars, and frankly cannot be trusted to keep our word.  And because we have a mass media venue that permeates the world around, we can’t hide it, we can’t deny it, and we certainly cannot think the world won’t see it in the naked public square.

So Mr. Obama stated a fact that should never been in question, “America does not torture.”[viii]  We now know that since the seminal moment in our time, 9-11, we have taken a road of fear, a road of challenges, a road of hard choices in the face of hard realities.  But I want to let you know, from first-hand experience, what the impact of the revelation that America has tortured our detainees, even in isolated cases, when it mattered most.  During the winter of 2003-2004, it was my job as an Engineer Officer as a part of 1st Armored Division in support of the 2nd Calvary Regiment was to improve and develop a base called Camp War Eagle (now called Camp Hope) on the northeastern edge of Sadr City in Baghdad, to protect our soldiers an provide their basic needs.  To this end, I oversaw numerous construction contracts, primarily with local Iraqi firms.  These firms and their employees took some measured risk to work with the coalition to begin with, given that in their history benevolent dictatorship is the best they could really ever hope for.  But all of that changed one Sunday evening; the evening that 60 Minutes broke the Abu Ghraib prison scandal; the evening that the Great Hypocrisy of torture by American Soldiers was revealed to the world.  Now I never saw the original airing, but I did see what it did on the ground.  Muqtada al-Sadr and the Sadr Bureau immediately took action to make sure everyone in the 9 Nissan and Sadr City area knew that we could not be trusted.  Workers were harder and harder to come by as construction continued, IED placements skyrocketed, and those that did come to work had to hide their cars or path of travel to avoid being seen (as a number of Iraqis were found dead at home the day after they made the mistake of being recognized as working with us).  Never minding the horrible facts for the average Iraqi, by April 2004, in short order what had been one of the most tranquil parts of Baghdad had turned into a danger zone that saw a rapid rise in American and coalition force casualties, especially when 1st Calvary Division started to arrive to replace 1st Armor Division in these areas.  I distinctly lived through two major events that Easter: 1) a phone call to my Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge at Camp War Eagle in the midst of a mortar attack determining how to get him back to Camp Victory for our planned unit roll out in a number of weeks, and 2) our entire Engineer Battalion and those elements on the southwest corner of the Baghdad International Airport engaging in a direct fire attack with militia elements that tried to assault our position.  And I have now made a second year long venture to the former Babylonia, this time in conjunction with the now famous surge, trying to “win” this war.  In the totality of it all, why did all of these things happen; why?  The answer I can only resolve is that we let our guard down, not as Soldiers, but as a nation and showed we could not be trusted, we could not stand up to the standards we expected of ourselves and what is worse yet, the standards we expected the world to uphold, but we felt somehow we didn’t have to.  We were hypocrites.

The reality is if we are going to choose to fail to defend this nation against the ones that want to destroy us, all we have to do is continue in hypocrisy.  All we have to do is continue to chew away at the fundamental liberties we cherish.  All we have to do is make excuses as to the pragmatism and the expediency of methods we use to defend our freedoms using otherwise reprehensible behavior.  All we have to do is prove to the world that we no longer are the beacon of freedom that we have told them we are, and they win.  I can remember distinctly the former Vice President standing with the, then, Chairman of the Joint Chief’s Colin Powell telling us after the liberation of Kuwait, that significant droves of the republican guard (so much so that we were overwhelmed) surrendered because they knew that we would treat them well.  This enabled us to quickly secure Kuwait and the southern regions of Iraq, enabling mission success and, pen-ultimately, the nation to be well defended again.  This saved lives, this proved America could be trusted.  Let me say that again, this saved lives, this proved America could be trusted.  Doing this is what we were supposed to do.  Torture is not ever what we are supposed to do.

This is not an issue up for debate, it is not an issue that can be made partisan; just ask the man in the Senate that can no longer lift his arms above his shoulders because of his stay at the Hanoi Hilton what he thinks of torture.  This is, however, a matter of our national defense.  Because our failure to not simply stop torture from ever entering our policy-making and law-making approval process again will put America and our homeland in danger by creating more of the disaffection in the rest of the world that brought 4 jet liners to a tragic end on a cold fall morning in an infamous September past.  To truly defend our nation, we have to recognize that those leaders who recklessly endorsed, nay, promulgated such a policy are held to task.  Great men and women in our history have recognized this.  Truman recognized he had unleashed a terrible scourge on the earth at Hiroshima and then Nagasaki, one that lasted well beyond his years or the generations he then present was responsible for; the “buck” stopped with him.  Eisenhower wrote two letters to the President prior to D-Day:  one humbly thanking the President for the privilege of command and announcing our victory on the beaches of Normandy, the other resigning his post as Supreme Allied Commander and taking full responsibility for the failure and loss of life that had occurred as Hitler’s Atlantic Wall had destroyed America’s best and brightest.  I, like Grant and Lincoln after the civil war[ix], believe we cannot give a free pass to those that have endorsed a policy of supporting torture or have actually been found to have committed acts of torture, should not hold public trust for the nation again.  If we hold our ground in this regard, then we can prove to the world that we are not lesser than we are when we extend our “bonds of affection”[x] as the preeminent “shining ‘city on a hill.’”[xi]  The world’s people, and I hope we as Americans, are surely going to remember this hypocrisy for a long time, and we need to ask over time, can we be trusted?  If we do this, we do it right, the world will know that we made a mistake, we have made our repentance, and indeed we can be the people we profess to be; and that will win this struggle for all times.



[i] Preamble of the Constitution of the United Stated of America
[ii] A euphemism for torture used by the George W. Bush Administration
[iii] Declaration of Independence
[iv] Constitution of the United Stated of America
[v] Ibid
[vi] A common euphemism for the President of the United States and the nation itself, especially in the late 20th Century
[vii] Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln
[viii] Obama, Barak Hussein, Speech to Joint Session of Congress, 24 February 2009
[ix] Wherein, confederate officers and leaders could never hold federal office again.
[x] Lincoln, Abraham, Second Inaugural Address
[xi] Regan, Ronald, Vision for America speech, 3 November 1980

Monday, July 6, 2015

Fowl and Foreign Policy in the United States

Fowl and Foreign Policy in the United States


Introduction


Over the last several months I have been rather tied up in a personal life transition, but this does not mean, for one moment, that I have been absent in my observation or thinking in regards to another corner of the globe and a former romping ground of mine in Iraq.  As I articulated in a past post (http://backusec.blogspot.com/2014/06/losing-iraq.html) there was much yet to be seen in the saga that was the emergence of ISIS (of media parlance, or ISIL, of official parlance, or “The Islamic State”, of whom they wish to be called).  I too have been attuned to our response, lack there-of or limited as it is, and that of the voices both here in CONUS as well as overseas and among our allies, fren-emies, and enemies.  And what has finally gotten me to the point of scripting a post, was the Facebook yelling I saw between a friend of mine and that of another associate of a common acquaintance he had on this very topic; which devolved to bird calling.  Birds?  What does that have to do with ISIS and Iraq, and Syria, and foreign affairs?  I’ll get to that.  Let me first posit that the last century has changed the way we look at foreign affairs irrevocably.

A Brief Review of US Foreign Policy History


I listened, in early February, to Bruce Carlson’s superb podcast on Washington and his birthday (https://myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/why-washington-deserves-his-own-day-2013/[i]).  In that broadcast he hints at the impact of the Farewell Address that Washington gave[ii] as he left the presidency (he didn’t leave the white house mind you) lasting for over a century.  His assertion of American neutrality and that we avoid “entanglements” with the European powers of the day.  He asks “Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?[iii]”  And in so doing he steers our first 100 years of being towards a clear policy that we would “[take] care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.[iv]”  But today, the US is not merely entangled, it is often the entangler of others, into longstanding alliances, treaties, and obligations, not the least of which is NATO, the UN, and the Geneva and Hague Conventions/Law of the Sea.  If anything, we have turned Washington’s policy, and that of the predominance of the 19th century, on its head in the 20th century.  One cannot point to a flip-of-the-switch moment, but there is a clear inflection point that happened in the late 1800s that is historical and pertinent today.  Our emerging nation spent the first 100 years establishing itself amongst world powers, and in the second 100, became one of, if not “the”, world power.  The US spent the first century constantly afraid that a colonial power would try to re-engulf the fledgling country into its sphere of influence, if not its empire outright.  While in the second case, the US emerged as an imperial stakeholder acquiring its own overseas possessions and often has to now fend off accusations of its own desire to “take over” other nation states.  No longer were we ostriches sticking our heads in the sand defended behind the distance of seas and communication gaps, but instead eagles flying high over nearly every international engagement the world round and invasively infusing our culture through our globalized network of connectedness.

To say the US is not, by the late-middle of the 20th century in a very different place than Washington’s vision is fantastically ignorant.  But, likewise, it is even more ignorant to not understand why the policy ended up that way.  America has not, even from Washington’s day, been without the need for allies and alliances, and, as with all things in history, they add up.  Initially we relied on the French as a counterweight to the British, and then we fended off the British, French, and Spanish along with the Barbary States through diplomatic and naval gamesmanship, until such time as our trade became thwarted and we succumbed to a check action during the Napoleonic period.  And even in the aftermath of the War of 1812[v], we worked more to play the European powers off against themselves than we tried to avoid them.  We saw to it in the Monroe Doctrine that we would “close” the hemisphere “to European colonization” and further enforced that doctrine through a number of actions (including the Mexican-American War) to hedge against a land-based invasion among other priorities.  And as the American Civil War heated up, it was critical to the US government that Great Britain, among others, remain on the sideline and not become a treaty party with the Confederate States or other elements on our doorstep.  All of these necessitated treaties, and alliances, and commitments, that simply continued to add, along with trade pacts, to the growth of the need for America to eventually take a differing stand in its international relationships from that which Washington envisioned.

And all the while, something else was happening, technology and progress in industry was making the ocean barrier more and more narrow.  All history buffs of the 1812 conflict know that the Battle of New Orleans (the US’s most significant land based battle win) was fought after the Treaty of Ghent was signed in 1815[vi].  The reason for this is that in the late 18th and early 19th centuries the flow of communication depended highly upon wind-born sailing ships on the seas and drawn or flotsam craft by river.  Thus weeks could pass between the sending of a message and the reply.  By the break-out of the Civil War, with the invention and widespread use of the telegraph and locomotive on land and steamships on the rivers, this had been halved if not further shortened to mere days.  And by the end of the 19th century, the Great Columbian exhibition in Chicago was demonstrating such wonders as the wireless radio, electric lighting, and refrigeration and tales of the battleships that were now roaming the seas and there was a village of these new peoples, conquered by the recent war with Spain called “Filipinos”.  Simply put the oceans were becoming less a barrier and more an all-important byway for the US, its citizens, and its interests.

So when we fast forward to the sequence that led to our involvement in the Great War (aka WW I) and then WW II, both our string of localized treaties and alliances coupled with technology and industry hit an abrupt about face.  The US didn’t go quietly into this new position, mind you, as Wilson had to promise never to allow us to get entangled in the then multiyear European based worldwide conflict, in order to get re-elected and he could never get that League of Nations through the Senate.  While true, this didn’t change the fact that the “facts on the ground” had changed from “Our detached and distant situation …[vii]” that Washington bespoke of in his farewell.  And it became clear, as we first succumb to a worldwide economic depression, and then worldwide total war, that our policy could no longer be in the guise of isolationist ostriches, but had to be a new bird altogether.

The Post WWII Foreign Policy Consensus


Having been draw into two devastating world conflicts, the US defense and foreign affairs community quickly gravitated around the optimism that America was and would remain a force for securing international peace for years to come.  Helped by the emerging ideological and cultural conflicts with the communist world, core principles of what America saw as its mantle of leadership, emerged and remained essentially unmovable up through the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.  These principles, I believe were:
  • Our best defense is to fight and defeat the enemy “over there” and thereby avoid the utter destruction of total war to the homeland[viii]
  • Appeasement of “evil” forces does not work, rather it encourages them; showing strength is the best way to ensure peace in the face of such forces in the world (the lesson of Munich[ix])
  • Building and integrating allies into commercial and cultural exchanges and ensuring the freedom of the seas is paramount to the power of the economic and political future of the United States[x]
  • Maintaining a strong military and having its posture such that it can strike and mitigate threats before they are able to sufficiently challenge our position, secures both the homeland and our interests in the world[xi]
  • The US can employ diplomacy, information, military and economic forces (DIME theory[xii]) to bend the will of other powers and contain those hostile to our interests
  • Democracy, rule of law, and capitalism are unstoppable forces that uplift human kind and the American model of liberal constitutionalism ought to be spread throughout the world as an innate good; to this end we will engage the world to uplift “them” using our might for the betterment of ourselves and all others.
These principles of our foreign policy still resonate to this day.  Echoes of it, for instance, are almost quoted verbatim in the discussions of the ongoing crisis with ISIS in the Middle East.  For instance in January, Fareed Zakaria, wrote a bit about this in an opinion piece[xiii], and questioned Senator John McCain’s call for intervention in the conflict this way, “This theory was sometimes described during the Iraq war as ‘we fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here.’ It was wrong then, and it’s wrong now.”[xiv]  I normally am one that is highly complementary of Mr. Zakaria and his analysis.  In this particular article, however, I find myself in some level of disagreement because he is partially right when he offers that “[t]o argue that the only way to stop terrorism at home is for the United States to intervene militarily and stabilize the many parts of the Middle East that are in conflict is to commit Washington to a fool’s errand for decades.”[xv]  But then, Senator McCain is partially right especially when he observes “…now we see Libya descending into chaos because once they [the Obama administration] got rid of Gadhafi we washed our hands of it.  The moral of the story is leading from behind doesn't work.”[xvi]  Even so, both seem to have flown the coop in regards to the bigger picture of how we ought to conduct foreign policy.

Back to the Bird Calling Discussion


So let’s return to the nest in this discussion and the throwing of fowl words in a Facebook exchange.  What got my friend and his associate into the bird calling game was that we have several dynamics and attitudes that have emerged in the last decade as it relates to the use of force in the pursuit of US foreign policy.  There is a challenge now to clearly place policies in our political discourse into clearly pacifist or clearly pro-martial buckets.  During McCain’s service days it was easy, those that were for involvement in the War in Vietnam, for instance were “hawks”[xvii] while those that were against were “doves”[xviii]  Now it’s a bit more nuanced.  Senator McCain, for instance is widely known for his desire to use military force early and often, but is also widely known for his unequivocal position that torture should never be allowed.  And there are also now other fowl that are in the picture that include ostriches[xix], chicken-hawks[xx], turkeys[xxi], and owls[xxii].  In the discussion that I observed, the two favorite bird calls were to rail against the “ostriches” and the “chicken-hawks” (ostriches, stereotypically “with their head in the sand” often symbolize isolationist policies, and chicken-hawks often symbolize those with hawkish policy approaches that either lack the personal experience in war to speak as such, or are those that are unwilling to accept and support paying for the fullness of the consequences of military action).  What was missed was that we lack a unifying policy at all, lending it to having way too many birds in the aviary to enable a best way forward.  What we need is an “eagle”, we can all follow and be assured of success with.

The “Eagle” Policy and the post WWII Consensus


I offer, in a separate post (http://backusec.blogspot.com/2015/05/we-together-theory-strategy-and.html), a fairly comprehensive vision of such a possible strategy; one that I think is that eagle.  What I think I need to do is help compare that with our core post-WWII tenants and the various other birds we could consider adopting as a strategy.  On the whole, the proposed strategy holds to most of the core principles cited above as the post-WWII/Cold War consensus policy, with a few exceptions.  First, it does not presume that we know and can impose our form of democracy and rule of law in other cultural contexts or nations.  It, further, does not support an absolute recognition and defense of existing nation-state boundaries or constructs.  Thus if you look at that bulleted list above, my proposed “eagle” approach to foreign policy is not going to engage military force as a medium to “make nations” so much as to “enable nation making” of their own variations and volitions amongst native peoples.  Secondly, this proposed policy, does not presume that the US has to or should “go it alone” in regards to how it engages in military action.  While the policy does bespeak a strong military component, it does so in the guise of collective action first and foremost, and full ownership, for a long term engagement (that allows the indigenous growth needed to gain stability) if we do opt to take on the burden ourselves.  What this policy suggests is that we have George HW Bush’s “Gulf War Coalition”[xxiii] over and against a George W Bush type “Coalition of the Willing”.  By doing so, we can bring to bear long term success and mitigate against loosing international credence in our objectives.  The last difference, is in our selectiveness.  In the post-WWII world the Truman Doctrine[xxiv] pushed us to an “all-in” approach to fighting for and defending all around the world all the time[xxv].  As articulated in my post, we have to acknowledge that our use of military power, amongst the various expressions of national power, has to be “on-par” with the other elements.  The Cold War construct, for good reasons, weighted the military option much more heavily than the other three components.  Going forward, there needs to be a much more strident attempt to balance those aspects, so that none become too skewed across the world of engagements the US must be a part of (that said what is proposed is not the Nixon doctrine entirely, as we may engage with non-allies in our efforts).  Save these exceptions, then, we still fit more into the tenants of a globalized US engagement construct, using this policy theory, than Washington’s dis-engagement policy of the 19th Century.

And How About the Other Birds?


But how about the other birds?  Well, notably, what I believe necessary, is in direct contradiction with the ostriches.  The libertarian neo-isolationist view would very much harken back to Washington’s farewell, but it would essentially equate to a handing over the world and suffer the consequences approach.  Looking to that counter-factual future, I am unsure we want to cede to the BRICS[xxvi] control of the economic and political world we will have to live in.  While I do posit we need to find out own version of the “special relationship” like the one the UK established with us as it began its decline from Empire, putting our heads in the sand precipitously is rife for creating a world that we will regret acceding to.  Likewise, however, this is a direct affront to the “chicken-hawks”.  The proposed plan is not a “strike fast, strike hard”, and “evacuate as soon as possible”, strategy.  Unlike neo-conservative interventionism, it isn’t exclusively or even near-exclusively military enabled.  Rather it accepts and requires a whole of government approach and one that acknowledges that killing ISIS may have much more to do with killing its funding stream than its people.  The other thing this strategy does is embrace rather than flee from nation-building, even if it re-envisions our involvement there-in (e.g. less us building and more them building for themselves).  Thus, this strategy is anything but a chicken in hawk attire; it has much more depth and staying power than that.  This strategy also comes into conflict with the turkeys, as it recognizes there are limits to US power and we ought not to show where our proverbial wall is lightly manned.  There is a realization that we also cannot solve every conflict between various peoples and places; the Arab-Israeli conflict is probably a case in point.  To that end this isn’t a policy that will aimlessly try to “do-it-all” and thus end up being a thanksgiving meal rather than working theory of foreign relations.  Similarly, this isn’t an owlish policy either.  Unlike the realpolitik of the Nixon administration, or even Bismarck’s, this isn’t a purely Machiavellian mechanism absent a level of ethical and moral direction.  Rather it has a clear aim to aid people in the world to bridge where they are to where the globalized world is at today or in the future.  Certainly the proposed “eagle” policy does put more pragmatic terms on our attempts to shape events and places, but we are doing so with a clear long term goals of removing oppression and helping people to a path of liberty.  Thus we will not stand on the shoulder, turning our head from side to side, of an authoritarian dictator for long, especially if they are not working to liberate and develop a place that uplifts its people.

The Eagle Policy and ISIS


So, with all this, is this a hawkish or a dovish policy?  I think the answer is both/and.  The goal is to enable a policy that meets our long term aims of a stable, globalized, and liberalized (in the sense of liberated) world order that enables the US to compete, and compete well, economically, socially, and politically.  An eagle policy should do that, and must do that.  The other birds simply cannot meet the needs of the day or of the US long-term.  We don’t live in the age of Washington or even of Eisenhower; we have to understand that we live in an age that neither could have imagined.  So to take on the likes of the continuing problem of ISIS we have to shift and understand the newness and with it the policy that can support our efforts into the future.

An application of my proposed policy would be a more robust engagement in the wider Middle East to create the bulwark needed to engage in both the present day Syria and Iraq.  Long term, all of the states created in the post WWI Sykes-Picot world will need to be decidedly balkanized and reformulated.  Great concerns exist of the rise of a new “Persia” on the part of the Hejaz/Bedouin Saudi Arabia, but likewise, we need to recognize that the current Iraqi and Syrian states cannot provide a stable situation long term.  Our best bet is to engage closely with the Hashemite Kingdom (aka Jordan), Turkey, and the Gulf Principalities to develop a strong engagement strategy that reformulates Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, into component parts and states that can stand on their own.  Working with the Saudis and the Iranians, an encirclement and prevention of inbound support to ISIS, Bahir al-Assad’s regime, and other emerging threats is a must.  We must understand that while the power sharing opportunity we gave Iraq didn’t occur, we didn’t fail.  The Government of Iraq is functioning at a low level, but can still stand as a representative body for the Shia dominated south, and the Baghdadi urban core.  Likewise the autonomy given to the Kurds has enabled stability and a security in that region and not as a destabilizing element in Turkey/Anatolia.  While in hindsight perhaps sagely, a “soft partition” as proposed by Joe Biden in the mid-2000s may need to take place, but larger than that, may have to occur in Syria as well, in order to properly develop the political stability required[xxvii].  The likelihood is that a series of deployments around the “ISIS zone” will need to take place, involving US ground troops for sure, but more importantly and numerously Saudi, Jordanian, Turkish, as well as Kurdish and Shia Arab Iraqi.  Rather than a pure assault oriented approach against ISIS, the goal should be to control and contain ISIS and Assad’s forces, which will be in a pitch, for some time, against each other.  This containment would need to also be financial and diplomatic which will necessitate Russian support as well.  This will require an approach that will likely include concessions about the orientation of the gradual break-up of the present Syrian state, especially as it relates to the Mediterranean coast.  That said, once the encirclement is in place and the two (or more) parties within it are weakened, the approach can be much like a noose tightening, with the relinquished areas, not re-integrated into Iraq or a Syrian state, so much as into a loose confederation of Arab republics/states that eventually form into several countries based along ethnic, geographic, and cultural boundaries rather than present borders.  The Saudi’s and the Iranians, with the US as a third partner, would need to broker a needed overall security balance, so as to ensure that none of the developed states would become proxies for either Shia Iran or Sunni Saudi Arabia for a continuance of the conflict.  The counter to these will need to be an encouraged Turkish state with allies in Jordan and the remaining Gulf States[xxviii], which would be called upon to aid in the garrison of security forces once the constituencies are established.  Over time, the security forces can retrograde as local policing in possible, and eventually a confederation army is stood up that provides defense against existential threats.

Conclusion


This hopefully puts into some context the way forward, at least within the working theory I have put forward for an US foreign policy.  There are still some finer points to be worked out, but this hopefully can help create the vision of how we proceed, and not be out of our nest or flying away from the coop.  So, to conclude, the next time you see bird-calling in a series of posts about foreign policy, remember that unless they are arguing as an eagle, they are simply being a dodo.[xxix]





[i] By the way, I cannot recommend this more-or-less weekly podcast enough; fantastic work on relating current events and American history
[iv] Ibid.
[v] or the Second Revolutionary War, or the Anglo-American Theatre within the sphere of the overall Napoleonic Wars, which ever parlance you might choose.
[vi] Signed on 24 December 1814, the Battle of New Orleans occurred 24 December 1814 to 8 January 1815.
[viii] In this we were greatly affected by the stories, images and devastation that was wrought upon Europe (especially) and Japan/China by the conflict in WWII.  The idea that main street America could end up looking like the smoked out hole that was made of the Avenue des Champs-Élysées in Paris or the Unter den Linden in Berlin.
[ix] Summary narrative here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement, but also check the source reference material for more information.
[x] e.g. the UN Charter, the NATO alliance, and so forth.
[xi] It is noted that the draft continued well into the 1970s, even though the US never was in a declared state of war since the end of WWII.
[xii] DIME:  Diplomatic, Information/Intelligence, Military, and Economic; more at http://defensestatecraft.blogspot.com/2010/04/dime.html
[xv] Ibid.
[xvi] Interview on CNN on January 13, 2015, retrieved from:  http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1501/13/nday.05.html
[xvii] The hawk being a high flying bird of prey that seeks to attack, disable, and ravage its victim; symbolizing the pro-war stance and/or a desire for an active foreign policy that uses the military extensively.
[xviii] The dove, often seen as carrying an olive branch, the traditional symbol of peace, is famously remembered as the chosen bird to go out by Noah and see if the devastating flood in the biblical story had receded to the point that it was safe to re-enter the world.  Typically this symbolizes in such discussions a stance of an anti-war stance and/or a foreign policy mark by diplomacy and other means without engaging in military action.
[xix] libertarian neo-isolationists; some leading voices include Rand Paul and Ron Paul
[xx] neo-conservative interventionists; some leading voices include Bill Kristol, Richard Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz
[xxi] liberal interventionist; some leading voices include Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright
[xxii] Realpolitik; some leading voices include Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice
[xxiii] All major world powers contributed to the ejection of Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1990/1991, with a coalition of 34 countries inclusive of numerous Arab states and several financial backers (including Japan and China).  By contrast, France, Germany, Turkey, and several major powers were left off the list of 48 partners in the supporting cast for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.  Simply looking at the lists together shows, instead of having established partners, the 2003 coalition was one more of upstarts and “wanna-bes” (excepting some key players common to both actions).
[xxiv] “It must be the policy of the United States to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.”  March 12, 1947, Speech to a Joint Session of Congress, Harry S. Truman.
[xxv] Famously articulated by Kennedy in his inaugural address “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
[xxvi] BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) is a common expression for the largest and most significant world powers that are emerging in the post-Cold War/ post US-hegemonic period.
[xxvii] I would posit here that one needs to look at the historic boundaries that existed within and before the Ottoman Empire as well as the geographic and cultural features of today.  For instance, looking at Syria, it is really composed of:  A region centered on and surrounding Damascus; a region centered on and surrounding Aleppo; a coastal region nominally with capitols at Latakia (Alawite) and Tartus which has more relation with Tripoli in Lebanon; an interior region streaming from Palmyra south of the Euphrates and a region that centers on Al Hasakah and more properly should be a part of a greater Kurdistan.  Similarly in Iraq, during the latter Ottoman period it ws diviede into three vilayets of Mosul (Kurdish), Baghdad (Sunni Arab), and Basrah (Shia Arab).  Interspersed was a vilayet of Zor Sanjak that bridged Anbar, and southern Syria as we have it today.  The precise boundaries of the new states that would emerge, is hard to reckon at this juncture, but these geographic and cultural notes are perhaps good guides as we look forward.
[xxviii] It is acknowledged that save some air assets, there is likely to be limited military support from the independent Gulf States.  However, this effort will require significant financial heft, and in the case of the UAE, there is aide that can be provided in developing a governing structure amongst and between rival factions so as to create a stable nation.
[xxix] Dodo, a now extinct species of bird.