Off The Grid

A few months ago, my wife made a snide remark about how I was incapable of being separated from my phone. She even went as far as to imply that I couldn't last a day with out it. Ok, ok...she didn't imply anything; she flat out said it.  I'd like to say that I took her words to heart, reflected on the meaning behind her statement and simply put the phone down.  Nope, not me.  I'm a hero; so you know I turned a simple request for attention from my wife into something crazy.  I told her that not only could I last a day without the phone, I also bet she couldn't last a day without TV. Things snowballed from there. We found ourselves in our own version of "A Christmas Story". Instead of being dared to lick a frozen pole, I was dared to give up my phone; she was dared to go give up televise.  To be honest, I never expected her to give up TV. She had called my bluff. Just like a foolish general, I raised the stakes even higher.  Pretty soon, Facebook was off the table. Netflix and Amazon Prime quickly became casualties. The whole computer operation was shut down.  Then she escalated matters by taking my Kindle off the table. I snuffed out her Kindle in retaliation. And just to be a jerk, I killed her IPAD and held her laptop hostage. At this point things were getting out of control and both of us were powerless to stop it. So, we decided to simplify the situation. All electronic media would be off the the table. No radio, no streaming media, no phones, no computer, no apple anything,  no DVD, Blu-Ray, nothing. The general rule was, if it went "beep" in the night, it would be turned off for a period of not less than 24 hours with the exception of the stove, microwave, toaster and the lights. So, from Sunday at 9pm to Monday 9pm, the Greene family went into a self-imposed electronic exile. We were off the grid.

We planned ahead. Sharon bought playing cards and we each bough paper-backed books to read. We even planned to learn  to play Chess.  That part of the day never happened; but at least it was part of our plan.  We powered off all our devices Sunday at 9pm and put them in a neutral location.  Neither of us would be tempted.  We began our experiment by playing cards. Sharon taught me to play Rummy (Gin Rummy). We also played 21 and a game called Go-To-Pack.  It was actually fun. I learned a lot...including that my wife is sore loser.  We also read a lot. Sharon actually finished a book.  I didn't come close. Sharon and I had a wonderful time reading together.    Also, I was able to work out for well over an hour.

As I said, I learned a lot. I learned that it's easy to forget about my phone and checking or posting status updates if I have a good book to read. I learned that I didn' really miss watching TV. That's probably because it was only for a day. But I also know that most of my time in front of the TV is spent trying to find something to watch. So why not cut the cord and read a book once in a while? Reading is great because I can skip boring parts of a story, go back to the good parts at will and, here's the best part, no commercials.

But for me, the most important thing I learned during my 24 hours off the grid is that quality time with my wife doesn't always have to be a big production.  Flowers, candy and expensive restaurants have their place. But a quiet afternoon reading with my wife, exchanging smiles, talking and sometimes not talking is just as rewarding.  During this time off the grid, I remembered that I love hanging out with my wife.  I think I forget that sometimes. In those moments with her, there are no expectations, no agenda, no protocol. We were just chilling.  I remembered that nurturing the friendship side of our relationship is just as important as nurturing our romance.

We enjoyed our time off the grid. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to be connected again.  I just don't need to be.  I look forward to more quiet moments with my wife. May God continue to bless the quiet moments.

Rock The Vote

http://youtu.be/rijpU5yD55I

The Steady Beat Of The Drums Of War

We are beating the war drums again. I get it: ISIS is bad. But we said the same thing about Sadam. Now we want go arm and train the groups who are against ISIS. That's the same strategy we employed when we wanted Sadam to fight Iran for us. That is, until Sadam became our enemy. How long until the folks we arm to fight ISIS fall out of our favor?  

I say this to the folks who want to put boots on the ground: come take mine. Put your boots where your mouth is. It's easy to call for other folks to be separated from their families to go off to a foreign land to fight and die. If you believe so strongly that boots on the ground is the best course of action, then I call on you to strap on a pair and lead from the front. Just like the kings of old, I'm looking to you to rally the troops. I will be more willing to lay my life on the line if you were as well. 

But perhaps boots in the ground is inevitable. Air strikes may sound nice and distant. However, all it takes is one downed aircraft to change all that. 

Dear Mr. President

Dear Mr. President,

The war drums are beating. We must resist the urge to dance to them. I am writing this letter to explain to you the reasons I think it would be foolish to engage in the Syrian conflict. The reasons for getting involved are many, and no less valid than the reasons not to.  However, as the leader of the free world, validity cannot be the only criterion your options are weighed against.  You’ve got generals and a harem of learned advisors giving you advice worth much more than mine.  Hear me out, nonetheless.

Firstly let's talk about some of the arguments for intervention. It goes without saying that America would not be America if the French had not intervened and assisted the colonies in their struggle against the British. France could have easily said no when asked to aid in the American Revolution. Had they refused to help, this great democratic experiment would not have come to pass. So, this country owes a lot to third-party intervention.

A moral argument can also be made in support of intervention. America is the most powerful, and arguably the most influential nation on the planet. We are leaders in the world not only militarily, but also economically and socially. We are in a position to affect great change in the world around us. As the saying goes, "evil triumphs when good men do nothing".

So you see there are compelling reasons in support of US intervention. I am sure I could list more of them, but you are a professor more learned than I; I will assume that you have  already considered these arguments. But, events of recent days lead me to want to remind you of the equally valid, yet more compelling arguments against US involvement.

Mr. President, you came to power during the time when the United States was bogged down in two wars with no clear end in sight. The war in Iraq in particular was entered into hurriedly and without proper evaluation of the evidence at hand (that's putting it mildly). I feel a sense of déjà vu when thinking about the similarities between the war in Iraq and the current lead up to conflict in Syria. I say that partly because it seems like intervention is all but certain given the rhetoric that has been espoused.

As then, the Secretary of State has taken to the public stage to layout your arguments for intervention. As then, you have drawn red lines all over the place which have been seemingly crossed. As then, our target stands accused of using weapons of mass destruction on his people. As then, the international community as a whole seems resistant to military involvement. As then, we are positioning military assets in preparation for war even though the United Nations has not completed their investigation into  the use of chemical weapons. As then, the United States has said it will intervene without the support of the international community. As then, there is no clearly stated objective to intervention and no clear way of knowing when the stated objective is met. This leads to the possibility, and high probability that limited US involvement will lead to a long military engagement, which could potentially involve boots on the ground, thereby putting US servicemen and women in harm’s way for a cause that is not our own.

The war in Iraq has also taught us the value considering unintended consequences. As you may recall, the destabilization of the Iraqi government and the failure to secure its borders led to an influx of fighters from other nations. The involvement of foreign fighters led to the need for more US servicemen and women on the ground and an increase in civilian and US military casualties. The same could happen in Syria. An additional wrinkle is that Syria and Iran have said that Israel will pay a price for US involvement. If Israel is attacked the US would have to respond, pulling us into another protracted conflict in the region. If this scenario were to come to pass we would have caused more damage, and more lives would've been lost had we done nothing.

There's also an economic argument to be made as well. Currently the US government is set to reach the debt ceiling in mid-October. Conservatives say that they will not approve an increase in the debt ceiling unless it is accompanied by spending cuts. Where would these cuts come from if we get involved in a military conflict before the debt ceiling is reached? If the argument against raising the debt ceiling in peace time is that federal spending is inflated, how do we help curb federal spending if we get involved militarily? I am no economist, but as I see it, we would have to increase the debt ceiling to pay for the military conflict while cutting already underfunded programs elsewhere to satisfy the requirements of the conservatives among us. However, those underfunded sectors of our economy like education, public assistance, unemployment insurance, healthcare, and the environment are critical to a sustained economic recovery. So my question to you is: how can we cut the very things that are needed to dig us out of this economic hole in order to fund a military conflict with no clear time frame or cost and no international or domestic support?

Mr. President I know you're under a lot of pressure. Every decision you make is criticized and picked apart. I'm sure there are days when you feel like nothing you do is right. Generally speaking, I think the American people support you. We all know you can't count on the support of Congress. So what does it say to you that most Americans view US involvement in Syria unfavorably? I know that tough decisions must be made. I also know that you have to make choices for the greater good. However, I do not see how our involvement in serious will benefit us. Yes, some will say that we are weak and indecisive. Your political opponents will probably say that you backed down when you're back was up against the wall. But I say to you, there is no need to start a fight to prove a point. In politics and in life we fight the fights worth fighting and sometimes we fight the fights we can win. We cannot win this fight Mr. Pres.; especially if it turns out that weapons of mass instruction were not used or that they were used by Syrian opposition forces. Given the economic, political and social constraints I have outlined, I also do not believe that this is a fight worth fighting. I urge you to consider the lessons of the past and seek international support before leading us to war. Thank you.

 

 

 

Huffington Post: U.S. Wasted Billions Rebuilding Iraq

 

		U.S. Wasted Billions Rebuilding Iraq
	WASHINGTON -- Ten years and $60 billion in American taxpayer funds later, Iraq is still so unstable and broken that even its leaders question whether U.S. efforts to rebuild the war-torn nation were worth the cost. In his final report to Congress, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen's conclusion was all too clear: Since the invasion a decade ago this month, the U.S. has spent too much money in Iraq for too few results. The reconstruction effort "grew to a size much larger than was ever anticipated," Bowen told The Associated Press in a preview of his last audit of U.S. funds spent in Iraq, to be released Wednesday. "Not enough was accomplished for the size of the funds expended." In interviews with Bowen, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the U.S. funding "could have brought great change in Iraq" but fell short too often. "There was misspending of money," said al-Maliki, a Shiite Muslim whose sect makes up about 60 percent of Iraq's population. Iraqi Parliament Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi, the country's top Sunni Muslim official, told auditors that the rebuilding efforts "had unfavorable outcomes in general." "You think if you throw money at a problem, you can fix it," Kurdish government official Qubad Talabani, son of Iraqi president Jalal Talabani, told auditors. "It was just not strategic thinking." The abysmal Iraq results forecast what could happen in Afghanistan, where U.S. taxpayers have so far spent $90 billion in reconstruction projects during a 12-year military campaign that, for the most part, ends in 2014. Shortly after the March 2003 invasion, Congress set up a $2.4 billion fund to help ease the sting of war for Iraqis. It aimed to rebuild Iraq's water and electricity systems; provide food, health care and governance for its people; and take care of those who were forced from their homes in the fighting. Fewer than six months later, President George W. Bush asked for $20 billion more to further stabilize Iraq and help turn it into an ally that could gain economic independence and reap global investments. To date, the U.S. has spent more than $60 billion in reconstruction grants to help Iraq get back on its feet after the country that has been broken by more than two decades of war, sanctions and dictatorship. That works out to about $15 million a day. And yet Iraq's government is rife with corruption and infighting. Baghdad's streets are still cowed by near-daily deadly bombings. A quarter of the country's 31 million population lives in poverty, and few have reliable electricity and clean water. Overall, including all military and diplomatic costs and other aid, the U.S. has spent at least $767 billion since the American-led invasion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. National Priorities Project, a U.S. research group that analyzes federal data, estimated the cost at $811 billion, noting that some funds are still being spent on ongoing projects. Sen. Susan Collins, a member of the Senate committee that oversees U.S. funding, said the Bush administration should have agreed to give the reconstruction money to Iraq as a loan in 2003 instead as an outright gift. "It's been an extraordinarily disappointing effort and, largely, a failed program," Collins, R-Maine, said in an interview Tuesday. "I believe, had the money been structured as a loan in the first place, that we would have seen a far more responsible approach to how the money was used, and lower levels of corruption in far fewer ways." In numerous interviews with Iraqi and U.S. officials, and though multiple examples of thwarted or defrauded projects, Bowen's report laid bare a trail of waste, including: _In Iraq's eastern Diyala province, a crossroads for Shiite militias, Sunni insurgents and Kurdish squatters, the U.S. began building a 3,600-bed prison in 2004 but abandoned the project after three years to flee a surge in violence. The half-completed Khan Bani Sa'ad Correctional Facility cost American taxpayers $40 million but sits in rubble, and Iraqi Justice Ministry officials say they have no plans to ever finish or use it. _Subcontractors for Anham LLC, based in Vienna, Va., overcharged the U.S. government thousands of dollars for supplies, including $900 for a control switch valued at $7.05 and $80 for a piece of pipe that costs $1.41. Anham was hired to maintain and operate warehouses and supply centers near Baghdad's international airport and the Persian Gulf port at Umm Qasr. _ A $108 million wastewater treatment center in the city of Fallujah, a former al-Qaida stronghold in western Iraq, will have taken eight years longer to build than planned when it is completed in 2014 and will only service 9,000 homes. Iraqi officials must provide an additional $87 million to hook up most of the rest of the city, or 25,000 additional homes. _After blowing up the al-Fatah bridge in north-central Iraq during the invasion and severing a crucial oil and gas pipeline, U.S. officials decided to try to rebuild the pipeline under the Tigris River at a cost of $75 million. A geological study predicted the project might fail, and it did: Eventually, the bridge and pipelines were repaired at an additional cost of $29 million. _A widespread ring of fraud led by a former U.S. Army officer resulted in tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks and the criminal convictions of 22 people connected to government contracts for bottled water and other supplies at the Iraqi reconstruction program's headquarters at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. In too many cases, Bowen concluded, U.S. officials did not consult with Iraqis closely or deeply enough to determine what reconstruction projects were really needed or, in some cases, wanted. As a result, Iraqis took limited interest in the work, often walking away from half-finished programs, refusing to pay their share, or failing to maintain completed projects once they were handed over. Deputy Prime Minister Hussain al-Shahristani, a Shiite, described the projects as well intentioned, but poorly prepared and inadequately supervised. The missed opportunities were not lost on at least 15 senior State and Defense department officials interviewed in the report, including ambassadors and generals, who were directly involved in rebuilding Iraq. One key lesson learned in Iraq, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns told auditors, is that the U.S. cannot expect to "do it all and do it our way. We must share the burden better multilaterally and engage the host country constantly on what is truly needed." Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno, who was the top U.S. military commander in Iraq from 2008 to 2010, said "it would have been better to hold off spending large sums of money" until the country stabilized. About a third of the $60 billion was spent to train and equip Iraqi security forces, which had to be rebuilt after the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority disbanded Saddam's army in 2003. Today, Iraqi forces have varying successes in safekeeping the public and only limited ability to secure their land, air and sea borders. The report also cites Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as saying that the 2011 withdrawal of American troops from Iraq weakened U.S. influence in Baghdad. Panetta has since left office when former Sen. Chuck Hagel took over the defense job last week. Washington is eyeing a similar military drawdown next year in Afghanistan, where U.S. taxpayers have spent $90 billion so far on rebuilding projects. The Afghanistan effort risks falling into the same problems that mired Iraq if oversight isn't coordinated better. In Iraq, officials were too eager to build in the middle of a civil war, and too often raced ahead without solid plans or back-up plans, the report concluded. Most of the work was done in piecemeal fashion, as no single government agency had responsibility for all of the money spent. The State Department, for example, was supposed to oversee reconstruction strategy starting in 2004, but controlled only about 10 percent of the money at stake. The vast majority of the projects – 75 percent – were paid for by the Defense Department. ___ Online: Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction: http://www.sigir.mil/learningfromiraq/index.html ___ Follow Lara Jakes on Twitter at https://twitter.com/larajakesAP Read more at AP

 

Sent from my iPhone

Women in Combat: An Army for All

Women have now been allowed to serve in combat units in the armed forces of the United States of America. This isn’t to say that women haven’t already been serving in combat roles already; thousands of women have fought alongside their male counterparts in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Many have been wounded or killed as a result of their combat roles. Now, women will be allowed to join units whose primary role is taking the fight to the enemy. I think that is about time women were included. I also recognize some of the arguments against their inclusion. I will explore some of them in this essay. In order for the integration women into combat units to be effective, 3 things must change: military standards must be equalized, institutional mindsets must change and cultural views must be modernized.

So, what’s the big deal? Why make such a fuss over women serving in combat units? Women have been in almost every other part of the military for a long time. Why all of this push-back? They say women aren’t strong enough. If a Marine or Army Infantryman is injured on the battlefield, the average woman would not be able to pick him up and carry him to safety.  Or a woman would not be able to carry all of the necessary combat gear (weapons, ammunition, ruck sack, etc.) unaided. I even heard a talking head on an NPR show this week say that since we don’t allow women to play football, we shouldn’t allow them to be in combat units. In other words, a female can’t hold her own in a head-to-head match up with a male.

The other argument against females serving in combat units is the issue of distraction. As the argument goes, males will be distracted from their mission simply by the presence of a female. A male would want to help a woman with her equipment; he will focus more of his attention on her, to the detriment of the mission. Chivalry will win out over professionalism.

The last argument against females in combat units is not one that I have heard or read. But, I can sense it becoming an issue as the new policy is implemented. The issue is that of sexual harassment and sexual assaults in the military. As a former Equal Opportunity Non-Commissioned Officer for the 145^th Surface Maintenance Company, I was charged with training and recommending action on cases involving sexual harassment. I was not involved in cases of sexual assault, because sexual assault is a crime and therefore would be investigated by military law enforcement. Instances of sexual harassment often go unreported in the military because many victims feel that nothing will come of the report. Often there is no hard evidence; it’s a “he said-she said” thing.  Similar reasons are cited for the under-reporting of sexual assaults. So if women are allowed to serve on the “front lines”, how much more difficult will it be for a victim of a sexual assault or sexual harassment to prove her case if the alleged incident occurred in the field, away from the prying eyes of the Uniform Code of Military Justice? A related concern is the issue of torture. It would be a stain on America’s psyche if a female is captured by the enemy and subjected to torture. If the enemy employs any of the tactics used in Rwanda or in Sudan against women on our females, it would be a hard sight to bear.

One Standard

Ok, now that I have listed the main arguments, let me shoot them down. Forgive the pun. Women aren’t strong enough, you say. Point taken. Generally speaking, men have more upper body strength than women.  But, as any Bruce Lee fan will tell you, there is more to overpowering your enemy than brute force. But since our issue concerns brute force, let’s talk about it.  When I was going through basic training, I met a woman who could do 80 push ups in 2 minutes. Meanwhile I was shaking like a leaf at 60. So if she could meet or exceed the standard, why not allow her to serve in combat? Women can meet the standard. Not all women, certainly. But not every man can meet the standard either. It is wrong to exclude and entire class of people because a portion may not be up to the task. They tried to exclude black people from combat missions, too. But the Tuskegee Airmen and countless other brave African Americans proved than skin color is unrelated to military skill. I would argue that gender, too, has no bearing on military skill.

In order for a female’s skill to be tested, there must be a standard to measure it against. This standard cannot be arbitrary or lessened in any way. In order for women to be effectively integrated into combat units, there needs to be 1 standard. The military must do away with separate physical standards for women. If a certain amount of strength, prowess and intelligence is needed to effectively perform a soldiering function, then that level of strength should be required for all candidates. Those who are able to meet the standard will be seen as more than female or male; they will become warriors.

 Institutional Mindset

Seeing women as warriors instead of damsels in distress will take some effort on the part of the military. When I was in Korea on one of my unit’s field exercises, I walked back into the tent to warm up after getting some chow. Imagine my surprise when I walked into the tent to find my male squad leader massaging to feet of one of the squad members. He tried to play it off by asking if I wanted my feet massaged too. “Hell no!!” Would he have offered to massage my feet had she not been there? I think not. Throughout my military experience, the women were the last to be placed on guard duty. If they were on guard duty, it was during the day, usually near heat or air conditioning. I sound like a hater. But, a combat unit in the thick of a fight requires that every member of the team pull their weight. If a team member needs help, the other members will help. But that help should not be given because of the perceived weakness of the individual. Even in Iraq, there were female soldiers who went on convoys without complaint. They were warriors, ready to go; locked, cocked and ready to rock. There are more women like them in the armed services; they should be given a chance to show the world what they can do. For that to happen, members of the armed services have to change their mindset.

This also means, stronger policies regarding sexual crimes against women.  As mentioned earlier, addressing accusations of sexual harassment and assault are hard enough in garrison. It will more difficult with women in combat units in the field. Leaders have to instill in their subordinates and sense that women are equal members and integral parts of the team and should not be disrespected, objectified, harassed or assaulted. Punishment for such actions must be swift and harsh. If the mindset can be changed, the culture will also be changed. This change however, can only come from top brass.

Cultural Views

It’s hard to know how society at large would react to an instance of a female member of a combat unit captured by the enemy and trapped behind enemy lines. But the story of Jessica Lynch can give us an idea. As you may recall, Jessica’s convoy was attacked in Iraq in 2003 and she was captured and reportedly tortured by the enemy. She was part of maintenance unit; not a front line combat unit. In 2003 you couldn’t turn on the TV without hearing about Jessica Lynch. Could our country support the possibility of more incidents of female soldiers being subjected to torture by the enemy? Is that the reason some in America oppose females in combat units? If so, then the problem is with us, not the female soldiers. The mindset of wanting to be protective of females leads to making decisions for them. That type of thinking is a societal problem, not one that women should carry.

Summary

African Americans, homosexuals, and women have a history of having arbitrary limitations placed upon them. They have all been told that their presence in the military would have some detrimental effect that never materialized. Yes, the presence of women in combat units will require some adjustments. Standards, internal culture and societal norms would have to change. Policies would have to formulated to address issues that currently don’t pose a problem. But those potential issues are minor and should not be used as an excuse to prevent able bodied, motivated women from serving alongside men. Any problem with women serving in combat units lies with the rest of us, not with women.  If they want to fight, let them fight!

Huffington Post: The Petraeus Affair: Why Is There No Male Equivalent for 'Mistress'?

 

		The Petraeus Affair: Why Is There No Male Equivalent for 'Mistress'?
	Colloquial English language has no word for that -- no label we use to describe the man with whom a married woman cheats. Gigolo doesn't really cover it. Lover, perhaps, but no newspaper account would use it in a situation like this because their goal is to talk about sex without directly mentioning it. Paramour? That just sounds ridiculous.

 

Sent from my iPhone