Afghanistan Issues

After the attacks of 9/11, there was consensus in the country that Osama bin Laden had masterminded the attack. Since the Taliban were harboring him in Afghanistan, there was also consensus among the people of the US that Afghanistan should be attacked in retaliation. Freeman characterizes this kind of response in reaction to stimulus as part of the “national interest.” In the immediate aftermath of the attack, combined with the anthrax attacks, there was a lot of fear in the country that the survival of America was at stake. According to Freeman “Survival is the supreme national interest. Challenges to it lead to war.” (Pg 14)

Here, I think it is important to examine national power. Freeman is primarily concerned with national power as a perception in the minds of potential opponents. A crucial aspect of national power and potential is the fear that political leaders have of being voted out of office should they fail to respond as vigorously as the electorate demands. President Bush attempted to forestall an attack by diplomatically offering the Taliban a choice to give up bin Laden or being attacked. As we know, the Taliban refused and Pres Bush was forced to make a choice that would effect the international perception of national power. “Neither military, nor economic, nor political strength, no matter how immense, is much value if adversaries disbelieve it will be applied.” (pg 15) So, since Pres Bush had essentially told the Taliban to give up bin Laden or else, to preserve the perception of US national power, he toppled the regime.

Although Freeman might not agree with this use of power, President Bush has articulated another reason to attack Afghanistan. “Our strategy to keep the peace in the longer term is to help change the conditions that give rise to extremism and terror, especially in the broader Middle East. This status quo of despotism and anger cannot be ignored or appeased, kept in a box or bought off, because we have witnessed how the violence in that region can reach easily across borders and oceans. The entire world has an urgent interest in the progress, and hope, and freedom in the broader Middle East.” (March 8, 2005) Freeman, in other contexts, has worried that the US is establishing an empire, but President Bush’s attempt to instill “progress, hope and freedom” would truly be an example of the “art of power.”

Pakistan’s role in the Afghanistan’s recovery is different from Pakistan’s role is supporting the Taliban, but the end is the same. The British Foreign Minister from 1846-1851, Lord Palmerson, was reported to have said: “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” Pakistan’s interests have not changed in the decade or so that has seen the rise and fall of the Taliban and the rise of the US back Karzai government. According to Weinbaum, Pakistan wants “strategic depth” to deal with India. Strategic depth is the safety and resources additional space provides an army or nation. V. R. Raghavan, in his article Strategic depth in Afghanistan from the Times of India of 7 November 2001 argues that in the specific case of Pakistan vis a vis Afghanistan, strategic depth refers to the belief in Pakistan, dating from the time of President Zia that “The support it received from the U.S. in waging an armed response against the Soviet occupation triggered the belief. The success of that endeavour with no apparent costs to itself, gave Islamabad the illusion of being able to play a major role in the geo-politics of Central Asia. This more than anything else led to the belief that Afghanistan provided the strategic leverage Pakistan had long been seeking. The energy-rich Muslim states of Central Asia beckoned both Pakistan and the energy-seeking multi-nationals.” Essentially, Pakistan wants a dependent or at least closely allied Pashtu nation that will support Pakistan’s strategic interests.”

Pakistan’s desire for strategic depth explains why Musharraf was so willing to disregard international condemnation for his recognition of the Taliban and also why he so quickly threw them aside when given the ultimatum by the United States. Musharraf saw having influence in Afghanistan as a vital interest, but quickly realized that staying on the good side of an angry and aggressive United States in the Fall of 2001 as a Supreme Interest. Failing to support the US could well have led to some regime change in Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan. Switching sides has benefited Pakistan and their search for “strategic depth” by making it less likely that the US will overwhelmingly tilt toward India. Freeman observes that “shifting balances of power and perception or the emergence of new issues between states will cause an alert state to reexamine and readjust its existing patter of foreign relations.” (pg 81) Musharraf was alert, and made the change.

The improved economic climate in Afghanistan has also had economic benefits for Pakistan. The combination of a relatively stable neighbor, the return of capitalism and the availability of Western capital has benefited both countries.

In the Fall of 2001, Iran also saw that the United States was angry and liable to do things that weeks earlier would have been unthinkable. With the US conduction operations in the Afghanistan, Iran made conciliatory gestures, most notable of which was the offer to assist in the rescue of downed airmen. However, with the fall of the Taliban and a return to stasis in the region, Iran has returned to their three decades long cold war against the US. Part of Iran’s rush to develop nuclear weapons and accurate delivery platforms is that fact that Iran is now surrounded by forces hosting significant US combat power. For years, Iran railed against the great Satan. Now, the great Satan has 200,000 troops on both flanks, significant combat power on the seas to the South and a dangerous and unpredictable ally in the Little Satan, Israel, with the ability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction of its own. Nonetheless, Iran has decided to ratchet up the tension, supplying arms to the remnants of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iran presses forward with the effort to obtain nuclear weapons even in the face of threats from the United States and France to prevent them forcibly from getting them. Why would Iran insist on provoking the US when it is in such a strong position?

Freeman supplies the answers. Iran does not believe that the US has the will to effectively counter its ambitions, and therefore, Iran will succeed in acquiring nuclear weapons. Once Iran has weapons the world will have to shift perceptions and accommodate Iran. Iran’s power flows from its obstinacy. Since the Islamic Revolution, it has pursued power relentlessly and is on the verge of attaining it, even with American combat power on the border. Iran’s determination to insist on terms advantageous to itself, and to increase its power to make other countries accept those terms.

I agree that there is no real national interest in moving in to instill democracy where it does not exist. If that were truly a worthwhile policy, I would recommend that we start with Zimbabwe, Cuba or North Korea. However, instilling democracy is not a goal unto itself worth the cost to America. Instead, instilling democracy is only a means towards something that is a bona fide goal of US foreign policy. That goal is to reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the US homeland. The justification can be found in the adage that says “insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” For the United States, the same old foreign policy towards the Middle East of propping up some dictators and trying to contain others only resulted in a breeding ground of terrorists willing and able to attack America. Merely repeating the George HW Bush – Baker – Freeman policy of ignoring oppression of everyone in the Middle East while favoring some despots resulted only in seething resentment among the people towards the US from Morocco to Indonesia. George Bush decided to overthrow the most virulent, expansionistic yet most vulnerable regimes and replace them with more representative governments. His hope was that changing the conditions that bred terrorism and the harbors of terrorism would seed further political improvement throughout the region and thereby reduce the likelihood that grievances would fester and result in terrorism against the US. Will Bush’s gamble prove successful? The jury is still out on that. We do know what the status quo brought America; the hope is that by boldly crashing the status quo, the resulting changes in the region will enhance the security of the US.

Regarding the question of how the strategic policies of the US in the region affect Pakistani and Iranian actions, I read your response to say that Iran (and Pakistan) now have the opportunity to collaborate with the US on reconstruction of Afghanistan and thereby gain prestige. I think Iran has something different in mind. Iran has been at war with the US since storming the American embassy in 1979. The US now has tens of thousands of troops and civilians within striking distance of Iranian weapons. US policy makers have worried about the threat of an Iranian weapon of mass destruction as payload on missiles aimed at Europe or the United States. However, US strategic policy has given Iran convenient targets just across their borders. Even though Iran may have had traditional trading and religious interests in Afghanistan, the chance to deal a massive defeat to America in one stroke may prove to be too tempting. Iran would at the same time be striking Afghanistan, but Iran and Iranian backed forces have shown little compunction about collateral damage when the target is the US. I think the desire to strike at the US is more likely an Iranian reaction to US strategy than an attempt to build rapport or prestige.

I wonder how “on edge” Central Asia is really feeling about the continued US presence? What evidence is there that the US stays one minute longer than it is wanted once the local government says asks the US to leave? The US even respects the wishes of a bloody tyrant like Karimov in Uzbekistan whose military is capable of little more than firing into masses of unarmed protestors. If the US were truly some kind of imperial power as Philip Gordon fantasizes, then it would have been little trouble to overthrow Karimov’s kleptocracy and install a more compliant figurehead. Instead, the US packed up and left when served an eviction notice for the K2 Airbase. It is a strange kind of empire that quits when it is asked to.

The governments of Afghanistan and Iran are well aware that if they ask, the US will pull out. Yet, neither has asked. Both governments know that evicting the US would mean victory for the murderous, nihilistic terrorists still lurking within their borders. Eviction of the Americans would hearten the terrorists to continue their murderous assault on the people. A real tangible victory would embolden the terrorists. Osama bin Laden himself made this clear when he observed in the aftermath of 9/11 in December 2001 that “when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.” So, while Philip Gordon and the Brookings Institution may think that re-heating the status quo ante 9/11 is really the key to American security, actual empirical evidence shows that bin Laden was dead-on in his assessment of people. People want to follow the strong horse; in Afghanistan and Iraq now, the US is the strong horse. There is no evidence that the large US presence in either country is a particularly effective recruiting device for terrorists, rather, young men are flocking to join security services whose mission is to destroy al Qaeda.

Further, Philip Gordon establishes a straw man when he argues that it would be alienating to many countries for the US to mobilize 16 million and occupy a bunch of countries and instead, the US should withdraw and allow diplomacy to change perceptions in the Middle East. Are these really the only alternatives? The US mobilized approximately 12% of the population during World War II, a proportion that would equal a force of 30 million today. Does Philip Gordon really think that if America had 30 million troops available to destroy terrorists around the world that United State’s security would decrease? Talk about a strong horse! However, such a mobilization would be achieved only at the cost of the American standard of living, and no one in the US is willing to do that. Instead, there is a middle ground between Gordon’s straw man of “total mobilization” and the feckless American diplomacy of the 30 years that preceded 9/11. That middle ground includes much of what is happening now. Pursuing terrorists where they are, supporting democrats where they exist and generally being the “strong horse.” Bin Laden would recognize that as a recipe for long term security even if Philip Gordon does not.

Sources:
Freeman Jr., Chas. Arts of Power. Washington DC, 1997.

Weinbaum, Marvin G. “Afghanistan and Its Neighbors.” United States Institute of Peace Special Report (June 2006).

Bush, George. (March 8, 2005) “President Discusses War on Terror; National Defense University; Fort Lesley J. McNair.” Retrieved October 23, 2007 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050308-3.html

Gordon, Philip H. “Can the War on Terror Be Won?” Foreign Affairs; Nov/Dec 2007, Vol 86 Issue 6, pg 53-66

More Bateman

Sir, Your advice to readers to go back to Carnage and Culture is the most compelling counter to LTC Bateman's attack. I am not much of a student, but the thesis of the chapter on Cannae was pretty clear to me, and did not resemble the straw man that LTC Bateman constructed to argue against.

I tend to agree with your analysis that LTC Bateman's critique of you is "politically-driven, contracted-out journalism, and not intended to be serious historical examinations." This is ironic, given LTC Bateman's previous complaints about and disdain for poorly sourced history written to sell to an ignorant public. Pot, meet kettle.

The Case For "Raw Deal"

It has the greatest line Arnold ever delivered. After his drunk wife throws her birthday cake at him, narrowly missing his head and instead hitting the wall, Arnold says: (wait for it) "You should not drink and bake."

Are democracy and human rights universal concepts?

Human rights and democracy are distinct concepts. In the Western mind, they are intertwined. A convenient shorthand for many Americans is that “human rights” include the ones mentioned prominently in the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) and those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Declaration of Independence does not mention democracy and mentions elections only once. The writers of the declaration were much more concerned about the King’s affronts to their personal liberties and for ruling like a tyrant without concern for the effect of his rulings on those in the colonies. Likewise, the Constitution and Bill of Rights say very little about democracy or elections but quite a lot about the rights of individuals and states. It is not until the amendments that were passed in the 20th century to we have universal suffrage for all adults. The constitution only allows for men to vote for representatives to the House of Representatives. Senators were to be selected by the State Legislatures, which could themselves be constituted any way the states wanted. The President was to be selected by electors appointed to the task in the way that the state legislatures chose. The Constitution of the United States was written as if to exclude individuals from having a voice in government. On the other hand, the Bill of Rights was written to ensure that the individual was protected from the government.

As a practical matter, generations of Americans grew up confident in the protection of their rights, and confident in their ability to govern themselves. Though the framers of the constitution may have envisioned that the most educated and wise among us would somehow rise into positions of power, subsequent generations decided to write laws ensuring that the people themselves would vote for all legislative positions and many judicial positions. The American perception of human rights resulted in the people demanding more direct votes to express their democracy.

However, voting does not necessarily equate to democracy. The word democracy itself is from the Greek meaning “rule of the people.” The Athenian conception of democracy was that a select group, the “citizens,” free-born men, would rule the rest. This was essentially representative democracy in which all heads of families would represent everyone else in their households. Would this first version of democracy have met the UN standard? Well, no: Article 21, para (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”

Given that the Athenians would not have met the UN definition of democracy, was Athens ruled by the people? The Athenians themselves thought so, as did their fellow Greeks. But given that their “democracy” did not meet the standards of Article 21, does that mean Athens was not a democracy? Rather than drilling down to paragraph (3) of Article 21, we should instead look at paragraph (1): “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. This paragraph seems closer to describing what most people would recognize as democracy.”

When democracy is defined as “rule of the people,” it is much easier to see democracy as a universal concept. The Papua New Guinea tribesman of last week’s readings whose tribal head serves in the legislature is “ruling”, even if he has never actually voted for that chief with a secret ballot. Clans in Iraq lead by sheiks representing their clan-members who have agreed to the succession of power, either overtly or tacitly. In both cases, what protects the “rule of the people” is the fate that would await a tribal leader who did not represent the rule of the people he represents. A canton President in Switzerland might face recall by the voters or indictment in court for malfeasance but a tribal chieftain risks death at the hands of his constituents should he fail them.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, the “rule by the people” is protected by the right to change the government. “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.” In other writings, he stated that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” So long as the people retain their rights and abilities to change their government, they are a democracy. Therefore, even though the American Colonists had immediately before been subjects of the British crown, when they declared independence, they immediately became a democracy.

Safeguarding human rights preserves a democracy and a democracy is needed to safeguard human rights. When a government must respect a people’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as the Declaration of Independence lists them, or life, liberty and security of person as the Universal Declaration puts it, then, those people have autonomy. Kathy Ward, in “Advancing Human Rights and Peace in a Complex World” puts it this way: “Democracy, a pillar of respect for the rights and value of each individual, remains key to obtaining lasting peace and a resolution to a number of scourges that face the world today, including terrorism, famine, corruption, and refugee flows.”

Even though the UN Universal Declaration recognizes democracy and human rights as the natural order of human relations, there are still agglomerations of countries that put out statements that contradict this position. 40 Asia governments states that they have something called "Asia's Different Standard," that recognizes "the principles of respect for national sovereignty...and noninterference in the internal affairs of States" and "discourages" "any attempt to use human rights as a conditionality for extending development assistance," and it gives special weight to collective (as opposed to individual) rights, such as the "right to development." (David Little, Human Rights East and West) Supposedly, Asian countries value to worth of the group more than the worth of the individuals.

In a similar vein, Arab countries are concerned that the Western and UN vision of human rights conflicts with Islam’s cultural and religious view of women. The UN’s Arab Human Development report of 2002, referenced in the USIP’s Special Report on Promotion Middle East Democracy, summed up the plight of women in the Islamic world: “As a result, the process of political liberalization has by-passed too many people. For example, in one country that has an elected national assembly, women are denied the right to hold office. In other countries, despite the legal equality of women and men in terms of political rights, women are greatly underrepresented in all political organizations. The proportion of women in Arab parliaments is low. ” (pg 106) The reason is that for cultural and religious reasons, women are not seen as the equal of men. The current Western concept of human rights for all including women means little to most on the Muslim side of the secular-Islamist divide.

Yet, the fact that there is little manifestation of recognized human rights in many countries in Asia and the Muslim world does not mean those rights are illusory. On the contrary, Asian and Muslim groups go to strained lengths to show how they agree with the concept of human rights, even if they do not put honor these rights in practice. Leszek Kolkowski quoted in the “Nature and Basis of Human Rights” sums the attitude in these non-Western cultures this way: “When we extend our generous acceptance of cultural diversity...and aver, e.g., that the human rights idea is a European concept, unfit for, and [not] understandable in, societies which share other traditions, is what we mean that Americans rather dislike being tortured and packed into concentration camps but Vietnamese, Iranians and Albanians do not mind or enjoy it?" Of course, representatives of governments in these non-Western Countries know the answer. Even the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in 2004 called for unfettered transfer of power and rights of both men and women to serve in parliament, things that they clearly do not believe. If, as Rochefoucauld states: "Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue,” then so too is the Muslim conference statement that says Islamic countries must respect voting rights of their populations and the rights of women.

There is little real debate about the meaning of human rights and democracy. Though some cultures may not provide every person in that country a vote, countries can be “ruled by the people” if there is opportunity for the people to replace their local representative. With regard to human rights, even despots know that humans yearn for their rights to life liberty, happiness, and to rule themselves. This explains why despots must forcibly put down democracy demonstrations and mouth the language of human rights even though they have no intention of actually recognizing those rights.

I would argue that just because some people perpetrate despicable acts in a cultural context does not mean that those acts are right. Although this is a trite observation, the framers of the Declaration of Independence held slaves. Some cultures to this day still enslave members of other ethnic groups. Do these facts somehow argue against the idea that freedom from slavery is a basic human right? One can find many statements from religious and political leaders in the Islamic countries that condemn “honor” killing. Turkey, Jordan and Pakistan routinely prosecute “honor” killers. Just because criminals do things that the rest of the world considers violations of human rights does not mean these acts are alternatives to the Western vision of human rights, it just means those acts are crimes that must be prosecuted.

Regarding the universality of democracy, it depends on the definition of democracy. If you mean a Western style of government with universal adult suffrage and secret ballots, think you are right that some people who have never been exposed to those concepts would have a hard time imagining them. But if you define democracy as rule of the people, you would find that people relish the opportunity to rule themselves, in whatever form that rule takes. Do a thought experiment. If the Burmese were suddenly free of the ruling junta, would they yearn for its return? The answer is of course no. Chile and Argentina were rid of their juntas and established democracies. It is the natural order of things.

And I think you are exactly right about the despots wanting legitimacy by sitting on the UNHRC. These despots are applauded for their commitment to human rights. Meanwhile, sitting on the Council allows them to obfuscate their crimes and direct scrutiny away from themselves because these criminal despots know they are violating human rights.

LTC Bateman vs Victor Davis Hanson

Sir, I think I may have insight into LTC Bateman's animus. In a an article in the Nov 2002 issue of the Marine Corps Gazette, "History and the Professional," he rails against popular military historians. He complains about a lack of footnotes in popular histories; he complains about amateurs like Tom Brokaw writing history; he complains about "historians-for-profit" selling out to write popular history. You are in his sights now, Sir (only figuratively, I hope)

Here is a taste of that article: "Our job is not about feeling good. Our job is about violence and directing violence or channeling that violence as precisely as the circumstances require, whether that means using BRAS (breathe, relax, aim, squeeze) in the aiming of our individual weapons or in guiding global positioning system-directed joint direct attack munitions, or choosing the right target (and target release point) for a Daisy Cutter bomb. It is about commanding soldiers and Marines in units large and small, but it is not about feeling good. Leave that to the amateurs.

What we as professionals need, then, is good critical history. It should be history written and researched without the intent of making a profit or making anyone feel good about themselves or their nation. It should be the historical equivalent of the AAR process, not the "hey ain't we good guys" stuff pawned off by journalists like Tom Brokaw and historians-for-profit like those cited here. Give professional warriors the material that will make them better, not material that will make them feel better. In a word, read the tough stuff; read civil utilitarian history. That's right, read the academic stuff."

Given the tone of the Gazette article and the post in Altercations, it sounds like LTC Bateman has it in for "Carnage and Culture" since you write, without a lot of footnotes, that Western armies of free men are generally victorious against others. LTC Bateman called this "vacuous cheerleading 'ain't-we-heroic' pap."

Sounds like he has been grinding this axe for at least 5 years.

Root causes

Your point about the Israel-Palestine conflict having moved beyond its roots of resource competition into being about ethnic rivalry can be seen in many current conflicts. Current conflicts (Iran-US, the Koreas, China-Taiwan, Israel vs its neighbors, post-colonial Africa, al Qeada vs the West) all began prior to or during the Cold War as conflicts over resources. The conflicts changed over time into ethnic, cultural or ideological wars. The horrors of war and the dread about the fate that would await the vanquished side become motivations in themselves to continue the war, even as the origins of the conflicts recede into obscurity. As Susan Woodward wrote in her essay “Do the ‘Root Causes’ of Civil War Matter?” from April of this year, it is necessary to address “two other aspects that are more important than ‘root causes’ in achieving a definitive end to the war: (1) the changes wrought by the war itself (the transformation of society, economy, and interests, and the effect of violence itself regardless of initial motivation on lines of political cleavage and patterns of behavior), and thus the conditions that exist at the time of a ceasefire or peace agreement, and (2) the political arrangements that can reduce the extreme uncertainty over power.” Pg 36 Ironically, post cold war conflicts continue because of the nature of the conflicts themselves.

Skip this one

Steven Leblanc, in his book Constant Battles, argues that all human conflict can be traced back to a contest for scarce resources. “There is plenty of resource-competition warfare today, especially in Africa, but other areas of the world have wars that we presume to be driven by ideology rather than a lack of resources. Yet many of these places have very long histories of degraded or depleted natural resources. Ideologies that promote a ‘them versus us’ attitude are much more likely to take hold in regions where there has been a long history of ecological stress and degradation.” (Leblanc, p212) Leblanc goes on to cite the Middle East, the Balkans, southern Mexico and highland Peru as places that have been degraded by centuries of over-farming. Not coincidentally, these places have also bred extremists and extremist ideologies.

Professor Ram provided an overview of the causes of conflict that included historic, psychological, anthropological, economic, Marxist and sociological reasons. All these causes can be reduced, as Leblanc notes, to resource competition. Even the “cause” that seems to be outside of resource competition, “information” really is about miscalculation about the risks of war for additional resources. Saddam attacked Kuwait in 1990 and Kim attacked South Korean in 1950 because they mistakenly believed that the US would not contest their expansions. Leblanc amplifies his point: “In today’s societies, competition over lack of resources translates into despair and a ‘nothing to lose’ mentality. It should be no surprise that guerrilla warfare and terrorism find support in regions where poverty is prevalent and warfare and conflict common.” (Leblanc, p212)

A primary example of resource scarcity driving conflict can be found in the Darfur region. That conflict began when cattle herders disregarded long-standing transhumance lanes toward water sources, and began trampling the crops of sedentary farmers to get their livestock to what remained of the water. Farmers began to resist this invasion, and Darfur became a modern day replay of the Range Wars from the American West. The two sides are engaged in a struggle for dominance in the region that is likely to end with one side being run off. The fact that the farmers and the herders are of different ethnicities makes it easy to see the conflict in ethnic terms, but the underlying cause is economic. That being said, the actually combatants are starting to display a murderous nihilism that may represent a new cause of conflict in the world. There will be more on that observation below.

Samuel Huntington argues that “world politics is entering a new phase” and that “the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations.” (Huntington handout pg 1) While Huntington wrote his essay prior to Darfur emerging as a problem area, his observations would still pertain to that conflict. Huntington sees ethnic conflicts in a particular location as the conflict between different civilizations on a smaller scale. “On the Eurasian continent, however, the proliferation of ethnic conflict, epitomized at the extreme in "ethnic cleansing," has not been totally random. It has been most frequent and most violent between groups belonging to different civilizations.” (Huntington handout pg8) So even though Leblanc argues that all conflict is rooted in the competition for resources, Huntington sees that the world has moved beyond so simple an explanation as resource competition to the theory that conflicts are based on differences in ideology. Huntington’s point is bolstered by the relative affluence of the 19 hijackers on 9/11. They all had middle class backgrounds, and had the opportunity to live in the West for years. The hijackers and their families personally did not want for anything. Yet, they still felt strongly enough in their beliefs to attack the West. Leblanc would say they held on to their “them vs us” mentality based on their culture facing centuries of subsistence existence, but this seems like a tenuous link to resource deprivation as the root cause for conflict. It seems more likely that the root cause of their grievance was less important that the proximate “clash of civilizations” and fealty to their particular ethnic or religious demagogue.

Benjamin Reilly, in his article Ethnic Fragmentation and Internal Conflict argues that these ethnic differences need not necessarily result in conflict. Reilly sees the benefits of democracy as ameliorating the conflicts that would otherwise occur between ethnic groups. Further, he argues that societies that seem like they are fractured by ethnic differences that result in war are actually more homogenous than is apparent. Any assumptions that we make about ethnic divisions are based on old, unreliable data. Reilly also makes the argument that when conflicts do arise based on ethnic division, the conflict was actually stoked by political opportunists looking for a way to grab power. Reilly cites Alvin Rabushka and Kenneth Shepsle from their book Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability who argue that “would-be political leaders typically find the rewards of ‘outbidding’ on ethnic issues--moving toward increasingly extremist rhetoric and policy positions--greater than those of moderation.” (Reilly handout pg 2)

John Mueller calls these “outbidders” who stir up ethnic resentments “demagogic politicians.” Classic examples of these outbidders include Milosevic in Serbia, Chavez in Venezuela and Osama bin Laden. These leaders talk much about ethnic or religious grievances, but build personal militias who will enforce their bids for power. However, Mueller argues that appeals to ethnicity and religion are camouflage for the leader’s actual goal of gaining political power. Mueller flatly states that supposedly “ethnic” conflicts in Bosnia and Rwanda were not spawned by demagogues whipping up passions, but instead were essentially brought about by these politicians cloaked in ethnicity who control brutal gangs. These criminals force “ordinary people [to] unwillingly and in considerable bewilderment come under the vicious and arbitrary control of small groups of armed thugs.” (Mueller handout, pg 1) Mueller goes on in his essay to make the case that “ethnic conflicts” are more about unscrupulous criminals grabbing power in a region and oppressing the local population than an actual expression of grievance and revenge. Mueller seems to be saying that absent these provocateurs, most people, even of different religions and ethnicities would be happy to get along as do the various tribes in Papua New Guinea. There is no clash of civilizations, merely a banal and opportunistic grab for cash and power.

The Mueller and Reilly thesis would seem to be supported by recent events in Anbar Province in Iraq. Conventional wisdom in April of 2007 was that Anbar was lost to al Qaeda. Marine Intelligence Analyst Colonel Pete Devlin said explicitly that “Anbar is lost politically.” Now, only a few months later, Marines changed tactics by deploying additional forces, and holding areas cleared of al Qaeda rabble. This improved security for the locals made them more likely to provide Marines with additional intelligence, leading to yet more victories over the terrorists. President Bush said during a visit to Anbar: “The military successes are paving the way for the political reconciliation and economic progress the Iraqis need to transform their country.” (Whitehouse.gov 3 Sep 07) The US military’s efforts in Anbar seem to be taken right from Mueller’s prescription for dealing with ethnic conflict. Mueller argues that the actual core of criminals needs to be dealt with, and the rest of the people will quickly revert to their desire for peaceful coexistence. “Further, the all-against-all image can discourage policing because it implies that the entire ethnic group--rather than just a small, opportunistic, and often cowardly subgroup--must be brought under control.” (Mueller handout pg 14) Marines have done much to bring the local al Qaeda criminals under control, and there seems to be less ethnic rivalry among the local Iraqis as a result.

There does seem to be a cause of conflict in the world that is divorced from the competition for resources. There is evidence that bands of young men on many continents are addicted to violence and oppression for its own sake. Their goals seemingly have less to do with acquiring territory or power and more to do with sadistic brutality for its own sake. Some of the gangs that arose out of the El Salvadoran civil war, offshoots of the Hamas in the Gaza Strip and various players in central Africa’s wars have grouped together to become scourges on their civilian populations. In the Congo for example, roving bands of men, reportedly Hutus from Rwanda, are raping and mutilating women without regard for ethnicity or age. According to the UN, these men are interested in little more than “freelance cruelty.” (New York Times, “Rape Epidemic Raises Trauma of Congo War” 7 Oct 07) There have always been sadists in any militia or army throughout history. What has changed is the size of the populations now. Prior to this century, the size of populations meant that individual aberrant personalities occurred infrequently. However, in today’s world, persons with social pathologies occur in the same proportion, but their numbers in absolute terms are much larger. Since there are more of these aberrant murderous personalities, and there are many opportunities to act without impediment in the world, these personalities are more likely to find each other in numbers large enough to have an impact on their surrounding civilian population. As Mueller points out, it does not take a lot of thugs to cow a much larger populace.

I would argue that most conflicts can be traced back to resource competition, in sort of a sequential Leblanc and Huntington analysis. Unfortunately, these conflicts over time can assume the characteristics of ethnic warfare. Once a conflict becomes a “clash of civilizations” it becomes virtually impossible to resolve just by increasing the standards of living of the sides. When resource competitions become ideological competitions, the fact that the conflict arose for economic reasons becomes an irrelevant historical note. Mueller and Reilly suggest strategies to deal with ethnic rivalries short of all-out wars of annihilation. Finally, in this post-modern, high-population world, there is evidence that some conflicts can arise or be sustained by the murderous psychopathy of some of the participants.

Polynesia

I don’t think you should dismiss resource
scarcity as motivation for the Polynesian people for
pushing off into the Pacific in search of living
space. Some recent archaeology throughout the Pacific
suggests that the struck out from Taiwan, down to
Mindanao and then out into the Pacific. If you go
down to Ken Ding, in the southernmost tip of Taiwan
and look south, you can just “feel” that there is
something just over the horizon. Climb to the top of
Mount Tagpochau on Saipan, and you can see Tinian and
Rota and Farallon de Medinilla. Even in the middle
of the ocean, you can look to the horizon and see
clouds and birds even if you can't see land. The
explorers who set off from Taiwan would have had the
benefit of more than the feelings of some modern guy
who has seen a map and actually knows there IS
something there. Those explorers would have been
attuned to the shape of clouds that would suggest they
were over land beyond the horizon. They would have
known that birds that flew in over the ocean from the
south had stomach contents different from local birds.
The explorers would have known there was something
over the horizon along a particular vector, they just
could not have known exactly how far.

But even knowing that there is something there, why
would anyone risk it? I think the simple answer is
that ambitious young men who did not have prospects
locally went out to better their lives.
Alternatively, overfarming or drought probably
compelled people to look for fertile lands. The Asian
continent was not hospitable since it was already
settled, and population pressure was pushing
mainlanders toward Taiwan. So, the only alternative
was to push east.

The Pacific is vast, but people who have lived their
entire lives on an island in the ocean would have been
more comfortable and less intimidated by a long ocean
voyage in a wood or reed boat than you or I would be.
Then again, I think it is reasonable to assume that
many attempted the ocean crossings but only a small
percentage made it successfully. But that small
cohort’s success, repeated many times over thousands
of years eventually populated Oceania. The fact that
they did it seems to me evidence that they needed to
do it, and that they were successful.

Tell that loudmouth to shut up

Just when I thought that the the most boring writing in the world was an airport horror story.... "They lost my luggage!" "I had to wait for hours!" "TSA was stupid and theywere mean to me!" *YAWN* ...I discovered something even more boring: airport horror stories masquerading as news analysis. As a close corrollary, I ask this question: who is the most tiresome person to be around while waiting for a flight? Answer: The 13 year British Airways Gold Card holder loudly kvetching about how miserable he is in the airport. The only appropriate response is the one I provide now: "put a cork in it Gramps, and ride a donkey is air travel is so miserable. No one cares about your whining."

Corrupt Murtha to be Deposed for Slanderous Comments About Haditha Marines

It is about time.  Since passing bills of attainder are prohibited to Congress in Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution, individual congressmen should be forbidden to declare citizens guilty of alleged crimes.

Roger Clemens, call your office

Must be nice to get $20 mil to pitch on 10 day rest.

Travolta Haiku

Travolta, compare
His springtime with his autumn.
Thin dancer, now fat.

To Glenn Reynolds

In the spirit of the pre-mortem combined with an alternate history, I wonder if you would comment on what the world and the law would look like if the Supreme Court sided with the numerous amicus briefs in Parker v. District of Columbia and decided that the right to keep and bear arms was literally only found in the context of a well regulated militia? In other words, if the Supreme Court comes back and says that absent explicit regulations promulgated by congress, there is no inalienable individual right to bear arms, but instead there is only a collective right; what comes next? Would a Democrat congress fall all over itself to draft militia regulations that essentially preserved the status quo? Would western and southern states rush to ensure gun rights? Would northern cities move to confiscate guns? And, hypothetically, if the Supreme Court comes in decisively on the other side of a professor’s lifetime of legal scholarship, would that repudiate the professor’s work? Or do things not work that way?

Just curious.

And just so you know where I am coming from, I have a Bersa Thunder 45 Ultra Compact and I am a 6 time pistol expert in the Marine Corps. I firmly believe that there should be an explicit right to keep and bear arms, independent of a well regulated militia. I think the drafters of the constitution let us down in not being more explicit in the Bill of Rights. The Founder’s unwarranted verbosity in the Second Amendment has let lawyers and legislators perpetrate mischief on us ever since. But then, I guess unwarranted verbosity and mischief is pretty much the stock in trade for legislators and lawyers, but that is a separate issue.

Front sight press.

"My heart abounds in love to thee"

My heart hurts for Minneapolis. First, the bridge collapse and then the young father beaten to death while riding his bike. I know people who live very near to both events, and I am extremely worried about them. I have been praying in earnest that they be kept safe.

I have been working on a post based on the idea that everything that happens in life is a blessing, based on Paul’s idea that “we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” If we know that all things work together for good, then we know that all things, even atrocities, must be blessings, even if we can’t see that while we are in the midst of a tragedy. The events in Minneapolis certainly challenge that idea, but I am going to cling faithfully to the belief that there are blessings there, even if I am challenged now to find them.

“Feel the reach of my love in thy heart, and be thou broken and tendered in the sense thereof, even of the heart-breaking love of God in which my heart abounds in love to thee with breathings to God that we may be kept living to him, through all our various exercises, that so we may daily learn with the blessed and wise apostle, in all conditions to be content, and that patience may have its perfect work in us.” John Banks, 4 Apr 1668

Johnny Dollar Explication

I was listening to “Yours Truly, Johnny Dollar,” a radio drama from the 50’s on XM last night. Johnny Dollar is an insurance investigator, like the Fred MacMurray character in “Double Indemnity” only, Johnny Dollar is straight up, see? The plot of this episode involved Johnny investigating the murder of a farm wife in a small town in Vermont. She had no enemies and she was a invalid, but someone had shot her through the window of her home and killed her. The murder had gone unsolved for a month, and the insurance company was about to pay out until someone sent an anonymous letter saying that the husband was to blame. So, the insurance company sent Johnny Dollar to investigate

For a woman with no enemies in a town of 1000, there were plenty of suspicious characters. The retarded kid with a taste for petty theft who helped out around the farm and was a crack shot with a rifle. The beleaguered, indebted husband on the verge of bankruptcy for paying for all the wife’s surgery who could get out from under with the proceeds of her insurance policy who may or may not have been stepping out with the waitress in the town’s only restaurant. The waitress, who had been acquitted of murdering the woman who had hired her to be a nanny in Chicago and who had moved to Vermont for a fresh start. The next door neighbor woman, who secretly loved the murdered woman’s husband since they were all children, and who had sent the anonymous letter. The town sheriff, who couldn’t bear the sight of his favorite niece in pain. And the husband to the pining woman, who held the mortgage on the murdered woman’s farm that had suddenly lost most of its value when the state changed the location of the new expressway.

I will save you from the need to listen to all 75 minutes of the program. The man who held the mortgage killed the other man’s wife so that the husband could get the insurance money and pay off the mortgage. The show ended with the man confessing the murder to Johnny Dollar, and asking if he could get his hat for the ride into town. Left unanswered were a couple of questions: Since the murder was committed in order to gain the money, even if the husband was in no way involved, would the insurance company still pay? If the insurance company paid, would the husband still have to pay off the mortgage to the man who murdered his wife? I know that many states passed “Son of Sam” laws to keep murderers from making money off their crimes, but in the ‘50’s there were no such laws, so I wonder what the resolution of all that was going to be. The fact that the their was no resolution to the story tells me that the writers did not want to deal with the troubling implications of their whodunnit.

I suspect that the mortgage would still be in force, and would still have to be paid, if not to the man then to his widow as sole heir once Vermont executed the mortgage holder. Although the Shadow claims that “The weed of crime bears bitter fruit, crime does not pay;” it looks like in this case, it does.

Senators Behaving Badly

If I were to blog about Vitter and Craig, I would lump them in with the tottering geriatrics like Byrd and the alcoholics like Kennedy and say why are we subjected to these ego maniacs with their manifest unfitness for office, who hang on and somehow think that America is better with them having "Senator" in front of their name, all with the support of all the fellow party members? I would rather be governed by 535 citizens chosen at random from the US than the current crop of gay sex cruisers, klansmen, drunks, morons, 
brain damaged midwesterners, and former president's wives in the pocket of the Chinese and Harry Reid.

Once again, Marine Corps Intelligence steps in it

“I’ll take Iraq War for 100, Alex.”

“A carefully considered statement based on the finest intelligence minds in the Marine Corps looking at all available reports filtered through level headed analysis.”

“What is a wild ass guess?”

“Correct!”

 9 April 2007 we were treated to this headline in the Washington Post: "Anbar is lost politically!" Marine analyst Col Pete Devlin says. Based on the good Colonel’s extensive experience, keen acumen and supposed level headedness, he came to a conclusion that was instantly hailed by half the blogosphere. Read the apocalyptic language: "We haven't been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically -- and that's where wars are won and lost." “Not only are military operations facing a stalemate, unable to extend and sustain security beyond the perimeters of their bases, but also local governments in the province have collapsed and the weak central government has almost no presence.”

But it turns out, the assessment of the intel weenie was not shared by the operators and decision makers or, for that matter, by the terrorists. It is one thing when the Commandant of the Marine Corps says your analysis is wrong. When asked about Col Devlin’s assessment that Anbar was lost, the Commandant said a couple of days later: "I think Colonel Devlin was wrong."

It is another thing when the Commander in Chief calls you out. Listen to the President on Labor Day from Anbar: “Anbar is a huge province. It was once written off as lost. It is now one of the safest places in Iraq.” Who wrote it off? Marine Intelligence, personified by Col Devlin. Who ignored the “intel” and won in Anbar? Marines. Kind of makes you wonder why Marine intel is in the business of making big sweeping geopolitical pronouncements. And kind of makes you wonder why some still have their jobs.

Making Marines to a Common Standard

“We do two things for this nation, we make Marines and we win battles” - Gen Charles C. Krulak

“Our most critical task is to make Marines who are ready to accomplish the mission and embody the qualities associated with the title “United States Marine.” – Gen James T. Conway

Training Command Mission - To coordinate, resource, execute and evaluate training concepts, policies, plans and programs to ensure Marines are trained to a common standard in order to meet the challenges of present and future operational environments.

TECOM Makes Marines

When I tell Marines I am from TECOM, the Marine Corps’ Training and Education Command, inevitably someone will riff on the old joke: Q: What are the most de-motivating words you can say to a Marine Corps Formal School Instructor? A: “Hi, I’m from TECOM and I am here to help.”

While this is told in jest, many Marines believe that TECOM is little more than a useless layer of bureaucracy that serves only to get in between the training Marines need, and those tasked to provide the training. That perception is based on the opaque nature of what goes on inside TECOM. This article will shed some light on what TECOM does, why we do it, and why what we do is actually of value to the Marine Corps and to individual Marines.

Gen Krulak’s words to Congress stand as TECOM’s unofficial motto: we make Marines. While no one at TECOM will be awarded the Silver Star or Purple Heart for their actions here, the Marines and civilians at TECOM nonetheless provide a vital service to the Marine Corps. TECOM takes the civilians provided us by Recruiting Command and transforms them into MOS-qualified Marines. Those Marines, trained by TECOM, are the ones who fulfill the other half of Gen Krulak’s observation: they win battles.

Who decides?

Who decides what is and is not a standard for an event in an MOS? The best answer to that question can be found in a “sea story” from a recent standards writing conference. While debating what tasks were appropriate for a recently created MOS, one of the participants, a Captain, had an epiphany: “You mean to tell me that it is knuckleheads like me who say what skills have to be taught to these Marines?” The short answer is: “yes.” Who else but Marines who are doing the job or supervising the job know what the job entails? Experienced Marines write the events that go into the Training and Readiness Manuals (T&R Manuals), then other experienced Marines at the school houses take those standards and write the learning objectives for the curricula that are taught.

Writing Training and Readiness Manuals

In order to impose some structure on this process, TECOM uses the Systems Approach to Training (SAT) mandated by Marine Corps Order 1553.3A. The Marine Corps’ Systems Approach to Training is based on the Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development (IPISD), published in 1975. That document first laid out the basis of the SAT process: Instructional Systems Development based on the “ADDIE” Model. It is possible to expound at length about the ADDIE model of curriculum design (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate) and talk about theories of adult education, but that discussion is really only interesting to PhDs in Education. The Systems Approach to Training can be summarized as asking Marines to list what they do; turning each one of these tasks into statements, each with one verb and one object; then further breaking these statements down into the individual steps that must be performed to complete the task. Standards writers list the conditions under which the task must be performed and determine an objective standard to which the task must be performed. These elements are combined to create a training and readiness manual.

Chapter 1 of all Training and Readiness Manuals produced by Ground Training Branch contain a discussion of the importance of the training and readiness program. “The T&R Program is the Corps’ primary tool for planning, conducting and evaluating training, and assessing training readiness. Ultimately, this will enhance the Marine Corps’ ability to accomplish real-world missions. Subject matter experts (SMEs) from the operating forces developed core capability Mission Essential Task Lists (METLs) for ground communities derived from the Marine Corps Task List (MCTL). T&R Manuals are built around this METL and all events contained in T&R manuals relate directly to this METL. This comprehensive T&R Program will help to ensure the Marine Corps continues to improve its combat readiness by training more efficiently and effectively.” That said, the entire training and readiness program depends on the operating forces having well written events with solid performance standards contained in the manuals.

Drafting Solid Events

Training and Readiness Manuals contain “events” that describe things that a Marine is expected to do in his or her military occupational specialty. The event title is a description of the event to be performed. The title is exactly one transitive verb and a direct object. The verb must be an observable action, so verbs like “understand” or “know” are not appropriate.

The event below is not “evaluation coded,” which means that it is not one by which the entire unit is judged for combat readiness. The “sustainment interval” is the period of time in which the Marine must display mastery of this event. “Grades performing” is self explanatory. The “initial training setting” is where the event will first be introduced to the Marine, either at a formal school, on the job, or through distance learning.

The “condition” lists those situations under which the Marine will be expected to perform the event and the gear that will be required. The “standard” will be addressed in detail below. “Performance steps” are those discrete “muscle movements” when performed in sequence or as a whole result in the accomplishment of the event.

Training and Readiness Event Example

4421-UCMJ-1044: Prepare court-martial convening orders
EVALUATION-CODED: NO SUSTAINMENT INTERVAL: 12 months
GRADES: PVT, PFC, LCPL, CPL, SGT, SSGT
INITIAL TRAINING SETTING: FORMAL
CONDITION: Given a Request for Legal Services (RLS), a charge sheet, references, a computer, and current Marine Corps standard word processing and database software.
STANDARD: Ensuring a convening order is created without formatting, grammatical, or contextual errors.
PERFORMANCE STEPS:
1. Review references.
2. Ensure member's information is correct.
3. Type court-martial convening order.
4. Proofread completed convening order.
5. Make corrections, if necessary.
6. Submit completed convening order for signature.
7. Make appropriate number of copies.
8. Place original convening order and charge sheet in the case file.
9. Update database.
10. Retain file copy.
REFERENCES:
1. JAGINST 5800.7C, CHAPTER 1 Manual for Judge Advocate General (JAGMAN)
2. MCM Manual for Courts-Martial

Figure 1.

The Importance of Strong Standards

Having written or edited more than 3000 individual and collective events in different T&R Manuals, I can confidently assert that the most difficult part of drafting events is coming up with the standard. The SAT Manual states that a standard “can cite a technical manual or doctrinal reference (e.g., ...in accordance with FMFM 1-3), or the standard can be defined in terms of completeness, time, and accuracy.” For Individual Training Standards (ITSs) or for the first iteration of T&R Manuals, many included a standard of: “in accordance with the reference.” At the time, this standard was considered acceptable.

Upon consideration, Ground Training Branch determined that “in accordance with the reference” did not contribute much to a Marine or his commander’s conception of how that Marine should perform the task. Many events have multiple references, and some references are quite voluminous. Telling a Marine that he should be able to do something “in accordance with” a reference without citing specifically which reference, or where the standard can be found within a reference, does not assist in the training or readiness of the Marine. In fact, inadequate standards transform the training and readiness manuals containing them into impediments to training. Consequently, Ground Training Branch (GTB) adopted a policy that “in accordance with the reference,” would not be acceptable as a standard. Exceptions are provided in those rare instances where a technical skill requires that a Marine consult a specific, open technical manual (TM) in order to accomplish the task.
Since “in accordance with the references” can no longer stand alone as a standard, it was necessary for TECOM GTB to provide some additional guidance. The best shorthand for writing standards is for a subject matter expert to imagine that she is observing the Marine do the task. Then, that SME must put into words how someone would know that the Marine has completed the task. In the words of the SAT Manual: “The standard must be realistic in order to expect the student to perform the behavior based on the instruction provided. A standard is deemed realistic when the time, accuracy, and completeness criteria allow for successful completion.” Let’s look at each of these elements that make up the standard of a T&R event.

“Time” is a straightforward metric. If the reference calls for the task to be completed “within 24 hours of receipt of the order,” or “prior to crossing the line of departure,” or “within 6 seconds of hearing the alarm,” then a Marine who completes the task after that time has failed the event. “Completeness” is also straightforward. Some tasks are only complete “after every block is annotated” or “so that every piece is sorted” or “so that every round is expended.” The difficult part of writing standards for T&R events can be found in the concept of “accuracy.”

Some events readily lend themselves to “accuracy.” For marksmanship and gunnery, accuracy is easily determined. Either the shot hit the target, or it did not. For communications, either comms are established with higher and with subordinates on a particular frequency or they are not. But for some occupational fields, accuracy is elusive. How can imagery analysts know they have accurately assessed the location of the enemy? How can IO Marines know they have changed the perceptions of the enemy regarding United States activities? How can public affairs know that their audiences have accurately received the messages being sent? The answer in each case is: it is impossible to know while the Marine is performing the event. Does that mean “accuracy” standards cannot be written for these types of OCCFIELDS and their events? No, but accuracy standards are more challenging for the SMEs who must write them.

Writing accuracy standards is where the experts have to call upon all their experience and imagination. The SMEs have to assess whether a well-trained Marine doing the task according to the performance steps has a reasonable expectation of accurately accomplishing the task. In other words, if an Imagery Analyst does the event following the performance steps 1 to 15, will he accurately assess the location of the enemy? Will the Information Operator put out a message that will be well received by the population? Will that Public Affairs Marine influence the perception of the enemy? If, in the SMEs judgment, the answer to the question is “yes,” then they have written a good T&R event. If the SMEs cannot answer that question, they need to re-evaluate whether that event should even be included in the T&R Manual.

The other consideration in drafting a T&R event and the standard imbedded in the event, is whether an inspector, unfamiliar with the occupational field, can watch the Marine performing the event, and determine if that Marine is doing it to standard. Call this the “ignorant observer” test. If an ignorant observer can take the text of the T&R event, watch the Marine do the event and can determine whether that event is being done to standard, then that event is well written.

The best standards will combine as many elements as possible. If a Marine performs a T&R event to a standard that combines the elements of accuracy, time, completeness and clarity, the Marine Corps can be confident that the Marine is technically and tactically proficient in that event. Figure 2 is a Venn diagram that graphically displays a solid standard with four different types of elements. A Marine whose performance meets all four elements of the standard and essentially falls into the center of the Venn Diagram, is a well trained Marine.

Turning T&R Events into Formal School Training

Curriculum developers take the manual that has been typed into the Marine Corps Training Integrated Management System, and turn all the individual tasks into terminal learning objectives (TLOs). The writing of other learning objectives requires that the curriculum developers perform a “learning analysis.” “A Learning Analysis must be performed for every task covered in new courses. Additionally, each new task added to either the Individual Training Standard (ITS) Order or Training and Readiness (T&R) Manual, and taught at the formal school, requires a Learning Analysis.” The output of the learning analysis is 1) learning objectives, 2) test items and 3) method of instruction and media used for instruction, all of which turn up again in the Program of Instruction submitted to TECOM for approval.

The performance steps for the events in the T&R Manual become enabling learning objectives (ELOs). A terminal learning objective is what the Marine should be able to do at the conclusion of the class. An ELO can be something the Marine can do as part of a larger task, just as removing the bolt carrier group is part of disassembling the M16A2. An ELO can also be some knowledge that a Marine must have in order to perform a task to standard, such as knowing the lifesaving ditty “Stop the bleeding, start the breathing...” before treating a casualty.

The curriculum developer must make every effort to duplicate the conditions and standards in the T&R Manual when constructing the learning objectives. Training under the conditions the student will encounter in the operating forces makes the training realistic and relevant to mission accomplishment. Realistic training also relieves the unit that gains the Marine from having to spend valuable time and resources re-training.

Multiple choice and matching tests are easy to grade, but are almost worthless in evaluating whether a Marine can perform the events in an MOS. What is a better test of a Motor T Marine’s ability to disassemble a carburetor: selecting the steps for disassembly from a list or actually disassembling one? A Marine should never hear and no Marine should ever have to say: “Forget what they taught you at school, this is how it is really done.” Those words are an indictment of the entire training apparatus. TECOM must work so that no Marine ever has a cause to utter those words.

Evaluation is critical to the learning process. In the words of the SAT manual, “If the task is important enough to dedicate resources to teach, it is equally important enough to dedicate resources to evaluate. Test items are designed to determine if the learner has acquired the KSAs (knowledge, skills, attitudes) to perform an objective or task. This promotes learner development by providing feedback to the student and enabling the student to demonstrate mastery. Evaluation is also critical to maintaining or improving the effectiveness of instruction.” Further, each learning objective must be evaluated. “When determining what test items to use, the idea is to measure all learning objectives. Formal evaluation of learning objectives is accomplished by testing each learning objective. (Emphasis in the original)

After compiling the list of TLOs and ELOs, the curriculum developer must determine the time necessary to teach and evaluate each learning objective as well as the maximum number of students who can effectively receive instruction from the one instructor in that learning objective. The curriculum developer must also list the resources necessary for training each learning objective. The time required to teach all learning objectives, the manpower required to teach all the learning objectives and the resources required to teach the throughput of students is rolled up into one document called the “Course Data Description.” TECOM and Manpower use the CDDs for all formal courses around the Marine Corps to determine the budget and the personnel required to execute the necessary training.

The last step: Evaluation

The “Evaluation” step of the SAT model of curriculum development is concerned with evaluating the training of the learning objectives. Since the Marine Corps is committed to victory on the battlefield, evaluation is zero-sum: either the Marine is well trained and capable of winning or not. If a Marine is not well trained, the entire training pipeline must be subject to scrutiny.

In fact, TECOM performs “soup to nuts” evaluation of training. Training standards are evaluated every three years, and the POIs based on those standards are evaluated yearly at course curriculum review boards (CCRB). Further, Marine Corps Lessons Learned is open 24/7 for input that is mined for training gaps by the TECOM Lessons Learned Integration Division (T-LLID). TECOM IG reviews schoolhouse fidelity to the approved POIs by comparing the POI and the T&R Manuals to Master Lesson Files maintained by the schools and by observing classroom instruction. Finally, TECOM participates in OAGs to hear directly from commanders about training. Standards and instruction are reviewed continuously.

Peace, More Sweat; War, Less Blood
The Chinese Army has an old aphorism, which, directly translated, is: “peace, more sweat; war, less blood.” These words describe the mission of TECOM. We make Marines, and then we sweat them in training so that the Marine Corps can win battles with minimum casualties. To that end, the Marine Corps has adopted a paradigm of training development that identifies the skills Marines must perform to what standard and under what conditions, captures those behaviors in a manual, constructs training to reflect the conditions in combat, then continuously evaluates the process. Ultimately, the goals are well-trained Marines, well-trained units and SNCOs who say “remember what you learned in school? That is how it should be done!”

Grunt complain about those who don't fight

Where is the evidence that an officer’s guaranteed promotion to Captain and Major does or will result in a weaker Army? Has the performance of the Army and Marine Corps in the war suffered? Does the fact that many non-combat arms types have not deployed to combat zones mean they are incapable of performing their duties competently and honorably? Does the same argument hold for Naval and Air Force officers who have largely sat out the war? Are they de facto incompetent for not having combat experience?

The Small Wars Journal posting reads like grousing masquerading as analysis. Grunts complain about anyone not going through what they are but I have known plenty of combat-experienced grunts who could not compare to some in the supporting establishment. Here is heresy: after 17 years as a grunt, and intelligence weenie and a training standards officer, the finest Marine I ever met was a female imagery analyst Corporal who worked for me. I have known many Marines who got out before the war started who would have been outstanding leaders in combat. Does the fact that they who never had the chance to prove it mean they were not as good as the ones who went? To say yes is to indict the training that Marines receive, the Commandant’s reading list and those Marine’s own conscientious efforts to improve their leadership and decision-making.

Combat can solidify lessons learned and can teach new lessons but it cannot magically make soldiers and Marines on the left side of the bell curve into latter day Audie Murphys. Combat doesn’t make the soldier, it shows him to be what he is.

Taiwan vs Japan

I really enjoyed watching the Taiwan vs Japan Little League World Series game on Thursday night.  All the kids on both side were so disciplined and talented.  It really was inspirational.  I was sorry to see Taiwan go down eventually after 9 innings in what should have been a 6 inning game.   And it made me a little wistful for Taiwan.  I really miss it there, and wish I could be back.

I am reminded of reading a book called Hiroshima by John Hershey when I was in 8th grade.  I lived in South Louisiana and the things Hershey described in that book seemed impossibly far away.    I despaired that I would never see that place or anyplace, but less than 20 years later, I was LIVING there.  I mention that anectdote to highlight my feelings now.  I look at my life and think, I will never get back to Asia, but like the 13 year old version of myself, I really have no idea what is in store for me.

Sooo, I will be resolute, and cheerful and trust that whereever I am, that is where I am meant to be.  But I do still want to go back to Taipei and have some beef noodle soup.

Outrage regarding terrorism against Israel

I suspect you were being disingenuous in asking where the outrage is. There is never any outrage with regard to crimes and terrorism committed against Israel. Never.

I recall even Ariel Sharon thinking that a particularly gruesome suicide bombing would spark outrage among the civilized West and engender some sympathy, but he was met with silence. When it comes to the Jews and Israel, there will NEVER be any sympathy fortcoming except from believing Christians; that is the sad truth of this fallen world.

Poetry Corner

It's easy to grin
When your ship comes in
And you have the world at your feet.

But the man who's worthwhile
Is the man who can smile
When his shorts are too tight in the seat.

-Judge Elihu Smalls

Mark 13:13

Right now in the world is a startling display of Christ’s words and His Word manifest.  In Afghanistan, there are a number of South Korean Christians being held hostage by the Taliban. Most of the hostages are women. These Christians had gone forward to Afghanistan to serve their brothers and to spread the gospel. Unfortunately, proselytizing in Moslem countries is iffy business; no Moslem country allows Christians to convert Moslems and there is much official hostility on the part of local governments towards Christians.

Into that atmosphere, the Korean Christians took their message and their desire to help the least of their Afghan brothers. The Christians were like lambs to the slaughter, and were quickly captured by thuggish members of the Taliban. The Taliban are trying to force South Korea to leave Afghanistan and to force the Karzai Government and the US to release Taliban criminals who are being held in Kabul. The Taliban is deadly serious; they have already executed two of the male missionaries they have captured and threaten to do the same to the rest. There is little doubt that the Christians who still live are subject to the terrible degradations. The men are being tortured and the women are being raped. Since missionaries know nothing of any military significance, the tortures they are suffering do only two things for their captors: to exact punishment on infidels who have the audacity to reject Islam for truth and to satisfy the sadism that all these Moslems exhibit to their captives.

With the fate of the Christians in Afghanistan in my mind, I opened the Bible at random and read Mark, Chapter 13. The words in that chapter have reverberated in my mind all morning and all this afternoon.

10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

12 Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.

13And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

I fear that the earthly lives of these Christians are at an end. I pray that they remain resolute in their faith and realize that they are in their eternal lives and will soon be seated at the right hand of the Father. I pray that their families stay strong in their faith as well. And I hope that were I in the same situation as them, I would maintain my faith secure in the knowledge that whatever happens to my body is irrelevant to the glory that awaits.

First 12 State Quarters

State Quarter’s Scorecard

MASSACHUSETTS Date Quarter Released: January 03, 2000 (6th) Statehood: February 06, 1788

As much as it may pain me to say so, Massachusetts did a pretty good job with their quarter. I don’t think you can go wrong if you depict an icon of the Revolutionary War, the Minuteman, and base the design on the famous statue in Concord. Perhaps the reason the design is so good on the quarter is because the governor only took submissions from children and kids are not likely to delve in nuance. Massachusetts’ proudest moment was the battle of Lexington and Concord, and the children showed to good sense in commemorating that moment in their design. The rest of the design that includes the state in relief and the state nickname is not bad, although I quibble a little with choosing the nickname over the state motto because Massachusetts has such a cool motto: “Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.” “By the sword we seek peace, but only peace with liberty.” Motivational! Too bad they didn’t use it.

Since the “Minuteman” on the reverse of the quarter is actually a representation of a statue that is itself not meant to depict any one person, I will not add him to the list of actual people appearing on the quarter. But I would sure like to.

NORTH CAROLINA Date Quarter Released: March 12, 2001 (12th) Statehood: November 21, 1789

I am writing these in order of the date of the quarter’s release. So, of the first 12, it is a toss up between this one and the one from Massachusetts as to which is best. I eventually opted for the Minuteman, not because I think it is aesthetically more pleasing, but simply because the Minuteman is more Massachusetts than Orville and Wilbur are North Carolina.

Notwithstanding, the design on the back of the quarter is spare but quite powerful. The design of the picture is based on a picture taken by John T Daniels on 17 December 1901 at Kitty Hawk as the Wright Brothers made their first flight. Orville’s feet are depicted (barely), with Wilbur standing on the beach watching. Above the airplane are the words “First Flight.” Very well done, overall.

There is nothing wrong with this depiction. My only problem with North Carolina is that flight is what the governor decided that regardless of all the history and beauty of North Carolina, his state would commemorate a couple of Ohio boys who settled on North Carolina as a place to fly their aeroplane because of the sand dunes and favorable winds. For me, it is a little disappointing. Having lived in North Carolina, and with my folks and sister living there now, I have seen pretty much the whole state and I am here to tell you, North Carolina is a remarkable place. It has beautiful beaches, incredibly rich farmland, stunning mountains and wonderfully cosmopolitan cities. It also has history from the settlement of the continent, the Revolution and the Civil War. There is a lot in North Carolina, I wish they could have captured some of that.


NEW JERSEY Date Quarter Released: May 17, 1999 (3rd) Statehood: December 18, 1787

Busy, but not bad. New Jersey is an exception to the rule that spare is better because this quarter appropriates the image from Emmanuel Leutze’s painting “Washington Crossing the Delaware.” A good, patriotic, historic painting makes for a good design. Interesting note about the depiction on the reverse, the painting is a depiction of Washington Crossing the Delaware River, which serves as the boundary of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Although Leutze used the Rhine as the model, Washington is presumably some place on the river. Depending on where the boat actually is in the Delaware, Washington may actually be in Pennsylvania at the moment of the depiction. Another interesting note about this one: Washington is on both the front and back of this quarter, along with Monroe, making this a true two headed quarter.

VIRGINIA Date Quarter Released: October 16, 2000 (8th) Statehood: June 25, 1788

It is hard to go wrong when you depict the founding of the first permanent English settlement in the New World as your state’s claim to fame. The three ships on the quarter brought the first settlers to Jamestown, a small garrison built on an island in the James River, just north of what is now Norfolk. The ships and those who rode in them displayed incredible courage, faith and belief in their own abilities. This truly is a fitting scene to commemorate on a quarter.

The design itself is outstanding. The ships are handsome but the most striking thing about the design is how it manages to encapsulate all of Virginia’s history with a few words and numbers. Across the top is the date of statehood. At the 10 o’clock position is the date of Jamestown’s founding 1607 with the word “Quadricentennial” engraved underneath the ships. 400 years, Virginia still in existence after a founding borne of incredible fortitude. And all that captured neatly on the back of a quarter.

DELAWARE Date Quarter Released: January 04, 1999 (1st) Statehood: December 07, 1787

Delaware’s quarter is somewhat misleading. Looking at the design of a galloping horseman, one immediately thinks of Paul Revere’s ride. However, after reflection, one remembers that Paul Revere rode through the Massachusetts countryside, a feat, though historic and full of important for the nation as a whole, probably would not be an event that Delaware would pick to commemorate itself.

So who is the galloping colonial on the Delaware quarter? He is Caesar Rodney, Delaware patriot, who as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1776, rode all night of July 1 to reach Philadelphia in time to cast the deciding vote for independence.

The design itself is simple, with just enough lines to portray Rodney, without seeming busy. There is plenty of still space on the top side of the quarter which enhances the aesthetic appeal. Spare is a quality to be desired in a quarter.

CONNECTICUT Date Quarter Released: October 12, 1999 (5th) Statehood: January 09, 1788

Connecticut chose a representation of an oak tree where their charter was hidden from the British 100 years prior to the Revolutionary War. The hiding of the charter was one of the first acts of defiance in the face of British authority and the Charter Oak is a worthy symbol of the American commitment to self-determination and freedom. But then again, it is just a tree. It just stands there, and it looks like every other tree. Now, cut down that tree and build a canoe and explore, you have something. Cut down that tree and build a rampart to repel an attack, natch. But a tree? Please don’t be offended if I stifle a yawn.

But my goodness, the Mint minted almost 1.4 BILLION of these things! Why could they not have chosen the Texas quarter or the Delaware quarter? The Mint says they mint coins on the basis of need regardless of the state or the design. It just happened that in late 1999, the US needed a freaking LOT of quarters. Oh well, now every time you get a Coke out of the machine, you are likely to get the tree or the Virginia quarter. It gets old, I tell you.

NEW HAMPSHIRE Date Quarter Released: August 07, 2000 (9th) Statehood: June 21, 1788

This quarter shares a distinction with the one from Connecticut in that it depicts something in nature that was, but no longer is. But while Connecticut chose a historical tree that had been long destroyed, at least New Hampshire’s rock formation, the old man of the mountain, was at least still in extant when the coin when to mint. However, a little less than three years after release of the coin, the rock formation broke away from Mt Cannon, and slid down the mountain on 3 May 2003.

The design is not bad, and a state can’t go wrong putting a motivational motto on their quarter. Here, New Hampshire chose “Live Free or Die” which is the best state motto in the country. The nine stars representing New Hampshire’s status as the ninth state are a nice, classical touch.

NEW YORK Date Quarter Released: January 02, 2001 (8th) Statehood: July 26, 1788

I think that New York began to get the message after Pennsylvania and Georgia tried the overlapping-accumulation-of- state-symbols approach to designing their state’s quarters. On the downside, could they have been any more obvious in the selection? The Statue of Liberty? Come on. I was also a little puzzled by the inscription “Gateway to Freedom” that heretofore had not been used in conjunction with anything New York. The best I can tell, “Gateway to Freedom” is actually the motto of a county in Indiana. So, how did “Gateway to Freedom” end up on the quarter? Apparently, some 4th graders near Albany submitted it as part of their class project and the design committee took a liking to it. Now, that made-up motto is on 1.2 billion of these things. Listening to 4th graders has consequences. Maybe the design committee rejected the actual state motto “Excelsior” for the same reason the Marine Corps rejected berets: as a symbol, it is effeminate and foreign. Although that did not stop Georgia from putting fruit on their quarter, as you will soon see.

GEORGIA Date Quarter Released: July 19, 1999 (4th) Statehood: January 02, 1788

Good design, poorly executed. This one is in the Pennsylvania School of Design, lots of elements, all over-lapping, although marginally less busy than that of the Keystone State. The Georgia quarter has the unfortunate inclusion of the state icon, a peach. Hard to make a peach heroic and compelling, and the good people of Georgia do not really succeed. Live oak garland gives the peach some measure of majesty, and the scroll containing the Georgia motto of “Wisdom, Justice, Moderation” is certainly inspiring, but, at the end of the day, its just a peach.

PENNSYLVANIA Date Quarter Released: March 08, 1999 (2nd) Statehood: December 12, 1787

Too busy. There are four elements in the design, one of which is the complicated statue of “Commonwealth” that sits atop the State Capitol building in Harrisburg. She wears a flowing toga and is holding the eagle staff of justice, garlanded with ribbon. To her left is the state motto, “Virtue, Liberty, Independence,” stacked one on another. The motto’s words are all fine things, however, the motto’s inclusion serves to clutter the design. To the statue’s right is a keystone to symbolize the keystone state, and all the elements overlay an outline of the state itself. Whew. Any one of these things (or perhaps two of them, since I am feeling generous), would have been splendid. I think having the keystone overlaying the state outline would have been spare and classic. But alas, instead, we have a design that can only be the product of a series of committees.

MARYLAND Date Quarter Released: March 13, 2000 (7th) Statehood: April 28, 1788

Could Maryland have picked a duller design for their quarter? The statehouse rotunda and some white oak boughs? And the least recognizable state motto there is? Yes, I know the state rotunda is the oldest statehouse still in use, and that it was built without nails. Those facts are interesting as trivia, but hardly seem to be worthy of depiction on a quarter. And don’t be confused into thinking the “Old Line State” has something to do with the Mason-Dixon Line, rather, the nickname refers to Gen Washington’s compliments to Maryland’s troops during the Revolution. Surely, this nickname is something to be proud of but it is so obscure as to be more puzzling than enlightening.

Maryland had one shot at a commemorative quarter, and completely whiffed.

SOUTH CAROLINA Date Quarter Released: May 22, 2000 (8th) Statehood: May 23, 1788

This one is just miserable, considering what they have to work with in South Carolina. The quarter design is busy and uninspiring. The design features two plants (palmetto tree and yellow jessamine flower), a bird (the Carolina wren) perched on the flower, the state nickname, (the Palmetto State) that refers to the tree already in the design, all in front of the state outline. Busy, redundant and dull, the trifecta of design by committee.

What makes this design all the worst is that the seal of South Carolina is round, has a palmetto tree on it, depicts the defeat of the British fleet at Sullivan Island and has some motivational Latin! (Who will separate? While I breathe I hope. Hope. Prepared in Mind and Resources.) That is good stuff. If South Carolina’s politicians had had any imagination and courage, they could have used that design already on their state seal to gain the respect and admiration of Americans everywhere.

List of People on the Reverse of the First 12
Caesar Rodney (DE)
George Washington (NJ)
James Monroe (NJ)
10 other Revolutionary War Soldiers (NJ)
Orville Wright (NC)
Wilbur Wright (NC)

Interesting Facts about Colitis

Colitis (also called ulcerative colitis) is an acute or chronic inflammation of the membrane lining the colon—your large intestine or bowel. Colitis causes inflammation and sores, called ulcers, in the top layers of the lining of the large intestine. Ulcerative colitis rarely affects the small intestine except for the lower section, called the ileum.

The inflammation makes the colon empty frequently, causing diarrhea. Ulcers form in places where the inflammation has killed colon lining cells. The ulcers bleed and produce pus and mucus. You may have abdominal pain, diarrhea, rectal bleeding, painful spasms (tenesmus), lack of appetite, fever, and fatigue. (from eMedicineHealth)

From: The Department of Defense Instruction Number 1332.38

SUBJECT: Physical Disability Evaluation

Subparagraph:

E3.P1.2. Medical Evaluation
E3.P1.2.1. Purpose. The medical evaluation element of the Disability Evaluation System shall document under departmental regulations the medical status and duty limitations of Service members referred into the DES.

Actionable medical conditions include those of:

E4.7. GASTROINTESTINAL SYSTEM
E4.7.1. General. Any organic condition of the Gastrointestinal System that prevents adequate maintenance of the service member's nutritional status, or requires significant dietary restrictions to include
E4.7.2. Inflammatory and/or Infectious Conditions.
E4.7.2.6. Ulcerative Colitis.

Helpful writing

As of June 11, 2007, at 8:04 pm Eastern Daylight Time, there were 96,724 Waiting List Candidates for organ transplant. Up to that day, doctors have performed 6788 successful transplants in 2007. Add the numbers together; in 2007 103,512 live people needed transplants and 6.5% got them.1  Since approximately 6000 patients die each year awaiting transplant, estimate another 3000 expectant transplant patients died and fell off the waiting list in the first half of the year.2   On the kidney transplant list alone, 18 people die each day, awaiting a donation that never came.3

For the transplant recipient who heads up the National Kidney Foundation, Mr Charles B. Fruit, the difference between the donors available for the patients in need is not worrisome because the Foundation is working to correct the gap. “The foundation is working to attack the organ shortage through improvement in organ-donation education for families and the establishment of standards to ensure the health and safety of living donors. A wholesale sellout to the law of supply and demand is not the answer.” Further, Mr Fruit asserted that a market based solution to procuring more kidneys for donors would be as bad for consumers as the gasoline market. “We moralists can only pray that his proposed market mechanism for the transaction of hearts, lungs, kidneys and other life-saving human organs would work a little better than it does for the nation's consumers of gasoline.”4  It is telling that Mr Fruit castigates the gasoline market as an example not to emulate, while the truth is that anyone in the US who needs gasoline can buy it, although at a price that some might call excessive.

Notwithstanding Mr Fruit’s revulsion at the idea of a market for organs, the current system is failing those who need the lifesaving assistance a donated organ can provide. The United States has more than 300 million people. The fact that the current system of donating organs can only muster enough for around 13,000 surgeries a year actually compares quite unfavorably to the gasoline market Mr Fruit disparages. As Jack Copeland pointed out, “during the last 20 years, a variety of approaches have been tried to improve the numbers of donated organs in this country. We’ve tried television and radio advertising, educational programs, and driver’s license declarations. But they’re not working.”5

Clearly, another approach to acquiring needed organs is required in order to give some hope to the thousands of terminally ill patients who languish on organ donation waiting lists. Richard Epstein, the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, recently proposed that there be established a market for organs. His argument is basic supply and demand: since the current price for donated organs is set by law at zero, there is infinite demand for organs and almost no supply of the healthiest, most desirable organs. Consequently, a huge waiting list has grown up, and that backlog is managed quite inefficiently by favoritism, blind luck, and is some cases, corruption. Since he is legally prohibited from experimenting with supply and demand to prove his thesis, he has to rely solely on something else. “So, we must resort to theory, which predicts that an increase in price will lead to an increase in supply, for organs as for any other good or service. It is not the case that everyone will jump from the rafters to donate -- but in a nation of 300 million people, it should be possible to induce 70,000 healthy donors to part with a kidney.”6

This argument was not persuasive to David J. Rothman, PhD of the Center for the Study of Society and Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University. Dr Rothman argued that a market in organs would lead to wild disparities between the recipients and the organ brokers who would reap disproportionate benefits and the donors who would get a relatively modest financial gain at the cost of part or all of an actual organ with potential adverse effects on the donor’s health. “Sale of organs is a zero sum game in which any advantage one participant necessarily leads to disadvantage of one or more of the others.”7

Those against an organ market are concerned about the potential of exploiting vulnerable populations who might be pressured to sell an organ. Ironically, in an actual market situation, recipients could be more choosy about who they would buy kidneys from. These recipients would bid up the price on kidneys from healthy donors with good lifestyle habits, a condition that would give both the donor and the recipient a better chance at survival. Healthy donors would be well compensated monetarily and would likely retain their health, making it unlikely that anyone would be “exploited.” Additionally, since the paid donors would be healthier, it is likely that the overall mortality rate from multiple surgeries required would go down. “They're not going to go up, and, in many cases, my guess is is that the [mortality} numbers will actually be lower because if you get a purchase population, you're probably going to get a healthier stock giving than you will in the family situations, where a husband or a wife may give a kidney to a child, even though he or she may not be the perfect donor.”8

While we may recoil initially from the idea of selling organs for transplant, the long waits that are literally killing people who could otherwise be helped by a functioning organ market, mean that the idea must be considered. The objections that have been raised by some ethicists are based on the lurid practices in some countries with anemic medical regulatory regimes. In a Western Country with a history of functioning markets, the highest standards of medical practice and the protection of a legal system that enforces contracts, there seems little likelihood of exploitation. On the contrary, the profit motive in working markets that bring all manner of goods to the American consumer should be trusted to do the same for the lifesaving goods of transplanted organs.

1  United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS)Main Page; http://www.unos.org/; accessed 11 June 2007.
2  Brian Handwerk, “Organ Shortage Fuels Illicit Trade in Human Parts.” National Geographic. January 16, 2004. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0116_040116_EXPLorgantraffic.html, accessed 11 June 2007.
3  Richard Epstein, Kidney Beancounters. Wall Street Journal. May 15, 2006; Page A15
4  Charles B. Fruit. National Kidney Foundation Position on Payment for Organ Donation Makes News. National Kidney Foundation Website. June 2. 2006 http://www.kidney.org/news/newsroom/newsitem.cfm?id=323 accessed 11 June 2007.
5  Jack Copeland, “We Should Pay for Donor Hearts.” Arizona Alumnus Magazine. Spring 2003. http://www.uagrad.org/Alumnus/Spring03/Copeland.html, accessed 11 June 2007.
6  Epstein.
7  David J. Rothman, PhD. “Ethical and Social Consequences of Selling a Kidney.” Journal of the American Medical Association, October 2, 2002, pg 1641.
8  Richard Epstein and Russ Roberts. “The Economics of Organ Donations.” Library of Economics and Liberty. Podcast Transcript June 5, 2006. http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2006/Epsteinkidneys.html accessed 11 June 2007

Re: Marine Bureaucrats Not Getting Equipment to Troops

Regarding the Urgent UNS piece posted by Jack Fowler,
I have a few thoughts:

1. Urgent UNS come in asking for all sorts of things.
One crossed my desk wanting the capability to launch a
squad of Marines into orbit around the earth who could
be rapidly deployed anywhere in the world. Marines in
space! Genius! Some general signed that UUNS, and
the fact that it was not acted upon counts against the
total number of Urgent UNS fulfilled, I guess. One
might ask for examples of what other things the
dastardly bureaucrats had denied.

2. "Risk adverse" bureaucrats? Yeah, a lot of people
are adverse to going to jail for graft, or for not
putting out new system for multiple bids, or for
sweetheart deals with preferred providers. Or for
saying yes to everything, then having to go back to
Congress to ask for the money for all the new things.
How responsive has Congress been lately? How
understanding and willing to help have the committee
chairmen been to give big new appropriations to the
Marine Corps? How forgiving have those committee
chairmen been to the Acquisition Marines who responded
quickly to UUNS but wound up paying too much in
retrospect?

3. Who is the CG of I MEF, the source of the story to
the AP? Answer: LtGen Mattis, who until Aug 2006, was
the CG of Marine Corps Combat Development Command
(MCCDC), and ultimately responsible for Marine Corps
Systems Command, the unit what responds to Urgent UNS
by purchasing gear. What is the backstory there? How
many of those 90% that went unfulfilled were submitted
on his watch at MCCDC? Here is another question: What
was his UUNS fulfillment rate while he was CG MCCDC? I
would think that a credible reporter or analyst might
ask some questions before passing on an AP hit-piece
on the Marines without considering the merit of the
complaints.