Reimagining College Football

CONTENTS

Column

Readers' Comments

Updates

Sources
Football Update Stories
Last Saturday (Oct. 17) The Gazette published a column of mine, reproduced below. In it I offer a sampling of examples of how removing college football from the academy and operating it as a for-profit corporation would benefit every stakeholder (such as, university presidents, faculty, athletic directors, coaches, players, NFL, fans, advertisers, casinos and sports gambling).

Little did I imagine that this past week's news would provide even more evidence supporting this approach. Here are some stories -- and links to them if you want more details. They include:

o additional football related "diversity, equity, and inclusion" charges and $20 million lawsuit, now associated with the University, at a time when the UI is dealing with its own similar charges and defections.

o a major additional source of, and focus on, COVID-19 concerns when Iowa's failures in dealing with the pandemic make it among the most dangerous states in the country and the University has not been among the best in dealing with it.

o an association of the University of Iowa with the major politically divisive kurfuffle involving football players kneeling during the National Anthem at ball games

o University favoritism of athletes over other students, including a $230,000 bill for their hotel accomodations

Jeff Johnson, "Former Iowa football players threaten lawsuit, demand $20 million, firing of Gary Barta, Kirk and Brian Ferentz; University of Iowa rejects the demands," The Gazette (online), October 18, 2020 ("Eight former University of Iowa football players are demanding monetary compensation from the school and the firing of Hawkeyes head coach Kirk Ferentz, offensive coordinator Brian Ferentz and athletics director Gary Barta for intentional race discrimination, it was learned Sunday.") https://www.thegazette.com/subject/sports/hawkeyes/iowa-football/former-hawkeye-football-players-threaten-lawsuit-demand-20-million-firing-of-gary-barta-kirk-and-brian-ferentz-20201018
and see, Jeff Johnson, "Lawyer of 8 former Iowa football players asking for money and dismissals of Ferentzes and Barta responds; Iowa said it will not cede to his demands," The Gazette (online), October 19, 2020 (noting, "Iowa conducted an independent investigation of its football program over the summer through a Kansas City law firm, after many former Black Iowa players went on social media and expressed their negative experiences at the school, especially with strength and conditioning coach Chris Doyle.") https://www.thegazette.com/subject/sports/hawkeyes/iowa-football/lawyer-of-8-former-iowa-football-players-asking-for-money-and-dismissals-of-ferentzes-and-barta-responds-20201019

Jeff Johnson, "Purdue football coach Jeff Brohm out for game against Iowa after testing positive for COVID-19," The Gazette (online), October 19, 2020 "[Purdue head football coach Jeff] Brohm is the eighth FBS [Football Bowl Subdivision] head coach to contract COVID-19, joining Kansas’ Les Miles, Florida’s Dan Mullen, Florida State’s Mike Norvell, Toledo’s Jason Candle, Arkansas State’s Blake Anderson, UCLA’s Chip Kelly and Arizona’s Kevin Sumlin. . . . The Big Ten’s rules call for any player testing positive to be out of action for 21 days, while coaches are subject to regular CDC recommendations, which are for a 10-day self isolation.") https://www.thegazette.com/subject/sports/hawkeyes/iowa-football/purdue-football-coach-jeff-brohm-out-for-saturdays-game-against-iowa-after-testing-positive-for-covid-20201019

Jeff Johnson, "Iowa football players will have the option to kneel or stand for national anthem," The Gazette (online), October 20, 2020; in print edition as "Hawks Have a Say," October 23, 2020, p. B1 ("Some Iowa Hawkeyes football players will kneel for the national anthem Saturday at Purdue to call attention to racial inequality and social justice. . . . Head coach Kirk Ferentz confirmed that players will have the option to kneel or stand for the anthem. The team’s leadership group met with him three different times to talk about it. The football program, of course, was the subject of an independent investigation to look into accusations by former and current players of racial inequalities and bullying during Ferentz’s 22-year tenure as head coach. Strength and conditioning coach Chris Doyle lost his job, albeit with a $1.1-million settlement, and the investigation found that program rules 'perpetuated racial or cultural biases and diminished the value of cultural diversity.'”) https://www.thegazette.com/subject/sports/hawkeyes/iowa-football/hawkeye-football-players-will-have-the-option-to-kneel-or-stand-for-national-anthem-at-saturdays-season-opener-20201020

Jeff Johnson, "With Iowa football season finally here, daily testing and 'doing the right thing' can help it endure," The Gazette (online), October 23, 2020; in print edition as "COVID Football; Hawks return to field needing to do 'the right thing,'" October 24, 2020, p. B1 ("This is just the beginning of what . . . every player, coach and other personnel within the Iowa football program do on a daily basis during this surreal and delayed COVID-19 season. . . . This is nine straight weeks of games, with no byes. At least that’s what everyone hopes. COVID-19 might have other ideas. No one knows how this actually will turn out. No one.") https://www.thegazette.com/subject/sports/hawkeyes/iowa-football/with-iowa-football-season-finally-here-daily-testing-and-doing-the-right-thing-can-help-it-endure-20201023

Erin Jordan, "University of Iowa athletics spends $230K on hotel stays for coronavirus-positive student-athletes; Other University of Iowa students who test positive stay in residence halls," The Gazette, Oct. 10, 2020, print edition p. A1 ("The University of Iowa Athletic Department has spent more than $230,000 since June putting about 180 COVID-19-positive student-athletes up in hotel rooms and paying for their food. . . . The UI paid another $40,983 on per diem payments for student-athlete food while they were in hotel isolation.) https://www.thegazette.com/subject/sports/hawkeyes/university-of-iowa-coronavirus-covid-19-costs-athletes-hawkeye-football-20201020

Treat College Football Like Big Business
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, October 17, 2020, p. A6
In our capitalist, entertain-me society football will not, and need not, disappear. It just needs to stop being the muscular tail that wags the academic dog.

In 1906, when college football was killing 15 to 20 players a year, and permanently disabling 150 more, President Teddy Roosevelt told college presidents he’d outlaw the sport unless they made it safer. Reluctantly, they agreed to require helmets and organized what became today’s NCAA.

In 1939, University of Chicago President Robert Hutchins considered the school’s football team a distraction, scorned colleges that received more publicity from sports than education and research, and simply abolished football.

Today, few politically perceptive critics of football advocate the death penalty. So long as parents and players know the health risks, millionaires willingly play for billionaires in stadiums purchased by taxpayers, and fans know football’s cost in time and money, there will be football. [Photo credit: John Schultz/Quad City Times, Oct. 21, 2012.]

From preschool through college the goal is lifelong learning in a physically fit body. It’s what we’ve called “physical education” and the Greeks called “body, mind and spirit.”

College sports such as tennis, golf and swimming can provide benefits into one’s eighties. They’re as historically fundamental to curriculum as any classroom, lab, or studio course and should be funded as such.

College football is neither a student sport nor a career path. The NFL takes 1.6 percent of college players for an average stay of 3.3 years. It is a business, big billions business. In 40 states college football coaches are the highest paid public employees.

In a nation with obesity on the rise, cutting students’ lifetime sports so a farm club can send its ablest players through a cattle chute to the NFL is indefensible.

Moreover, college football creates conflicts of interest for everyone. University presidents find it easier to capitulate to coaches than fight. Athletic directors must rationalize taking advertising and skybox dollars from the alcohol and gambling industries. Coaches must encourage players’ in-class performance, while coaches’ multi-million-dollar salaries turn on players’ on-field performance. Non-tenured professors fear retribution for flunking players. Players who do seek a college education must choose between lab time and scheduled practice. [Photo credit: Nicholas Johnson, Riverside gambling casino ad on Kinnick Stadium big-screen display.]

There are many possible reforms. But what’s the win-win that preserves football while getting the elephant off the campus?

How about what the University did earlier this year when it contracted away its power plant – a perfectly legitimate university function -- to a for-profit, private utility?

Remove the football program from the University; recognize it as the part of the big money entertainment industry that it is. Let it lease the Kinnick Stadium, related land and structures, the “Hawkeyes” name, and associated assets at going commercial rates.

This farm club could pay its coach, and players, whatever its corporate board wished and employees could negotiate – eliminating the state’s embarrassment of the coach as highest paid public employee.

Remove the requirement players pretend to be students – while providing players who wanted to be students spring-semester-only and other accommodations. Get out from under other NCAA restrictions.

Iowa’s not the only football-challenged school. It shouldn’t be difficult to find enough more to make a league – and maybe even affiliate with the NFL, like baseball’s farm clubs.

Any lesser “accommodation” with college football will only perpetuate the conflicts.
_________________
Nicholas Johnson, a former FCC commissioner and sports law professor, provides more on this and other subjects at FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES
President Teddy Roosevelt. Weiler, et al, Sports and the Law, p. 747.

Robert Hutchins, University of Chicago. https://president.uchicago.edu//directory/robert-maynard-hutchins

College football players as NFL draftees. 1.6% http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-competing-professional-athletics

Average NFL career 3.3 years. https://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/207780/current-and-former-nfl-players-in-the-drivers-seat-after-completing-mba-program

College football revenue. Top 100 teams 2014-15 $5.6 billion. https://www.ucribs.com/blog-post/ncaa-football-teams-made-more-money-than-many-nfl-teams-in-2015-infographic/

College coaches highest paid public employees in 40 states. https://fanbuzz.com/national/highest-paid-state-employees/

Overweight & obese. https://www.healthline.com/health/obesity-facts#1.more-than-one-third-of-adults-in-the-United-States-are-obese. (United States, 36.5% of adults are obese. Another 32.5 percent of American adults are overweight.)

UI’s power plant. “Iowa Facilities Management, Power Plant,” March 11, 2020, https://facilities.uiowa.edu/power-plant

READERS' COMMENTS
Posted to public on Facebook, with name:

Seems like a sensible solution to a long standing problem.
Steven Hulme, FB, Oct. 17, 7:37 AM

All good points!
Becky Jacobsen Strahl, FB, Oct. 17, 7:37 AM

FOOTBALL - This is an interesting perspective from Nicholas Johnson examining how to get better outcomes for sports programs and academic programs.
Resources for Life, FB, Oct. 17, 8:37 AM

This will definitely give you food for thought!!
Julie Johnson, FB, Oct 24, 3:40 PM

Posted to FromDC2Iowa, with readers' name:

This analysis is right on point. "College" athletics (in particular football and basketball) have not related to a University's primary mission for many years. The primary mission of a University is to educate. Not train for a career, not provide bread and circuses, not provide an "economic" engine for a town or a region -- the mission is to train minds and create a whole person to function in society. Does a football team "create spirit" for a University? Sure. But the proposed solution would continue to "create spirit" much in the way that, for example, Premier Football Teams create community spirit. And would allow the University to focus on its primary mission.
Prophet of Doom, Oct. 17, 7:49 AM

Thank you Mr. Johnson. It's a great idea. In my opinion football should not be played by any individual in organized sports until they are at least 21 years old. Any responsible, caring parent should not let their child subject themselves to the injuries that football causes, Sometimes permanet injuries for the rest of their lives.

Locally, we had a high school student who was a quadriplegic for the rest his life from injuries at at school football game. Sad. Very sad.

However, I purpose an alternative sport to football. School maintanence teams. Think of the poosibilities. There is many ways this can go. Start 'em in middle school. Or, if they were in band or chorus, everyone plays.
Iowa Tom, Oct. 19, 4:12 PM

Emails sent to mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org:
(senders' names omitted because email was a non-public communication for which use of name was neither requested nor granted.)

Subject: Genius
GENIUS solution for divorcing football from higher education. Thank you!!!
Oct. 17, 10:34 AM

Subject: Your editorial today
You are 100% on the mark regarding your editorial on college football. It has gotten totally out of hand. I used to have season tickets as a student in the 70’s and a faculty in the 80’s but the corporate takeover of college football has totally turned me off. I always enjoy your editorials.
Oct. 17, 3:54 PM

Subject: Column "Treat college football like..."
I always learn something when I read one of your columns! I had not known of Teddy Roosevelt's ultimatum which led to the creation of the NCAA. I must commend you once again for not exempting the sacred cows when you "speak truth to power." Not only that, but you sign off with your real name and email address rather than using the distancing effect of the nom de plume...I mention this only because (I believe) there was a counter-example in the only letter to the editor on the same page as your guest column; methinks that the writer who called Chuck Grassley a "good egg" was not given the name "May Day" at birth. Judging by the gist of the letter, I doubt that the author was aligning themselves with the rather leftist implications that the holiday by that name has assumed over the years; judging by current polling trends, I rather suspect that the author was evincing a (Freudian ?) general call of distress. (A distress which might be best understood by those in East Iowa City who only have one yard sign in their front yard - "Phil Hemmingway for Supervisor - Republican" -- which may be signalling an orientation regarding other races which must remain veiled). But I digress.

Keep up the good work and stay well,

In '65 I was 17 - runnin' on empty...
Oct. 18, 2:03 PM

# # #

Soleimani More Dangerous Dead Than Alive

Soleimani More Dangerous in Death

Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, January 12, 2020, p. D2

In the movie “Wag the Dog,” two weeks before a presidential election, the sitting president is accused of sexual misconduct with a young girl. Desperate for a way to suppress the story the president’s political consultant, Conrad Brean (Robert DeNiro), seeks the help of Hollywood producer Stanley Motss (Dustin Hoffman). “What do you think would hold it off?” he asks. The producer responds, “Nothing. Nothing. You’d have to have a war.” [Photo credit: still from film, used by Hollywood Reporter.]

How can a president get popular support for war? Hermann Göring understood it best: “It is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship … All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” [German General Hermann Göring, Nuremberg Trial, 1946; photo credit https://marinamaral.com/portfolio/hermann-goring-sits-in-the-dock-at-the-nuremberg-trial-1946/](fn 1)

As prior presidents predicted, our enemy, General Qassem Soleimani, has already become a far greater threat to America in death than he ever was in life. That threat will only increase over the months and years to come. [Photo credit: General Qasem Soleimani; Ali Khamenei, http://farsi.khamenei.ir/photo-album?id=29307#i, commons.wikimedia.org] (fn 2)

Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City





FOOTNOTES
1. Snopes confirms the accuracy of this quote, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/war-games/ .

2. "George W. Bush did not target him [General Soleimani] during the height of the Iraq War, when Iranian-supplied roadside bombs and Iran-backed militias were killing hundreds of American troops. By 2011, that toll had reached more than 600 and Barack Obama was the president; he too declined to hit the general. But at some point Trump, who came into office vowing to pull the United States out from Middle Eastern wars, decided to cross a line two war-president predecessors feared breaching. ...

Elissa Slotkin, a Democratic representative and former CIA analyst focused on Shia militias, said in a statement that she’d seen friends and colleagues killed or hurt by Iranian weapons under Soleimani’s guidance when she served in Iraq. She said she was involved in discussions during both the Bush and Obama administrations about how to respond to his violence. Neither opted for assassination.

'What always kept both Democratic and Republican presidents from targeting Soleimani himself was the simple question: Was the strike worth the likely retaliation, and the potential to pull us into protracted conflict?' she said. 'The two administrations I worked for both determined that the ultimate ends didn’t justify the means. The Trump Administration has made a different calculation.'" Kathy Gilsinan, "It Wasn’t the Law That Stopped Other Presidents From Killing Soleimani; The Iranian general helped get hundreds of Americans killed — through two administrations. Both declined to kill him," The Atlantic, January 4, 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/01/why-kill-soleimani-now/604441/ .

[Photo credit: http://alwaght.com/en/News/169779/Iranians-Hold-Massive-Rallies-to-Condemn-US-Assassination-of-Gen-Soleimani,-Demand-Revenge, January 3, 2020]

Would this picture be more understandable if we reversed roles? First off, realize that Soleimani was not just a military general, he was a national hero and the second most powerful political figure in Iran. Then consider this scenario. During World War II Dwight D. Eisenhower was a five-star general in the Army and served as Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe. Following the war he served as Army Chief of Staff (1945–1948), as president of Columbia University (1948–1953) and as the first Supreme Commander of NATO (1951–1952). He was twice elected president of the United States in landslides, 1952 and 1956. Understand that I am not saying that the two men are moral equivalents. But imagine that another country's president, or head of state, had arranged for the successful assassination of Eisenhower in 1952. What would have been Americans' reaction? What would have been your reaction?

# # #

Tags: assassination, Hermann Göring, Iran, Iraq, Nuremberg, President Donald Trump, Qassem Soleimani, Soleimani, Wag the Dog

Why Trump May Win

Trump Will Lose? Don't Be So Sure
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, May 29, 2019, p. A6
(As submitted; asterisks (*) indicate The Gazette modified the text for space reasons: e.g., the previous clause or sentence was deleted, or paragraph heading was run on into previous paragraph; regular formatting was substituted for bold paragraph headings.)

“It is unthinkable Americans would reelect Trump,” a friend said the other day. I told him to think harder. Here’s why.

Trump is president. Most presidents who want a second term get it; recently Presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama.*


[Photo credit: Wikimedia.org Commons/White House.]

He has experienced a win. First-timers find Presidential campaigns difficult; they make mistakes. Trump has a tested, winning playbook. [Added May 30: Moreover, he's been continuously campaigning ever since he descended that escalator into a crowd of paid extras June 16, 2015 -- four solid years next month, with 18 months to go.

The economy’s strong. Whatever the full data may show, Trump benefits from the public’s perception of a healthy economy – a major factor in presidential elections.

He’s a media master. He knows how to keep the stories and cameras on himself while diverting attention from his disasters. Worst case, he can start a war; remember “Wag the Dog”?

America’s gone red.* In 2016 Trump won 2,600 counties, 85 percent of our continental land area. Republicans control both houses in 32 states’ legislatures – the most ever.

He’s near the finish line. With his rock-solid 42 percent he only needs nine percent to win. The Democrat must cobble together 51 percent.

He has Russian support. Russia’s role in the 2016 election was no one-off. Their similar techniques throughout Europe and here will only intensify in 2020. Is it serious Russians can hack voting machines? Sure, but the least of our worries. When they can manipulate voters they don’t need to hack machines. Indeed, when they can foment our self-destructive civil war of words they can destroy our democracy from within without firing a shot.

Trump knows social media. He has already spent about as much on it as the top five Democratic candidates combined. (Are you unaware of how Facebook swings elections worldwide by increasing anger, divisiveness and manipulating voters?* We’ll talk about that after you’ve first read Roger McNamee’s book, Zucked (2019) and watched Carole Cadwalladr’s TED Talk, “Facebook’s Role in Brexit – and the Threat to Democracy” (2019), https://tinyurl.com/y4q8mcre.*)

Trump is unrestrained. His willingness to violate our Constitution, laws, social and political norms of behavior gives him a competitive advantage.

He studies and befriends authoritarian leaders. He uses their techniques. Want examples? He turns immigrants, Muslims, asylum-seekers and Democrats into “the enemy.” To expand presidential power he encourages citizens’ distrust in professional journalism, the judiciary and Congress’ constitutional powers. He transforms the Justice Department into his personal defense team.

Trump feeds his base raw meat. Democrats have ignored their base. President Franklin Roosevelt gave Democrats a coalition of the poor, working poor, working class, farmers and trade unionists. Had Democrats served and maintained that base they would win every election from school boards to the White House. Shoe leather and door knocking have given way to some Democrats’ belief that money from the East coast and voters from the West coast are enough to maintain a winning national party.*

He can avoid primaries. The Democratic Party’s primary candidates can’t. They must first raise and spend money on name identification and primary contests. Some will suffer bruises to their reputations. Party activists and voters are splintered. Those supporting unsuccessful candidates may end up with less enthusiasm for the ultimate winner.

Voter suppression benefits Trump. Many Democrats who want to vote won’t be able to.

Is it hopeless for the Democratic Party’s nominee? Of course not. We have an outstanding couple dozen candidates, any one of whom I’d welcome as a next-door neighbor. But to win Democrats must start with a realistic assessment of Trump’s strengths.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson is a native Iowan and three-time presidential appointee; his latest book is Columns of Democracy. Website: NicholasJohnson.org* Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org.*

# # #

Making Sense of Trump's Syria Attack

Why Now?

"A republic, if you can keep it."

-- Benjamin Franklin
reply when asked what
government the Constitutional
Convention created

Our responsibilities as the citizens of a democratic state are a heavy burden, but one we willingly bear.

The pillars of our democracy are under as much stress today as I can recall ever existing during the past 50 years or so. From within our borders and without, there are attacks on the integrity of our media, elections, judges, FBI, political opponents, public education, and the norms of presidential governance and behavior.

Hiring and firing of presidential appointees, financial and sexual scandals, presidential decisions announced by tweet one day and reversed the next, special counsel and congressional investigations related to the president, and more, come at us like the floods of spring. Dramatic revelations and stories that, alone, might normally provide headlines for a week, disappear by nightfall, smothered by those that follow.

The first requirement of our role as public citizens is that we give at least some time every day to informing ourselves, and trying to make some sense out of what our public officials are doing -- and failing to do. These days one could say, "If you're not confused you haven't been paying attention."

So it is with Trump's announcement, and military attack on Syria, last evening (April 13, 2018).

Here's my effort to suggest what may be, if not the only factor, at least one of the motivating factors in President Trump's attack on Syria -- his decision to do what he did when he did it>

I believe my offering can best be conveyed with four videos -- if taken all together, and in this sequence.

(1) The first is German public television's documentary, "Dangerous Ties." It describes Trump's business partners and practices, the role of Russians in his finances, and other matters now being addressed by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, following the acquisition of documents from Trump's lawyer. Matt Apuzzo, "F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump's Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen; Trump Calls It 'Disgraceful,'" New York Times, April 10, 2018, p. A1.

The 44-minute documentary is called "Dangerous Ties: Trump and His Business Partners." It reveals information that attentive American citizens need to know about their president. But it is especially relevant today, in its relation to the Syria attack, given the New York Times headline that, "Trump Sees Inquiry Into Cohen as Greater Threat Than Mueller" (Matt Apuzzo, Michael S. Schmidt, Maggie Haberman and Eileen Sullivan, New York Times, April 14, 2018, p. A1).

Here it is:



(2) The second is Danny Schechter's 2004 documentary, "Weapons of Mass Deception" (2004), describing the interlocked role of government and media in generating American citizens' support for war (1:38:00). If you watch the whole documentary carefully you will never again watch, or read, news stories of America's wars in the same way. I believe it is essential that citizens of a nation that spends more on its military than the next ten nations combined have at least this much sophisticated understanding regarding news of its nation's military.



(3) The third video is "Wag the Dog" (1997). As is occasionally the case, it provides understanding not as a documentary, but as an entertainment feature film -- at least the first 13 minutes of it. Because it grossed $64,000,000 you may well have seen it twenty years ago. If you didn't you should; if you did you need a refresher. (There doesn't appear to be a good quality copy available for free, but you can get it from Amazon (rent or buy) or Netflix (rent).)

The essential premise of the film for our purposes is that a president, caught up in a sex scandal with an important election looming, turns to a political consultant who proposes the creation of a media story sufficiently powerful to drive reporters away from the president's troubles. After considerable reflection, the consultant concludes the only media story big enough would be the creation of a war -- whether in fact or only in believable fantasy. You can get a suggestion of this theme from the first 33-seconds of this original theatrical trailer:



4. Finally, there are the President's remarks last evening. "President Trump Announces Strikes Against Syria," Voice of America, April 13, 2018 (0:7:40). On Tuesday, April 3, without warning to DOD, veering off topic from a speech on trade, Trump called for an immediate removal of American troops from Syria. The next day, April 4, he was finally briefed by his military advisers and backed off. Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Trump Drops Push for Immediate Withdrawal of Troops From Syria," New York Times, April 5, 2018, p. A12. On April 11 he tweeted, "Get ready Russia, because they [missiles] will be coming, nice and new and 'smart.'" Jonathan Chait, "Trump Uses Social Media to Announce Attack on Syria, Confess to Obstruction of Justice," New York Magazine, April 2018. And by last night (two days later, April 13) they were.

What is the President's mission in Syria; what is his strategy? No one thinks using chemical weapons on one's people is a cool thing to do. But missiles are not a strategy -- especially when following a president's expressed desire to pull out all troops immediately, followed the next day by a reversal of position, and accompanying an express rejection of regime change.

So, why are we there? He has to offer something. It was, he said, because it is "a vital national security interest of the United States," because "the United States . . . is doing what is necessary to protect the American people." What these assertions mean, and why they are true, was left to our imaginations. What can the American people do? He concluded, "Tonight I ask all Americans to say a prayer for our noble warriors."



We will probably never know how much of last evening's missile attack on Syria was about "storming Damascus" and how much about "Stormy Daniels." Clearly, it diverted attention from this weekend's and next week's promotion of James Comey's blockbuster book, A Higher Loyalty, and the revelations of what Michael Cohen and Donald Trump have been cooking up, soon to be revealed in the documents from Cohen's office, home, and hotel room.

# # #

Whatever the Question, Is War the Best Answer?

September 10, 2014, 10:30 p.m.

NOTE: There will undoubtedly be updates regarding our Iraq adventure from time to tome. Click here for an updated list of prior columns and blog essays about terrorism and war.

The column, below, was composed and submitted immediately following the President's speech Wednesday evening, September 10, and published today, September 12. It reflects my immediate, personal reactions following that speech. During the 48 hours or more since, it has been both heartening and frightening to see how many individuals who know much more about international law, foreign affairs, policy analysis, and military strategy than I seem to hold similar views.

I had analogous concerns in 2003 and expressed them in the form of "Ten Questions for Bush Before War," a column in the local college paper, The Daily Iowan, February 4, 2003, p. A6. As the years passed, most of those concerns proved to have been valid.

Thereafter I wondered, as I do today about our 2014 Iraq adventure, if my instincts and intuition and limited knowledge are driving me to these concerns, concerns that seem to be shared by others more qualified, why, oh why, are we continuing to pursue such ill-fated approaches? I mean that seriously; what is it that causes our government's disconnect between what seems to be rather widely shared rational analyses by those of independent mind and the policies the government pursues in our name? That, of course, is a column for some future day.

Meanwhile, here is my Wednesday evening effort to understand our most current pursuit of folly, along with today's Press-Citizen editorial on the subject, and links to some prior writing of mine on this and related subjects.

Is War the Best Answer?
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen
September 12, 2014, p. A7

We must anticipate and be prepared for the unintended consequences of our action. . . . As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that the use of force will move us toward the intended outcome.

-- General Martin Dempsey, Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff, July 19, 2013

With his speech Wednesday evening, once again an American President is preparing the people for a rush to war in Iraq –- adding Syria to our expanding battlefield. [Photo credit: The Guardian/AP.]

Once again, our oil has found its way under someone else’s land.

Once again, we must turn to our military leaders for the caution and rational analysis borne of their experience in battle and their study of history.

Now I’m not saying the pre-election threat to America from ISIS in President Obama’s scenario is no more serious today than the pre-election threat to America from Albania was in the movie “Wag the Dog.” Those ISIS folks seem a truly brutal lot.

But the intelligence community is much less alarmist than the politicians and pundits. As Matthew G. Olsen, National Counterterrorism Center director, put it last week, “ISIL is not Al Qaeda pre-9/11.” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh C. Johnson agrees: “We know of no credible information that ISIL is planning to attack the homeland at present.”

Moreover, the President’s strategy carries high risk of creating the very threat that does not now exist. Andrew Liepman, former National Counterterrorism Center deputy director says, “It’s pretty clear that upping our involvement in Iraq and Syria makes it more likely that we will be targeted by the people we are attacking.”

Put aside for the moment any moral questions about the inevitable deaths of thousands of civilians. Put aside legal questions about the President’s authority to wage this war, and international law restraints on “pre-emptive war.” Put aside the likelihood that our intervention will increase, rather than decrease, ISIS’ recruitment of terrorists and risk of harm to our homeland. Put aside the multi-trillion-dollar cost for our grandchildren of these Mideast adventures.

What is our goal? The President says it is to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. What if the Iraqi Army is not up to that task? What’s “Plan B”? Do we go home, or send in American troops? Are we better off once we’ve destroyed the Syrian government’s toughest enemy?

Have we “destroyed” al Qaeda or just moved it off the front page? Assume we destroyed al Qaeda. How did that work out for us? We got ISIS. Do we really think if we could destroy ISIS nothing would replace it?

What’s our exit strategy? Once we “win,” how do we get out, and what happens when we do? Even if we could eliminate today’s chaos, tribalism, ethnic and religious conflict, why will it not return?

The most fundamental question that’s seldom if ever stated, let alone addressed or resolved is, “What is our ultimate goal, our purpose, for this air war in Iraq and Syria?” As I used to put it to my school board colleagues, "How would we know if we'd ever been successful?” Hopefully, our purpose is not limited to executing our “strategy” for winning battles and wars and then come home, leaving the survivors to fend for themselves.

Will we clean up after the party, reconstructing what war destroys? For how long? With how many billions of taxpayers’ dollars? Is nation-building still a part of our Mideast mission?

Even though we’re rightfully enraged over the beheadings, and want to “do something,” unthinking, precipitous action is not always the most effective revenge.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson, former Administrator, U.S. Maritime Administration, was responsible for sealift to Vietnam, and maintains www.nicholasjohnson.org and FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.
_______________
Samples of Nicholas Johnson's Prior Writing on Terrorism and War
"Why Unwinnable 'Wars' Are 'Stupid Stuff;' Add 'Impossible to Win' to Objections to War With ISIS," September 23, 2014;

"Is U.S. Response Strengthening ISIS? Playing Into the Terrorists' Hands," September 19, 2014;

" Why Iowans Should Care About Iraq War III; Why Do We Accept Words Like 'Islam,' 'State,' and 'Caliphate'?" September 16, 2014;

"Is War the Best Answer?" Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2014, p. A7; embedded in " Whatever the Question, Is War the Best Answer?" September 10, 2014;

"Syria: Moral Imperatives and Rational Analyses; Spotting the Issues," September 4, 2013;

"Thinking About War -- Before Starting One," March 20, 2013;

"General Semantics, Terrorism and War," Fordham University, New York City, September 8, 2006;

"War in Iraq: The Military Objections," International Law Talks: War With Iraq, University of Iowa College of Law, February 27, 2003;

"Ten Questions for Bush Before War," The Daily Iowan, February 4, 2003, p. A6;

Nicholas Johnson, "Capitalists Can Help U.S. Avert War with Iraq," Iowa City Press-Citizen, Sunday Insight, October 6, 2002, p. A11;

Nicholas Johnson, "On Iraq, Tell the Rest of the Story," Iowa City Gazette, October 2, 2002, p. A4;

Nicholas Johnson, "Let's not get between Iraq and a hard place," Omaha World-Herald, August 13, 2002 (and as published in the Iowa City Press-Citizen and as submitted to both);

Nicholas Johnson, "Search for Better Response Than War; Don't Reward the Terrorists, but Understand Their Interests," Des Moines Sunday Register Opinion/Iowa View, June 30, 2002, p. OP3;

Nicholas Johnson, "Rethinking Terrorism," National Lawyers Guild Conference, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, March 2, 2002.
_______________
"Learn the Right Lessons From the 'War on Terror'"
Editorial Board
Iowa City Press-Citizen
September 12, 2014, p. A7
Has it really been fewer than 18 months since President Obama said it was time for the U.S. to stop thinking about future conflicts in terms of “a boundless ‘global war on terror’ ”?

Speaking in May 2013 — more than a decade after Congress first approved the Authorization to Use Military Force in the wake of the 9/11 attacks — the president suggested that the nation, instead, should start viewing such military ventures as “a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks with other countries.”

The phrasing was meant to refocus the county’s attention toward the supposed endings of such military efforts. It was supposed to stop conjuring up the specter of a never-ending conflict that will continue to require the erosion of civil liberties and governmental checks and balances.

“Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue,” Obama said at the time. “But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.”

During his national address Wednesday night, however, the president again raised the specter of an open-ended, military involvement against a terrorist organization that calls itself the “Islamic State” (aka ISIS, aka ISIL) and is scattered throughout the Middle East.

Speaking on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, Obama at times sounded like a saber-rattler. (“We will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. … If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.) And at other times, he risked sounding more like a stand-up comedian. (“Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. … And ISIL is certainly not a state.”)

But the president did manage to outline a clear, four-step response to the long-term threat posed the Islamic State:

• 1: The U.S. will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against the terrorist group.

• 2: The U.S. will increase its support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground — whether in Iraq or Syria.

• 3: The U.S. will continue to draw on its “substantial counterterrorism capabilities” to prevent future attacks.

• 4: The U.S. will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to “innocent civilians who’ve been displaced by this terrorist organization.”

The president was equally clear that “this is not our fight alone” and that the American military would be playing more of an advisory role — with regional allies being the ones with boots on the ground.

Yet president didn’t address some of the basic questions — like, “What’s our end point?” — that should be answered before the U.S. commits to any “series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks with other countries.”

That’s why lawmakers, when responding to the president’s speech, couldn’t really criticize the tone and resolve. Yet they nearly all said they were waiting for more details to flesh out Obama’s broad strokes.

We’d like to believe Obama is moving past the failed policies of the “war on terror” approach. Yet the president also did raise the specter of Americans (and American intelligence) needing to keep a suspicious eye on allies and fellow citizens.

“We can’t erase every trace of evil from the world,” Obama said, “and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. … And that’s why we must remain vigilant as threats emerge.”

We’ve seen before how a seemingly never-ending, war-time agenda provides presidents with far too much unchecked authority. How it encourages further mission/linguistic drift and allows phrases like “immediate threat” to come to mean something more along the lines of a threat to someone, somewhere, sometime in the unknown future.

So in their vigilance, the American people also need to make sure that their leaders show they are learning the right lessons from the nation’s past foreign policy mistakes.

# # #

"Producing" a President

July 5, 2008, 11:45 a.m.

Selling Presidential Candidates as Feature Film Characters
A movie critic, Stephen Hunter, writing in this morning's New York Times has reminded me of some political truths I once knew but had permitted to slip below my radar in my past week's blog entries about Senator Obama's "self-rebranding." Stephen Hunter, "Leading Men: Barack Obama and John McCain Want the Biggest Role in Politics, Yet Each Candidate Has Very Different Star Qualities to Offer," The Washington Post, July 6, 2008, p. M1. [For links to eight prior blog entries see Nicholas Johnson, "Obama's Telephone Switch," July 3, 2008, under "Related."]

Read Hunter's piecer. It's entertaining. But whether Hunter intended or not, it also contains some powerful political truths.

Composer, musician and Hollywood TV writer Mason Williams once closed a song, "This is not a true tale, but who needs truth if it's dull?"

We may need the truth, but we certainly don't seek it out. We prefer a good story; one that's not dull. And there are plenty of advertising agencies, political campaign consultants, Hollywood script writers, and politicians more than happy to tell them to us.

Jack Nicholson's "Nathan R. Jessep" put it a little more forcefully in "A Few Good Men": "You can't handle the truth!" [from 0:00-0:20]



Frankly, I think we could handle the political truth, but it's seldom that any of our candidates will trust us with it -- and few voters have ever complained.

Increasingly, we live "mediated" lives: talking on cell phones, listening to iPods, watching audio-visual material on everything from the screens in movie theaters, to our TV sets, to computer screens, to hand-held devices. We are more interested in, and motivated to buy, the advertiser's dream than the product to which it is linked. Having balanced the two competing entertainment sites as equivalent, we conclude we'd rather visit Disneyland than Yosemite National Park.

"Sell the sizzle, not the steak," was the sales advice once offered restaurateurs. So long as we continue to buy the sizzle and ignore the steak (remember "Where's the beef?") that's what we'll be offered, and what we'll get.

So Hunter's insight should not come to us as a surprise. If we are influenced to buy our clothes, and style our hair, on the basis of movie stars' choices, and if we confuse the characters in TV and film with the actors who play them (sending baby gifts to studios when a soap opera character "has a baby"), why would we not have film characters in mind when picking our presidents?

Don't you think Martin Sheen's "'Jed' Bartlett" (from "West Wing") would have run as well as Senators Obama and McCain this fall, had he chosen to run? (I recall "'Jed' Bartlett" coming to Iowa City to endorse, and speak for, Vice President Gore in 2000.)

I recall a politico once telling me that the deal makers in his party were trying to find a candidate who looked like Hal Holbrook in the 1970-71 TV series, "The Senator."

As Hunter writes,

You might consider it [the general election campaign] a lobbying effort not to win an election but to get a starring role in "The Next Four Years." And the star thing that you will contemplate is contrived of two elements: image, as polished and packaged by PR and advertising professionals, but also a kind of truth the camera yields not because of the advisers, but in spite of them, sometimes in counterpoint to the official image. Trying to keep track of what the camera reveals -- both on purpose and by accident -- is like looking at audition clips back in the old days with a bunch of studio scouts, like the one who (possibly apocryphally) concluded about Fred Astaire, "Can't sing. Can't act. Balding. Can dance a little." . . .

Obama's at the clutch of a star's career crisis. He's had his breakthrough. He needs another starring movie to consolidate. Yet the scrutiny will be upgraded, the audience is larger, and rumors are starting to dog him as they do all stars. So it remains to be seen who will get the big role in "The Next Four Years" -- and maybe the sequel "The Next Next Four Years."

You casting agents out there have to make a decision.

There's another famous journalism anecdote Lesley Stahl tells (and for which Jay Rosen has provided some of the best analysis) regarding the comparative impact of words and image. She had produced a "lengthy" (for CBS' evening news pieces) story about President Ronald Reagan's use of video imagery to, often, leave misleading impressions. She thought it was a tough piece, and was concerned about a potential negative reaction from the White House staff.

But that isn’t what happened, she says. When the piece aired, Darman called from the White House. “Way to go, kiddo,” he said to Stahl. “What a great piece. We loved it.” Stahl replied, “Didn’t you hear what I said [in the broadcast]?” Darman’s answer has been frequently quoted:

Stahl: [Darman replied,] “Nobody heard what you said.”

Did I hear him right? “Come on, that was a tough piece.”

[Darman:] “You guys in Televisionland haven’t figured it out, have you? When the pictures are powerful and emotional, they override if not completely drown out the sound. I mean it, Lesley. Nobody heard you.”

All of which squares with what researchers tell us is the impact of candidates faces on voters choices.

When you cast your ballot for president in November, something as simple as the candidate's face could play a role in your decision.

Sound hard to believe?

A growing body of research supports the notion that a candidate's attempts to establish himself as a powerful leader can be helped or hurt by his facial features. Appearance is not, of course, the sole factor that sways voters, but experts who have studied the link between faces and people's perceptions say we place more emphasis on looks than we think.

Facial structure can play a role in how trustworthy, strong and charismatic we perceive someone to be, said Caroline Keating, a psychology professor at Colgate University who studies facial structure and perceptions of power. . . .

Alexander Todorov, an assistant professor of psychology at Princeton University, gave people photos of unfamiliar political candidates who won and were runners-up in state governor races. He asked people to pick the most competent candidates, and they chose the winners 68 percent of the time.

Anne Ryman, "Face it, looks do influence our pick for president," The Arizona Republic, July 5, 2008.

Many thoughts came to mind as I was reading Stephen Hunter's column this morning.

I remembered the conversations with Democrats while marching in the Coralville Fourth of July Parade (for the November 4th conservation bond issue) yesterday, and with others at dinner last night. Those memories called to mind a story my colleague Arthur Bonfield tells. A student came rushing into his office in 1972, all excited. "What is it?" Arthur asked. "Oh, Professor Bonfield, McGovern's going to win!" "Really?" Arthur replied, "And what makes you so confident of that?" "Oh, Professor Bonfield, everybody I know is for McGovern!" The student was truthful; everyone he knew was for McGovern. It's just that there were a lot of people he didn't know who weren't. It seems, I am discovering, that there are a good many Obama supporters who either don't know, or don't care, about his newly found and expressed positions that he may be taking with him into the White House -- or actually prefer the "new Obama" to the "old Obama."

I thought of Bill "Elvis" Clinton, John "Camelot" Kennedy, and the CBS "60 Minutes" segment "Ronald Reagan the Movie."

I was reminded of the Broadway play, "The Selling of the President," with which I was involved in a minor way. The theater doubled as a TV production studio, where the audience watched the transformation of a hayseed Nebraska senator (Pat Hingle's "Senator George W. Mason") into a presidential candidate, complete with singing commercials cleverly designed to appeal to various demographic groups. The point of the musical, to the extent there was one, was to dramatize for the audience some insight into the ways in which they were being manipulated by political campaigns, TV commercials, and the media. It didn't work. I'll never forget, standing in the back of the theater on opening night, listening to the conversations of audience members as they left, when one woman said to her husband, "Wasn't that George Mason simply wonderful? Don't you wish we really had people like that to vote for?" We'd failed in our purpose (or at least my purpose). We'd simply sold her our candidate.

A scene from the 1997 movie, "Wag the Dog" came to mind. A president seeking re-election must deal with a potential sex scandal weeks before election day. He calls in a top political advisor, Conrad Brean (played by Robert DeNiro) who proposes the campaign create "the appearance of a war" to divert the media's attention from the scandal. Brean pitches the idea to a Hollywood producer, Stanley Motss (played by Dustin Hoffman) who, once he figures out what Brean has in mind, responds incredulously, "You want me to produce your war?"

Isn't that what we're confronting? Isn't Senator Obama's transformation, his "re-branding," merely a form of the "producing of a president"? Isn't that what's going on with Senator McCain? Isn't that what's been going on with our selection of America's presidents for at least the last 48 years -- if not, in some earlier variations, from the time of George Washington's swearing in on April 30, 1789?

Hunter's not that far off the mark. I don't know enough about the movies to know if all of his examples and conclusions are sound -- though intuitively they appear to be. What I do know is that he has, as we say in law school, "spotted the issue."

We're not "voters," we're "casting agents," picking the leading man for "Live, from the White House, It's 'The Next Four Years.'"

Let's hope we at least pick one who is not only able to act but, like Fred Astaire, "can dance a little" as well.

# # #