It Just Makes Sense

Barbara West, WFTV news anchor, interviewed Senator Joe Biden and caused quite a stir with her question, “You may recognize this famous quote, ‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’ That’s from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?”

What followed was an attempt to stir up national outrage. Biden denied Obama had any plans to spread the wealth around, the campaign put WFTV on a restricted list, and a small army of minions countered the suggestion on various news networks. Some people have suggested “Marxism” is just another code word for racists. The apparent goal is for anyone who makes the comparison to appear to be racist, ignorant, or an idiot.

A lot of energy was invested into attacking the questioner, as it was when Joe the Plumber asked Obama if he would pay more taxes under Obama’s plan.

But those on the left do nothing to explain how Obama’s ideals are not Marxist. To make the connection, we need to know something about Marxism and where it came from.

So what is Marxism? Who was Karl Marx? What came of Marxism? So what?

Karl Heinrich Marx was born in Prussia (modern day Germany) in 1818 to a family with a reputation for producing rabbis. Breaking with that tradition, his mother and father had embraced Christianity. Hirschel Marx, his father, was a wealthy businessman and provided for young Karl Marx’s needs. Hirschel was distrubed after Karl went to the University of Bonn and grew arrogant, contemptuous, and selfish.

Can you relate with that? Your kid goes to college and becomes someone you don’t know.

Karl Marx goes to college and rejects everything his parents have tried to teach him. His early writings (Han Events, Vol. XVI, No. 43, Article Section II) expressed a hatred for Jewish people with words unacceptable for repetition in 21st century America media. One of young Karl’s mentors was the atheist Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach, a professional academic who used his intellectual talents to craft convincing arguments to the spiritual weak that humanism was the secret to happiness. Karl Marx sucked it up with a straw.

Karl’s mind raced away with Feuerbach’s principles. After he left college, he married and failed at an attempt to make a living as a journalist in Paris and Brussels. They moved to London in 1849. Eventually forlorn Jenny von Westphalen-Marx longed for death as an escape her miserable existence with Karl. Marx cared nothing about the feelings of others, he was immersed into developing his economic and political theories.

Marx spoke of class struggles as a state of being. To solve the problem he was against everything behind classes to include all churches and all existing governments. Everything needed to be brushed away and replaced with something else–a new Order. Propagating class-hatred to achieve a vague concept of perfection, he denied the foundation for inherent rights. To eliminate class struggles all individual rights had to be cut away.

Ironically the governments that were established under Marxism ideology were nothing more than a dictatorship cloaked in the facade of a “people’s government.” Twenty-first century examples that remain are Cuba and North Korea. Are you ready to move to those utopias? Have a nice trip.

Communism, the brand of socialism espoused by Marx, had limited success in the second half of the twentieth century. The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic aspired to conquer the entire world through a series of peoples revolutions and direct invasions, but were opposed by a policy of containment by the west. That struggle of containment was called the “Cold War” and ended on December 25, 1991. The USSR’s hammer-and-sickle adorned banner was lowered from over the Kremlin and never went back up. Even though a arsenal of Armageddon-potential had been readied, it was never used–because it was readied. But that’s another discussion.

So, what happens in Marxism?

Change. Marx called for lots of change, he wanted everything destroyed and replaced with something else. A lot of people believed him and modeled governments that resulted in misery for the people. Be careful when the only thing you want is change. Look through the annals of history and you’ll see that all populist leaders came to power on that mantra. Change is great word in theory, but the details of that change in practice can be disappointing.

Humans have no inherent rights. Not even the first amendment? Is the ban on WFTV just the tip of the iceberg of how an Obama-led government will deal with hard questions?

Central government controls everything. Is it really patriotic to pay more taxes as Joe Biden says?

Class warfare. Identified by Marx as a constant. Exploited by Marxists everywhere. Used by dictators to keep the people at odds with each other while they continue to build their own power. All the while, the Marxist goal is to strip all rights from all people.

Is it any wonder that any politician would deny any suggestion of a resemblance with Marxism. But is denial enough?

We face a lot of problems in America today. We need solutions. But more government is not always the best solution.

Marxist is as Marxist does.

It just makes sense.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, according to the Declaration of Independence, are some of your inalienable rights.

So here’s an easy question for you: Do you agree?

If you do, then you also agree with the early Americans who declared that some rights are given to people by an authority higher than the local, state, or federal governments. Inalienable rights are endowed to people by God and are not legally subject to infringement by a government. The Declaration insists that people have the right to alter or abolish a government that attempts to do such things. Such insistence was proven by the blood of patriots. So now it is a fact and not just a belief.

Thus some arguments since then have not been whether people have inalienable rights. Rather it has been about who is really a person. Sounds ludicrous at the surface, but when you dig deeper selfish motives can be uncovered.

In 1857, the US Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision on the Dred Scott case that Africans residing in America, whether free or slave, could not become citizens. In other words, they were not people. From a 21st century viewpoint, the decision is not only wrong it is criminal. Just a few years after that landmark law-of-the-land ruling, America was thrust into the most violent and costly war of its history.

Following the Civil War, a series of Constitutional Amendments and legislative action worked together to culminate with the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases, which was a 5-4 decision that is generally recognized as the over-turning of Dred Scott.

Five to four? After sixteen years of blood shed, destruction of property, violence, debate, rebuilding and three Amendments–it was still that close! It is apparent that the folks who get on the Supreme Court can influence the nation for a long time. We need to be careful who we hire to select our future judges. As important as freedom is, we still want to be considered a human by our nation’s highest court.

Take another landmark case, Roe v Wade, when the US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in 1973 that an unborn human is not a person. Thus the right to life, liberty, and property and due process of law does not apply to the unborn.

Since then, 35 years later, somewhere around 50 million unborn Americans have had their births aborted. That’s a lot of people. If they really were people. If they really were human. How can we know? Is it a faith question or fact question?

Bible believers know that life begins at conception. (see Psalm 139:13, 16) Not everyone believes the Bible. Some people think it is just something that simple people cling to when they’re confused or threaten. Those people might believe in science.

So what does science tell us?

In 2003, science actually mapped the genome of the human species. While mannequins, statues, wax figures, cartoon characters, and even some animals might look something like a human, science knows that it is our DNA that makes us human. Certain chromosomes and genes and chemical pairs all work together to make a human. That combination is in all of our cells. Even the one made at the moment of conception.

Wow. Science proves Psalm 139:13. What goes around comes around. It’s not just a belief, it’s a scientific fact.

That means 50 million humans have been killed in America because they were too weak to defend themselves from a cultural bias against them. Just because it has been legal doesn’t make it right. Just like the Dred Scott Decision, it seems more than wrong, it seems criminal.

What have we done to ourselves? What are we still doing?

Who is so gifted with clairvoyance to declare with certainty that most of those aborted 50 million humans would be in our prisons or on our welfare roles if they had lived? Such a statement is the most vile form of stereotyping.

Not everyone who starts with meager means or limited parents are doomed to a parasitic existence. Nearly half of those people would now be adults in the workforce. They’d be buying houses, cars, and investing in the stock market. They’d have children of their own. They’d be paying taxes. They’d be good Americans making the best of their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

So what do we do now? What can we do?

We can’t start where we were, only where we are. If we can’t stop killing unborn Americans now, how about if we just set a limit on it? How do we do that? To start with, it takes a combination of audacity and luck.

If fate should offer you a Joe-the-Plumber moment, here’s a simple but tough question for your candidate of opportunity:

Since science has already proven that the genome is what determines if someone is a human and since 1973 we’ve already prematurely ended about 50 million American lives with our abortion industry, how many more human lives should be ended before we stop? Is it 75 million? Would 100 million be enough or too many? We really need a number.

If you can’t get a number from them, maybe they think we’ve already exceeded our quota. Ask them that too, if you haven’t been shouted down by the culture that doesn’t believe everyone is created equal. This problem isn’t just going to go away by itself.

It just makes sense.

Did Saddam Hussein’s Iraq have weapons of mass destruction (WMD)? If so, what happened to them?

Was Saddam Hussein ever planning to attack his neighbors?

Was Saddam Hussein really a bad guy, or was he just misunderstood?

I know it’s difficult for most of us to believe, but since some time has passed, more than a few Americans have forgotten who Saddam Hussein was and what he did. They probably only vaguely remember the leftist mantra, “Bush lied, people died.” So a quick history lesson is in order.

Here’s an extract from the CIA country study on Iraq:
In August 1990, Iraq seized Kuwait but was expelled by US-led, UN coalition forces during the Gulf War of January-February 1991. Following Kuwait’s liberation, the UN Security Council (UNSC) required Iraq to scrap all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to allow UN verification inspections. Continued Iraqi noncompliance with UNSC resolutions over a period of 12 years led to the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the ouster of the SADDAM Husayn regime.

Yes, I know.

They spelled Saddam’s last name wrong. I don’t know if the spelling was changed when the page was updated on 6 November 2008 or some time earlier. After a little research I discovered that there are multiple acceptable spellings since it is merely a transliteration of the Arabic language. I don’t think it was intended to disassociate the dead dictator’s last name from the middle name of our President-elect.

Did I say dead dictator?

Yes I did.

Iraq’s High Tribunal found Saddam Hussein/Husayn guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to hang in 2006. The trial wasn’t about WMD or any intent to invade his neighbors, instead it was about some of his murders in 1982. To have tried him for all his crimes, would have taken many years–maybe decades. As it was, it only took one conviction and one hanging to put an end to him.

But we’re stuck with those lingering questions. Was it all a sham? How will we ever really know?

Come to think of it, how do you know anything? Think about it.

There’s only two ways to know anything. You either have to experience the event or believe somebody else’s account of what happened. Most of the stuff you know, you know because you’ve taken someone else’s word for it. The challenge is to decide who to believe.

In legal proceedings and in historic research, the closer the witness is to actually experiencing the event, the more reliable they are as a source. For instance, the personal testimony of an eye-witness is considered more reliable that the testimony of a person who read about the event in a newspaper or saw it on an edited television news cast. Even somebody who talked with an eye-witness of an event is more creditable than someone who formed an opinion based on a collection of news reports and documentaries. And when the testimony is supported by circumstantial evidence, greater credence can be given to the witness.
So what about the Iraqi WMD?

Many blogs and news reports declare that there weren’t any. But how could they know? And who has disagreed with them?

Bill Clinton did in 1998 and still did as late as 2003. Maybe he was wrong. Do you think? Several other people disagreed also, such people as Nancy Pelosi, Sandy Berger, and Madeline Albright. Maybe they were wrong too. Certainly they weren’t all liars. No, they had to believe what they were saying, which had to be based on some reliable source they had access to. So much of that high-level stuff remains unavailable to the average American due to classification levels.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could talk to an eye-witness about what was going in Iraq. Or at least be able to read a book written by a witness. Maybe then we could have some certainly about whether there were WMD in Iraq.

Well, now there is.

A retired Iraqi Air Force Vice Air-Marshall (a.k.a. General) Georges Sada has written his testimony called Saddam’s Secrets. It answers the questions I asked at the beginning of this column. If you’d prefer to read the book and find the answers yourself, you need to stop reading now. Otherwise, here goes:
Did Saddam Hussein’s Iraq have weapons of mass destruction (WMD)?

Yes (page 71).

Then what happened to them?

Some of them were found by occupying forces, but most of them were transported to Syria in the summer of 2002. Pretending to provide humanitarian support in response to a collapsed dam in Zeyzoun, fifty-six flights on modified commercial 747s and 727s transported hundreds of tons of WMD (pages 260-261). I found an article referencing an Agence France-Presse (AFP) story about 20 plane-loads of aid from Iraq to Syria on 9 June 2002. There are some people who say they know where the WMD in Syria are today.

Was Saddam Hussein planning to attack his neighbors?

Yes. As most people know he initiated an eight-year war with Iran and then in 1990 he invaded Kuwait. However, he also planned to attack Israel with a air-armada of 98 aircraft all using chemical WMD (pages 128-129, 135, 140). And he intended to attack Saudi Arabia with twelve combat divisions (pages 171, 172). The primary reason he canceled the attacks against Israel and Saudi Arabia is because of the US-led attack which neutered his military power (page 173).
Was Saddam Hussein really a bad guy, or was he just misunderstood?

He was about as bad as a human can be. See pages 299 and 300 for a summary, but multiple accounts are scattered throughout the 315-page book.
Who is this General Sada and why should we care about him?

He graduated from Iraq’s Air Academy in 1959, received training in Great Britain, Russia, and the United States, trained many Iraqi pilots, and was the second ranking officer in Saddam Hussein’s air force. He was forced into retirement in 1986 because he was a member of the Baathist party, but was recalled during the First Gulf War to interrogate coalition pilots. He placed his life on the line by refusing to execute the coalition pilots as Qusay (the son of Saddam) ordered him to do (pages 181-187).

Without General Sada’s actions, no coalition pilots POWs would have survived to tell their tales.

When was this book, Saddam’s Secrets, published?

2006. 2006! Why haven’t I heard about this book before now?

He was briefly interviewed on Fox News’ Hannity and Combs, and then again on the comedic Daily Show. He has talked to a few churches around the country. But otherwise, he’s mostly ignored. I suggest there are at least six reasons why Saddam’s Secrets hasn’t been given much press coverage.

First of all, it is filled with little stories about Georges Sada’s life. For the reader who is searching for information about WMD, these stories can be annoying. Initially, I found them to be so, but the more of them I read, the more I grew to like the author. His account of his first flight in the MiG-21 on pages 54 to 62 was the turning point for me. As an Air Force pilot I understood what he went through as a 28-year-old aviator trying to do a mission without being fully trained for it. From there on, he was a friend telling me about his life. A life which had a connection to an evil dictator.

Saddam’s Secrets in not complimentary of the United Nations (UN). From high-level leadership down to the lowly blue-helmeted UN peace-keeper, they are all portrayed as bride-seeking individuals supporting nothing that relates to peace or justice. Some people might think it could bolster the traditional anti-UN sentiment of many Americans, whose tax-dollars pay 22% of the UN operating costs.

Georges Sada also talks about a Chinese connection in a deal to supply nuclear weapons to Iraq. Saddam offered them $100 million, but the deal was squashed when coalition-efforts prevented the transfer of funds. This information might set back the progress of elected officials working to convince Americans to accept China as a strategic partner and friend.

Probably the second worst offense in the book is that he warns us about a cultural invasion by the followers of Islam. Ever since shortly after 9/11, President Bush has repeatedly insisted that Islam is a religion of peace. Sada’s discussion on pages 285 to 291 suggests America and Europe are under going an assimilation that if ignored will soon transform our customs, history, and languages. This type of talk is not popular in an age where tolerance is culturally demanded, even written into our laws.

He criticizes the American handling of Iraq after the defeat of Saddam’s military. Not only were their major mistakes made after the 1991 war it was worse after the 2003 war. Disbanding the military the way it was, depleted the resources that could have been used to expedite stability and even worse encourage thousands of former officers to join the violent opposition. Shortly after the war, General Sada offered to establish security for Baghdad if he could have 40,000 UNARMED former Iraqi air force personnel assigned as police to him. The plan was rejected by the Americans in charge.

But Georges Sada’s greatest offense to the popular media might be that he is an Assyrian Christian. As an Assyrian, his ancestral claims to live where he does predate those of Arabs. It’s like a 2000-year trump card on the “evil-Crusading-invaders” argument used by many non-Christians. Greater than being Assyrian, the “Christian” descriptor is an obvious offense to non-Christians in the 21st century.

General Sada does more than just say he’s a Christian, throughout his book, he often gives thanks to Jesus for things that went right in his life. He also suggests that others should seek the truth of Christianity in several places throughout his book. He even has a small lecture for young people concerning their dress and sexual behavior–how dare he.

Personal testimonies of Christians often make non-Christians feel uncomfortable. I discovered through other sources that while Georges Sada was raised in the “old-style Christianity” of the middle-east, he actually became a born-again Christian in 1989. That was after an American preacher from California visited his church and taught about the individual relationship a person can have with Jesus. That explains a lot to those who understand what it means.

So Georges Sada has at least six reasons for people not to promote his book. Nevertheless the book is published and you might want to read it. If you don’t have a friend to lend one to you, it might be in your local library, or you can order a copy on-line at Amazon.com for about $17, it retails for about $25.
Another subplot in the book dealt with Saddam’s leadership style. Specifically, he placed very incompetent people below him in positions of great authority. While this tactic resulted in national leaders who were terrible at their jobs, they were totally loyal to Saddam. Without the power of Saddam to support and protect them, they would never be followed by the people they supervised. Thus revolution was impossible.

Doesn’t that make you wonder?

If you ever worked for an incompetent boss, did you ever wonder how he got there? Was it just a fluke, or was it a parallel of the Saddam principle of leadership?

Kinda makes you think about what your boss’s boss is thinking.

It just makes sense.

Russia has violated Georgia. A Russian invasion force–thousands of soldiers and hundreds of tanks–scattered the ill-prepared Georgian military. The Russian air force bombed Georgian cities and then occupied some of them. They stole the small boats of its navy. Pillaged and destroyed army bases. Pushed civilian police cars aside with tanks. Robbed banks. Put citizens in work details. And then scoffed at the international response.

America, its military stretched thin between two theaters of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)–Iraq and Afghanistan–reacted with diplomatic sternness. The American stance might have been respected by the Russians if NATO had offered a solid front. However, they only offered the threat of diplomatic reprisals due to some of its members being energy dependent on the Russian Bear.

Then in a diplomatic surprise, the new leader of the European Union–French President Nicolas Sarkozy–echoed the American position. Suddenly there was a ceasefire deal. American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saw to it that Georgia’s President Mikhail Saakshvili and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev both signed the treaty this weekend.

Once the agreement was signed, the Russian invasion force was supposed to begin leaving. But “surprise” — they didn’t. Who’d a guess it? Who wouldn’t have?

The Russians said they would leave Monday, but they didn’t. They continued to position themselves to control Georgia–taking over villages and a power plant.

They continued to assert moral ascendancy on the people of the small country. The Russians even said they were leaving as some rumors spread that more forces were moving into the region. Hard to trust those Russians, ain’t it?

This is troubling, as most of the civilized community is trying to find a solution to an evil force that is bent on destroying the world as we know it.

Terrorist organizations are waging war against the civilized nations of the world. Suicide terrorists do what their label implies. Attacks are launched, just about everywhere. The Chinese are not immune. Terrorists blow up civilian aircraft, even in Russia.

The terrorists see little difference between the Russians, the Americans, the Chinese, or the Jews. But instead of cooperating and putting as quick as possible of an end to the GWOT, we have to revisit old wounds. What causes that? If we ever get it under control we just might have peace in our time.

Meanwhile, in an attempt to established a hedge against Iranian missile threats–especially with the imminent development of nuclear warheads–America has agreed to build a missile defense system in Poland.

While this might be part of a master plan to avoid having to depopulate Iran in order to stop their weapons development program, Russia has stated that it is just an attempt to weaken Russia. They rattle their saber and spout not-so-veiled threats of attack on Poland and others. So we’re going to put Patriot missiles in Poland to protect them from Russian missiles. Well, that’s a start.

This is getting complicated. Russia is a threat to its neighbors that are American allies, or are considering to become so. It’s a good thing to protect them from missile attack, but that’s not enough.

If our allies are to be safe from Russia, they need a tank defense system.

America has had success in stopping Soviet-technology tanks in the past couple of wars. Its probably safe to say, “Nobody does it better.” We should share our techniques and some of our hardware with our allies.

Did somebody just whisper, “It might be good for the economy.”

There are a vast array of stop-the-tank weapons out there. The Army says the best anti-tank weapon is a tank. Maybe so, but airplanes do a pretty good job of stopping tanks too–ask any Hog-driver.

Of course, all of that needs air superiority to happen. Come to think of it–America does that quite well too. If we feel up to the job, we might want to reconsider the number of F-22s we’ll need. I know that’s not a popular stance in the wake of the UAV craze. But can UAVs shoot down the Su-35 and MiG-29?

Some folks will say that these suggestions are needlessly extravagant. They will say things like: It will cause a war! It will never work! It will cost too much!

Georgia is being snuffed as we speak–and not because they were too strong. They were without the resources to stop 10,000 soldiers and 350 tanks who enjoyed air superiority. If they had, let’s say 20,000 combat soldiers and 400 tanks and air defenses to stop Russian airpower technology–or at least slow them, would it have been different? Could they have defended themselves long enough for the US or NATO to have moved an air superiority shield over their territory? Maybe.

In addition, the Russians would have had to muster a force of about 3 to 1 to be confident of success. Forces in that number don’t assemble quietly or cheaply–maybe that in and of itself would have been enough to have prevented the invasion of Georgia. Who knows?

What we do know for certain is that what was done wasn’t enough. We have to do something different. If we keep doing the same thing, we’ll eventually see all the border states around Russia forced to surrender to the Bear. Do we really want an imperialistic Russian Empire expanding its sphere of control with hot lead and cold steel? When they eventually clash with China’s ambitions, will the EU and US be influential enough to get them to sign a ceasefire treaty? Or will we see the Dragon and the Bear wear each other out with massive bombardments of nuclear weapons? Which one of them would you like to win? Would that be a better world than we have today?

No way. We have to do something else.

It just makes sense.

Russia’s brutal invasion of Georgia is seen by some as a cry for respect–like a shout in the darkness, ”The Bear is not dead, it was merely hibernating.” But now that the dastardly deed is in progress, how the world deals with Russia will set the tone for future imperialist schemes.

Georgia is a small nation–about the size and population of South Carolina–in the Caucasus region of Asia. It became independent during the breakup of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) following the Cold War. Since then, Russia has supported two break-away regions within Georgia: Abkhazia on the coast of the Black Sea and Ossetia in the middle of its northern border with Russia.

On August 7, the fighting started in Ossetia. Well, at least the shooting and killing started then. Georgia had been under an intense cybernetic attack since July. While its difficult to prove, much of the attack appears to have come from Russia. It was the cyber-equivalent of a blockade of Georgia. No cyber-business or commerce in or out of the cyber-ports–the government was cyber-crippled. Then kinetic shots were fired, a few people died, and Georgia reacted.

Their reaction against the Ossetia separatist forces was the “moral high ground” Russia needed to launch their invasion of Georgia. They just happened to have hundreds of tanks and thousands of soldiers ready to roll. Probably just a coincidence.

The Georgian forces were chased out of Ossetia but the Russians kept coming across into the rest of Georgia. They quickly took control of the air and their invading army was free-to-attack and free-from-attack by the diminutive Georgian air force. The United States has officially denounced the invasion, telling Russia to return to their August 6 positions.

Russia has sent various mixed messages. They said they would stop, but they didn’t. They said they had stopped, but they hadn’t. They said it was just like 9-11, but it wasn’t. They say they’re merely defending the independence of “Southern” Ossetia. Defending as they leveled buildings across Georgia, bombed airports and pipelines. They call their forces “peacekeepers”. They’re acting a bit like the old USSR did, invading any of their occupied nations when resistance stood-up. Hungary in 1956. Chechoslovokia in 1968. But our Secretary of State reminded the world today that things had changed.

“This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten a neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it.”

Wow! Smart, beautiful, and tough.

But the toughest stuff is yet to happen. If the world is not shown that those words she spoke are true, millions of people could suffer. If Russia can invade and gobble up Georgia, why not the Ukraine? If Russia can have Georgia and Ukraine, why can’t China invade and conquer Taiwan? Once Taiwan goes, the United States will no longer be creditable as a superpower. Our allies would never take a chance on siding with us, because we will be seen as hollow and worthless.

Now, there’s a change we don’t want.

So what do we do? We need solutions not just criticism.

First of all, every member of NATO needs to publicly denounce Russia’s action. They need to make similar statements as our President and Secretary of State have. In an election year everyone seems to have some words to say but this challenge will either be fixed or broken–maybe beyond repair before January 2009. The official opinions of the NATO members need to be congruent with the official opinion of the United States.

That opinion must include, “[We] stand with the democratically elected government of Georgia. We insist that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia be respected.”

If the members of NATO can’t do that one simple thing–and do it quickly–then NATO has outlived any usefulness. NATO would need to either expel the dead weight or the United States would need to resign. I think NATO can belly-up-to-the-bar on this in the next day or at the most two.

That might be all it takes. But maybe not. What if Russia calls the bluff? What then?

Well first of all, it’s not a bluff. NATO would need to declare a no-fly zone over the entire country of Georgia. The Russian ground force would no longer be protected by an airpower umbrella. They would be subject to attack. Georgian forces defending their towns would have the freedom to maneuver for positional advantage. The Russian response would determine what would happen next. Columns of T-80s are no match for what could come their way. And if Russia pushed NATO in the air, there would be a new generation of Aces to put on playing cards for years to come.

NATO would only have to press as hard as was required, remembering the objective would be to stop Russian aggression–not kill them all. Ironically, we would be teaching the Russians how to respond with appropriate force. Some lessons are tougher than others.

But could this lead to a nuclear war? Would the Russians respond with nuclear weapons, forcing NATO nations to depopulate the Russian homeland? It could. But it won’t.

Vladimir Putin’s job pays a lot better than most. He’s the richest man in Europe, maybe the world. He’s also the Russian decision-maker. And he cares about himself–doesn’t smoke or drink to excess–has two well-educated daughters, has a lovely wife, and a little poodle named Tosca. Life is good for him. He doesn’t want a big war between Russia and NATO anymore than America does. But he does want more.

We just have to convince him that less is more. The less Russia invades its neighbors the more airplanes Russia will have.

What about the people of Southern Ossetia? Russia is just helping those people to have their liberty and independence, right? Okay, lets solve that problem too.

The people of Southern Ossetia are said to have a culture tied to the people of Northern Ossetia (a province in Russia). What do you say we have Georgia and Russia let all the Ossetia people have their liberty. The two regions could be united and allowed to be a sovereign, independent country. Maybe after a while they too, would like to join NATO.

It just makes sense.

Georgia,
Georgia,
No peace, no peace I find
Just this old, sweet song
Keeps Georgia on my mind

The greatest military force in all of history–the United States Air Force–is poised to fail in an attempt to project and protect national interests in the cyberspace domain. Despite its valiant attempt to do the right thing, enemies–foreign and domestic–will not rest until the Air Force fails.

The United States Air Force represents the harvest of the airpower seeds planted by visionaries and tended to by Airmen over the ages. In the first global war of the twentieth-century, armies discovered they could no longer mass without being noticed. Twenty years later, armies and navies alike were not free-to-attack without the freedom-from-attack provided by air superiority. During the global Cold War, Air Force bombers and long-range missiles standing nuclear alert kept the Soviet-bear’s claws contained until other national elements of power could sap its threatening might. Desert Storm showed that modern airpower was unstoppable. Airmen commanded airpower and that was threatening to the sister Services.

In the years that followed, the Air Force’s three sisters did just about everything possible to fight the concept of Airmen having any command over their air assets. Even when centralized command was proven over and over to the be the most efficient way of doing aerospace business, they were against it. The Air Force made many concession to help its Airman-phobic sisters. It even abandoned the long-standing term “aerospace”. But alas, even saying “air and space” wasn’t enough to satisfy the inter-service rivalry.

The competition continues even as the Global War on Terrorism is being fought.

When the Air Force Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force were recently fired, former Secretary Wynne told Air Force Times that a naval officer, Admiral Donald, had influenced Defense Secretary Gates’ decision. “They [the Navy] just see things differently than we do.”

It was a complex situation, but Wynne’s statement underscores the conflict among the Services. From my experience on the Air Staff, it has been mostly the other three Services against the Air Force.

Since they oppose Airmen commanding air assets, how do you think they will feel about Airmen commanding or even coordinating cyberspace assets?
They are going to hate it.

One solution might be to establish a separate Service to project and protect our national interests in cyberspace. It could be called the Cyberspace Force. With that suggestion, there are probably throngs of entrepreneurial spirits already designing uniforms and badges. But not so fast.

The Defense budget goes in cycles of feast and famine, since the Cold War ended it has mostly been famine. While the national budget continues to grow in leaps and bounds, the defense budget often falls short of requirements. In addition, it is the first place socialist politicians like to loot between their tax-hikes on the American working class. Cutting the barely sufficient pie into more but thinner pieces won’t lessen competition between the Services or increase defense efficiency.

Our laws present a bigger problem than funding. Title 10 of the United States Code and many others are designed to keep the military in check. The same laws that prevent the Army from putting armed guards around Wall Street to stop thieves also prevents military cyber-soldiers from defending Wall Street’s information grid. And repealing those laws could be as dangerous to our freedom-based society than our enemies are.

Cyberspace is just too important to be left to the Defense Department. We need something else. Something higher up.

What about something like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)? Couldn’t a federal cyberspace administration regulate the use of cyberspace and police violators, much the way the FAA does civil aviation? Nope. The problem isn’t just with civil hackers and phishers.

Sovereign nations like China are using cyberspace to digitally disrupt, degrade, and destroy our interests around the globe. They do not operate with the same legal restrictions we place on ourselves. They target us as individuals, businesses, and governments. The FAA doesn’t intercept Bear bombers or police international airspace. Likewise the cyberspace challenge is too much for a mere federal administration.

Would a cooperative measure between the DoD and a federal administration be the way to go? Nope. It would just add another cat to the fur-ball fighting for funds and fame.

It has to go higher.

The President’s Cabinet currently includes the heads of 15 executive departments.

If America really cares about cyberspace, there needs to be one more. The Secretary of the Department of Cyberspace would advise the President on all cyberspace matters in accordance with Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Projecting and protecting American interests in cyberspace would then be somebody’s primary job. Cyberspace shakers and movers would function as an extension of American national policy. If Americans wanted to restrict our cyberspace activities, laws could then be drafted, voted-on, and approved with specific purposes in mind. Then we wouldn’t need lawyers to interpret the existing laws we’ve placed on our military over the last two centuries in order to apply them to cyberspace activities.

And then Airmen, Sailors, Soldiers, and Marines could go back to breaking things and killing people the way they know best.
It just makes sense.

Another’s one gone. After 47 years the photogenic B-52H tail-number 61-023 (a.k.a “Ten-23″) flew its last sortie. Kind of a sad day for those of us who were fortunate enough to have flown her. She’s the first of 18 B-52s the Air Force is removing from the bomber force. When the cutting is done, we’ll only have 76 B-52s to carry on. I could talk about force-structure but instead let me tell you a story about the old girl.

Most bomber aviation connoisseurs already know about Ten-23 losing her tail when Chuck Fisher went looking for mountain-wave turbulence over Colorado in 1964.

If you’re not familiar with the story, you can get a good review of it on Boeing’s web page or Ed Marek’s “Talking Proud” with more details and some nice pictures.

In a nutshell, the vertical tail was snapped off. The crew almost bailed, but using skill and cunning they were able to recover the aircraft. I’m glad they did, because I flew that particular jet several times during my service.
Here’s a few details from one those. I never kept very good personal logs, but I think this happened on Ten-23.

I had just finished the Central Flight Instructor Course (CFIC) back in the mid-1980s. Lt Colonel Tom Ellers, my squadron commander, was evaluating me. He wanted to know if he could trust me as an instructor pilot (IP). Most aspiring IPs would have flown a conservative mission–but I just couldn’t roll like that at the time.

We had a fighter v bomber event planned on that day. We started mixing it up with the F-4 Phantom with Colonel Ellers supervising from the IP seat–which is between and slightly behind the two pilots ejection seats.
Fighters usually come at you in pairs. But on this day, one of the F-4s had problems. We were one verses one (1v1). Better for us.

I know that sounds silly to the needle-nose drivers, but back in the 1980s the B-52H had a fire-breathing 20 millimeter gatling-gun of a stinger. You didn’t have to like us, but you had to honor our tails. And while our ECM suite didn’t compare to what the BUFF has today, it sure as heck could handle the trons of an F-4.

So for a single F-4 to get a kill on a Buff, he needed a special-blend of skill and luck.

After a few failed attempts to get us, he moved in for a close-range gun-pass on us. My gunner wanted him, but he had settled in our four o’clock high. A B-52 pilot can’t see that spot from the left seat because of the cockpit design. Fortunately, we’re issued a copilot when we go fly. That day I had “Smokin Joe” McBrearty in the right seat. He was keeping close tabs the F-4.

The F-4 matched our velocity, preparing to make a raking gun-pass across the top of old Ten-23. But we weren’t going to just hang there and let him have his way with us. As soon as he committed to the diving left turn–I banked hard to the right and then pulled up.

Colonel Ellers was a little concerned about my aggressiveness, but not nearly as much as the F-4 driver was. A speeding freight-train was headed for him and he was standing on the tracks. What could he do?

Yep. He had to move, which made him abandon his gun-pass. No longer the hunter. He pushed his nose over and dove under us. As he did that, I reversed our turn. Then rolled into his six o’clock, probably just inside of 2000 feet away. Way too close for his comfort. He was now the prey.

Imagine his surprise. Embarrassing. What could he do?

He pushed in some power and pulled up into steep climb. So did I. We weighted less than 250,000 pounds at the time, which is very lightweight for the Buff. As his energy ran out, he converted into a lazy-eight. I followed him.
I’m sure he was irritated when he saw us follow him up, over and then started down with him. But not as much as when I made the call, “Guns, guns, guns. Splash one Phantom.”

And you’re right. The Buff didn’t have forward firing guns–not even then. But it really sounded cool at the time. In my years of flying that followed, I taught that maneuver to a few Buff pilots. Warning–it won’t work on the new fighters, unless they really get stupid on you.

What happened to the F-4? Well, he converted into a split-S and the day was over for the F-4. He RTB’d, but we still had some adventures left.

I went on to make a series of overly-aggressive decisions, all of which were debriefed in the sober atmosphere of Colonel Ellers’ office that evening. But that’s what colonels are for–helping aggressive captains mature into dependable instructors.

I could share the details of how I almost ran out of fuel later on that same sortie, but not today. The low-fuel story is not nearly as much fun as one about shooting down a fighter. But it would be more fun than hearing about another reduction in our heavy-bomber force structure.

Seventy-six B-52s. Sixty B-1s. Twenty B-2s. That’s all our heavy bombers. All.

Global war in progress. Enemies like Venezuela acquiring modern weapons and rattling sabers. Nuclear weapons being developed in Iran. How long can we trust North Korea to behave? What is China thinking–planning? Is Russia really talking about putting forces in Cuba?

Seems like we need more heavy-bombers–not less.

It just makes sense.

We’re fast approaching the 20th anniversary of an infamous massacre of people who were protesting against socialist rule. And yet, the majority of Americans won’t even notice.

However, the United States government is well aware of what has been going on in the country calling itself Myanmar since 1989. Last week, President Bush extended our import ban on Burma. The goal of our sanctions is to convince the military dictatorship to stop suppressing democracy and to release Noble Peace Prize winner Dr. Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest.

She is the daughter of General Aung San. He’s basically the George Washington of modern-day Burma. Following WWII, he led the negotiations with the United Kingdom which resulted in the establishment of the fledgling democracy. Life was good. But democracy was strangled in 1962.

General Ne Win led the coup which transformed the once prosperous nation into a beggar. He set up “the Burmese Way to Socialism” which extinguished the flame of economic freedom and banished Chinese and Indian businessmen. Officially, he stepped down from power in 1988–but ruled in a veil of obscurity until his death in 2002. During that period he transformed the government with a strong hand into one with an iron fist.

Myriad people demonstrated in the streets. Some say it was chaos, but the students and monks used peaceful tactics. Their civil-disobedience was countered with cold steel and hot lead on August 8, 1988. Some reports say more than 3000 people were killed, the junta counters that only a few were killed. You’ll have to decide who you believe.

Regardless of how many were killed during the 8888 Uprising, it didn’t stop the movement toward freedom. The National League for Democracy (NLD) won the 1990 election with a landslide. The only problem was that the junta refused to step down. It seems they had a monopoly on guns–no second amendment over there. Its hard to argue with a government that doesn’t mind shooting its citizens.

Americans learned that lesson in the 1770 Boston Massacre. History records that those demonstrators were not all that peaceful. And only five were killed. But it was enough to help fuel the movement that resulted in the American Revolution. Of course, Burma’s struggle is not over.

In September 2007, the government suppressed protests over fuel prices by killing at least 13 and arresting throngs of people. Since then, government thugs continue to roll through houses and monasteries to arrest anyone they think is associated with the pro-democracy movement. Most Americans didn’t hear much about Burma/Myanmar until May 2008.

That was when category-four cyclone Nargis hit Burma at 135 mph. Causing more than $10 billion in damage, it killed more than 100,000–some extreme reports say nearly a million were washed out to sea. The junta initially resisted foreign aid, maybe fearing they might lose their iron-fisted grip on their people. In response, President Bush encouraged the world to condemn Burma’s military leaders. Under diplomatic pressure from all directions, they eventually allowed aid to flow in. And nobody really knows how many people died lacking timely aid. But it had to be more than a few.

The junta does its best to keep reporters out of the country. They say the people’s unrest is caused by foreign media reports and radio broadcasts in exile. But like a bad movie, the current regime uses those old-time despotic favorites: slaughtering, raping, and displacing to control the folks who oppose them.

But still they oppose.

The people in the democracy-movement in Burma will no doubt do something to remember August 8, 1988 on the 20th anniversary of the massacre. Anyone with even a vague familiarity of the military junta’s iron-fisted tactics should not be surprised when the charge to remember the 8888 Uprising is paid in blood.

But of course, that has been the price of freedom throughout the ages.

It just makes sense.

* (August 8, 1988 – a.k.a 08-08-88 – Thus 8888)

A few opinions about the situation in Burma from people much more famous than me:
Jim Carrey on Burma

Sylvester Stallone on Burma

Will Ferrell on Burma

Damian Marley on Burma

Kim Kardashian

As challenging as it is for a man and woman–who love each other–to get along. It is nearly insurmountable to come to grasp with how to get along with your kids.

Dr John Gray wrote the famous Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus book in 1993. In it he points out some differences between men and women–besides the obvious–and argues that happier relationship can be achieved by acknowledging and accepting them. It sold a lot of copies back then and is still popular today. Some folks say it actually helped their lives. I remember giving it a try back then, but we gave up on it and just decided to have kids. Now if someone could just write a guide on how kids differ from parents, that might be worth reading–if it revealed how to get along with them.

They must be from Jupiter. Think about it.

Jupiter is the most massive planet in the solar system, which is pretty much symbolic of how much the average parents think about their kids. Even as an empty-nester, you can get all dressed up and go out on the town–and what do you talk about?
Your kids. You can’t help yourselves.

Jupiter has four planet-sized moons and at least 59 smaller moons. That would represent all the friends your kids have, that you don’t know about. They have names like Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto. They sound like street names for a bunch of other-people’s kids. And your kids spend more time with their friends than they do with you. Just like Jupiter.

According to NASA, Jupiter resembles a star. Most kids believe they are stars–or even superstars. But alas, Jupiter would need to be about eighty-times more massive to actually become a star. Now does that explain it all? Your kids think they’re a star, but they really don’t have what it takes to become one. Yeah, that was mean. So what?

Did you notice the famous red spot? It supposed to be a huge storm. Maybe it represents the anger our kids have because they’re not natural stars. Then again, it might represent the growing popularity of tattooing, piercing and notching–attracting attention through tribal-like marring of their bodies. Or maybe it just represents self-induced chaos. What ever it stands for–it seems like it applies to our kids.

Jupiter’s year is much longer that Earth’s year. Maybe that is why it takes kids five or six years to finish a four-year degree. And because they are in a distant orbit, they take a lot longer to get around the Sun. No matter how much advice you give them, it seems they have to go their own way.

Eventually, they get where they’re going. Maybe it’s all for the better. Jupiter in all likelihood needs to stay where it is.

If Jupiter tried to move in close and share our orbit, there’d probably be some sort of a collision and precious little room left for us. And then nobody would be happy.

It just makes sense.

“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts” William Shakespeare’s “As You Like it” Act II: Scene VII. As spoken by the character Jaques.*

Famous words. The character Jaques goes on to identify the seven stages of a man’s life in this oft-quoted Shakespeare passage.

But did you see what I did?

I gave credit to the source of those words. I did that because they’re not really mine.

Even though I could have just used them–the copyright limitations expired long ago–there is probably a lot of people who would read them and get the impression that I’m quite the bard. But if I resorted to such deceitful tactics, eventually someone, such as yourself, would read the words only to get the impression that I’m a liar, a cheat, and a thief. But I didn’t do it, so stay with me and I’ll explain where I’m going with this.

When I was merely a teen, I saw the movie Patton starring George C. Scott in the post theater at Fort Lee Virginia. The famous speech to his troops is legendary. It’s been copied and mocked ever since.

America was struggling for good leadership in those days. I remember believing, in my still-growing mind, that George C. Scott was the man we needed to lead our Army. Yes, that sounds silly now. Being young, dumb and whatever else–I was fooled.

That’s not a bad thing for an actor to do to the audience.

The best actors are the ones who are gifted enough to make you actually believe they are the character they are playing. George C. Scott was a brilliant and gifted actor. But he was not like the real George S. Patton. I didn’t learn that until I watched another movie that starred Scott, which was made three-years earlier. It was called the Flim-Flam Man.

Scott played the character Mordecia Jones, who was a con-artist whose motto was “you can’t cheat an honest man.” He was a master of lying, cheating, and stealing–everything that Patton was not. Mordeica Jones was a parasite. I was nearly mortified until I felt my brain grow.
Once again Scott had proved himself to be such a great actor that he touched my soul. Scott’s performance helped me to understand the difference between a man who reads scripts well and looks good on camera from great Americans who have led our nation in times of crisis.

Like everyone, I remember 9-11 well. I was working with in an Air Force command center as the attack on our homeland began. As the event progressed, I was concerned not only about the attack but also because my generals lacked answers. They stopped being generals. They had never been trained for this. Nothing was scripted. In military contingencies they practice checklist procedures over and over–with tutoring as required–until they appear to be as smart and in-control as we’d expect them to be.

But 9-11 was different. Nothing was scripted.

Seeing my senior leaders appear as confused as everyone else was initially disheartening. But it helped me to understand that there is a difference between leaders and great leaders.

Later on that infamous day, Air Force One came to our base. President Bush made an impromptu speech to the nation via our facilities.
Before he left to lead our nation’s reaction to the unprovoked attack, he talked with my generals. I wasn’t in the room, but they came out quickened. Confusion was lifted. They were not afraid. They held their heads high. They looked like generals again. They were generals again.

We are bombarded with propaganda almost daily suggesting our President is a fake, but I know better. My generals know better. George Bush is a great leader.

Now, I told you those stories so I could tell you this.

We have a presidential candidate who often uses other people’s words as his own. Here’s one example. Here’s another. In each of these Obama uses the exact words Deval Patrick used years earlier. Seeing and listening to the recordings next to each other clearly suggest something is wrong. But not everyone agrees it is wrong.

In Obama’s defense, he has said he didn’t steal these words because he was given them by Deval Patrick. They are friends and often swap words, or something like that.

But do you see anything wrong with it?

Maybe. Because it gives the impression when he is speaking that they are his words. He didn’t just put the concept in his own words, he recited the words exactly. If there’s nothing wrong with it, then its more like acting. No, it is acting. Merely reciting a script. Just words. Written by someone else. Practiced. Polished. Until they can fool most of the audience.

When Joe Biden said that Obama was “articulate” it created quite a stir in some circles. The complaint went something like since Obama was a senator–of course he was articulate. In addition, some people considered the comment to be racist. They said that Biden was suggesting Obama was somehow not expected to be able to speak well because he was black. Most Americans know by now that Obama’s father is African and his mother is not. Nevertheless, that word “articulate” is often used to describe Obama’s speech presentations both by conservatives and those who are not.

But how is he under pressure? What happens if his tele-prompter or the mic in is ear malfunctions? Here’s an example. Obama gets lost, unable to complete his presentation when his audio feed is disrupted.

The Bristol Virginia gaffe is not an isolated event. It seems there are more and more of them, but you just don’t see them on the news very often. You don’t hear much about them unless you scan YouTube or listen to talk radio. And if you do, you’d know there has been some discussion that Obama’s speech writers may have borrowed heavily from popular music lyrics for his Berlin performance. Just words.

I think actors are important. What would we do in our spare time without them?

Some folks have argued that Ronald Reagan was an actor, somehow believing the fact meant he should not have been President.  They leave out the fact that he did other things also.  Things like being Governor of California for twelve years.  That trumps the actor experience.  No one in their right mind could believe actors, even ones who pretended to be Presidents on TV or movies, are qualified to be a real president.  It would be like believing Tom Cruise is qualified to be a fighter pilot because he played Maverick in “Top Gun.”  As a more personal example, would you want Alan Alda (a.k.a. Hawkeye Pierce from M.A.S.H) performing emergency surgery on you?

Don’t be misled by practiced words that flow sweetly from the lips of pretenders. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between a flim-flam man and a great leader. But much depends on your ability to do so.

If you fail in that task, the last part any of us play may be that of the disenfranchised citizen; sans money, sans property, sans freedom.

It just makes sense.

*The entire passage is:
“All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms;
And then the whining school-boy,
with his satchel
And shining morning face,
creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school.
And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace,
with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lin’d,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper’d pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well sav’d, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion;
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.”

— (Act II, Scene VII, lines 139-166)