Dissolution of the Air Force -- A Nuclear Non-Proliferation Doctrine

In a brief blog at The American Prospect called "Abolish the Air Force," Robert Farley, a 33-year old assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky has taken up a cause that has become rather familiar. This was noted with much consternation by Military.Com and elsewhere. In response to invitations to comment, including Dr. Farley’s, I respectfully submit these thoughts.

The fundamental mission of the USAF has always been strategic bombing. That capability was the province of SAC, the once prestigious Strategic Air Command. Other combat commands of the Cold War era, such as TAC and ADC were, more or less, “mission impaired,” having no realistic or urgent imperative.

SAC played a major, perhaps even pivotal, role in bringing the Cold War to an end, as our primary means of implementing a strategy of “Mutually Assured Destruction,” aptly also referred to as "MAD." ICBM’s fitted with nuclear warheads were awesome and intimidating, however up to the end of the Cold War we still relied on SAC’s B-32 bombers. Although not very well known, during those years the United States kept an armada of B-52’s in the air 24-hours a day, each of which carried two nuclear weapons and sealed war orders with Soviet target designations. This presented a sobering reality to anyone watching a radar screen on the other side of the Iron Curtain. A preemptive first strike strategy was clearly out of the question. Happily, a nuclear exchange never happened.

The effectiveness of this program, variously code-named "Steel Trap,” “Chrome Dome,” etc., was demonstrated during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The airborne B-52 armada was much multiplied to back up the newly articulated “Kennedy Doctrine,” which effectively neutered any threat of missiles in Cuba, turning that Soviet initiative into a complete waste of time and money.

The efficacy of MAD was therefore tested and proven during the Cold War. It accomplished what it was supposed to; obviating the use of nuclear weapons.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War abruptly ended and SAC’s forty-year mission was accomplished. There was much euphoria and magical thinking about ridding the world of nuclear weapons, and a year later the command was dissolved. Now, sixteen years later, it seems obvious that the world will never beat its nuclear swords into plowshares. Much as we fussed about North Korea, that tinhorn regime still went ahead and evidently now has a nuclear military capability. The target of our tantrums is now Iran. However, it is unlikely that Iran can be deterred or legitimately prevented from joining the nuclear club so long as Israel, Pakistan and other nearby neighbors are permitted to maintain an offensive nuclear capability.

The present realities are these: (1) Iran cannot be prevented from going nuclear, and will probably soon have a nuclear military capability, (2) a terrorist organization with money and connections will eventually get their hands on a nuclear device, with aims of using it for its own radical and misguided purposes, and (3) so long as all we want to do is throw tantrums, there will continue to be a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the new owners of these worrisome devices will be increasingly less principled, trustworthy, and politically sophisticated. In these circumstances, are we so sure it is time to think about permanently relegating the U.S. Air Force and the MAD strategy to history? I suggest just the opposite.

I suggest it is time for the United States of America to enunciate a new doctrine, declaring that a nuclear attack on anyone, anywhere in the world, will most assuredly result, without exception, in the total destruction of the regime in the country from which it was carried out, inevitably accompanied by collateral destruction in their country at least the equal of that resulting from their attack on someone else. This would make the possession of nuclear weapons by legitimate governments irrelevant by reducing their offensive, defensive and political worth to zero.

It would also greatly reduce the threat of such devices coming into the hands of terrorists, since governments surreptitiously or passively hosting or accommodating terrorist movements would become liable for terrorist missions planned, or carried out from, within their borders. Governments otherwise willing to host or accommodate terrorist movements would clearly have to conclude that the risk of terrorists obtaining and using a nuclear device were much too great, and would be moved to prevent that from ever happening. Moreover, the most expedient way to avoid that risk would be to prevent such groups from operating within one’s borders at all.

Some might then ask, “Who designated the United States as the world’s policeman, and the only nation permitted to maintain nuclear weapons.” I believe this role could be justified in two ways.

Just before his death, Dr. Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, was prompted to leave a better legacy by a French newspaper article describing him as “the merchant of death … who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before.” He quickly revised his will, giving the bulk of his estate to establish the Nobel Prizes – awards given to “those who … shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.” In a like manner, the United States of America, the inventor of the atomic bomb – the world’s first “weapon of mass destruction” – is behooved and rightly obligated to take upon itself the responsibility of preventing its further use.

Secondly, in spite of our recent departures from these values and virtues, the United States of America is still seen as the closest man has come so far to the establishment of “liberty, and justice for all.” All people, everywhere, have a right to liberty, peace and prosperity, and freedom from the threat of death and destruction of war. It is right for the United States of America to continue championing this truth, that this hope may endure in the hearts of even the most tyrannized and oppressed.

While visiting Offutt Air Force Base several years ago, the former headquarters of the Strategic Air Command, I noticed several people wearing caps and tee shirts bearing the slogan, “SAC Will Be Back.” That was cute and nostalgic, but might also have been prophetic. Whether implemented by manned aircraft, long range missiles or from orbiting satellites, a SAC-like entity would be needed to support the doctrine suggested above. Because of its unique mission and awful responsibility, and the need for world trust, this entity should not be an integral part of our regular combat military – the Army, Navy or Marine Corps – but rather, a separate service with a unique and highly specific mission. This was essentially the description the Air Force’s Strategic Air Command at the end of the Cold War.

The day might come when economic disparities and philosophical differences dissolve, leading the world into an era of cooperation and lasting peace. That situation is nowhere within the future anyone now living can realistically anticipate. I therefore suggest that the legitimate interests of world peace and self-protection will inevitably engender the eventual adoption of a nuclear non-proliferation doctrine such as described above, and when that happens we will already have the means of implementing it, provided that the Air Force is maintained as a separate service.

Talk about its dissolution at this time is therefore premature and ill advised.

-=glw=-

More Idiocracy - Michigan to Ban Pier Jumping?

Michigan has lots of lakes, rivers and streams for people to enjoy on hot summer days. Anyone who was ever a kid understands why kids like to jump off things into the water. Here in Grand Haven, kids have been "cannonballing" into Lake Michigan off the local pier probably ever since the pier was built. But a bill recently passed in Michigan's Senate would make such jumps illegal, at least from public piers and structures along the Great Lakes and connecting waters.

Senate Bill 629, which supposedly arose as a result of meetings among officials in communities along Lake Michigan in the wake of recent drownings, would "prohibit a person from jumping, diving, or swimming from a pier, jetty, breakwater or other similar structure, or a buoy or other navigational device, that was located in the Great Lakes or their connecting waters." The bill passed the Senate on October 17, 2007 by a 35-2 vote, and was then sent to the House. If it becomes law, those jumps and dives will be punished by a fine of as much as $500.

Here is a hot flash for Lansing - Michigan has some big problems, and this is not one of them. Have you checked the unemployment figures lately? Have you driven on our rickety roads and streets lately? How about the drop-out rates from our crummy schools? Have you given any thought to the opportunities available for our maturing children, or how they'll be able to make ends meet when married with children?

I'm tired of our lazy-minded Legislature passing lame, unnecessary laws. How did you find time to debate this issue in the midst of your "budget crisis"? The Senate's vote, 35-2, is a clear indication of how much thought anyone put into this before deciding the issue. Moreover, who is doing the deciding anyway? Does anyone in the Senate have any idea what "pier jumping" really is? Have any of you ever done that, or even been out on a pier to watch what's going on?

I have. I have lived on the lakeshore all my life (67 years). Pier jumping is great fun and a wholesome activity for kids, who usually appear to be in the twelve to sixteen year age range. I suppose it happens, but I have never heard on anyone being injured or drowning while doing that. On the other hand, people do drown off the pier, but they're usually older, and either fall off or are washed over the edge in bad weather.

As for kids drowning, we loose an average of one kid a month during the summer season, usually a ten to fourteen-year-old boy from the interior or from out of state, at our bathing beaches. I don't suppose Grand Haven is unique in that respect, so given all the beaches around the state, that's a lot of dead boys and sad families. I would guess that is a much more significant problem. So why not pass a law forbidding swimming and bathing off publicly owned beaches?

Better yet, how about just passing a law against drowning. That would cover the whole gamut. It would also be typical of the depth of thinking that we have come to expect out of Lansing.

Lansing needs to understand that government does not need to address every piddling little problem found in society. You are there to work on the big problems. I suspect that the delving into these piddling little issues is really just a form of escapism practiced by a legislature that is not capable of addressing big problems effectively.

Practical Pacifism

I have become a pacifist. It has nothing to do with religious fervor or moral views. It is much simpler than that.

I was thinking about claiming that in two or three thousand years of recorded history, there has never been a single case where a war successfully resolved a problem. But on reflection, Israel's early God-directed approach seemed like a rather permanent solution; total annihilation, killing every man, woman and child, and even their animals, then turning their town into a pile of rubble that the sands of time rather quickly covered up. But what was the legacy of that? The Israel of today has few friends in its neighborhood. Fast-forwarding, it seemed like our Revolutionary War solved the problem of having to put up with colonial England's King George, and our American Civil War made it clear that the republic is indeed indivisible, and brought an end to slavery. But at what cost?

I do not know if anyone in the colonies ever did a cost analysis on the Revolutionary War. I suppose the British did. As for the Civil War, whatever the dollar figures, the bottom line was that the South was totally devastated economically, and the North was nearly bankrupted. According to Zfacts, the war in Iraq, thus far, has cost you and me $422-billion. That's a lot of money. Your share of that is about $1,406 for each member of your family. Iraq's population is about a tenth of ours, so rather than spending that money to invade their country, kill a lot of people, and wreck a lot of stuff, we could have just given each man, woman and child $15,337. That is about fifteen times the average income in Iraq, and since half the workers there are unemployed, that windfall would surely have been appreciated.

But, of course, its not just about money. According to the DOD, we have lost 3,774 of our country's best in Iraq. Nobody knows for sure what the Iraqi death toll is, but most suggest the figure is at least ten times higher than our casualty rate. That is also the approximate number of our wounded; about eight or nine people coming home with Purple Hearts for each one that comes home in a box. Much less obvious are psychological wounds. Nobody really knows the extent of that, because "real men" are apt to "suck it up," and soldiers have traditionally taken a dim view of wimps. However, based upon the thousands of returning soldiers who have sought help, the estimate is that about a third of those returning from Iraq are in need of it. If the 140,000 people we have in Iraq came home tomorrow, the shrinks would have some 46,000 new customers. That's a lot of PTSD. No doubt that figure could also be multiplied by ten to get some idea of what's going on on the Iraqi side.

And so our invasion of Iraq has been rather costly to all involved. People these days seem to embrace the philosophy that the ends justifies the means, so what have the ends been so far? We got rid of Saddam Hussein and his two crazy sons. In spite of all their hardships, few Iraqis are willing to express any regrets about that. But that's about it for the "plus" side of the picture. The government we installed to replace Saddam's regime does not work, and will probably be radically altered as soon as we get out of the way. The sanctions we engineered in the years leading up to our invasion succeeded in ruining Iraq financially, with the average family's income reduced to less than 25% of what it was in the good times, and since the invasion it's dropped even less. Let us think about that for a moment; how well could we manage an 80% pay cut? The sanctions also took a toll on Iraq's infrastructure; electricity, water, sewer and refuse removal services, and transportation. The destruction visited upon the country after the invasion did not improve that situation.

What is much worse than any of these things is the fact that we have succeeded in destroying America's credibility as a force for good in the world, and made it easy for a lot of people to hate us. That is a legacy we will have to cope with for at least a few generations. Maybe worse even than that is what we have done to our own self-respect. There are few who still cling to the belief that there was some provocation to justify the invasion of Iraq. The consensus is that contrary to the assertion that the operation was launched as a result of misunderstandings about intelligence data, it was intentionally promoted by "spin" (propaganda) and intentional misinformation (lies). Regardless of what people believe about the motives, most now see the war in Iraq as a mistake at best, and at worst, legally criminal. This really dampens one's enthusiasm for getting out to wave the flag and sing God Bless America.

So, returning to the point, can anyone argue that war is ever a sensible way to achieve political objectives?

In 1949 the U.S. Government's Department of War was renamed the Department of Defense. That was a move in the right directions, but unfortunately World War II had not dampened everyone's appetite for belligerence and enthusiasm for military adventure. While President Truman and most Americans were in the mood to embrace Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy on the inevitability of forever having to deal with bullies, "Speak softly and carry a big stick.", not everyone involved in the building of the most formidable war machine the world had ever seen was as ready to stand down. At the end of his term as President, General Eisenhower was acutely aware of this, and warned:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

The fiasco in Iraq is certainly a manifestation of President Eisenhower's worst fears, except that he had no way of envisioning an even more scary scenario - a coalition of politically conservative and religious fundamentalists crawling into bed with the powers that be in the military-industrial complex, to successfully capture the Executive Branch.

People from FreedomsWatch.Org cite their personal losses, and appeal that those will not have been suffered for no reason. They advocate "staying the course," of course. Perhaps this unfortunate experience will finally permit us to understand what President Eisenhower was trying to tell us. In that case, none of the losses, on either side, will have been suffered in vain.

[-=glw=-]

Why Larry Craig Need Not Resign

"I did not have sex with that woman!" Remember that? The President of the United States said that, looking right into the eyes of his inquisitors. In his view, that was not a lie, since he apparently never did engage in sexual intercourse with the young woman in question, which is what people usually think of as "having sex." It's called "spin." Washingtonians are very good at that - obscuring the truth, without actually telling a lie.

Larry Craig says, "I am not gay. I never have been gay." He did not say he is not bisexual, or ever got it on, or wanted to get it on, with a person of his own gender. So he's probably trying to "spin" the facts of the matter.

Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq's Prime Minister, says "... American officials ... should come to their senses." He was talking about his critics in Congress, and he is more right than he probably actually knows. That is long overdue, and not just with respect to Iraq, and not just with respect to people in Congress.

Larry Craig probably is sexually attracted to certain guys, and has probably attempted to do something about it from time to time. So what? So does Barney Franks. But Larry Craig lies, you say. So what? So does everyone else in Washington when it suits them, and we tolerate it. That's why they do it.

Let's think about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example. We know, beyond any doubt that our invasion of Iraq was originally justified by lies. Those lies have resulted in the deaths of thousands of our own military people and the injury, physically and emotionally, of tens of thousands of others - not to mention the deaths and injuries suffered by hundreds of thousands on the other side, and the hatred for America engendered in millions of others in the region. Had some other government engaged in this behavior, we would be calling their leaders "war criminals."

As for "common decency" and "family values", let's think about our admitted flaunting of the standards of decency we subscribed to regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, spinning that by calling our captives "enemy combatants," rather than POW's. Let's think about the flaunting of the principles that made our country great by our withholding from our captives the rights our founding documents declare humanity owes to any person as a matter of common decency.

Aren't any of these things enough to get anyone fed up with the George W. Bush regime? What is Congress thinking? What are we thinking?

So Larry Craig hit on some under-cover police officer in a public restroom. For that he should hang?

What was the under-cover cop doing in the restroom anyway? Isn't that a job for airport security - or even just the janitor? The cop wasn't there to protect the public, he was there to "get someone." That's what law enforcement does these days. The tag lines on the black and whites say, "To protect and serve." But there's no power or excitement I that. Fishing is a lot more fun, especially when the fish are biting. Cops like to set up situations that make it easy for people to do dumb things, so they can pounce on those who are suckered in and "get" them. They're called "sting operations." I'll bet the officer chosen for that duty was not unattractive, and was behaving in a way designed to encourage solicitations. Maybe we should come to our senses about "sting operations" also. The people we pay to protect and serve should not be coaxing others to misbehave.

Sex certainly sells. Were it not for the sexual nature of Larry Craig's faux pas, this story wouldn't have gained much attention. What if Senator Craig had, in effect, sold his office by taking millions of dollars worth of illegal, or shady, "campaign contributions." Nah, that happens all the time. That's not very interesting, and doesn't sell any papers. But the media is in the infotainment business, and sex is always good seller. We love to hear the dirt about other people. Perhaps it's because we can easily imagine ourselves in the same situation (before their having gotten caught at it, of course).

al-Maliki's right. We need to come to our senses. About a lot of things.

[-=glw=-]

"Freedoms Watch" – A Front For The Bush Gang?

Comment to freedomswatch.org
Sunday, August 26, 2007

Re: Prime Time TV Ads and Internet Video Clips
(also viewable at http://www.freedomswatch.org/video.aspx)

Emotional appeals ... scare tactics ... typical Bush Administration propaganda. If you are anything other than a front for those people, whose agenda has been thoroughly discredited by the realities and heavily criticized by people better than I, you should recheck your premises.

We have a son on his way to Afghanistan, and a son-in-law just returned from Baghdad. Thankfully, they have managed to stay out of harms way so far. But if it happens that they too eventually become casualties, I will lay the blame at the feet of those who hijacked the White House and maneuvered our country into what future generations will surely see as one of the most shameful episodes in our history.

I will by no means support your position … that only through an eventual military victory can we be justified, save face, or otherwise provide some meaning for the casualties we have already suffered. If all the harm and heartache we have caused, for ourselves and those living in the countries we've invaded, is to ever have any meaning, perhaps it'll be that these sacrifices finally brought us all to realize that killing people and wrecking their stuff is a very ignorant approach to winning friends and positively influencing people.

My old elementary school teachers (late 1940's; early 1950's) taught us patriotism. Every morning we held our little hands over our hearts, faced the flag, and recited the Pledge of Allegiance, then sang "God Bless America", "My Country 'tis of Thee" or "The Star-Spangled Banner." They also taught us that citizenship in a wonderful republic like this was a great blessing that few others in the world had ever known, but carried with it some great responsibilities. Among those was the duty to become educated so that we would be capable of voting intelligently and responsibly, and able to function successfully as good neighbors and contributing members of our society. A second duty was to remain ever watchful over our governments, lest they fall into the hands of people whose agendas risked all those things that made our country such a wonderful place, and a light to the world.

We've come a long way since then, haven't we? A long way in the wrong direction.

[-=glw=-]