Gene Fish's Blog, page 4
March 20, 2017
The Political Coloring of the Military
In a modern democracy, the commander in chief, the president of our country, is given the power to exercise supreme operational command and control of our military forces due to the doctrine of civilian control of the military. It is a prerequisite of a liberal democracy (in which the opposite of it—meaning the military has control of national politics—is called a military dictatorship) and follows the Clausewitzian view that stresses the moral and political aspects of war having a huge impact on the country’s citizens. In other words, according to military historian Richard H. Kohn, “The point of civilian control is to make security subordinate to the larger purposes of a nation, rather than the other way around. The purpose of the military is to defend society, not to define it.”
The leash of the great military power of the United States lies in the hands of the president who could be from either of the two major political parties—or, indeed, from any party that can garner enough citizen support—of our country, whose members can either be a majority or a minority in the senate and congress that have a say in approving the budget for these military operations. “He who holds the purse strings, rules the house, the nation, the world,” said J. Reuben Clark, and his quote is especially apt when it comes to the superpower that is the United States of America.
Knowing this fact has made many Americans wary of the government sending troops to engage in anything which is not directly impacting them at the time. Examples of this concept can be seen in the conflict we were stuck in with the forces of North Vietnam and with the current war on terror being fought in Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East. Although the United States was attacked by Islamic terrorists when they flew passenger jets into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, we haven’t seen such high-profile activity for nearly sixteen years, so there is little perceived reason to worry.
Although the Constitution provides that the command of the United States Army be given to the commander in chief, there is also a provision where the president can create executive departments, and this is the basis for the creation of the Department of Defense. President Donald Trump selected retired Marine general James “Mad Dog” Mattis as our new secretary of defense. General Mattis is recognized as being highly qualified for the job of leading our military establishment even though there is opposition to his appointment. The opposition appears to be based upon the fact that General Mattis comes from a military background, a background which should cause Americans to cheer that their military is being led by someone who has been there and can take orders from his commander in chief. For far too long, civilian leaders of our military have been selected—and some served with distinction—from academia, industry, the law, and government. A strong military needs a strong leadership, and that is what President Trump has in his Department of Defense.
Civilian leaders have motivations and incentives to alter military operations and strategy, according to a dissertation by political scientist Carrie Lee, but then, it becomes less clear how their wants are translated down through the chain of command, all the way to the battlefield. The battlefield is no place for second-guessing the field commanders, as we saw in Vietnam. Civilian leaders with good political intentions caused many causalities in American and South Vietnamese forces by placing more weight on the political aspects of the situation than on the military conditions in the field. Although civilian leaders are expected to control the military, it is next to impossible for the executive branch to monitor the soldiers on the battlefield, especially in real time. Civilian leaders, despite the ability and willingness to intervene in military operations, bow to domestic pressure but employ strategies to make them more appealing to the domestic audience. But which audience does the government want to appeal to? This is where political colors begin to affect the decision-making of the different branches of the military.
This strategy of appealing to the domestic audience of choice did not come about until the Vietnam War, where Americans of both political colors were able to view the war right in their living rooms and were horrified of the cost.
So in recent times, political machinations interfere with the military to ensure politically palatable outcomes. They are motivated by organizational concerns, bureaucratic preferences, and personal ambitions, resulting in decision-making that seldom considers how operational and tactical levels of war will affect domestic electoral concerns.
But this comes at a price, as casualty counts determine how important a war is to the nation and the continuing of the war effort. Is the cost of life because of the political leanings of a government to appease the public worth it? Will the United States continue to endure large numbers of casualties before the government starts thinking about those soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen on the field, pursuing the policies of different administrations? When will they be considered as more than cannon fodder, but as valuable citizens worthy of total support of the government and American people? Time will tell, but for now, we have a new administration. Let’s see where President Trump and his cabinet lead.
The post The Political Coloring of the Military appeared first on Gene Fish.
March 13, 2017
Understanding Humor
Life becomes easier with a sense of humor. It is a useful tool when faced with difficult situations. Imagine all the good it can do: A witty comment can make the weary forget the weight of their problems. A hilarious punch line can knock the wind out of the irate. A strategic blasting of flatulence can loosen up a tense meeting or prompt an early dismissal (depends on whether the bomb is biological or nuclear). The ability to tell a joke makes one seem smarter and more carefree. It gives people an impression that a funny person is someone who thinks on their feet. To use humor effectively, we need to understand its qualities.
Wit is the root of all humor. Everyone has wit because everyone has a brain. Think that stand-up comedians have more wit than an average guy? Well . . . yes. Yes, they do. But that doesn’t mean a comedian’s brain is bigger. It just means that they’ve cultivated their wit. See, the difference between a comedian and a regular funny person is the skill in setting up a joke. The latter relies on engaging in a serious conversation and waiting for the right time to drop a witty remark, while a comedian prepares a joke from scratch, complete with premise, promise, and punch line. Their single-minded dedication in practicing a joke sharpens their mind, exercises their funny bone, and trains their wit to perfect alertness. That’s what got Louis C.K. bald. Okay, I’m just kidding. It’s because he’s past fifty. (Let’s face it, Louie. That’s true.)
At times, the tickle of humor can become a painful prick. There is a fine line between being funny and being mean. Sometimes we go too far, our jokes become hurtful, and every laugh bloats our ego and echoes around the shame of our victim, isolating them in the spotlight for ridicule. Constantly abusing others is nothing more than mere bullying done to gain temporary bliss and hollow delight. Know when to draw the line.
Making a joke is only half the fun. There is also the receiving end—the stooge, the ass. Max Eastman, author of The Sense of Humor, once wrote, “It is the ability to take a joke—not make one—that proves you have a sense of humor.” Someone who cannot take a joke is no fun at all. A heckler commenting on the similarities of a hippopotamus and your momma? Laugh it off. The capacity to take a joke without getting offended is grounded on the understanding and acceptance of one’s place in the world.
Life is hard. Why make it worse? Hone your sense of humor and enjoy life with a good laugh.
The post Understanding Humor appeared first on Gene Fish.
March 6, 2017
Air Force Flight Operations Are Not Always Serious
Though I fly through the valley of death, I shall fear no evil. For I am at 80,000 feet and climbing!
—Entrance sign to an old SR-71 operating base
There’s a time for seriousness and a time for fun. Like all good organizations, working in an enjoyable environment can make people more dedicated to their job. The United States Air Force is no exception. Sure, discipline is expected because it is a military organization after all, but discipline does not need to dampen the mood for fun. It only makes it more refined.
Let’s take their communications as an example. In movies, you know how pilots—when transmitting via radio—often talk in a calm and confident way? That manner of speaking is real in the Air Force, and for no good reason other than to sound cool. This vocal tradition started with Chuck Yaeger—a WWII American fighter pilot who is the first to have exceeded the speed of sound and broken the sonic barrier. The pilots that came after Yaeger emulated his articulation, and the skill has been passed down through generations of aviators.
Air traffic controllers also have their own speaking style, but unlike the pilots, they got it from NASA’s flight control center in Houston, and they have it for a purpose—to convey confidence and control over any situation. It is the controller’s job to give advice to pilots, who most likely will panic if their engines are on fire. After all, a controller can’t say, “Oh my god! The engines are on fire!” That’s the pilot’s line.
Air Force Fun
Speaking of pilot-controller interaction, Brian Shul, a Vietnam veteran and retired major in the US Air Force, witnessed a legendary mic-drop moment during his time as an SR-71 Blackbird pilot. (The SR-71 holds the world record for the fastest-manned aircraft.) Brian included this story in his book, Sled Driver. Since the book is no longer in print, here is a shortened version of what happened:
Brian and his copilot, Walter Watson, were flying their SR-71 back to base after having completed their final training sortie. As they had nothing better to do, they began monitoring their radio. They were above Los Angeles Center’s airspace so most of the radio chatter came from there. They listened as a Cessna pilot asked Center for a readout of his ground speed. Center, using the calm voice of controllers, replied, “November Charlie 175, I’m showing you at ninety knots on the ground.”
After the Cessna’s inquiry, a Twin Beech piped up on frequency, in a rather superior tone, asking for his ground speed. “I have you at one hundred and twenty-five knots of ground speed,” came Center’s reply.
Out of the blue, a Navy F-18 pilot chimed in on the radio. “Center, Dusty 52 ground speed check.” This got Brian wondering why Dusty 52 asked Center for a readout when F-18s have ground speed indicators in their cockpits, then he realized that Dusty wanted every puke to know that he’s the fastest bird in the air that day. “Dusty 52, Center, we have you at six hundred twenty on the ground.”
It was this time that Brian heard Walter turn his mic on. Very professionally and without any emotion, Walter spoke, “Los Angeles Center, Aspen 20, can you give us a ground speed check?” And the reply came as if it was an everyday request, “Aspen 20, I show you at one thousand eight hundred and forty-two knots across the ground.”
In that brief moment, Walter became a god, the Air Force overruled the Navy, and all aircraft bowed down to the superiority of the SR-71.
“Ah, Center, much thanks, we’re showing closer to nineteen hundred on the money,” Walter said in the same Yaeger voice he used earlier. Both SR-71 pilots heard a rare crack in the controller’s voice when Center replied, “Roger that Aspen, your equipment is probably more accurate than ours. You boys have a good one.”
The post Air Force Flight Operations Are Not Always Serious appeared first on Gene Fish.
