An instructive fable from Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

All,

Having just read the 2013 DoD student guide on extremism, I figured one good chuckle deserved another.

Semper Fi,

Mike

The DoD Class on Extremism: A Fable

Captain Lew McGurk waited just off  stage as his rifle company filed into the lecture hall. He had just been joined by Major Floyd Slickpud who had flown in from Washington D.C. to monitor the upcoming class on Extremism.

While the Marines finished taking their seats, the two officers engaged in minor chitchat.

“How was the trip, Major?”

The Major glanced  at the decorations on the Captain’s chest, an assortment of service medals plus two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star. “Well Captain, travel is always hard on my sinuses but I will make do.”

“Yes, Sir, so you find working in Washington rewarding?” asked McGurk.

“Yes. That is where the heart and soul of our military resides. I don't want to brag but I have spent almost my entire career in Washington. It gives me a real edge over my peers.”

“I see.” Responded the Captain.

“Yes, only in Washington can you really get the true picture of things. I am already the assistant to the second deputy to the undersecretary.”

“Undersecretary of what, if you don’t mind my asking?”

“Well, I can’t say just now as we are undergoing another reorganization so the titles are still up in air. By the way, do not worry about the lecture. I will have your back. I was one of the senior reviewers for the Student Outline you are using. I have a Defense Meritorious Service Medal to show for it.”

“You must be very proud and thank you for your support. Well, its time to begin, Sir.”

“Yes, please carry on, Captain”

Captain McGurk entered the stage.

“Attention on Deck,” barked GySgt Jack “Baseplate” Jones. The Marines snapped to attention in unison.

“Seats!” commanded the Captain. The company sat.

“Good morning, Marines.”

“Good morning, sir!” came back the loud response.

The Captain began. “Today I am going to talk to you about extremism in the military and it needs to be stated at the start that my job, and I quote now from the Student Guide Introduction, is to help you ‘combat extremism in the military.’”

Captain McGurk continued, “Now in our long history of the Corps, dating back to 1775…”

“Hurrumph,” mumbled Major Slickpud.

“…when the Continental Congress first enacted a law to create…”

“HURRUMPH” uttered Major Slickpud.

Noticing the good Major’s discomfort, Captain McGurk spoke up, “Sir, do you have something to say.”

“Yes, Captain. You have to know how to recognize extremism. As the first bullet of Subsection1 of Section D of the DoD DOMI EOAC Student Guide on Extremism* states, the American Revolution was an example of a people following, and I quote, ‘extremists ideologies’ when the (quote) ‘colonists sought to free themselves from British rule,’ (unquote). So as you can plainly see, referring to founding of the Marine Corps is to honor and promote an extremist ideology and that simply will not do.”

“You don’t say.” Replied McGurk, shaking his head.

“I do say and I knew you would see the point.” Major Slickpud beamed.

Captain McGurk pulled aside a page of notes referring to the historic traditions of Marines to never discredit the respect gained by the sacrifices of Marines past. He started afresh.

“I would like to remind all of your that in combating extremism, we need not look much further than the oath of office we all took to defend and protect the Constitution of the United…”

“Excuse me Captain.” Interrupted the Major.

“Sir?”

“The reference to the Constitution is inappropriate, Captain. Can you not see it is fruit from the poisonous tree?” Opined Major Slickpud. He continued.

“It has already been established that the framers of the Constitution were members of an extremist group. I would like to refer you to Section A, Subsection 6, pertaining to ‘Prohibited Activities,’ which reinforces the argument made in the aforementioned Subsection 1 of Section D addressing ‘Extremist Ideologies,’ namely, that the American revolutionaries took a ‘political idea to its limits, regardless of unfortunate repercussions,’ those being, among other things, the Revolutionary War.”

“Therefore the Constitution cannot be viewed as anything but an extremist manifesto. I would dare say it might easily be determined by the standards established in the Student Guide as a hate tract. You simply cannot rely on the Constitution in any manner when combating extremism.”

“Seriously, Sir?” Asked a somewhat bewildered Captain McGurk.

“I could not be more earnest.” Replied the mildly agitated Major , who was thinking thinking, “Why can’t these people out in the field think logically like we do in Washington?”

The Captain removed more pages from his presentation and was now down to his last sheet. Pressing on, he started once again.

“I think we can all agree (glancing briefly at the Major) that combating extremism is something that will help in some small way to make this a better 

world and…”

“CAPTAIN!” 

“Sir?” moaned McGurk.

“Captain, this is truly intolerable and I mean truly intolerable. Are you not aware that the second bullet of Subsection 1 of Section E, ‘Recruiting Motives,’ noted that speaking about making ‘a better world’ or country is a phrase used by the cleverest of extremists. Really, how could you use such language during a lecture on extremism of all things?”

“Sir, I am a patient man but first you tell me I can’t talk about the founding traditions of the Marine Corps. Then you say not to mention our oath of office under the Constitution and now I can’t even talk about making the world a better place to live. Just what in the heck…”

“SIR!”

“SIR!” repeated GySgt Jones.

The Captain looked to the back of the hall. A feeling of relief swept over him. Baseplate Jones had an uncanny ability, whether overseas or in the rear, to make a bad situation better.

“Sarge, do you really think you have something to add to this discussion?” asked a put off Major Slickpud.

That’s Gunnery Sergeant, Sir, and yes, I believe I do.” The Gunny rolled on without waiting for a retort.

“Well Gentlemen, it seems that all those sections and subsections and whatnot make it clear that we are all pretty much extremists. And in as much as the Student Guide provides no way to distinguish one extremist from another, well…”

“Go on, Gunny,” prompted Captain McGurk.

“Well Sir, it just seems to me that what we need to do is to nod our heads in agreement with the fine words of the Major and then rejoin the real world and got on with it.”

“That is just splendid. You really get it, uhm, Sergeant,” chirped Major Slickpud.  

“Yessir, and that's GUNNERY Sergeant and if I get any more if it, I won’t be able to sit down for a week.”

“I do not completely follow that last remark, er, Gunnery Sergeant, but I think you mean well.”

“Yessir, I do indeed.”

“Company, Attention!” Boomed the voice of Captain McGurk. The Marines again stood motionlessly in mass.

“Gunnery Sergeant Jones, take charge of the company and carry out the training schedule of the day.”

“Aye aye, Sir!”

With that, the two officers left the stage.

“After a bit of a rough start, this ended just splendidly, splendidly, Captain. I can’t wait to get back to Washington and announce how successful this program is going to be!” Major Floyd Slickpud could not stop smiling.

“Yessir, whatever you say, Sir.” Answered a bemused Captain McGurk as the two walked out the hatch and into the sunlight.

* The official January 2013 DoD EOAC Student Guide on Extremism is attached for those of you with an interest. Also see: http://www.scribd.com/doc/162321199/2161-docs#page=32

Two Quick Thoughts on Syria

Two Quick Thoughts on Syria’s Employment of Chemical Weapons

Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

All,

First, killing hundreds of defenseless men, women, and children with chemical weapons is an atrocity that cannot go unanswered. I think the American people will support well-crafted military action. 

That could take a number of forms, such as the destruction of high value targets (aircraft – especially rotary wing airframes, ammunition dumps, C2 nodes, etc.) or, on a wider scale, potential no-fly or even no-drive zones.

The American people are confident that the President will strongly resist putting boots on the ground. As someone who wound up wearing a pair of those boots during the Clinton and Bush presidencies (Bosnia and Iraq), it may be a bit of an understatement to say I appreciate how difficult that decision is for a president.

Second, Assad will seek a way to strike back. 

That may be with his assets or by proxies, directly or indirectly. We must be prepared for that eventuality, but it is game that Assad is ill positioned to play and puts him on a path that will end badly. He does not need more enemies.

This is where Putin’s Snowden policy proves foolish. Had Russia been more supportive of America’s priorities, Russia’s Syrian priorities would have greater standing. Putin foolishly squandered that leverage.

Semper Fi,

Mike

Adult leadership...

Returning to a Republic with a Cincinnatus
SARAH E. STENGER
University of Cincinnati

Read the pdf here... 

Marshall Dillon!

Obama’s Middle East Mess 
When we don’t support our potential allies and encourage constitutional rule, Egypt is the result. 

By Victor Davis Hanson, NRO

IIn Egypt the Obama administration has managed to alienate the military, secular constitutionalists, the Islamists, and the proverbial street all at once. How and why?

First, we have never articulated a consistent policy in the Middle East, partly because we cannot distinguish constitutional government from one-vote/one-time plebiscites.

Second, this administration seems to harbor a distrust of governments that are more secular than not, and are pro-Western, as if they might somehow might be inauthentic or imposed from abroad.

Third, our Middle East policy, such as it is, is just a loud “reset,” as if not being George Bush means anything at all.

Country by country, chaos and violence arise, as our stature sinks.

Qaddafi was a monster, but a monster in rehabilitation who might have been coaxed and prodded to have the next generation of Qaddafis morph into a more transparent society. Getting rid of him became the aim, without any thought of what might follow, much less any concrete plan of engagement to ensure something better. The result was Benghazi and a Mogadishu-like failed state overrun by Islamists and terrorists.

In Iraq, we simply ran away, without a residual force to engage and keep the Maliki government on a constitutional course; the result is that Iraqi airspace belongs to our enemies and we have no influence — and no mechanism to monitor resurgent al-Qaeda groups that we once obliterated in that country.

In Iran, for some reason, we did not support the pro-Western reform movements in the summer of 2009, and de facto legitimized the anti-American theocrats. The result is that we earned contempt from the Islamists and bitterness from their opponents — as Iran races toward nuclear capability.

In Egypt, we suddenly turned on Mubarak, but did not insist that the ascendant Muslim Brotherhood respect consensual government, and then were surprised when they proved to be as predictably thuggish as their nature. The result of this flip-flop-flip is that we are reduced to playing word games about coups, and lacked the courage to cut loose the Muslim Brotherhood, whose master plan all along was to turn a minority win in a plebiscite into something like the post-Shah Iranian elections and theocracy.

Now we can only hope that the military restores order, and soon restores a constitution, with elections on the distant horizon that do not lead to a repeat of the Morsi takeover. (As a general rule, American-trained revolutionaries like Morsi are not more sympathetic to the country that gave them sanctuary, nourished them, and allowed them to prosper. More often, they ignore magnanimity and instead turn on us with loud soapbox speeches on Western decadence. Everything in Morsi’s past history, both while in the U.S. and abroad, predicted what he became.)

In Turkey we have kept quiet as Erdogan has systematically undermined the constitutional state, and dreams of carving out an Islamist Ottoman hegemony in the eastern Mediterranean.

In Syria redlines turned into pink lines, as the aim apparently was to get rid of Assad by bluster — an even more feeble policy than lead-from-behind in Libya, given that we neither had the will to remove Assad nor, had we removed him, could we have forged any secular consensual replacement. Who knows the nightmare to come if the Benghazi investigations finally disclose details about weapons transported to Libya with U.S. facilitation that are now making their way into Syria?

Our policy at this point should be to support constitutional government and the rule of law — and to assume Islamist movements of all types simply do not share those goals, and never will, as we see with Hamas, which sought plebiscites to find legitimacy for their subsequent lawlessness and illegitimacy.

The tragedy is that lots of reformers in Iran, former American allies in Iraq, Christians in Syria and Egypt, and pro-Western secularists in North Africa have had very little support, while we blustered, pontificated, sermonized, and did nothing other than legitimize those who went after them and despise us.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. His latest book is The Savior Generals, published this spring by Bloomsbury Press.

Fannie Mae RIP?

From Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

Fannie Mae RIP?

To the relief of many, the President recently announced that Fannie Mae is going away.

Before the celebrations begin, we need to remember that understanding the “why” is more important than the “whom” in figuring out what caused the collapse of the home mortgage industry that ushered in the Great Recession.

Yes, Fannies Mae is a “who” as in it played a critical role in the collapse.

But why an organization that had worked well for nearly six decades helped to destroy the home mortgage industry and itself in the process is the real lesson we must learn.

To understand the “why we need to explode a few myths.

Myth #1: Home Ownership is the Only Solution

Somehow we uncritically assumed that the “American Dream” demanded home ownership. While home ownership certainly is good thing, renting can also be a good thing, especially in today’s mobile society.

Germany never adopted the home-ownership dogma (only 42% of Germans buy their homes) yet Germany is universally regarded as one of the best nations in the world to live. Conversely, Bulgaria leads the world with a 97% homeownership rate.

That only proves that quality of life should never be tied to a one-dimension inanity called “wealth” and the radicals be damned (for them, renters do not acquire “wealth” through home ownership creating an “unjust” society).

Lesson: We should be wary of any social policy that pursues home ownership as an end in itself.

Myth #2: Fannie Mae is the Root of the Problem

That is not true. During most of its first sixty years of existence, Fannie Mae established what was often referred to as the “gold standard” in setting home lending criteria. Fannie Mae provided great liquidity and the home mortgage marketplace relied on Fannie Mae underwriting guidelines and from the 1930s into the 1990s Fannie Mae kept us all on safe, firm ground.

The subprime market was not for Fannie Mae. While it had always existed, it was a back-alley operation for investors with a taste for high risk that earned high returns but could end with a big loss.

That changed in 1993 when the Boston Fed decided to play God by successfully pushing for the destruction of the Fannie Mae “gold standard” underwriting guidelines.

The Boston Fed, using nothing but convoluted financial hypothesizing worth no more than the fairy dust in a kid’s cartoon, declared that subprime mortgages were all high returns while ignoring the associated risk. Heck, argued the wonks at the Boston Fed, Fannie Mae has it all wrong as there is virtually no reason to turn anyone down for a home mortgage.

The back-alley subprime market entered the Washington Beltway and Wall Street at the head of a marching band led by the clowns from the Boston Fed touting “Closing the Gap” underwriting standards as the way to a new nirvana.

The minions in Washington and Wall Street injected “Closing the Gap” standards into the system that were pure poison while packaging it as the nectar of the Gods and Fannie Mae, who dominated the home mortgage industry, became the leader of the pack. Risk managers of any ilk who could see the train wreck coming were brushed aside by the parade.

After little more than a decade, anyone who could scribble their name could get a home loan and everyone in the mortgage industry was making oodles of money.

No risk and high returns overwhelmed the better angels in us who knew the fantasy could not last as we understood at some level that we were doing the wrong thing.

Lesson: Fannie Mae took center stage as the enforcer of the bogus home mortgage underwriting standards to its everlasting shame, but it did not create the poison.

Myth #3: Eliminating Fannie Mae will fix the Home Mortgage Financing Problem

Fannie Mae became a problem because it was huge and a Government Sponsored Enterprise making it a pliable tool to do the bidding, for good and bad, of the Federal Government backed by powerful lobbyists and when “Closing the Gap” was introduced it became very bad indeed.

Failing to understand that Fannies Mae is about power and reach, not policy-making, is to miss the critical cause of the collapse of the home mortgage industry that led to the Great Recession.

Eliminating Fannie Mae will diffuse power thereby making it harder to poison the home mortgage market in the future. That is a prudent safeguard but it is not enough as it ignores the abusive risk-taking that led to the collapse in the first place.

Lesson: Introducing or keeping the poison of a “Closing the Gap” underwriting policy in place without a Fannie Mae is NO CURE; all it means is that it will take longer for the poison to bring down the home mortgage industry in the future.

Mike

Detroit's 'One Party' State Killed It

 Newsmax

By George Will

In 1860, an uneasy Charles Darwin confided in a letter to a friend: "I had no intention to write atheistically" but "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars."

 

What appalled him had fascinated entomologist William Kirby (1759-1850): The ichneumon insect inserts an egg in a caterpillar, and the larva hatched from the egg, he said, "gnaws the inside of the caterpillar, and though at last it has devoured almost every part of it except the skin and intestines, carefully all this time avoids injuring the vital organs, as if aware that its own existence depends on that of the insect on which it preys!"

 

Government employees' unions living parasitically on Detroit have been less aware than ichneumon larvae. About them, and their collaborators in the political class, the question is: What. Were. They. Thinking? Well, how did Bernie Madoff or the Enron executives convince themselves their houses of cards would never collapse?

 

Here, where cattle could graze in vast swaths of this depopulated city, democracy ratified a double delusion: Magic would rescue the city (consult the Bible, the bit about the multiplication of the loaves and fishes), or Washington would deem Detroit, as it recently did some banks and two of the three Detroit-based automobile companies, "too big to fail."

 

But Detroit failed long ago. And not even Washington, whose recklessness is almost limitless, is oblivious to the minefield of moral hazard it would stride into if it rescued this city and, then inevitably, others that are buckling beneath the weight of their cumulative follies. It is axiomatic: When there is no penalty for failure, failures proliferate. 

 

This bedraggled city's decay poses no theological conundrum of the sort that troubled Darwin, but it does pose worrisome questions about the viability of democracy in jurisdictions where big government and its unionized employees collaborate in pillaging taxpayers. Self-government has failed in what once was America's fourth-largest city and now is smaller than Charlotte, N.C.

 

Detroit, which boomed during World War II when industrial America was "the arsenal of democracy," died of democracy. Today, among the exculpatory alibis invoked to deflect blame from the political class and the docile voters who empowered it, is the myth that Detroit is simply a victim of "de-industrialization."

In 1950, however, Detroit and Chicago were comparable — except Detroit was probably wealthier, as measured by per capita income. Chicago, too, lost manufacturing jobs, to the American South, to south of the border, to South Korea and elsewhere. But Chicago discerned the future and diversified. It is grimly ironic that Chicago's iconic street is Michigan Avenue. 

 

Detroit's population, which is 62 percent smaller than in 1950, has contracted less than the United Auto Workers membership, which was more than 1 million in 1950, and now is around 390,000. Auto industry executives, who often were invertebrate mediocrities, continually bought labor peace by mortgaging their companies' futures in surrenders to union demands.

 

Then city officials gave their employees — who have 47 unions, including one for crossing guards — pay scales comparable to those of autoworkers. Thus did private-sector decadence drive public-sector dysfunction — government negotiating with government-employees' unions that are government organized as an interest group to lobby itself to do what it wants to do: Grow.

 

Steven Rattner, who administered the bailout of part of the Detroit-based portion of America's automobile industry, says "apart from voting in elections, the 700,000 remaining residents of the Motor City are no more responsible for Detroit's problems than were the victims of Hurricane Sandy for theirs." Congress, he says, should bail out Detroit because "America is just as much about aiding those less fortunate as it is about personal responsibility."

 

There you have today's liberalism: Human agency, hence responsibility, is denied. Apart from the pesky matter of "voting in elections" — apart from decades of voting to empower incompetents, scoundrels, and criminals, and to mandate unionized rapacity — no one is responsible for anything. Popular sovereignty is a chimera because impersonal forces akin to hurricanes are sovereign.

 

The restoration of America's vitality depends on, among many other things, avoiding the bottomless sinkhole that would be created by the federal government rescuing one-party cities, and one-party states such as Illinois, from the consequences of unchecked power. Those consequences of such power — incompetence, magical thinking, cynicism, and sometimes criminality — are written in Detroit's ruins.