Nobody wins when everyone's losing. (updated)

General (that's one-two-three-four stars) Stanley McChrystal has caught a lot of hell this week over a report he sent to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates requesting a boost in the number of troops assisting in Afghanistan. (unclassified report here) By the language he uses, referencing previous denied requests for troops, I am suspecting he is going to be asking for something in the vicinity of thousands. Like perhaps 10,000+ new troops for Afghanistan.

After my quick read of the report, I've been able to figure out that Gen. McChrystal thinks we are not doing so hot at fighting the insurgency because: (1)we are failing to snuggle up to the people and make them get used to us and like us the way an insurgency is supposed to be "fought", (2) we're not keeping Afghanistan's leadership honest and corruption-free, and (3) we are not managing the prisons and detention camps appropriately, so that they've basically become collectives for new insurgents.

General Stanley McChrystal would like you to know: we suck at Afghanistan.

But THAT isn't what got him in trouble this week. What got him in trouble was saying that if we didn't get these troops into Afghanistan within twelve months we "risk an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible," and our efforts "are likely to result in mission failure."

I'll admit that language shocked me too-"mission failure"-but then I had to think about it. I had to think pretty hard, too.

(edited) What does "mission failure" mean in Afghanistan? The way I understand mission failure is that it occurs whenever you do not achieve mission success. So what does "mission success" mean in Afghanistan? I dug back into that report and I notice on page 2-20 there is paragraph called "V. Assessments: Measuring Progress" that basically announces that ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) needs to come up with some goals and some metrics to determine what "progress" means. In other words the criteria for"mission success" have not been defined yet. Either that or the top NATO commander in Afghanistan has not been informed of them.

(updated) Let me reiterate my definition of mission failure: mission failure occurs when you fail to accomplish your mission. If there is no definition for mission success, then there is no definition for mission failure.

So I don't think there is such a thing as "mission success" and I think that also means that there is such a thing as "mission failure" in Afghanistan. And if you think that increasing casualties, a turning civilian population, a corrupt government, and a growing insurgency in prisons can be "mission failure", then we've already failed the mission.

(updated) General McChrystal also writes in his report on page 1-4 that "resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing can lose it." Here, he is still talking about losing a war that there is no criteria for winning or losing. This might be tricky: mission success does not result from avoiding a loss in the war. It works the other way around. This request is about having enough troops to prolong the conflict, because with the situation the way it is (not on the ground, but on the mission orders) this war is literally "un-winnable." By General McChrystal's own words, these extra troops will only stave off defeat, but will not win the conflict.

This reminded me of something.

A few weeks ago, I was orienting a group of ROTC cadets to a paint ball arena on their first bout with another team. I told them the strategy they needed was simply this: WIN!

I told them a little bit about how to do it. The exercise was to communicate, move and shoot. Just like daddy did it, and just like his daddy did it. They listened to that advice a little bit, but they all liked hearing me say that all we had to do was "WIN!"

And it worked too. Out of a total of a dozen or so bouts in two weeks of paint ball I only lost one of them. I told each of them the same thing and they all fought in about the same way. But there wasn't much guiding them other than my one-word strategy.

The fighting continued until one side was completely wiped out, or time ran out. Whoever held the most ground, or "killed" the most of their adversaries by the end "won" the bout. Sometimes, it wasn't clear who had won, and I merely claimed victory for my side out of pride and habit.

So I think this is what decides a mission's outcome when there are no criteria for success or failure. Sometimes, one entire side is going to get killed off, which can take a long time to do in Afghanistan. Or maybe one side is eventually just going to claim victory and everybody can move on to the next bout.

But, unfortunately, there isn't anyone holding a clock to let us know when we reach the "time-limit" in our big match in Afghanistan. And meanwhile, General McChrystal is doing his best to make sure we don't "lose".

Never Forget

The intentions of this blog being what they are, it would be absolutely negligent of me not to remark on the tragedy eight years ago.

The 9/11 attacks are a substantial historical benchmark in the United States and in many other parts of the world. They have had social, cultural, and political implications everywhere in part because of the nature of the attacks themselves, but also because some of the world-changing events that have followed.

So we say "Never Forget" in remembrance of 9/11, but what are we pledged never to forget?

3,017 people died or are presumed dead in the 9/11 attacks themselves. We will never forget them.

More than 4,000 troops have been killed in "War on Terror" operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11. We should never forget them either.

Other actions in the "War on Terror", either by troops or terrorists, have cost an estimated 62,006 people their lives as well. If the "War on Terror" is a direct response to the 9/11 attacks, perhaps we should not forget them either.

I've tried to filter my thoughts about 9/11 through the three personae I attempt to use in this blog in remembrance of all of these that have lost their lives as a result, and as an exercise in developing my own thoughts about the attributes of each character.

The Soldier is ashamed of 9/11. It is the Soldier's duty to protect the people from attackers who would harm the innocent. The soldier would trade his life for any of the civilians who died at the World Trade Center. Many Soldiers died at the Pentagon in the act of serving their country on duty. The Soldier's loyalty is to his comrades-in-arms and the people he protects. The Soldier never forgets because he refuses to let any more harm come to the people he is pledged to defend.

The Citizen demands answers for the attacks on 9/11. It is the Citizen's duty to ensure that the government is prepared to provide for the defense the country, and to demand that a proper course of action be taken to prevent an attack from happening again. The 9/11 commission investigated and made a report documenting the events of 9/11 and making recommendations for ensuring the future defense of the United States. The Citizen watches his leadership and does his part to contribute to the well-being of the nation, any way he can. The Citizen never forgets because his memory will serve as the motivation to demand answers from his leaders and ensure that they perform their task of defending the state.

The Human Being weeps for those who were killed in the attacks, and for every person who was killed on their behalf in retribution. The Human Being weeps for the humiliations and torture performed in prisons and detention centers in the name of justice or in the name of self-preservation or defense. The Human Being's duty is compassion for his fellow man and taking care to preserve their rights to life and freedom, as the Human Being enjoys naturally. The Human Being never forgets, because the death of another man should be the thing that affects him the most, and the torture of another man, or restriction of his natural rights is suffering almost unbearable to observe.

I won't forget 9/11.

9/11 is one of the reasons I do what I do, and one of the reasons I write here in this diary.

Right place, right time, right uniform.

"...right place, right time, right uniform..."

Those were the words spoken to me by a Command Sergeant Major I came to know after some time spent in his battalion. He was giving a squad of us junior soldiers advice on how to get to the level he had achieved in his career, and become a Sergeant Major. "All I've had to do is be in the right place, at the right time, in the right uniform," he said. It's a oft-repeated guideline to success for troops in the Army.

Many went home that night thinking, "is that all I have to do?"

I went home that night thinking something very similar. "Is that all somebody has to do to become a Command Sergeant Major?" This seemed like a troubling thought.

Here's my problem. I think that in any organization, the cream of the talent should rise to the top. People get promoted on their merit and succeed to higher and higher ranks and positions. The people at the top should be the best at what they do. A CEO should be the most capable to lead a company successfully, understanding every aspect of his business. A Command Sergeant Major should be capable in every aspect of "sergeant's business": training and leading troops, preparing them for combat and moving them in their formations.

Is the pinnacle of "sergeant's business" being in the "right place, at the right time, in the right uniform?" I suggest that there is more to it. Or there ought to be.

After a seven-year suspension, the Army Qualitative Management Program (QMP) is being reinstated. The QMP will assess around 19,000 senior NCOs and determine whether it is desirable to have these NCOs at the very top of enlisted leadership. This shouldn't sound crazy. Page 1 of Army Field Manual 601-280 states that the number one goal of the Army Retention Program is to

"Reenlist, on a long term basis, sufficient numbers of highly qualified Active Army soldiers"

We want the very best to stay in. The highest qualified are the most desirable. When I was trained in Army retention, the "highly qualified" describer was emphasized as one our most important criteria for a reenlistment candidate. It was more important than meeting retention mission requirements. It was more important than anything that had anything to do with retention.

What the QMP is looking for is senior NCOs who have records of misconduct. Things like DUIs, removals from leadership positions for cause, failure to complete necessary schooling or failure to perform well on regular evaluations (NCOERs). These NCOs that are identified as undesirable will be given the option to apply for immediate retirement. If they do not choose to retire, they will be separated within six months. That's the deal.

The senior NCOs being targeted and identified by the QMP are NCOs I would not categorize as "highly qualified" for retention. I think the QMP is a good thing. If it manages to do what it is supposed to do than I think it can eliminate a few of the Command Sergeants Major out there who believe that in order to succeed, you only need to be in the "right place, at the right time, in the right uniform."

There is still something more to be said here. How do we find ourselves with enlisted leaders in the senior NCO grades that have DUIs or letters of reprimand in their background? Why is the QMP even necessary? Why was it suspended for seven years? I suppose there is still a problem with the overall promotion scheme, beginning at the lowest levels. This is a problem I am still trying to work out my own explanation for, and so you'll have to wait for another episode.

-Soldier

Army "Buddies"

A few months ago my wife and I had some friends over for a barbecue at my house. They were (still are) a nice couple with a young son in school, whose father I had begun working with in the late summer. He was a great guy, our kids got along fine, and our wives did as well. It was a good fit all around. We had spent almost one night each weekend at each other's homes for supper and coffee for the last few months and I was beginning to see that these were folks who I could expect to know as friends for a long time.

I believe it is like that in the Army. Despite grand distances and great lengths of time between visits you will usually refer to people you've met along the way and your Army "buddies", and along with their families you think of them as friends. This guy was now my buddy, and our families were now friends.

My buddy had the honor of receiving an award in Washington D.C. at a formal reception attended by many high ranking Army officers. There were many impressive names you would know being in the army in attendance. People I refer to as "Army rock stars" when they're not around, and "Sir" or "General" when they are. He and his wife were seated next to a rock star and his wife at the gala, and the ladies were chit-chatting.

My friend was talking about all of the wonderful friends she'd made along the way traveling with her Army husband. When she said the word "friends" the general's wife began to correct her. She explained that there was a difference between "friends" and "acquaintances" and that one ought to be more distinct about who she referred to as a friend. "Friends" were lifelong companions like the ones you met in school and continue to see all the time, and what my friend encountered in her travels with her husband in the Army were "acquaintances." Apparently, she had been able to convince my friend of her point of view, for a short while anyway. Meanwhile I had been sitting across from her nervous that I might be an "acquaintance" of the only couple I had been able to make "friends" with in the area. My wife assures me that she was able to reassure our friend that we would be the type of "friends" she could look forward to having for quite a while. To this day we are really close to that couple.

I bring all this up to say that I'm very sad for that general's wife who has no friends but is proud of her large pool of acquaintances. I believe this has something to do with her involvement in her husband's career, where it is likely that she and he both are compelled to socialize with folks for professional reasons, and not necessarily to spend time with people they like and enjoy. A large part of their professional lives has bled into their personal social life. I imagine as a general there is a large part of the job that takes place outside of the office. Not necessarily on the golf course like you see in movies (although it could be possible) but at functions, ceremonies, etc.

I evaluated my own social relationships with folks I worked with using this new categorizing system of "friends" and "acquaintances." I realized that I have very few "acquaintances" (a term I've never liked using to begin with) and many many dear friends who are either my Army "buddies" or their families and I look forward to meeting with them whenever I can. I'm glad to say that I have these people in my life, even if it means I'll never get to be a general.

Even by Albany standards

I don't have a whole lot of commentary for this one but I think it's necessary to bear witness to the reindeer games going on this week in the New York state Senate. The thrust of it is that two renegade state senators have flipped the majority body upside down and bogged down the last scheduled week of the session with drama and intrigue. This last week of the session also happens to be the most important week in the legislature as the body reputedly does 30-40% of it's work during this important week. In addition to this, NY Governor David Patterson has set a state gay marriage vote in the lap of the legislature, to be voted on, yea or nay, before the session is over. But instead of earning their paychecks this week, this is what has happened...

On Monday, June 8, 2009, Democrat Senators Pedro Espada Jr. (Bronx) and Hiram Monserrate (Queens) participate in a leadership vote for the state Senate, joining with the Republican minority to form a brand new majority and naming Sen. Espada the new Senate president. They say they are not switching parties but merely voting for leadership reform. Watching this happen the Democrats try to adjourn to shut the leadership vote down, but fail. Blind-sided and probably embarrassed, the "former" Democratic majority split, leaving the Senate floor, locking the doors and shutting off the lights. Then they went to their lawyers to see if a judge couldn't give them their majority back. Here is a blow-by-blow of the Senate proceedings on Monday.

Governor Patterson comes out against the Senate and their shenanigans telling them to "act like adults" and calling the whole process "ridiculous" and "despicable" and saying they they had humiliated government "even by Albany standards" which is evidently a thing people say here in the Empire State. While he initially decided to recognize the former Senate majority leader, Malcolm Smith, he said later on Wednesday that he wanted the Senators to get back in the chamber, take a vote, and he would go with whoever they decided. He admits that he has no legal power to make things happen in this dispute. Based on communications between Governor Patterson and the state legislature, I detect that he doesn't get along too well with them, but he's no favorite of theirs either. He has been bopping them on the heads about the budget all year (and ever since he's been governor for that matter).

As of yesterday, the NY Senate has been holding sessions with 30 Republicans and the 2 Democrat defectors (dems from the former majority don't even show up), although Monserrate seems to be on the fence about his decision still. The new majority has had trouble keeping him in the chamber and it is uncertain whether he is really committed to this new coalition.

What I find spectacular is that every article you can find about this fiasco is sure to mention the iffy reputations of the two defecting Democrats. It is often announced that Senator Espada has had trouble keeping his hands out of charity funds in order to finance his political campaigns and Monserrate was arrested last year for slashing his girlfriend in the face with a broken glass. So, not exactly the classiest of characters participating in this coup, but I wonder if these two are representative of the rest of the folks working the Senate in Albany. Governor Patterson's "even by Albany standards" quote seems very appropriate.

It is also remarkable that Espada, as the newly elected Senate President, is next in line for Governor Patterson's job if anything bad should happen to him. Patterson himself seems to break the mold of a NY politician, relatively clean compared to Elliot Spitzer, his predecessor, who resigned in the wake of a call-girl scandal, and Pedro Espada Jr., the embezzling turncoat Senator who could be the governor in a heartbeat.

My larger question is: what the heck is going on in state governments? I mean, this is typically the resource pool for the manpower we get at the national leadership level, right? Not too long ago the President himself was a state senator (who himself attributes his election to the Illinois Senate to a scandal and some luck).
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. I'm an outsider to NY politics so this all seems very amusing, but when I reflect on the state where I was born, we elected the Terminator in a contest that also included celebrity Gary Coleman and about a thousand other candidates in a news-making circus election season. But I also have to reflect on Governor Rick Perry's antics from Texas with his recent comments about state secession and the like.

What in the world is going on?

Cap-and-trade is so hot right now.

Let me get this strait…

We cap carbon emissions as a desirable level. Then we issue tradable pollution permits. How this is done is an important step which I can address in a footnote but I’m going to move on.

The tradable permits have a price. That price determines whether it is going to be worthwhile to stop polluting or reduce emissions. If it costs less to buy a permit than reduce my emissions (technology, lost revenue), I’m buying that permit! If it costs more to buy a permit than user cleaner technology, then I’m going to clean up my plant or reduce output to control my emissions.

All this settles out to a sexy little efficient scenario where all the people who can easily reduce emissions will do so and those who can’t won’t do it. The costs of reducing emissions will the lowest it can be and the annual carbon emissions level will be set at…whatever… [edit: whatever congress/EPA feels like it should be set at]

So everybody’s good right?

Wrong. Everybody feels good. We are cutting emissions! Sure we are-in some places. In other places plants are just buying the permits so they can drive on. They pass the expense on to their customers and the bills go up in neighborhoods where the plant can’t cost-effectively lower the pollution output.

Meanwhile, while everybody has got their fuzzies from carbon control legislature, a constant flow of carbon-dioxide is going into the air albeit measured and “capped.” Perhaps it is assumed that every year we get a new atmosphere with a baseline amount of carbon-dioxide, and we can add to it a certain amount each year and then switch it out for a new one next year.

This is the Keeling Curve. It measures carbon-dioxide content of the atmosphere at Mauna Loa, HI in parts per million.

Notice something? That’s right, it goes up. More and more carbon-dioxide is put into the atmosphere every year. If you believe in the greenhouse affect and the theory of global climate change, this is a bad thing.

Okay, straw man effectively knocked out. Let me make a real argument. What if I told you the carbon-dioxide was necessary for plant life on Earth. It’s literally plant food. Plants do not exist without carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere. Well heck, put more of the stuff in the atmosphere. All that will happen is more plants will grow or they will grow bigger of faster.

Okay. Fine.

This is the Keeling Curve. Notice something? That’s right, it goes up. Which means more carbon-dioxide is going into the atmosphere. Some is getting taken out, but there is still a net increase in the amount of carbon-dioxide going up there. Carbon is going up at the rate of a smoke stack but is getting sucked back out at the pace of leaf growth. I’ve watched leaves grow. It takes a long time. Please don’t be so amused by the “cap” that you forget to ask where what’s left over is going to go.

We can argue that the biosphere will catch up...leaf growth is still growth, right? Finding the balance is the key. When we can emit as much carbon as will grow in foliage each year, there should be a balance, right? Right?

Well. What does your equilibrium state look like? (I prefer not to use loaded language, so I’ll go ahead and use images) The point is there has to be an eventual end-state to all of this extra plant food.

Something ought to be done that doesn’t just result in a steady flow of carbon each year to add to the world’s problems. The answer is reaching a carbon output level that is EXACTLY parallel to the natural amount of carbon that is naturally released into the atmosphere. That is to say: rotting detritus and chemical exchange on the surface of water. This means a switch to ZERO emission energy generation like wind and solar energy. If I must go on, I’ll do it in another segment.

For now, suffice it to say that I’m not really cap-and-trade kind of guy. Nice thought, but long-run ineffective.

I still owe you that footnote. Here goes. The question is whether the government issues permits free or auctions. I’m not going to triple-check my info for a foot-note but it looks like recent cap-and-trade legislation is talking about a mix of free permits and auctioned permits. 15% will be auctioned if memory serves.

If the government issues permits free, then NOBODY cuts emissions. They’ve got permits now for whatever they pollute. In addition to this, now they’ve got something to sell-for FREE. Environmental groups will probably be the only market for these permits which can be sold when better technology comes about to clean up pollution (which it should and will-it always does). The price will be low if not zero for these permits when they are sold.

Now auctioning off the permits actually has the desired affect of accomplishing exactly what I’ve described above. It actually does cause incentive to change technologies or find another way to lower emissions, because you’ve got to PAY to pollute. I think I also made it clear why that’s a lame idea.

Anyway, perhaps they’re thinking of a smooth middle ground. Meet up half way. Because as anyone who has passed third grade math will tell you, 15% is totally a good half-way point.

Anyhow, toodles. Sorry so long.

-SCS

My recent letter to the President

Mr. President,

I write to you in frustration at your hesitation to take action against the Department of Defense “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy. As I write this letter, many like me are demonstrating their support online for 1LT Daniel Choi who is the most recent and perhaps most notorious service member being separated from the service because of the statements he made regarding his sexuality.

Daniel Choi is a friend of mine, but not the first to be separated under the DADT policy. SGT Bleu Copas, who I attended language school with, was also separated under DADT. Both of these men are dedicated soldiers, capable linguists and outstanding Americans. Their expulsion from the U.S. Army is regrettable and shameful.

You have stated yourself that “equality is a moral imperative,” and have declared the repeal of DADT to be a measure of equality for gay Americans. Recently, your White House agenda page referring to this issue has diluted its language to remind us that the task of repeal must be done in a sensible way. I ask how it is possible to wait for a sensible way to resolve an issue that is a “moral imperative.”

While I understand a little about the nature of the barriers you face in successfully gaining repeal of DADT, I am frustrated that your apparent support for this “moral imperative” has been little more than a note of solidarity to 2LT Sandy Tsao and similar utterances I have noticed in the news. I wonder how you honestly intend to use the “bully pulpit” you pledged to use to call for repeal of DADT. I have noticed no bullying behavior and have seen you behind no pulpits calling explicitly for repeal.

My wife and I both voted for you last year, and we do not regret that decision. I am not a single-issue voter although your actions in addressing this issue will be a part of my future decision making. I feel that your inaction on this issue, and failure to address it in a public way, as you pledged, degrades your credibility and your promise to me. Perhaps my greatest frustration is that you cannot or will not act on a seemingly easy issue from the vantage of a very high moral ground; and why not?

I beg you to take some action towards fulfillment of this very powerful pledge of yours for equality. To send some signal that you are interested in affecting a real change and not just sympathetic to the poor policy’s victims, rejecting the position that you lack any real control over the policy mechanism. If you were extremely bold, you might find a way to block or hinder the discharge of Daniel Choi, despite the DADT policy. Please don’t just send an apology note.

In closing, I would like to repeat some words that I am sure you are already familiar with. While you hesitate in making a difference with regards to DADT, and you let the system remain undisturbed, let the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. remind you that “we will have repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” I pray that you or I will not have to repent for your continued inaction against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.


With absolute greatest respect,

-S.C.S.