Quick Advice From A Fake Consultant: Listen To Burt Bacharach

Remember the Burt Bacharach song “Knowing When to Leave”?

For those who don’t, consider these lyrics:

Knowing when to leave may be the smartest thing anyone can learn…

And from the next chorus:

… Knowing when to leave will never let you reach the point of no return.

And every day someone mentions “artificial timetables”, that should be our answer.

And then we should offer this scenario to consider:

At the moment, Iraqis are fighting among each other. They are not a united nation, despite the wishes of this Administration.

More and more, the Iraqi population wants us out.
If we overstay our welcome, it is entirely possible the Iraqi people will unite.

To kill us.

Instead of an “outpost” for terrorism, we will have created a Shi'a-dominated united Iran-Iraq terror “nexus” that will turn on it’s Sunni and Kurdish neighbors first, then us.

Then the terrorists will follow us home.

Once again, to sum up:

The administration claims if we leave the outcome will be disastrous unless we can create a united Iraq.

Our response: if we don’t leave now, they will unite.
And that will be more disastrous than we can even imagine.

On Fighting A War, Or, The Best Christmas Ever

Lots of people enlist in the military, many more marry into it.
Others are born into it.

I’m one of those.

I was literally born into the Navy.
So literally that my place of birth is the Portsmouth Naval Hospital.

Before I was nine, I was stationed at Portsmouth, Virginia, Jacksonville, Florida, and Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard, San Francisco. That’s where my Dad was transferred to a destroyer being converted from an older design, the USS Somers (DDG 34).

I remember attending the commissioning, and strangely enough, the one memory of that event that really stands out was meeting a Rear Admiral who had, my Dad told me, risen through the ranks from seaman to admiral.

I remember because my Dad made sure to point out that even though he had been an enlisted man, he did not have a Good Conduct Medal. That may have been the first time I learned iconoclasm can be a good thing.

We had been in California for about three years at that point, and every night my Dad would “come home from work”.

This was about to change.

Ships are not based at shipyards after the work is finished, so it was again time to move, this time to Naval Station Long Beach, California. (Ironically, the Federal Correctional Institution Terminal Island now occupies the site. But I digress.)

I have not set a time to this story, and it’s time to do so.

We are now in the year 1969. Man will be landing on the moon in a month or so (and I’ll be allowed to stay up late to watch it on TV), and we’re fighting the Vietnam War. I am 9 going on 10.

So that’s when my dad left for his first “WestPac” cruise (the Western Pacific, for those of you not Naval); and that’s the first time I understood what having a parent gone for 6 months means.

It sucked that he was away.
It sucked being home.
I don’t remember ever crying because he was gone-he was just gone.

Probably the worst part of all this was not knowing when he was coming back-and the fact that 6 months to a 10 year old is a huge piece of your life.

But that all passes, and eventually he came back.

And then left. And came back again.

Now it’s summer of 1972, and we’re on a new ship, the USS Goldsborough (DDG 20).

In October they left for Vietnam, once again, to do what a destroyer does on duty. The third Christmas in a row Dad was to be gone.

What does a destroyer do in Vietnam? Basically sit off the coast and toss shells on shore at enemy positions. Pretty boring duty, I’m told, unless they shoot back.

Wanna hear a story of cultural adaptation? I heard this after one of the cruises, and never forgot it.

Apparently my Dad’s ship was tied up at Subic Bay (in the Philippines, again for those not Naval) next to a Philippine Navy ship which needed electrical repairs, and a volunteer from the US ship was sent to assist.

Courtesy requires the ship to express its appreciation, and the sailor (an enlisted man) was invited to dine with the Captain and the officers of the Philippine vessel in the ship’s wardroom.

Dinner was apparently quite good, and the Captain announced he had a special treat in honor of the occasion. In walked the steward, I was told, bearing a plate of eggs.

The sailor watched in shock as the officers each opened their eggs, slurped out the liquid contents, and ate what appeared to be a tiny bird from inside.

It turns out the eggs in question are known as Balut-and there is a tiny bird inside. Balut, as it happens, is a fertilized duck egg containing a near fully developed embryo in the shell. (Check out the picture here. Warning: the sensitive among you might choose to pass on this and the next link.)

As you might imagine, his unease grew with each passing moment, as the tray bearing the eggs drew ever closer. What to do? As a brave American fighting man, he knew he had only one choice-eat the egg.

To refuse might be considered an insult; and he was a guest on a foreign ship, after all.

With a slurp and a will of iron, he did his duty.

The Captain looked down the table and asked: “How was it?”
What could he say? “Very good, Sir”

The Captain looked back at him and uttered the words he would come to dread: “Well, in that case, let’s have another.”

I am told the second egg had a different…texture…than the first.
An unexpected sort of crunchiness that was absent from the first experience.

Nonetheless, he was able to gulp it down.

As he looked around the table, he noticed a strange look on the faces of the Philippine officers. Unsure if he had committed an error of etiquette, he looked questioningly to the Captain, who was staring back with a look of wonder on his face.

“I guess it is true what they say about you Americans” he said to the sailor.

“What do you mean, Sir?” was the perplexed reply.

“Well, I heard Americans had iron stomachs, and it must be true” the Captain responded, “the crunchy eggs, like yours…we don’t even eat those in the Philippines.”

Christmas in California is odd, now that I look back on it.

Snow? Not in LA.
Cold, bitter winds? Sometimes it would get all the way down to the 50’s, which probably doesn’t impress the Chicago reader.

Nonetheless, the holiday was just coming up, and as a twelve year old I was expecting some pretty cool presents.

Well, I got one all right.

It had to be the 22nd, or 23rd, as close to Christmas Eve as you could get, midafternoon, when I heard the knocking on the door.

The last thing I ever expected to see was what I saw-my Dad, unannounced, and at least four months early, standing at the door.

Not only that, but standing there in a uniform I’d never seen before-he had made Chief during the cruise.

Even now I can see the moment-and even now it still makes me smile.

I don’t know if I could ever recreate the emotional impact of that exact second.

I am indeed fortunate that you can watch the very same thing happen to a sailor’s son from Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, Washington. His Dad showed up unannounced at his school, and if you haven’t yet seen the video, you need to. It’s just simply amazing. (Here’s the link to the text version of the story. Click on the “Raw Video” link for the…well, raw video. You’ll need Windows Explorer.)

As it turned out, he didn’t return to sea duty for the rest of his career.

Nonetheless, that one day he stood in the doorway was better than all the rest of the days he was home put together.

And for a kid who never saw it coming, it was the best Christmas ever.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: Today's diary was written for the BlueNC Veteran's Day celebration, and was originally posted here.

It is one of a series being posted to celebrate Veterans on the site today, and I would encourage you to visit.

On Abortion Protestors, Or, What If They Had A War And Nobody Came?

There is poetry in judo.

Consider this quote from the International Judo Federation website:

“What are some of the working principles of Judo?

The use of balance and off-balancing. The use of leverage to achieve greater power. Taking advantage of the opponent’s strength. Taking advantage of the opponent’s weaknesses. The value of yielding and giving way. The proper application of timing, momentum and force.”

To see an opponent felled by his own perceived strength, to see a combatant adapt the techniques of another to reach victory-it’s a beautiful thing.

This is why I want to take a bit of your time today to discuss the business of war, and the lessons of abortion.

Before we do, let me set the stage.

I propose that a potential weak link in the Administration’s efforts to continue the war is recruiting.

I suggest that many of the individuals considering enlistments are not getting both sides of the story, and that a few facts delivered in a compelling manner would be useful.

Further, that highly public demonstrations in major media centers will have disproportionate impact.

And finally, that techniques borrowed from abortion protesters could be used with great effect against the US military recruiting effort.

Having put forth the concept, let’s discuss the practical applications of this line of thought.

There is no more important media market than New York City.
If you can make it there, well, you know the rest…
And since 1950, dead in the middle of Times Square sits the Times Square Armed Forces Recruiting Station-or “The Booth”, as it’s also known.

The place is famous, and as a result it draws enlistees from all over.

The Army Corps of Engineers’ “Engineer Update” refers to the location as a “recruiting powerhouse”

It was the site of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” demonstration just last November, in fact.

And now it’s time to discuss abortion.

Any readers familiar with the term "sidewalk counseling"?

If not, let the Pro-Life Action League fill you in:

“Sidewalk counseling is exactly what the name implies—standing on the sidewalk outside an abortion clinic, counseling women and couples on their way inside. It is a last attempt to turn their hearts away from abortion and offer real help.”

Here’s more:

“Sidewalk counseling is, in my estimation, the single most valuable activity that a pro-life person can engage in. When pro-lifers counsel at an abortion clinic they come between the baby who is scheduled to be killed and the doctor who will do the killing.

Counseling goes to the heart of abortion. Babies are killed in abortion clinics or hospitals or doctor's offices, and pro-lifers go there to intercede for the baby's life. Our job is to get more people on the streets to stand between the killers and the victims… We believe so firmly in the humanity of the unborn child that we put ourselves between the child and the abortionist. But we must be armed with knowledge and skill. We have to do the saving through words, actions, right attitude, and prayer.

As we said, sidewalk counseling is probably the single most valuable pro-life activity we can engage in. If done on a large scale, it may prove to be one of the main means of stopping abortion. If abortion clinics don't have customers, they go out of business. Two or three counselors, on a regular basis, at each of the abortion clinics in the United States, could save a hundred-thousand lives each year. Many clinics would be forced to close.

Requirements for effective counseling are an interest in people, compassion and empathy. The best counselors are good listeners, since people often find their own solutions if they have someone to listen while they talk out their problems. Counseling is nine-tenths listening and one-tenth advising.”

(From the book “CLOSED: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion”, Joe Scheidler)

They use images to discourage abortions, as well.
Giant pictures of aborted fetuses are a favorite tool.

So imagine if every time some gung-ho high school kids walked up to “The Booth” they were forced to see an Iraq war vet and her artificial leg.

Pictures of the coffins.

Images of the innocent, but still dead, Iraqi children.

Oh, and don’t forget the "Truth Trucks"…

The reality of war-right in their faces.

Sidewalk counselors helping the newly aware to come to a different decision.

You might ask: “is it even legal to do all this?”

Remember the poetry of Judo?

Check out the Pro-Life Action League’s “Know Your Rights as a Sidewalk Counselor” page for an excellent discussion of these issues.

The Station is in Times Square.
How much media you think dead soldier pictures, Truth Trucks, and coffins would attract?

Do the same thing in L.A., Chicago, and D.C., and somebody’s gonna have a problem.

I’m not the only one thinking along these lines, by the way.
Check out this story, and this list of organizations who are also trying to impact recruiting.

So, anybody feel like having a war where nobody comes?

On Public Diplomacy, Or, Karen Hughes, Are You Listening?

Karen Hughes, we are told, has pulled an Elvis and “left the building”, so to speak.

Noting the vacuum at the top of the public diplomacy pyramid, I thought I’d take this opportunity to encourage some out-of-the box thinking regarding the manner in which we “do” the public diplomacy business.

Today’s conversation comes with a disclaimer:

This is satire.
I’m kidding.
Really.
Well, mostly, I’m kidding

To begin, then: I’m completely jumping over a discussion regarding the propriety of “public diplomacy”, because it seems pointless.

Why?

Because public diplomacy happens, whether you want it to or not.
The real question is: do you want managed or unmanaged public diplomacy?

To assist the discussion, I agree completely that actions speak louder than words, and public relations alone will never compensate for a nation’s bad behavior.

Before we discuss the methods, let’s consider some possible benchmarks for success.

I suggest that if your public diplomacy is going well, the following should happen:

People in other countries should have a better opinion of your country.

Citizens of the world should be more interested in your economy’s output.

Your country should be more attractive to the most desirable potential immigrants available.

Your country should be less of a target for your enemies.

For that matter, if you’re doing well, over time, you should have fewer enemies.

So to get the ball rolling, here’s my proposal:

The American Lottery

How would it work? Something like this…

…Anybody in the world, except American citizens, would be invited to visit the “American Lottery” website. If you’re a lucky random visitor, you get something American.

Maybe a Big Mac coupon.
Maybe a $50 bill.
Maybe a Cadillac.
For one lucky winner, how about a Boeing Business Jet?

Advantages? Here’s a few:

You get a huge bang for the buck. (Maverick missile goes for about $1.5 million. So do 30 Corvettes, more or less. Which would you rather see falling from the sky into your town?)

Winners will like us better.

Our economic output will be far more interesting to the world

We’ll probably have a lot fewer enemies.

Maybe it’ll keep an auto assembly line open a bit longer.

This could be accomplished with no-bid contracts, or by directing the investment with the help of the best lobbyists and well placed contributions. (Bonus!)

Here’s the best part: once somebody wins an Escalade, they have less interest in blowing up the Escalade factory. Might need spare parts one day.

So that’s my modest proposal.

Karen Hughes, are you listening?

On A New Mission, Or, How About a Peace Ship?

I start today’s discussion with the proposition that non-military responses to events around the world offer great bang-for-the-buck opportunities to cement friendships with citizens across the globe.

This is especially true in a disaster scenario. You might recall the story of the New York City paramedics providing assistance in Pakistan, and how much it impacted the locals getting the help.

In my mind, that means responding to disasters around the world is an effective way to enhance our National Security. Even more so when the country you are helping might not be your closest friend; and you want to affect public opinion/increase connectivity in spite of the local Government.

Which brings me to today’s suggestion:

If this stuff works, why not create the tools to do it better?

Specifically, I suggest we build a couple of Peace Ships.

Look at the lessons learned from the Tsunami disaster in East Asia and Katrina.

The complete absence of infrastructure-security, medical, communications, electrical, air traffic control, all of it-meant it was challenging just to get recovery started. Bases had to be created so that repairs could get underway.

We could put those capabilities into a floating response platform using resources already developed and working. Here’s what I mean:

The USS Iwo Jima is one of a class of “light” aircraft carriers used to support amphibious assaults. It has, in fact, been used as a command center following Katrina. Its Combat Information Center is not dissimilar to a Network Operations Center for a telecom company married to an Air Traffic Control facility; and it operates a small airport upstairs, a small medical center downstairs.

So imagine a ship carrying a similar CIC operation, with an expanded medical center, 500-1000 Marines for quick-response security, enough earthmoving gear and Construction Battalion team personnel to clear a runway, and a stash of generators and other electrical/cell phone/satellite gear for emergency restoration of services.

Otters, Ospreys (if considered safe…), helicopters, and quickly assembled microwave towers/satellite uplink vans can allow the ship to reach out more than 500 miles. Mobile hospital kits can offer the same capability in the medical area.

To create a more robust potential response, pre-positioned equipment could be placed outside the US (perhaps the Marine Expeditionary Units will let us borrow some depot space?).

Check out the USS Kitty Hawk for an example of the type of platform that could be used.

There is a huge amount of budget involved, which is good and bad. It will be more difficult to obtain and keep Congressional support, but the Navy will love it (who doesn’t like a mandate for a new mission to fund?).

This can even be sold as a form of “portable” foreign aid that doesn’t statutorily lock to any particular country or program initiative.

Iran has suffered major earthquakes recently, including an event in 1990 that killed 35,000.

We are considering spending billions upon billions to kill thousands more Iranians, and I’ll bet at the end of the process we will not have a peaceful relationship with Iran.

On the other hand, for a lot less money we could create a public diplomacy tool which, had we sent it to Iran two or three times, could have created a much different relationship than we face today. (You might notice that Ache is not considering attacking us…)

And it would have come in real handy in New Orleans, or Florida, or wherever the next American disaster occurs. Bonus!

For full disclosure, the response time issue seems to be the fly in the ointment, but with two ships and smart basing a one week response is possible for much of the world.

So: smart way to spend money, or is the Peace Ship a waste of time?
I’ve reported, you decide.

On Puppies, Or, Hillary’s Math

 I am constantly reminding everyone who will listen that the centrist leaning; non-Party affiliated voters who occupy the “gap” decide Presidential elections.

All evidence suggests this will again be true in 2008. To take it further, in many constituencies, gap voters will determine Congressional races as well.

Here’s why:

From a risk/reward perspective, changing the minds of the “hard” voters on either side of the electorate through persuasion is often not worth the challenge.

To illustrate the inherent difficulties in moving voters from either fringe, I humbly offer the “Puppy Theory of Political Persuasion”:

1) There is a percentage of the population who will not object if the President were to eat a live puppy on national television, as long as some explanation for the behavior can be provided (“The puppy was a threat to National Security!”).

2) Alternatively, there is a percentage of the population who would not give Mr. Bush credit if he personally ended the Iraq War and cured AIDS, both on the same day (“He’s still in the pocket of Big Oil!”).

Is Clinton also affected by this calculus?

Can we quantify the population at either fringe who find her objectionable beyond all persuasion, or will support her no matter what?

To put it another way, can we put a number to Hillary’s Puppy Factor?

While I don’t feel capable of providing such answers at this time, I do have ideas that could stimulate the analysis.

First, I think the measurement of “non-objectors” (point 1 above) is easier for Mr. Bush than it will be for Clinton. This is because Mr. Bush has seen the enormous drop in his approval ratings over the past 5 years, which have apparently stabilized since about the fall of 2005.

The principal issue driving these numbers, I think we all agree, is Iraq.

Since the news from Iraq has continued to become worse, but the approval rating is basically stable, I submit that we are fairly close to identifying Mr. Bush’s non-objector Puppy Factor as being somewhere around 35%.

Second, there is an additional Puppy Factor, the “non-creditors” (point 2 above), which I submit is more difficult to measure than the non-objectors, unless the candidate being measured can post an upward trend similar to Mr. Bush’s downward measurement.

Should Clinton, or Obama, or others find themselves moving dramatically upward, that measurement, for that candidate, may reveal itself.

Finally, why does all this matter?

If elections are won in the gap, then the larger the gap population, the more likely a centrist candidate can effectively harvest votes from that group. Conversely, a candidate facing a smaller gap will have to harvest from a smaller universe of available votes, a tougher proposition.

Of course, another option in either case is to attempt to attract prior non-voters.

Historically this tends to yield less efficient results than harvesting known voters, which means knowing the Puppy Factor, for these candidates, can provide an indication of how much additional effort they will need to win an election.

This means if the Puppy Factors for candidates are known, each can adjust their efforts in gap outreach for better results. It will also be easier for analysts to evaluate each candidate’s potential electoral success in 2008 and beyond.

The Puppy Factor ©.
America’s newest political metric.
Look for it in an election coming to you soon.

On Not Losing, Or, Pull Out Now-To Afghanistan

In a previous discussion I created a hypothetical set 3 months in the future, and asked the community how we might respond.

Today I’d like to do something similar, but with a predetermined outcome.

But before I do, let’s talk about that outcome.

There are a bunch of reasons to remain engaged in the Mideast neighborhood, and a bunch of reasons not to be in Iraq.

For those still evaluating the issues, consider the following:

Precipitous withdrawal will create a power vacuum, and there will be a fight-unless the Sunni decide to accept what appears to be a future of poverty and no political power.

Of course, al-Sadr will also have to accept being at the bottom of the economic pile while bearing no animosity to the wealthy Shi’a keeping him there, and all Shi’a will have to accept that 35 years of mistreatment from the Sunni deserve no retaliation.

What about the Kurds?
Iran?
Saudi Arabia?
Do you own that much Tylenol?

If we race home, our image as a reliable partner will once again be tarnished, although, ironically, our perception as an “honest broker” might actually improve, if we were not seen as providing backing for one faction or another.

In the meantime, spring draws ever nearer, which means trouble ahead in Afghanistan. Fighters coming down from the Northeast mountain provinces and Pakistan will create more trouble for the multinational force in country.

What might happen in a withdrawal scenario? Most likely is the pullback of US forces to bases in Iraq, and a basically defensive posture. At the same time, some (half?) of US forces will likely withdraw back home, particularly National Guard units.

Of course, this won’t last long (the best fortress is a prison theory, and who wants to sit around taking inbound mortars?), suggesting that this solution will also lead us right back where we are now, US troops trying to put out fires as they break out, especially in Baghdad.

So how can we create the appearance of impartiality and strength, stay militarily engaged, and deal with the coming Afghani spring offensive?

I suggest, instead of withdrawing to defensive positions in Iraq, we withdraw to offensive positions in Afghanistan, while maintaining a backup force to discourage outside intervention.

Pitfalls?
You bet.

All this will only work if we can...

...Convince the surrounding nations that stability in Iraq serves everybody’s best interests, and…

…Convince the population of Iraq that stability in Iraq serves everybody’s best interests.

Neither one an easy proposition.

Diplomatic efforts must begin immediately and must be perceived as militarily neutral, as opposed to militarily offensive.

There should be four objectives: to convince Iran not to involve themselves internally (bribery is an option here), to assure the Kurds that we will allow them to defend their interests as needed, to find a way to create economic opportunity amongst the al-Sadr supporters, and to reassure Sunni Islam that Iraqi Sunnis will not be marginalized, if we can help it.

Possible positive outcomes?
Here’s a few:

Diplomacy creates an interest in Iran in a more expansive economic relationship, which helps us maintain parity with China in securing access to traditional energy resources over the next few decades.

Why would Iran be interested? Because they have a younger generation, too, and a future of war and sanctions will not give them much to do, creating internal instability the Iranian Government would probably rather avoid.

A similar analysis could be made regarding Syria.

The Royal Saudi Government has much to gain from stability, and even more to gain from the perception that the US is not an enemy of the Sunni.

Our allies in Afghanistan get assistance they could really use, at the most active time of the combat year, if recent history repeats itself.

All of this reinforces the perception that the US does have the patience to stay around for the long haul.

It also leaves the factions in Iraq having to decide how to reconcile without us taking sides in daily combat-unless all sides choose all-out warfare, which we may not be able to contain under any conditions, including the status quo.

So that’s my conversation about what to do.

Now here’s my question-how do we do it?

Specifically, where can we start moving troops, and to whom should we reach out to first diplomatically?

On Chess, Or, “The Surge Is Underway: What Now?”

I’m not so good at chess.

I’ve noticed, however, that a near universal rule of chess is…

…The farther you can look ahead, the better chance you have of success.

With that in mind, I’d like to create a hypothetical, and see if there might be ideas that can be gathered from the community, put them together, and develop a sort of “Iraq Repair Plan”.

So here goes.

Let’s go forward in time about 3 or 4 months.

Most, if not all, of 20, 000 “surge” troops are in country, and they have received assignments.

They are primarily Army Infantry and Marine combat troops.

As of now there is an additional $1.5 billion for economic assistance available.

If I understand the President’s plan, Iraqi Army troops (mostly Shi’a) will arrive to “de-militia” Sadr City (also mostly Shi’a).

The exact number of these militia troops, and their level of armament, is unknown; but the probability that the number is above 50, 000 is fairly high.

This disarming will occur while US forces are on station acting as an exclusion force keeping Sunni forces out of the Iraqi Army’s area of influence.

If this does not go according to plan, the most likely weak points are:

1) Insufficient Iraqi Army troops arrive.

2) They arrive unwilling to fight.

3) US troops are unable to exclude Sunni forces/individual operators.

4) The two Shi’a forces unite to drive Sunni from Baghdad.

Now here are my hypothetical conditions…

…At this point in the operation:

About two-thirds of the expected Iraqi Army forces have arrived.
Some of these forces (<10%)>
About 75% of US ground forces are on station, 25% in reserve.

Militia troops number 50, 000 and, like Iraqi Army troops, the probability is high that most of these militia forces are lightly armed.

The militia troops have access to RPGs, IEDs, and mortars.

Only US forces in Baghdad have access to substantial armor.

Sufficient helicopter and fixed wing ground support aircraft are available, along with helicopter transport.

There are no known (or, to paraphrase Rumsfeld) likely unknown opposition air forces; however, Stinger-like weapons are possible.

US troops are fairly effective in excluding Sunni ground forces.

Sunni mortar attacks, however, cause US forces to use “whack-a-mole” tactics for suppression, with some collateral effect on the local Sunni population.

Al-Sadr did not voluntarily disarm, and resists with violence.

As a result, a relatively small portion of the IA forces and their weapons (<5%)>
Another portion of the force chose not to engage during battle (15%), and instead faded from the area.

There are substantial Iraqi Army casualties from the combat operations (10%)

US casualties are below 50 killed for the operation so far.

The collateral effect on Shi’a civilians in the immediate combat areas is on the order of the Fallujah operation.

At this point in my scenario, the Iraqi Army appears unable, by military means, to disarm Al-Sadr.

No non-military means have been advanced beyond the appeal to Al-Sadr’s interest in a unified Iraq and his current bloc in the Iraqi Parliament.

The community is the commanding general.
What’s our best move?