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.

Washington Post Subscriber Feedback

Here is what I do with your Sunday paper, (to which I did not subscribe but inexplicably comes anyway) when it arrives at my house. I remove the coupons, and immediately throw the rest in the trash. As it landed in the dumpster, I did have the misfortune of reading the cover of the magazine and saw that it was another hit piece on the Army. Typical al-Qaeda propaganda, doing what you can to destroy morale of the civilians and the military.

I have to give you this though, you continue to do the bidding of America's enemies, even as it pulls you into bankruptcy. Here is hoping your paper goes broke and unemployment comes soon for you all. Could not happen to a more deserving bunch of traitors.

Semper fidelis. Your "subscriber,"

Farewell to Lileks

Hi James, I wanted to drop you a line to let you know I don’t read the Bleat anymore, and I won’t be buying any of your books. I think you are a wonderful writer, and I have been reading you for 6 years now. I have bought all your books to date and, in fact, have given them as gifts to many grateful recipients.

I have to say that I realized you are leading me astray, so I can no longer continue to patronize you. Here are my reasons:

Keith Ellison – As far as I can tell, this guy is your congressman. But other than a Bleat the day of the election, way too late to matter, you were silent on his election. Do you not understand the stakes of having radical Islamists at the highest levels of our government? I think you do, based on what I hear from you on the Hugh Hewitt show. However, it puzzled me why when the Powerline guys were banging away for weeks on Ellison, you did not join in. Then you started to express your angst about the changes in the offing at the Star-Tribune, and it all clicked into place. I suspect you moderated your voice in order to stay on the good side of your publishers and editors. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with that, after all, I can’t say everything I would like to since my employer, the US Marine Corps, would not appreciate it. That being said, you are ingratiating yourself to the enemy.

The Press is the enemy – Having watched for years as the mainstream media bangs away at the President and the war, and sides with Islamists at every turn, and desperately seeks to capitulate to the Mohammedans in every way, the only conclusion I can draw is that the 4th estate is a 5th Column. I have sworn off all broadcast news, and refuse to allow any newspapers into our house, even the Washington Times. Your employer wishes ill of me, rejoices at the death of my fellow Marines, and I refuse to pay a cent to them. Reading of how you worry that the Star Tribune might lay you off, in my eyes, how the enemy might stop paying you, just struck me as so unseemly. What is it about the money the paper is giving you that matters so much? That brings me to point 3.

Your consumer pornography – What you buy, what you have seems to matter more that pretty much anything more that perhaps your daughter. Reading your stuff about the TV, or the TIVO or the various programs you have on your computer or your computer itself, I would always think, oh, I want that, too! Increasingly of late, that envy has convicted me. I have been reading the Bible, and I keep coming back to this after I read your stuff: “But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” After the Pastor had sermon on eliminating the temptations in life, I realized that you are leading me to temptation, and I could not allow that for myself any more.

My last reason for reading you is probably petty on my part, but I figured I would let you know anyway. I get really turned off by the bathos of you relating every “last” you go through with your daughter. I recall that I had a few of those with my first daughter, but once the second and the third child came along, I learned that it avails me not to dwell on what I loss, but instead to rejoice and be thankful for what is. I think that is the gift God gives us when we have more than one child. We are relieved of the prison of cataloging what we have lost, and instead can enjoy each moment with them. I think that represents one more reason why I can’t be in your presence anymore. Reading your consumer pornography has the potential to make me doubt the choices I have made to have children as the Lord commands, and to stand against the advancing Islamist tide Mark Steyn has so ably described. Reading your glorification of selfishness can only lead me astray, so I can’t do that to myself any more.

Good luck with your future endeavors.

Too stupid

Nice to know the contempt is mutual. You may think that Stimson is a "nutjob", but I have to tell you, his comments are pretty mild compared to what I and the other Marines I say about you lawyers. I have watched you in Guantanamo all eager to defend the terrorists pro bono, but you could not be bothered to lift a finger to defend US Army Sergeant Thomas Gibson, Captain Philip Wolford and Lt. Colonel Philip de Camp, accused of the wrongful death of a Spanish journalist in Baghdad. Only the terrorist enemy seems to rate any consideration from the "legal community." While I can't speak for all Marines, among the ones I actually know, here is the equation that explains our view of the Gitmo Lawyers.

Lawyer trying to free a scumbag terrorist so he can try again to kill me and my family = terrorist.

Semper fi

Yes, I am too stupid to understand why these terrorists we have captured because the JAG lawyers say we have to give them quarter instead of wasting them when we have the chance, now avail themselves of high priced lawyers and ridiculous judicial review. These scumbags would slit the throats of their own "representation" if they had half a chance, but it does not stop these terrorist-loving lawyers from doing all they can to have these terrorists released.

Slav, I was introduced to your point of view regarding the military when when John Kerry told his joke. Thanks for bringing back those pleasant memories.

Time to un-pimp ze auto

I love that commercial, it cracks me up to see the German sling the car into the desert with the trebuchet.

In other TV news, I am watching one episode of the original Mission: Impossible series per night. Instead of Mr Phelps, it features Mr Briggs, who is played by the original DA from Law and Order. Upside: Cinnamon, good acting, seemingly unlimited budget for gadgets and travel. Downside: Mr Briggs runs like a girl.

How I Spent New Year's Eve

I had an interesting experience for New Years. I was ordered to “Escort” Duty for the Ford Funeral. The job was to was to accompany VIPs attending the Ford Funeral. Why VIPs needed a military officer to ride along in the car with them while some an enlisted man drove, I don’t know. Someone decided that arrangement was part of the protocol, so mine was not to question why instead but to do and then sit around for the rest of my 12 hour shift. It turns out that when an appointed president dies over the New Year’s holiday, not a lot of VIPs are willing to fly into Washington between 1900 and 07. So, I had a couple of days of sitting around the command center in the bowling alley on one of the bases in the DC area. On New Year’s Eve, the dispatcher got word that the Ford Family wanted escorts to be posted closer to where they were staying at the Blair House. So, each of the services pulling the 19-7 shift had to give up one body to go over there. Since the duty meant changing out of camis into service alphas, the most uncomfortable uniform in the seabag, the other officer and I flipped a coin to see who would have to suck it up and head over there. I lost.

Turned out to be the best coin flip I ever lost. I changed into my alphas, checked out my car, got assigned a driver, and headed over to the Blair House. The Blair House is directly across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, which means that it is on that part of the street that has been closed to traffic. That makes it a little difficult to find if you are driving around looking for it in the dark. After stopping to ask a K-9 Police Officer, we eventually found it. Once we got in, the manager of the house posted us in the protocol office. While in there, all the members of the Ford Family came in, and introduced themselves to us. Later, the butler brought us all dinner, which we ate, sitting at the desks in there.

After that, the Fords all headed to bed around 2200. At that point, the manager gave us me a tour of the bottom floor. I knew that a lot of history had happened at the Blair House. Lincoln liked to spend afternoons there, getting away from the heat. The couch he sat on is there, as is the mantle above the fireplace where he rested his heels. The marks of boots are still there. Truman used Blair House as his office while the White House was being renovated. There are still bullet holes in the foyer where the Secret Service fought off an assassination attempt by Puerto Rican nationals. The table where he conducted his cabinet meetings is still there, each seat with a cushion embroidered by a cabinet member’s wife.

The reason the manager gave me the tour is because I asked him where Truman’s office was while he lived there. The manager took me to a little room that is now furnished like a little sitting room with a couch and chairs and a couple of tables. Truman brought a mantle over from the White House so that a little part of if would be there with him. That room is where the buck stopped. However, there is no desk in the room. So I asked the manager where that desk is now, since he had already mentioned that none of the furniture had been removed from the premises. He said: “We put it in the protocol office.” I stared at him, agog.

“We ate dinner off the desk where the buck stopped?” I asked.

“Yes.”

How did you spend you New Year’s Eve?

A couple of thoughts

Article about baby selection

Who, besides Althouse and Reynolds, said this is anything about Nazis? Reading a criticism about eugenics and seeing it as a comparison specifically to Nazi policy is evidence that you are uncomfortable with your own position. Eugenics was coined as a neutral term; it is now a pejorative because of what the believers in it have wrought.

Sure, some of the people who object to this clinical selection of genetic material also oppose abortion. But, as Gerry pointed out, it is dishonest to conflate the positions. Argue against the specific objections to the idea. Since you are comfortable with the ride all the way down the slippery slope, are you sanguine with the idea of a woman unable to bear the child being able to recruit a woman with a healthy womb to carry the fertilized egg? Or to paying that woman? Or to allowing the fertility clinic to recruit and pay the women with the healthy wombs to carry the selected eggs? Or to government (federal state or local) subsidizing such an arrangement as a part of Medicare?

I know, I know, farfetched, would never happen, impossible to consider...but then, when I was in high school in the early 80's, so was the idea that gays would be allowed to marry. At this point, I am un-reassureable.

Can intractable conflicts be solved?

The answer to this question highlight why it is the participation of the US is vital to resolving intractable conflicts. Why is it that we see ethnic tensions turning violent or criminal elements becoming more powerful in places like Bosnia, Iraq, and Palestinian Territories? The answer is that there is no longer a strong, overarching power keeping those tensions in control. In the absence of astrong central authority, smaller despots will coalesce their power, in whatever base they can, be it tribal group, co-religionists, like minded criminals, and struggle for power. This is a pattern seen everywhere in the world. The Chinese call it the Dynastic Cycle; as the power of the central authority wanes, local chiefs contest for power during a period of anarchy that lasts until one of them gains sufficient advantage, or a foreigner comes in to smash the squabbling forces and takes over the divided kingdom.

Colonial powers conquered and ruled their colonial holdings much as did the Mongol invaders who invaded China. A strong, unified power came into an area without a unified government, and was able to establish control and rule. This pattern has been in evidence all over the world. Britain ruled India, eastern China, Australia, and southern Africa among other places. The US government destroyed dis-unified Indian tribes and extended control over the entire continent, Hawaii and smashed the Boxer Rebellion in Beijing. Japan and the Chinese Nationalist ruled Taiwan by oppressing the indigenous people with such ruthlessness, there was no chance of uprising. After smashing Japan, the US forced the Japanese people to renounce their traditional warrior culture, and adopt a peaceful constitution before they were allowed self rule. In all these situations, a stronger power came in and forced a weak group of squabbling people to change their behavior to live in peace.

Such is the situation the US faces around the world at the end of 2006. Theorists have essentially thrown away centuries of collected wisdom of how a major power pacifies a troublesome area, and has attempted to do things in a new, unproven way. The US has attempted to be culturally sensitive in the situations where it has intervened lately, and to be charitable, the jury is still out on whether this approach will be successful. Bosnia appears to be a success story, but still requires the heavy commitment of US forces and money to keep the warring parties apart. It is hard to imagine that peace would reign if the US redeployed. Iraq is really up in the air and has all the earmarks of a situation that is not “ripe” for settlement, since none of the sides seems yet to fear being destroyed by any of the others. Since the largest power, the US, is unwilling to impose its vision of a settlement on the country and destroy those who would combat that vision, the minor despots continue their insurrection. Since Israel has been unwilling to destroy the forces of the Palestinians, hat situation does not appear to be ripe for settlement either.

There is now an institutional bias against ethnic cleansing, against partition, against maintaining secure borders and against intervening to destroy one warlike culture to replace it with one more attuned to political settlement of differences. The idea currently in vogue is for the dominant power to avoid a large cultural “footprint” and allow the local people to live as they wish. While we might now shrink from imposing a settlement of differences on an unwilling population and forcing that people to accept it, the historical truth is: this approach works, and it works regardless of the political landscape. Currently, with the US spending more on defense than the next 44 powers combined, with 300 million people and the largest economy in history, there is no doubt about the power of the US in unrivalled. Whether the US can muster the will to use this power in a way that will accomplish its goals, is another question.

10% correct

This post reads like one of those arguments that a high school Lincoln Douglas debater makes when forced to argue a side of a proposition that he disagrees with. “Resolved: The Texas 10% plan is inherently worse than a system giving preference to racial minorities.” The debater makes points that look like they affirm the proposition or argue against the inverse, but don’t really. Further, the entire argument rests on the idea that there is a substantive difference between colleges.

Regarding the first point: “it often leads universities to admit students that are probably inferior to those they would have chosen otherwise.” Maybe, but, then, so does the proliferation of colleges. If UT-Austin was the only state college in Texas, and could only admit the Valedictorian from each HS class, you would have an erudite group of scholars pursuing knowledge for knowledge’s sake, or some such. But the reality of the situation is that lack of a college degree is a barrier to entry into many fields, state colleges serve the constituents of the state legislatures, and colleges exist to employ academics. So an academic or a frustrated university booster who can’t get his kid into his alma mater may complain that the hallowed classrooms are sullied by the presence of “inferior” students, no one else actually sees this as a problem. People do their four years to get a degree, legislators get their constituents kids into college, and administrators justify the employment of so many academic. Everyone wins.

Regarding gaming the system: Give me a break. Show me one student or family with the wherewithal to plan and execute such a move in order to get into the top 10% of one school when they couldn’t qualify in another, and I will show you someone who could have used that effort and research time to get into some other school that would meet their requirements. Or, here is another challenge: show me one student or family that has actually done this. I can just imagine the thought process: “My kid will finish in the 11th percentile at Plano East, so I am going to drive him everyday to Carter so he can qualify to go to UT-Dallas.” Nonsense.

Can a “harmful effect” of a policy really be “undetected?” And how does arguing that support your proposition? “Your honor, my client will argue that harmful effects of the actions of the defendant have gone undetected and we can’t really say what they are, but take our word for it.” Um, no.

The last argument against the 10% policy is the most interesting, because of all the biases built into it. The primary objection seems to be that poor Mr Price is somehow disadvantaged if he is forced to study finance at University of Houston instead of UT-Austin. Is there any rational basis to make such an objection? Is the education at one state school quantifiably better than at another? Can we say that geologists who graduate from UT-Permian Basin are 8% less likely than those from UT-Austin to detect oil in a particular area? Do lawyers who graduate from George Mason write briefs that are 14% less compelling than those from UCLA? No, of course not. This argument is all about perception of the relative worth of the school, a perception that is completely divorced from any objective criteria. To argue that one school is “better” than another without telling us the criteria upon which this argument is based, is just not compelling.

The Lost Room

Every couple of years, I see a show, and become a little obsessed by it. I don’t watch a lot of TV in the evenings, (other than baseball), but there are times when I get into a show, and think about it, pretty much all the time. A few years ago, it was “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” then “The Matrix,” and now, it is “The Lost Room.” “The Lost Room” is a miniseries on the SciFi Channel, about a man looking for his daughter. Only, the man is a detective on the run for killing his partner, and his daughter ran through a door to another dimension. And he has a key that allows him to open doors and move from any room any where in the world to any room any where else in the world. And competing organizations of people are searching for the key, and other ordinary objects, a pen, a coat, a bus ticket, among others, that are infused with powers that alter time or space.

This show is a hoot. There are coolly malevolent bad guys. There are opportunist anarchists. There are petty thieves. There are murderous cults. There are feeble public interest groups. There are clueless cops, evil CSIs, hidden treasure, comedy, romance and creepy terror. The performances are all first class, and the end of the series left a ton of cliff hangers. I can’t wait until the next installments.

There are some loose ends. The “objects” all belong to a man who was checked into a room at a hotel in New Mexico on Rte 66 in 1961. Something, and we have not found out what, happened to infuse everything in the room, including the man himself, with the powers. Throughout the mini-series, people open a door with the key, and end up in the hotel room. Inside the room are a bed, a bedside table, and a TV mounted to the wall opposite the bed. The room has electricity and water. Everyone who enters the room goes over to the TV and fiddles with it, but never turns it on. The TV is not just a prop because there are times when characters just wander over, and the TV obstructs the character from the point of view of other characters and also the audience watching the show. Putting the TV directly in the view of the audience is a clear signal that there is something going on with the TV, but for some reason, no one ever turns it on. I suspect future episodes will reveal more about the TV.

The most malevolent of the bad guys simply disappears at the end of the last episode. He is experimenting with the powers of the glass eye in conjunction with the powers of some of the other objects, when suddenly, he disappears. Where did he go? Hopefully, we will find out.

I can’t wait for more of this show!

Questions, questions, questions

A classmate asks: "I understand the dilemma of sovereignty and our reason for not signing on with the ICC, but even if we arent bound by the jurisdiction (technically we are if the UN refered Rumsfield to the ICC) shouldnt we still act in the manner outlined by the ICC? We are the champions of democracy and the rule of law, in order for us to maintain our credibility we must act credibly."

My reponse: I make a couple of points. 1) International law is not synonmous with the ICC. and 2) The ICC's jurisdiction is whatever the UN and the ICC says it is.

Reagarding point 1), Gen Pinochet can confirm this. Some of the families of people who disappeared during Pinochet's rule in Chile prevailed upon a Spanish judge for justice. This judge investigated the charges and issued an arrest warrant that Scotland Yard enforced when Pinochet showed up in England in 1998 for back surgery. The judge based his warrant on the theory of "universal jurisdiction" the idea that some crimes are such an affront that all humanity has an obligation to pursue the offender, and bring him to justice. (The Ripple Effect of the Pinochet Case By Stacie Jonas Human Rights Brief, Volume 11, Issue 3, pgs. 36-38 May 24, 2004) We therefore see a Spanish judge issuing a warrant that was enforced in England against a Chilean citizen for acts committed in Chile that were considered to be violations of Spanish law. Part of the deal that got Pinochet to give up power was the grant of immunity that was negotiated with other Chilean politicians. What tyrant, seeing the idea of "universal jurisdiction" enforced everywhere in the world, would ever give up the reins of power lest some mischief maker somewhere else in the world decide he was going to bring that tyrant to justice? Such a possibility would make a mediator's job very difficult if the goal were to have the tyrant reliquish power. This is also the theory in the complaint against Rumsfeld. According to press accounts: "The groups' lawyers say their case model was former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, who had been arrested five times since 1998 due to human rights cases against him." http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1788780.htm

Regarding point 2) the Security Council can refer anything or anyone it wants to the ICC for trial. If the powers of the world decide that atrocities occuring in southern Thailand or the Marshall Islands or southeast Chad are so heinous that the perpetrators are committing crimes against humanity, if those individuals are somehow caught, they can be hauled up in front of the ICC.

Another classmate asks: "How legitimate is its power?"

My response: I am not sure who you are referring to when you ask "how legitimate is its power?" For either the US or the ICC, the question pivots on the definition of "legitimate." America's power in the world is undeniable; it is the third most populous country in the world, the largest economy in the world, has the most capable military and outspends the next 44 countries in defense expenditure.

The ICC, on the other hand, has seen its ratification treaty legitimately signed by 139+ countries, but the same question Stalin asked about the Vatican during WWII must be asked about the ICC: "How many divisions has it got?" Without some way to compel unwilling actors to comply with the rulings of the ICC, it is an inert body. The only way to compel anyone is with sufficient force, force that only the US and its allies can provide.

Folly of International Law

The idea that international law tribunals have legitimacy is based on the concept of consensus. There is a paradox in this, because in order for a tribunal to be created, the countries of the world must all agree with the following: 1) that a group of people committed atrocities, 2) that these atrocities were so bad that they demand international attention, 3) that the atrocities were committed with the sanction of the state, 4) that those in power in the state who gave the orders or committed the acts are identifiable, and that 5) the sentences of those convicted will justify the considerable expense and time of the trials. In other words, for all countries of the world to agree on the applicability of international law, there must be agreement that the target of the international law is guilty and worth the expense of prosecuting. For a shorthand description of this process, we can turn to the Queen of Hearts in “Alice in Wonderland” who exclaimed during the Knave of Heart’s trial for stealing the tarts: “Sentence first—verdict afterwards.”

The entire edifice of international law is based on consensus of those who agree to be bound by it or to enforce it. This consensus is based on the acceptance of certain traits that are common to all people around the world. McDougal and Lasswell developed a classification of human desires that they published in “The Identification and Appraisal of Diverse Systems of Public Order” in 1981. Their classification of human requirements included security, enlightenment, wealth, well-being, skill, affection, respect, and rectitude. Chander, in “Globalization and Distrust” argues that “Underlying even these values is a commitment to a world public order of human dignity.” (Pg 1230) While there may be a philosophical underpinning for international law, the calculus of power requires that the powerful governments of the world agree on whom to try, and where.

The classic examples of international tribunal conducted with maximum consensus were the Nuremberg Trials of the Nazis and the Tokyo War Crimes trials after World War II. The powers of the world, after extended conflict, had just vanquished regimes that practiced atrocities. There was little doubt that those regimes and the leaders of them would face justice. However, even though such a trial would seem to be a slam dunk in terms of consensus among the government of the world, some see it differently.

Donald Bloxham, in his book Genocide on Trial: the war crimes trials and the formation of Holocaust history and memory, page 4, calls the International Military Tribunal ‘the most significant manifestation of what came to be known critically as “victor’s justice’”.

So even though the world had to recognize that the Nazi and the Japanese leadership had conducted numerous acts that were an affront to human dignity and world public order, there were still those who questioned the legitimacy of those trials.
Additionally, international conventions have layered intricate rules of procedure and evidence onto the process that extends the length of trials. For example, Milosovic’s trial had lasted 5 years before he died, making the whole thing moot. But even absent the consensus that would seems to be a pre-requisite for prosecuting war criminals, given the structures of international law already in place, there is ample opportunity for the unscrupulous to use those structures. The latest news regarding international law is the idea that Germany is going to charge US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld with crimes against humanity. While it is impossible to conceive that the Supreme Court would allow the extradition of Rumsfeld, this kind of mischief will make it difficult for Rumsfeld to ever again travel lest some eager magistrate seize him to satisfy the German warrant. Given such daunting standards, is it possible that international law will ever be considered anything other than rump victor’s justice or a vehicle for mischief making?

Probably not.

Further, the prospect of “international law” being brought to bear also tends to make a mediator’s job more problematic. What incentive would a despot have to relinquish power if he knew that regardless of the assurances he has in his own country regarding immunity, an international body or another country might indict him and drag him before some tribunal for years of endless hearings and a possible death penalty?

Pacifism Doesn't Always Work Out So Well

I can respect the desire to be a pacifist, but pacifism combined with freedom is a luxury afforded only to those protected by sufficient military might to prevent the weak from being preyed upon by the strong. Generally, pacifism is most often associated with subjugation because the natural tendency of men and nations is to contest for power and resources. Steven LeBlanc writes in his book Constant Battles about how man has fought since our species has been on the planet. There has never been an era in history not marked by near constant warfare. The only thing that keeps men and nations from warring is sufficient bounty for all. The best mechanism for insuring bounty for all is a democratic government that allows entrepreneurial rights and protects people’s property and individual rights.

Democracies fight more wars because their economic power gives them a presence in places far from their own region and allows them to project military power. So, when a local despot oppresses threatens a democracy’s interests, or the democracy’s people, the democracy has to respond because frankly, the people of the democracy, the voters, want it. Think back to President Bush standing on the rubble of the World Trade Center when he said: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon," The crowd roared its approval, and the President enjoyed his highest approval ratings. Why? Because the people of America wanted to strike back and Bush, the politician, was going to do exactly what the voters wanted. This aggressive pursuit of despots across the world has been a trait of modern democracies. America destroyed the Barbary pirates off the coast of Libya in the early 1800’s, allied European democracies crushed the Chinese “Boxer Rebellion,” America destroyed the Spanish in Cuba at the turn of the 20th century and Australia ended the slaughter of innocents in East Timor at the turn of the 21st century. In each case I just sited, a democracy responded with overwhelming force to relatively minor provocations. Why? Because, such actions were popular.

Now, would pacifism have been a better policy? I think the answer to that question depends on what you value. If you value the preservation of life above all, and the absence of suffering brought on by injuries caused by weapons, then yes, pacifism is the best policy. But if you care about liberty and freedom in addition to safety, it is hard to see how pacifism delivers those things. A tyrant will take all that a pacifist state has and enslave the people. Peace will reign, but at a cost that is unacceptable to free people. The people in democracies will see injustice somewhere in the world, and demand their governments stop it.

Is trying to create a democracy the best policy after deposing a despot? Perhaps not, but Winston Churchill addressed this question directly in a speech to the House of Commons in 1947: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

For those who love peace, as we all do, an imperfect democracy is preferable to a stable dictatorship. Perhaps the most compelling justification for this statement is one that is more germane to this class. Democracies establish mechanisms to safeguard rights and which reward the peaceful resolution of differences. When two democracies have a conflict, both sides can send negotiators to the table to resolve differences, even if the negotiations take years. The US and Canada periodically meet to resolve differences over fishing areas along their maritime boundaries. Never a shot is fired. On the other hand, the North and South Korean navies are in a constant state of readiness during the blue crab harvest, often firing on each other because there is no mechanism for a peaceful resolution of this problem. South Korea and Japan, a couple of democracies, also have joint fishing areas that are mutually patrolled with no rancor. Democracies can resolve problems because both sides are predisposed to utilized civilized resolution mechanisms. Democracies do not have a similar luxury when there is a dispute with a despot.

Speaking of Japan and South Korea; they stand as testimony to the successes that are possible when one country imposes democracy on another.

Why Negotiation Doesn't Work

In “Preventive Statecraft: A Realist Strategy”, Bruce Jentleson wrote that: "In all the cases in the Carnegie Commission Study I led there were specific and identifiable opportunities to limit, if not prevent, conflicts." “Preventative Statecraft,” a chapter written by Dr Jentleson in the book Turbulent Peace, was published in 2001. The study Dr Jentleson referenced was published 4 years earlier in the book: Opportunities Missed, Opportunities Seized: Preventative Diplomacy in the Post Cold War World. Although Jentleson seems definitive in
his later assessment of the judgments from Opportunities Missed, the text of the study itself reveals some nuances.

The Carnegie Study looked at 10 different conflicts around the world, some conflicts inside borders, some across borders. Jentleson and his group looked at conflicts in the former Soviet Union, the Baltics, the former Yugoslavia, Africa and in Korea. Although Jentleson is correct to assert that every study showed points early in the conflict where aggressive diplomacy could conceivably have had some effect, in every case, with the exception of the remarkable success in the Baltics, 1) the timing of those points was not as clear to those in the conflicts as it was to researchers after the fact. There are two other issues to note about Jentleson’s points: 2) In other hot spots, the only time to intervene in the conflict, is before the conflict has actually occurred. 3) Often, successful intervention in a conflict sometimes only postpones a conflict until later, essentially “kicking the can down the road.”

Regarding point 1, the Carnegie researchers of the 90’s Congo conflict noted that “As is perhaps common in regard to this topic, there was plenty of early warning of this crisis, and yet it took everyone by surprise.” (Pg 268) This observation also relates to last week’s discussion about foretelling conflicts. Indicators that are crystal clear in retrospect seem somewhat more ambiguous when a policy maker has to use those indistinct indications of potential conflict to determine his policy. Another difficulty facing policy makers who are trying to determine a future course of action to deter a conflict is that those policy makers must shift from appearing tough to finding some way to reach common ground for negotiating. Such a change has a way of undermining a leader’s authority because negotiating requires giving something up. The negotiating paradox is that in order to get what you want, you have to give some of what you have. Many times, followers are loathe to give anything to a traditional rival, so leaders proceed along such a course at considerable risk. Nonetheless, negotiators strive for the time when circumstances will allow bold participants, with the help of mediators, to reach an agreement to prevent conflict. Jentleson calls this time during a crisis when intervention would do the most good, the “ripe” time. The problem is seeing ripeness as it is occurring, vice after the fact when it is too late.

Related to this is a second component of Jentleson’s analysis that dovetails with Chester Crocker’s observation in the discussion question. Crocker argues that the best time to negotiate a settlement is before the bullets start to fly. Jentleson explicitly endorses this point of view on page 331 of Opportunities Missed. “Jacob Bercovitch and Jeffrey Langley, in their study of 97 disputes of various types involving 364 separate mediation attempts, found a declining success rate for mediation as fatalities increased. Roy Licklider goes further, arguing that once civil wars get going a military victory tends to be a more stable “solution” than a negotiated settlement.” Jentleson calls the idea that once a conflict reaches certain level of violence, that “the Rubicon has been crossed” referring to the river north of Rome that no Roman General was allowed to cross with his army, lest rebellion be declared and one or the other side was successful. When the level of violence “crosses the Rubicon,” there is little hope that negotiation will work until one side is defeated, or both are exhausted.

Both Jentleson and Crocker are right on in their assessments. It is best to negotiate when both sides are cool, rather than during the heat of battle. But this time we face a conundrum similar in kind if not degree to the problem of picking the ripest moment of a crisis to attempt negotiations: if there is not yet really a problem nor a shooting war, what incentive is there for anyone to spend the time and effort to meaningfully negotiate? Some negotiators call the process of negotiating prior to “ripeness” as “negotiating for negotiation sake.” Jentleson points up another danger of this strategy, on page 337, a danger which is of failing to give full attention or concern to the process. The danger of failing to fully engage in negotiation is that it displays a lack of commitment and a lack of political that looks a lot like weakness that another side will attempt to exploit and perhaps precipitate a crisis.

Regarding point 3), often times, the successes in negotiating peace only postpone a conflict until later. The classic example occurred in the Congo where a peace treaty in 1994 prevented a wider conflict, but also allowed some of the actors to strengthen their positions and others to lose cohesiveness and become independent and uncontrollable. In 1997, tensions escalated again and were unable to be negotiated away. All sides decided to use their strengthened positions to fight it out. As Jentleson himself says on page 330, “prevention is more difficult when the interests of major domestic actors are served more by perpetuation and intensification of the conflict than its resolution.”

The views of Jentleson and Crocker are certainly not in opposition, and Jentleson and Crocker quote one another and anthologize one another in each other’s books. In fact, Crocker credits Jentleson on page 4 of Taming Intractable Conflicts with some of the “...excellent recent work on conflict causes [that] has prompted the scholar-practitioner community to devote more attention to what third parties should do to prevent the eruption of violence, in new places...” There is not much daylight in the views of the two men. I think both would agree that negotiation can prevent or limit conflicts, but the negotiation has to occur “early, early, early” (Opportunities Missed pg 337). The problem, as we are beginning to see as a trend, is with intelligence being able to tell us definitively that we are at the beginning of a conflict, and when the ripe time is to intervene.

Thoughts on Training

Let me say that for the most part, Maj Egland is right on in his prescriptions but I want to address a couple of the points he made. I am an intelligence officer, and in my current job, I draft the standards which are used to create the learning objectives for training, so I know a little bit about Maj Egland’s points #2 and #5. For #2, Maj Egland has diagnosed the wrong problem with training and proposed an inadequate solution to the problem that actually does exist. Maj Egland decries “Cold War era” checklists, and repetitive training to standards but then proposes rebuilding training requirements. What he leaves unsaid is that the rebuilt training requirements will come down to the units in the form of checklists that are written by those who have recently returned from combat. Checklists are not the problem, I think that it is what is contained in the checklists that Maj Egland objects to.

As a standards writer, I hear all the time from the operating forces that training does not meet the conditions under which Marines are expected to operate and that what is being taught is not the best response to stimulus in combat. I listen respectfully, because they have the latest and greatest gouge about what is going on in the War. But what those recently returning from the War must remember is that their experiences are essentially anecdotal and must be weighed against those of other Marines’ (and other soldiers’) experiences to develop a coherent picture of what is happening, and how training should respond. For example, when we were trying to create training for how a convoy should best respond to an improvised explosive device (IED) attack, we had “lessons learned” documents and subject matter experts (SME's) who were all emphatic that the proper response in that situation was to stop in place and deploy; drive the vehicles into a herringbone formation and deploy; drive through the kill zone without speeding all the while returning fire; floor it though the kill zone without returning fire; and other variations of these. The pressure on the standard writers, curriculum developers and trainers was immense because everyone was demanding counter IED training immediately. The then-current training was inadequate and was getting Marines killed. The frustrating fact is that all the various ideas for improving training must be considered, especially when they come from experienced, well intentioned Marines with a sincere interest in doing the best possible thing for Marines and the Marine Corps. The truth about training is that just because some officer thinks that training should be one way does not mean the entire Marine Corps (or Army) concurs. That process of gaining consensus or at least majority approval takes time but can be expedited when there is the will and resources to do so.

But once the SMEs agree on the training standards, and the operating forces have a chance to approve them, the standards are published so that the units can begin training to them, and so, yes, checklists can be created to determine whether the units are performing the tasks required.

Now, reading between the lines, Maj Egland may actually be advocating more free play type exercises that can be subjectively evaluated so that junior enlisted and officers can respond to unexpected situations. Admittedly, that would be the best way to train, but the reality is that such exercises take time to set up and are extremely “resource and manpower intensive.” With the current pace of deployments and the number of Marines and soldiers who must be trained in the burgeoning number of tasks in which they must be proficient, there just is not the luxury to provide as much free-play training as we would like. Hence, the dreaded checklists. If we had more Marines available to construct and conduct training events, we could conduct better training. But given the zero sum game when it comes to personnel available to the schoolhouses and the operating forces, the Army and the Marine Corps has to make the hard choices when it comes to delivering training.

As to point #5, Maj Egland is correct that more intelligence sharing and analysis is better than less. The limiting factor in reporting actionable intelligence up the chain is the fact that so much of the effort involved in questioning bad guys and potential sources of intelligence is the ridiculous amount of paperwork that must accompany each detainee or report that is sent to the rear. The problem actually starts at the top of the chain of command. The current buzz word for intelligence collection is “tactical questioning.” The Department of Defense has mandated that all the services train to and execute tactical questioning so that Marines and soldiers at the front line ask the right questions to elicit actionable intelligence in order to immediately press the fight. It sounds great, but if you look at the actual directive that came down from DOD, Number 3115.09 DoD Intelligence Interrogations, Detainee Debriefings, and Tactical Questioning, ¾ of it is concerned with respecting the rights of detainees and ensuring questioning follows applicable laws for those questioned! How much consideration is due to terrorists or foreign nationals in a war zone? It is a ridiculous document, but all the requirements contained in it complicate and lengthen questioning training. Additionally, Theater commanders have directed that questioning and detaining of suspects must conform to Iraqi law, and be under the review of Iraqi magistrates. So, a lot of man-hours that would otherwise be used to hunt and kill terrorists or doing link analysis on small bit of intelligence, is instead wasted with completing chain of custody documents and compiling multiple witness statements in order to ensure that detained bad guys are not sprung on technicalities. Ironically, even with all the time and effort given over to satisfy Iraqi requirements at the expense of intelligence analysis, the vast majority of detained Iraqis are released without prejudice. This colossal waste of time detracts from the intelligence mission to the detriment of the overall mission.

To Lileks

After having read your stuff for a couple of years and I enjoy that you bring so much nostalgia to light. In the past, I have also appreciated your take on current events as well, you seem like a pretty clear headed observer of what is going on around you. That being said, I have to say that I have been terribly disappointed by your performance during the run up to the election. 3 points. For weeks, Hugh Hewitt and Powerline have been banging on the STRIB for ignoring the disgusting past of Keith Ellison, the ridiculous attacks on Fine, and the generally dishonest and biased reporting during the election season. Even Mark Steyn weighed in. These are your guys! Yet in the midst of all the angst about what is going on at your employer, angst I know you were aware of, you said nothing. That brings me to point 2.

The day before the election, you finally write something about the candidate who is soon to be your congressman. Yes, coming out like you did on the even of the election was welcome, but at the same time, I wonder why you did not publish such a thing a few weeks before? Why did you not publish a Screed? The most important issue of our time, confronting virulent versions of Islam, a representative of which is being elected to Congress as YOUR congressman, and the most you can do is one feeble Bleat the day before the election? I have to say, I was very disappointed.

For the third point, I was going to write a paragraph here wondering at your motives, but on second thought, I don’t think I will. I will ask you though, are you doing all you can to counter the threat of our age? Or have you chosen to surround yourself in things, ignoring what is happening around you and hoping that whatever bad that is going to happen will happen to your daughter, sometime after you are dead?

Get back in the fight James, we need you. Semper fi

Where next?

“[V]ery few of the new manifestations in war can be ascribed to new inventions or new departures in ideas. They result mainly from the transformation of society and new social conditions”. Dr Gray, in the reading contained in the packet "How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War?", quotes this passage from Clauswitz to make the point that that war, the effort to impart one’s will on another by force, would not change. Those fighting, the reasons they fight, the constraints under which they fight, will change, but the conflict would remain recognizable to observers from one era to the next. That being said, the types of conflicts that the world community will be facing in this era, while not new under the sun, will certainly be unlike anything that the current generation of world leaders will have experienced.

Dr Gray makes another point that is germane to the analysis of characteristics of post Cold War conflict. He says: “Trend spotting is not a good guide to the future.” Another way to put this is that the future is never a straight line from the now. Or to borrow a theory that race car drivers live by: “Aim for the wreck because by the time you get there, it will be gone.” Predicting the future based only on what we see now is probably a fool’s errand, therefore it is necessary to make some guesses based on historical precedent, as well as what we can observe now. Given these caveats about predicting the future, we can say that fanatical Islamists remain on the offensive around the world, seeking to gain the means to carry out “catastrophic terrorism,” in the words of Dr Gray. Militant Islam is expansionist, aggressive, convinced by their ideology that they deserve to rule the world and as yet, undefeated. So long as such an ideology remains viable, its adherents will continue to press the conflict. Iran is attempting to gain a nuclear weapon, and making overt threats toward Israel and has a nihilistic force in Hezbollah that seems willing to endure any sacrifice to inflict casualties. Once they get a nuclear weapon, Islamists will either use it or blackmail the West into submission. Chester Crocker makes the point in Taming Intractable Conflicts, pg 83, that negotiating with individuals driven by religious ideology seems pointless. “The jury is still out on whether conflicts involving religion are inherently more intractable than other conflict, whether religious-ideological issues make it harder for warring elites to compromise without being seen as betraying their principles, and whether religious disputes have a zero-sum quality that other disputes lack.” In other words, there has been no evidence that conflicts born of religious ideology end other than in total victory for one side or the other.

Another characteristic of conflict will likely be some kind of conventional war in Asia. There are a number of historical animosities in Asia that have been tamped down because of variety of reasons but perhaps most notably because of American engagement in North Eastern Asia. Since America must contend with emergent threats in Southwest Asia, regional players in Asia have had more latitude to assert their particular interests, and there are numerous points of friction, any of which could start a conflict. North Korea is aggressively threatening its neighbors is such a way that is forcing South Korea and Japan to respond. Japan’s unfortunate history in Korea causes both North and South to feel threatened by the idea of a resurgent Japan. China’s navy is aggressively patrolling in Taiwanese and Japanese waters and menacing American warships in international waters. China is opening threatening Taiwan with missiles and encroaching on Vietnamese economic exclusion zone in the pursuit of oil and natural gas reserves. With America looking away, similar conditions that prevailed in 1950, any or all of these hot spots looks likely to result in a conventional cross border conflict.

But if we are trying to imagine what the next conflict will be, I imagine that the conflict will spring from what Donald Rumsfeld calls the “unknown unknowns.” Some type conflict will happen, that as of right now, we cannot predict. When it happens, however, the necessity to engage in conflict will seem imperative and inevitable. I can remember in the summer of 2001 being tasked with providing input to a large “10 year way ahead” predictive analysis paper being prepared for CINCPAC. 50+ analysts worked for weeks thinking about this task then providing input to that document. Within 6 weeks, the entire document was shredded as being completely irrelevant to the new facts on the ground.

In the post Cold War era, the characteristics of conflict that we world will face include a war of annihilation against an implacable ideological foe, similar to the conflict of World War II, a conventional cross region war in Asia similar to the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the China-Vietnam War, the Rape of Nanking, or the Chinese Civil War, and an unexpected and as of now, unexpected conflict somewhere else in the world that will nonetheless demand international participation.