It Just Makes Sense

Some members of our Congress are once again attempting to override the Constitution of the United States. The argument in their quest to cheat the Constitution is based on what they call a “quirk of constitutional law” which treats Washington, D.C. like it is not a state. Alarmingly, sixty-one of our Senators have agreed that our Constitution is wrong.

Article One of the Constitution allows states to send duly qualified and chosen members to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The District of Columbia was created by territory lawfully ceded from states in order to establish a district under the control of Congress.

As most folks already know, Washington D.C. has never been a state–thus the smart people reading this already know why D.C. does not have Congressmen and Senators voting to change the nation’s laws.

Nevertheless, I will continue before I make my point. I have discovered that it is far easier to write, than it is to speak, with one’s tongue in his cheek.

When James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that every imaginable objection seems to be obviated, he thought he had explained it well enough. But in a world where everything seems to be subject to redefinition, maybe he was wrong.

What?

Maybe he was wrong. Maybe districts and territories should have the same rights as states. If so, where would that apply?

If Washington D.C. was given States’ rights we would get two new Senators and then Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton would become a full fledged voting Congresswoman.

Washington D.C. already has a Congresswoman? But the Constitution says…

We’re not talking about what the Constitution says or doesn’t say, at least not since the third paragraph above. This entire discussion is assuming the Constitution is wrong. Right?

Okay, here we go again.

If Washington D.C. gets States’ rights, then why not Puerto Rico? Puerto Rico is filled with American’s that fight our wars and do great things. Just because they’re not a state is no reason to deny them Constitutional States’ rights, is it? Once we do that, we’ll add two more senators (making it 104) to help make our nations laws better and more fair for everyone.

And if Puerto Rico gets states’ rights, then why not the Northern Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, and American Samoa? There would be no reason to deny them states’ right also–thus the number of senators would increase to 110. Seems fair and it’s not too much of a change–only 10%.
But wait, there are other territories: Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Baj Nuevo Bank, Serranilla Bank, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Wake Atole, Palmyra Atoll…

What? Most of those places don’t even have a population, why should they have States’ rights?

But they are territories, and if some territories get state’s rights all of them should have it, right?

Well, maybe not, I don’t know. We can’t get help from the Constitution because we already know it is wrong.

How about if we try using logic?

Because states’ rights is all about people, not necessarily the territory or land associated with it–though that counts for something. We shouldn’t give a lump of dirt States’ rights. Okay, but it seems discriminatory.

Maybe we can look at the Constitution for some help here.

Then let’s go back to Article 1 Section 8 and look at those authorities of Congress:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

So that sounds a lot like military bases. Using the same logic, all those Federal properties known as military bases need states’ rights too, right?

Some people might argue against that by saying, “The folks in the military are not allowed to hold public office. None of those military people have a right to states’ rights. The bases were bought and paid for with public money.”

Well, so was Washington D.C. and certainly the wives and families of those military people need their rights too. Using the same logic as we did in passing out States’ rights to all the other non states, each military bases should be given States’ rights. The spouses of the military that live there could be elected to hold offices in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Let’s see that would bring the number of Senators up to … about 750–give or take a few. Most of the new Senators would be the wives and husbands of the brave, the few, the defenders of freedom. I wonder how that will affect the amount of taxes being levied on Americans. Even more, I wonder how that will affect military pay raises and the defense budget.

One thing is for sure, if we do this, we’re going to need a bigger capital.

Or better yet, maybe our elected officials, who have taken a oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, should reconsider any act that will not preserve the Constitution of the United States.

We have a multi-partisan assault on our Constitution. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Sen. Joe Liberman (I-Con) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev) are only three of the sixty-one Senators who are supporting giving States’ rights to a non-state. If they believe the Constitution is flawed, they should sponsor an amendment to the Constitution to change it. Then, at least, the states get some say in the process that will degrade their exclusive status given to them by the Constitution.

Constitution cheating can’t continue — unless we the people permit it–we’ve got to stop this.

It just makes sense.

George stomped his boots on the wooden porch to remove January’s snow and the traces of New Jersey mud he had picked up between the hitching post and the small pub.  The sixty-one year-old mountain of a man was dwarfed only by the legends of his accomplishment.  As he stepped inside, he was greeted with enthusiasm.

“Mr. President!” someone shouted.

“To the President!” shouted another.

“Here here!” echoed the reply as the men held their tankards upward in respect of the man who had done so much to free them from their European monarch.

“Thank you, all.”  George tipped his hat to them, revealing a full head of formerly red hair, which he believed, looked better powdered than the gray to which it had faded.  He hung his three-cornered hat on a post by the door and spoke to the bartender,  “Barbados Rum, if you have it.  And where is Governor Paterson?”

“Over here, Mr. President.  We’ve a good table reserved in the back room.  And don’t worry.  I made sure our fine pub had your favorite rum on hand.”  William Paterson was like most men of the day, shorter than his President.  He also shared the curse of the beginnings of gray hair showing through his once auburn coiffure.  It came with being 48 years old in 1793 as coloring products for men were still years away from being in style.  After exchanging greetings, the men retired to the back room with their drinks in hand.

“You said you had urgent business for me?”

“Yes, William,” George said as his mug thumped against the table.  “I’ll cut to the chase, I need you on the Supreme Court.”

“I’m confused.  Why now?  Why me?”

“The timing is really Thomas Johnson’s fault.  His health inspired him to resign on the sixteen.  I would have preferred him to share his frailties with me back in 1791 before he took the job in the first place, but that didn’t happen.  But it has happened now.  So that leaves our country a Justice short, so we need you.”  George took another sip of rum.  “That’s good stuff.”

“Sorry to hear Thomas’ health is poor.  But I’m afraid I can’t accept the position—I’m not qualified.”

“Ridiculous!  Your credentials are beyond reproach.  You were a patriot throughout the revolution.  You were Attorney General of New Jersey—the most prominent lawyer in the state.  You served at the Constitutional Convention—why you were the one who proposed the solution for equal representation for each state.  You just about wrote the Constitution!  As a Justice, you would make sure our country remains true to the principles in that blessed document.  What do you mean, you’re not qualified?”

“I already hold an office.”

“Being Governor of New Jersey does not disqualify you from accepting a nomination to the Supreme Court.  Of course, I understand if you’d rather remain Governor and forgo being a Justice.”

“Oh no, Mr. President.  I want to be a Supreme Court Justice more than anything.  I believe I’ve been called by God for that specific purpose.”

“William,” said George, who then paused to take another sip of rum.  He hardened his gaze and spoke sternly, “You’re talking in circles.  Explain to me why you can’t accept the position without the ambiguity—lest you try our friendship beyond its limits.”

“Yes, Mr. President.  I was previously elected as a Senator for New Jersey.  Article 1, Section 6 , Clause 2 is quite clear.  No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created …”

“But, William, you left that Senate position to take up service as the Governor of New Jersey.”

“That’s true.  But the Governorship is not a civil office subject to the authority of the United States.  The time I was elected to office of Senator doesn’t end until the third of March of this year, 1793.”

George’s expression softened, as he completely understood William’s objections.  “Oh, so that is a problem.  I did take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution to the best of my ability.  All oaths are sacred and should never be broken.  But a President’s character should always be above reproach–it would open the door for future problems.  But, I’ve already nominated you to Congress.  What do I do now?”

“Oh dear, that is another problem.  Sir, you need to retract that nomination until after my Senate time has expired—after which, I’ll eagerly report for duty.”

“Yes, that is the only solution.  Certainly, I understand.  But I can’t help but to muse about that clause.  Was it really intended to prevent the most qualified man in the country from assuming his position as a Justice?”

“Not really.  But the godly men who assembled to craft our Constitution knew that we had to have checks and balances throughout the document to prevent future generations from copying the oppressive practices of the ‘royal’ lineages in Europe.  If left unchecked, we could find ourselves with professional public-servants …”

“That is ridiculous.   How could they attend to the businesses that support their families?”

“They could create a level of pay and privileges that would elevate their life styles using the power of taxes on the merchants and producers of the country.”

“Sounds more like a system for highway men than legislatures.”

“Yes, Mr. President.  A republic can be a fragile thing.  Of course, another solid check on such corruption is the second half of that same clause:  ‘or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time,’ thus restricting any Senator or Congressman from ever holding an office that has been created or given a salary or benefits, or even increasing the salary or benefits of an existing office.”

“I see.  I remember some of that discussion.  James Madison was very concerned about people using an elected office as a gateway to enrich their own life, with no regard to national service.  I still don’t completely understand how unethical people could ever manage to win the hearts and minds of the voting people.”

“Certainly not our in generation.  We’ve paid too much for the freedoms we enjoy today to toss them away.  But it is possible that future generations could be enticed by office seekers who might promise them something for nothing, only to loot the taxpayers in the process.”

“I pray you’re wrong.  A person who believes they can have something for nothing is either a criminal or a fool.  America is better than that.”

———————

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2

As clear as the language is in our Constitution, some administrations have chosen to violate it.

In 1968 William Saxbe was elected to the U.S. Senate.  In 1973—before his time was complete—Richard Nixon appointed him U.S. Attorney General, after firing Elliot Richardson who disagreed with him over the Watergate Scandal.

Whatever motivation Richard Nixon had to have a more cooperative Attorney General in power is open to speculation.  Nixon convinced Congress to assist him in violating Article 6, Section 1, Clause 2 by reducing the salary to the Attorney General to the level it was before Saxbe’s term in the Senate had begun.  This cheap Constitutional cheat has been known ever since as the “Saxbe’s fix.”  President Nixon resigned from office in 1974 to avoid impeachment.

In 1980 Jimmy Carter coped the Saxbe’s fix to appoint then Senator Edmund Muskie as Secretary of State after Cyrus Vance resigned in protest of the failed mission to rescue the American hostages in Iran where eight US servicemen were lost.  Muskie appealed in vain to the UN to save the American hostages and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Jimmy Carter just prior to ending his single term most noteworthy for a record misery index on the America people.

In 1993, Senator Lloyd Benson resigned from his office and became Bill Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury.  An interesting note on this “Saxbe’s fix” is that President George H.W. Bush was somehow convinced to sign the bill as one of his last acts in office—thus sharing partial blame for the Constitutional sin.  Talk about leaving office on a sour note.

Following the 2008 election the “Saxbe’s fix” has become standard procedure to fill Obama’s cabinet:

1. New York Senator Clinton resigned to become the Secretary of State.
2. Colorado Senator Salazar resigned to become Secretary of the Interior.
3. California Representative Solis resigned to become Secretary of Labor.

What would George Washington and William Paterson have said about such activity?

And just how does that oath of office for the President go?  The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

That should mean exactly what it says, shouldn’t it?

It just makes sense.

If deterrence is supposed to be about who’s the strongest, why did it fail in the Gaza strip?

The Gaza strip is a densely populated area about twice the size of Washington D.C. on the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel.  Under a series of agreements signed in the mid to late 1990s, Israel transferred its security and civilian responsibility to the Palestinian Authority (PA).  Not so surprisingly, autonomy was short-lived and Israel moved its military back in September 2000.  After much international effort, another “final settlement” was reached and Israel moved its forces and settlers out again, but then Hamas replaced the PA via local elections, and Gaza’s provocation towards its former master has been nearly nonstop.

The most provoking habit the folks running around the Gaza Strip have is their addiction to launching missiles into Israel.  Not that one missile isn’t enough to provoke a military response, but the missile launchings have numbered into the hundreds and even thousands.

After Israel had had enough, they initially inflicted punitive strikes on the police and Hamas headquarters throughout Gaza–assuming that even if a government wasn’t actually performing the indiscriminate attacks, they are responsible for policing the people within their border.

In the fighting that followed, it appeared Israel was trying to reduce Hamas’ leadership and their inventory of missiles.  The missiles are called Qassam rockets, which are basically three-foot to seven-foot long rolls of sheet metal (with fins) filled with 1 to 20 pounds of explosives made from fertilizer.  The largest missiles have a range up to ten miles.  Easy to make, easy to launch and run, hard to counter-fire against.

But the ability to launch rockets indiscriminately across the border pales in comparison to Israel’s Defense Force (IDF).

So why didn’t deterrence work?

The answer is fairly simple.  Hamas leadership decided it was worth more to fire the missiles than the price they would pay for firing them.

Sounds almost too simple, doesn’t it?

Hamas’ objective appears to be acceptance and belonging to the community of Islamic governments around the world.  Sometimes it seems the only thing they completely agree on is that Israel needs to be destroyed.  Of course Hamas doesn’t have the power to push Israel into the sea, so they launch crude terror weapons to terrorize the Jews and to inspire those who hate the Jews. They’ve got enough sheet metal and fertilizer to keep building rockets for a long while.  The folks who launch the missiles require little training and support, thus they’re well inventoried to continue.

They probably feel quite good about themselves when they launch the missiles.  In addition, it appears that no contextual elements (population, legalities, economic, environmental, or diplomatic factors) work towards dissuading them at all.

Israel has plenty of military means and will to punish the Hamas-led Gaza Strip for their missile attacks– nobody believes Hamas could out fight the IDF.  Hobby-shop missiles can kill regular people going about their normal lives but they can’t stop a column of tanks.   But the attacks did increase Israel’s population and government support enough to persuade the IDF to strike back.

Almost immediately, journalist began to feed Americans and others stories about how disproportionate the use of force was.  Someone even said it wasn’t a fair fight.  Imagine that.   Does anyone really believe pirates should be fought with fishing boats, or a thug with a knife should be fought with a knife, or thieves should have their stuff stolen as punishment for their crimes?

No.  The forces that seek to stop pirates, thugs, thieves, or missile launching neighbors will always go in better armed, seeking to use overwhelming force to stop the activity.  That tactic is actually better for everyone.  When the sides are close to being evenly matched, the historically proven results is a protracted war of attrition–shades of Rome and Carthage or the American Civil War or World War II–thus bloodshed is greater.

So, knowing that Israel was so much more powerful than Hamas, why didn’t deterrence work?

Deterrence is a value-based decision equation, where the perceptions of the antagonist decide if deterrence will work or not.  The protagonist has to adjust the factors of the equation enough to tilt the value towards their desired outcome.

The equation looks like this:  If PV(cA/xA) > OV(e∆/x∆) then Σ∆ = a∆ = D

I know. It seems kind of complicated.

If you want to know all the details, you can read my book on line–or even buy a copy if you want to impress the folks you work with.  But for the sake of this specific situation, let me simplify it even more.

Basically everything–except the two objectives (PV and OV)–were the same values.  The unacceptable behavior (e∆) wasn’t just expected–it was on-going.  Some Hamas leaders have said the behavior was about security, but it seems more likely the actions were meant to insult or provoke Israel to military action with the firing of missiles in the quest of Hamas’ objective (OV), which is to belong  to the exclusive club of Islamic nations that hate the Jews, even more than they hate everyone else.
The advertised threat (PV) from Israel was a military response to punish Hamas.  Which was limited to showing the world that Hamas is weak–which would reduce their esteem.  Israel has never tried to maximize death or destruction when they wage war. Their enemies know that.

Since “loss of esteem” is less valuable than “belonging to the club” the deterrence equation tipped to the right and the antagonist (Hamas) was not motivated to alter their behavior.  Thus deterrence failed.

When Israel executed the predictable punishment, Hamas defiantly continued to launch missiles.  So Israel was forced to attack other factors in the deterrence equation–they went after the will and the means of the antagonist to fire missiles at them.  Even though Hamas has lost some of its leadership and its fielded forces, it still has enough means to generate some missile attacks.  So they continued to fire missiles even after Israel declared a cease fire.
So did Israel’s actions solve anything?

Yes–a little–it reduced the means of the attacks but did not eliminate it.  So it has not solved the problem, its just made it more tolerable.

In order for the Israeli deterrence strategy to have worked with Hamas, they needed to reduce Hamas’s ability to produce and launch the cheap rockets down to zero.  Not very easy.

The Gaza strip area would have to be reduced nearly back to the stone age to make that possible.  For now, not even Israel is ready to extract that price from the people who live there.

Does that mean Israel can’t deter the firing of missiles at them?

No.  Deterrence can work, but the factors of Israel’s deterrence strategy must change.  Before they can have successful deterrence, Israel has to up the ante.
When the certainty of success is congruent on both sides of the deterrence equation, the precious possession has to be more valuable than the value of the antagonists objective.   Possessions are myriad but can be placed in one of five main categories:

Category of Values       Relative Values
Survival                            Highest
Security                            High
Belonging                        Middle
Esteem                             Low
Actualization                  Lowest

Israel’s deterrence planners need to select an objective that has a value at least equal to the category of “belonging” or of a higher value, and the value standard has to be according to the value-set of the antagonist decision-makers.  Then Israel needs the antagonist to be certain that they will follow through with divesting Hamas of that particular precious possession unless they alter their behavior.  Only then, will deterrence be successful.
Deterrence is a little like a dance. It takes two to tango. The protagonist must lead by providing the motivation.  The antagonist follows by deciding if the motivation is sufficient for deterrence.

It just makes sense.

Co-Chair of the Obama-Biden Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett said, “Obama is prepared to take power and rule on day one.”

Did you hear that?  It could have been a slip of the lip.  It could have been confusion on the part of the speaker.  It could have been, but probably wasn’t.  Let’s suppose it wasn’t.  What’s wrong with the statement?

Who is America’s ruler?

Is “President” just a another word Americas say to mean king, emperor or dictator?

No, of course not.  We know who the supreme law of the land is, don’t we?  Come on, who says “the President” has any power at all?  No!  It’s not the military.  It’s not the police.  It’s not the courts.  You know who’s supreme.

It’s the Constitution.  The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  It defines the limited power of all offices of the United States.  For instance, Article II covers everything about the office of the President.  Did you know that before a person can be the President, he has to take an oath to the Constitution?

“Before he enters on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.“

While the Constitution explains the limits of the President’s powers, even a casual observer of the oath should be able to understand that the President is required to obey the Constitution.  The Constitution rules the President.

Article VI explains how powerful the Constitution is:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

So who’s your ruler?
If you said, “The Constitution,” you can give yourself full credit.  But if you quoted the first three words of the Constitution you get an extra 10 points.  It is there that you find the author and true sovereign of America.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

A win is a win.  Elections have results, as they should.  But don’t let anyone tell you that you have a new ruler.

I will pray for the new President as I have for the previous ones, maybe more.  But the President has never been our ruler.  He’s not our king, emperor, or dictator.  He’s not above the law.  His limited authority is granted to him for a limited time by the Constitution.  He works for us.

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.