Welcome to FromDC2Iowa: Contents & Guide

Over 1,500 blog posts on a variety of topics since 2006.

What to do?

1. Old friend of the blog and repeat visitor? You already know what you want to do and how to do it.

2. First time visitor? Here are some choices:

(a) "I'm just looking." Look to right-hand column listing years. Clicking on the little triangle in front of a year will display the months of that year. Clicking on the little triangle in front of any of the displayed months will display the titles on blogs posted that month. Clicking on a blog post's title will take you to the text of that blog post.

(b) Researching a Topic? Scroll down the right-hand column to "Search;" enter key words to search on, select "FromDC2Iowa blog" or "Nicholas Johnson Web Site" and follow directions. Want ideas? Visit "Key Word Searches."

(c) Searching by Date? Scroll down right-hand column to "Blog Archive." As explained in (a), above, click on triangle in front of year to display months, month to display posts.

3. Who is this blog's author? Nicholas Johnson.

_________________________

War, Who's It Good For?

War, Who’s It Good For?
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, June 27, 2023, p. A6
How have we become the global participant in forever wars? Spending half our discretionary federal appropriations on war. More than the next 10 nations combined. Running up debt of $32 trillion, with interest payments over $600 billion annually.

We are as far from what the founders provided as could be imagined. They wanted to avoid wars.

In the U.S. House of Representatives' own website there’s a discussion of its constitutional war powers (Article I, section 8, clauses 11-16). “The Congress shall have power … to declare war . . .."

In the website’s discussion of the founders’ intentions it says, “The decision to send the nation to war is perhaps Congress’s gravest responsibility . . .. For the Members, to declare war against a foreign power is to send their constituents, their neighbors, their family, and even themselves into harm’s way. . . . The founders felt that war should be difficult to enter, and they expected congressional debate to restrain the war-making process.”

They presumed wars would require a draft and pay-as-you-go financing.

How’s that been working for us? Pretty well through World War II -- the last time Congress complied with the constitutional requirement it “declare war.” Following WWII the war budget was around $14 billion (in today’s dollars).

Then things began to change.

The Viet Nam War protests made clear that if the U.S. wanted to actually use the military taxpayers were paying for, the one percent who actually fought the wars would have to be either volunteers or the mercenaries of defense contractors. [Photo credit: Vietnam War protesters, the Pentagon, Oct. 21, 1967, Frank Wolfe, Lyndon B. Johnson Library, via Wikimedia.]

So, the draft was abolished, January 27, 1973. House members could quietly go along with fighting a war without either supporting, or opposing, the declaration of one. No mothers cried; their sons stayed home. The financial cost of wars could be camouflaged from taxpayers by putting it on a credit card and increasing the debt limit.

The military’s best and brightest explained the need for a rationale for war, the benefits and costs of fighting one, and the need for exit strategies. But few House members seemed to be listening.

In 1969, the song writers gave us “War, What’s It Good For? Absolutely Nothing.” It doesn’t get a lot of play these days. Besides, what we should be singing is, “War, Who’s It Good For?”

There’s an answer to that one.

Decades ago, my research revealed that the payback on corporate campaign contributions ran at least 1000-to-one. Give a million, get a billion (e.g., federal contracts, tax cuts, tariffs).

Today that’s increased a bit. With a trillion-dollar budget for war, it’s not only too big to fail, it’s too big to audit. But some numbers are available.

One contractor’s political contributions for one year were $3 million. A 1000-to-one return would have been $3 billion. But this contractor got $40 billion in contracts. Not a 1000-to-one return; a 13,000-to-one return.

Meanwhile, Congress talks about cutting the budget -- while continuing to add more for war than even requested.

Nicholas Johnson, as U.S. Maritime Administrator, had some responsibility for sealift to Viet Nam. mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES Congress spending half on war. “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023; SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS PROVISIONS BY SUBCOMMITTEE,” https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/FY23%20Summary%20of%20Appropriations%20Provisions.pdf (“The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 totals $1.7 trillion in discretionary resources across the fiscal year 2023 appropriations bills. In total, the regular 12 appropriations bills include $800 billion in non-defense funding, a $68 billion—9.3 percent—over last year. This is the highest level for non-defense funding ever and a larger increase in both dollar and percentage than fiscal year 2022. The bills also provide $858 billion in defense funding.)

“Current US Defense Spending” [2021-2024], US Government Spending, https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending_history (military, veterans, foreign aid, total defense: 2024 $909.4 billion $322.1 billion $73.7 billion $1.3052 trillion)

More than next 10 nations combined. “The United States now spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined,” Peter G. Peterson Foundation, April 24, 2023, https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/04/the-united-states-spends-more-on-defense-than-the-next-10-countries-combined (“[T]he United States now spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined (up from outspending the next 9 countries combined in 2021.”)

$32 trillion debt. For an opportunity to watch the numbers climb in real time, sliced and diced into more categories than you could have imagined, check out the “U.S. Debt Clock,” https://www.usdebtclock.org/

Federal debt increase. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/debt-to-the-penny Record Date Debt Held by the Public Intragovernmental Holdings 6/13/2023 $25,103,112,337,735.63 $6,872,182,398,142.32 Total Public Debt Outstanding $31,975,294,735,877.95

Foreign ownership of US debt. Kimberly Amadeo, “Major Foreign Holders of U.S. Public Debt; Who Owns the U.S. National Debt?” The Balance, Jan. 19, 2023, https://www.thebalancemoney.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124 ($3.242 trillion with top 5 countries; Japan, China, UK, Belgium, Luxembourg; China = $870 billion) This is amounts and percentages of “public debt” (e.g., not including Social Security and other “intragovernmental holdings”). Current public debt is $25.103 trillion. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/debt-to-the-penny

Over $600 billion in interest. “What is the National Debt Costing Us?” Peter G. Peterson Foundation, May 12, 2023, https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/05/what-is-the-national-debt-costing-us (“The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that interest payments will total $663 billion in fiscal year 2023 and rise rapidly throughout the next decade — climbing from $745 billion in 2024 to $1.4 trillion in 2033. In total, net interest payments will total nearly $10.6 trillion over the next decade.”)

Founders wanted to avoid wars/House Website. “Power to Declare War, Origins & Development: From the Constitution to the Modern House,” United States House of Representatives, https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/War-Powers/ ("If America was going to survive as a republic, they reasoned, declarations of war required careful debate in open forums among the public’s representatives. “there was a growing sense that such monumental responsibility belonged with the legislative branch. “Like George Mason of Virginia, the founders felt that war should be difficult to enter, and they expected congressional debate to restrain the war-making process. “to declare war against a foreign power is to send their constituents, their neighbors, their family, and even themselves into harm’s way.”)

WWII last Congressional declaration of war. “Power to Declare War, Origins & Development: From the Constitution to the Modern House,” United States House of Representatives, https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/War-Powers/ (“Congress has not declared war since 1942”)

Post-WWII war budget $40 billion. “Military Expenditure by Country, In Local Currency, 1949-2022,” United States, SIPRI [Stockholm International Peace Research Institute], 2022, https://www.sipri.org (“All figures are expressed in terms of the current currency.” In US dollars: 1949 14 088 155 591 1950 14 926 997 114 1960 47 346 552 670 1970 83 407 993 005 1980 143 688 354 873 1990 325 129 313 986 2000 320 086 324 211 2010 738 005 000 000 2020 778 397 200 000 2022 876 943 200 000)

“Current US Defense Spending” [2021-2024], US Government Spending, https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending_history (military, veterans, foreign aid)

“World military spending reaches all-time high of $2.24 trillion; Surge in spending reflects Russia-Ukraine war and ‘increasingly insecure world’, according to leading think tank,” AlJazeera, April 24, 2023, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/4/24/world-military-spending-reaches-all-time-high-of-2-24-trillion (“World military spending reached an all-time high of $2.24 trillion in 2022, … Global spending rose for the eighth consecutive year, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said on Monday in its annual report on global military expenditure.”)

And see, “Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_International_Peace_Research_Institute

Percent who fight wars. Elliott Ackerman, “Why Bringing Back the Draft Could Stop America’s Forever Wars,” TIME, Oct. 10, 2019, https://time.com/5696950/bring-back-the-draft/ (“The burden of nearly two decades of war–nearly 7,000 dead and more than 50,000 wounded–has been largely sustained by 1% of our population.”)

Draft abolished 1973. Amy Zipkin, “The military draft ended 50 years ago, dividing a generation,” Washington Post, Jan. 27, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/01/27/draft-end-conscription-1973/ (“On Jan. 27, 1973, with the Paris Peace Accords signed and U.S. involvement in Vietnam over, Defense Secretary Melvin R. Laird announced the end of the military draft, after 25 uninterrupted years of conscription.”)

“War, What’s It Good For?” “War,” Lyrics, https://www.lyrics.com/lyric/25707922/Edwin+Starr/War (“’War’ is a counterculture era soul song written by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong for the Motown label in 1969. Whitfield first produced the song – an obvious anti-Vietnam War statement – with The Temptations as the original vocalists. After Motown began receiving repeated requests to release "War" as a single, Whitfield re-recorded the song with Edwin Starr as the vocalist, with the label deciding to withhold the Temptations' version from single release so as not to alienate their more conservative fans.”)
NOTE: If any person or corporation would like these publicly-available lyrics removed please email: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org and they will be deleted.

Edwin Starr - War (Original Video - 1969), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, uhh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all
War, huh (good God)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me, oh
War, I despise
'Cause it means destruction of innocent lives
War means tears to thousands of mother's eyes
When their sons go off to fight
And lose their lives
I said, war, huh (good God, y'all)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, just say it again
War (whoa), huh (oh Lord)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
It ain't nothing but a heart-breaker
(War) Friend only to The Undertaker
Oh, war it's an enemy to all mankind
The thought of war blows my mind
War has caused unrest
Within the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die? Oh
War, huh (good God y'all)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it, say it, say it
War (uh-huh), huh (yeah, huh)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
It ain't nothing but a heart-breaker
(War) It's got one friend that's The Undertaker
Oh, war, has shattered many a young man's dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean
Life is much too short and precious
To spend fighting wars each day
War can't give life
It can only take it away, oh
War, huh (good God y'all)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, say it again
War (whoa), huh (oh Lord)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
It ain't nothing but a heart breaker
(War) Friend only to The Undertaker, woo
Peace, love and understanding, tell me
Is there no place for them today?
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there's got to be a better way, oh
War, huh (God y'all)
What is it good for? You tell me (nothing)
Say it, say it, say it, say it
War (good God), huh (now, huh)
What is it good for?
Stand up and shout it (nothing)

Source: LyricFind
Songwriters: Barrett Strong / Norman Whitfield
War lyrics © Royalty Network, Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC

1000-to-one Return on Contributions. Nicholas Johnson, “Campaigns: You Pay $4 or $4000,” Des Moines [Iowa] Sunday Register, July 21, 1996, p. C2, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/general/campaign.html

Can’t audit Defense Department budget. Bill Chappell, “The Pentagon Has Never Passed An Audit. Some Senators Want To Change That,” npr, May 19, 2021, https://www.npr.org/2021/05/19/997961646/the-pentagon-has-never-passed-an-audit-some-senators-want-to-change-that (“Despite having trillions of dollars in assets and receiving hundreds of billions in federal dollars annually, the department has never detailed its assets and liabilities in a given year. For the past three financial years, the Defense Department's audit has resulted in a ‘Disclaimer of Opinion,’ meaning the auditor didn't get enough accounting records to form an assessment. . . . Now lawmakers are introducing a bipartisan bill that would impose a penalty for any part of the department, including the military, that fails to undergo a "clean" audit. "’The Pentagon and the military industrial complex have been plagued by a massive amount of waste, fraud and financial mismanagement for decades. That is absolutely unacceptable,’ said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who co-sponsored the bill with Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, along with Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Mike Lee, R-Utah.”)

Contractor with 13,000-to-one return on contributions:

Payments to Top 6 Defense Contractors. “The Top 10 Federal Defense Contractors,” Bloomberg Government, July 14, 2022, https://about.bgov.com/top-defense-contractors/

Top 6 (of 10 largest defense contractors in FY 2021) Lockheed Martin Corp. - Obligations: $40.2B Boeing Co. - Obligations: $22.1B Raytheon Technologies Corp. - Obligations: $20.7B General Dynamics Corp. - Obligations: $17.8B Pfizer Inc. - Obligations: $13.3B Northrop Grumman Corp. - Obligations: $12.9B

“Biggest Defense Companies in the Stock Market,” Motley Fool, https://www.fool.com/investing/stock-market/market-sectors/industrials/defense-stocks/biggest-defense-companies/

Contractors Political Contributions. “Defense,” Open Secrets, https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php Defense Defense Aerospace Defense Electronics Defense/Foreign Policy A

Defense aerospace (2021-2022) Lockheed Martin $3,110,453 Colsa Corp $2,421,419 Northrop Grumman $2,190,417 Raytheon Technologies $2,154,719 Collazo Enterprises $2,112,300 General Dynamics $2,084,195 [Total $14,073,503

Top Contractor Return on Contributions. 13,000 to One ($40 billion/$3 million) (40,200/3.110,453 = 12,924.1625)

# # #

Studying War

America Needs to Start Studying War
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, March 17, 2022, p. A4
Remember the song, “Ain’t gonna study war no more”?

We’ve taken it to extremes.

We need to study war more, not less; to review and reshape our defense spending and strategies. Now’s a time to, as they say in the theater, “Take it from the top.”

America’s founders wanted to avoid wars. Because the burdens in lives and dollars fell hardest on the people, and the House was closest to the people, it was the body to declare war.

But that brake only works if there is a draft of our youth, from families rich and poor, and members of Congress accept their constitutional duty to debate and declare war (or not).

The draft fueled public opposition to the Vietnam war. Realizing this, the powerful political forces President Dwight Eisenhower labeled “the military-industrial complex” successfully went about abolishing the draft.

Public opposition is further dampened by using corporate warriors – at one time one-half our fighting force in Iraq, and over 5800 in Afghanistan (suffering more deaths than the military).

House members, applying former Speaker Sam Rayburn’s advice, “to get along, go along,” take the campaign contributions, and defer their constitutional war powers to the branch our founders most feared: the executive.

If the war is not here, the public has even less reason than the House to become informed (polls show we’re not), let alone care. Only 1 percent of our population does the fighting; no WWII-style sacrifices (remember the post 9/11 advice “go shopping”?); we don’t buy “war bonds;” or see the bills put on our grandchildren’s credit cards.

The consequence? Our “defense” budget and resources evolve into something the size of the next ten nations combined, millions of Americans fighting forever wars costing trillions.

Are some military actions warranted? Of course. But “don’t do stupid stuff.” On a trip to Saigon as Maritime Administrator I was asked to report my assessment of the war. My concluding line: “You can’t play basketball on a football field.” Colin Powell’s questions to ask and answer before going to war (including “exit strategy”) make a similar point. Military’s “best and brightest” keep us out of wars.

Recently there were about 200,000 U.S. troops abroad (“lowest in decades”) on 750 bases in 80 countries. Reductions make sense. But when Japan and Germany each have over 30,000, why couldn’t we have left 10,000 in Afghanistan?

Now, like the officers who didn’t intervene to prevent George Floyd’s death, we’re playing “Let’s you and him fight; I’ll hold your coats” with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. How are those sanctions working for Ukrainians?

We told Putin we wouldn’t fight. Didn’t want WWIII. Especially with nukes. OK, so does that go for NATO nations as well? If you see a bully seriously injuring a kid half his size, do you not intervene unless the victim goes to your school? What if we had put our troops along the Ukrainian border, instead of telling Putin we never will? Would he invade? Go nuclear?

America needs to “study war.”
______________
Nicholas Johnson, former U.S. Maritime Administrator, had shared responsibility for sealift to Vietnam. Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES
Ain’t gonna study war no more. Down by the Riverside, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_by_the_Riverside

Take it from the top. “Take it from the top; idiom,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Military’s “best and brightest” keep us out of wars.

Founders and Declaration of War. “Power to Declare War, Origins & Development: From the Constitution to the Modern House,” United States House of Representatives, https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/War-Powers/

"If America was going to survive as a republic, they reasoned, declarations of war required careful debate in open forums among the public’s representatives.

“there was a growing sense that such monumental responsibility belonged with the legislative branch.”

“Like George Mason of Virginia, the founders felt that war should be difficult to enter, and they expected congressional debate to restrain the war-making process.”

“to declare war against a foreign power is to send their constituents, their neighbors, their family, and even themselves into harm’s way.”

“Congress has not declared war since 1942”

Google search: Federalist Papers AND House of Representatives AND declaration of war

Federalist No. 29, “Concerning the Militia”

William Van Alstyne, “Congress, the President, and the Power to Declare War: A Requiem for Vietnam,” U Penn LRev, vol 121, No 1, Nov 1972, p. 7 https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1799&context=facpubs

Draft creates war opposition; Draft abolished, Selective Service kept. Elliott Ackerman, “Why Bringing Back the Draft Could Stop America’s Forever Wars,” TIME, Oct. 10, 2019, https://time.com/5696950/bring-back-the-draft/ (“Although the draft was abolished in 1973, the Selective Service registration requirement was resumed in 1980 . . ..” “Congress has also taken a renewed interest in the draft, having created in 2016 a bipartisan National Commission on Military, National and Public Service charged with two missions. . . . The second is to ‘explor[e] whether the government should require all Americans to serve in some capacity as part of their civic duty and the duration of that service.’”

Need for additional. “Under the military’s current standards, 71% of Americans ages 17 to 24 do not meet the physical or mental qualifications for military service.” [from Ackerman, TIME]

Military-industrial complex. “Military–industrial complex,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex

Corporate warriors. Use of “private military companies” employees. “Private Military Company,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_company

Results of Google search: What proportion of fighting forces are corporate employees (like Blackwater)

In Iraq. Peter Singer, The Dark Truth about Blackwater,” Brookings, October 2, 2007, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-dark-truth-about-blackwater/ “the private military force in Iraq, which numbers more than 160,000 — at least as many as the total number of uniformed American forces there.”

In Afghanistan. Paul D. Shinkman, “Afghanistan’s Hired Guns,” US News, April 26, 2019, https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-04-26/us-employs-unprecedented-number-of-security-contractors-in-afghanistan (“More than 5,800 privately employed security personnel are currently operating in Afghanistan under Pentagon contracts, according to the latest report released this month that the military headquarters overseeing Middle East wars compiles for Congress.

“Of the 5,883 security contractors outlined in the latest reports from U.S. Central Command, 2,567 of them are armed private security contractors. . . . The Costs of War project has documented that as many as 2,800 contractors have died in Afghanistan – a figure that often goes unmentioned in public remembrances of the 2,400 U.S. military deaths in that war.

“Services provided by private contractors in this fiscal year amount to approximately $2.3 billion, Babb says.”

Ellen Knickmeyer, “Costs of the Afghanistan war, in lives and dollars,” AP, August 16, 2021, https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-business-afghanistan-43d8f53b35e80ec18c130cd683e1a38f

Sam Rayburn. “To get along, go along.” RayBURNisms, Margo McCutcheon, “A Rayburnism a Day Keeps the Memory Alive: Sam Rayburn Quotes,” Texas Historical Commission, January 5, 2022, https://www.thc.texas.gov/blog/rayburnism-day-keeps-memory-alive-sam-rayburn-quotes

Lack of public involvement. “In the aftermath of 9/11, there was virtually no serious public debate about a war tax or a draft. Our leaders responded to those attacks by mobilizing our government and military, but when it came to citizens, President George W. Bush said, ‘I have urged our fellow Americans to go about their lives.’” [from Ackerman, TIME]

“If after 9/11 we had implemented a draft and a war tax, it seems doubtful that the millennial generation would’ve abided 18 successive years of their draft numbers being called, or that their boomer parents would’ve abided a higher tax rate to, say, ensure that the Afghan National Army could rely on U.S. troops for one last fighting season in the Hindu Kush. Instead, deficit spending along with an all-volunteer military has given three successive administrations a blank check with which to wage war.

“And wage war they have. Without congressional approval. Without updating the current Authorization for Use of Military Force, which was passed by Congress one week after 9/11. Currently we live in a highly militarized society but one which most of us largely perceive to be “at peace.” This is one of the great counterintuitive realities of the draft. A draft doesn’t increase our militarization. It decreases it.

“A draft places militarism on a leash.

“In the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections, 42% of Americans didn’t know whether we were still at war in Afghanistan.”

Burden on 1%. “The burden of nearly two decades of war–nearly 7,000 dead and more than 50,000 wounded–has been largely sustained by 1% of our population.” [from Ackerman, TIME]

Number of military actions since WW2. “Major Military Operations Since World War II,” Infoplease.com, Updated March 23, 2020, https://www.infoplease.com/history/us/major-military-operations-since-world-war-ii (list of 17)

Increase in Defense budget. Richard Nixon, “Annual Budget Message to the Congress, Fiscal Year 1973,” The American Presidency Project, UCSB, January 24, 1972, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/annual-budget-message-the-congress-fiscal-year-1973 (“To provide this assurance, budget authority for Department of Defense research, development, test, and evaluation is being increased $838 million to an all-time high of $8.5 billion in 1973.”)

“Long-Term Costs of the Administration’s 2022 Defense Budget,” Congressional Budget Office, January 11, 2022, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57541 (2010 approximately $800 B; request for 2022 $715B)

Inability to audit. Bill Chappell, “The Pentagon Has Never Passed An Audit. Some Senators Want To Change That,” npr, May 19, 2021, https://www.npr.org/2021/05/19/997961646/the-pentagon-has-never-passed-an-audit-some-senators-want-to-change-that (“Despite having trillions of dollars in assets and receiving hundreds of billions in federal dollars annually, the department has never detailed its assets and liabilities in a given year. For the past three financial years, the Defense Department's audit has resulted in a "Disclaimer of Opinion," meaning the auditor didn't get enough accounting records to form an assessment.”)

Npr. waste, fraud and financial mismanagement. (“The Pentagon and the military industrial complex have been plagued by a massive amount of waste, fraud and financial mismanagement for decades. That is absolutely unacceptable," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who co-sponsored the bill with Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, along with Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Mike Lee, R-Utah.”)

Don’t do stupid stuff. Matthew Dickinson, “Obama's Michael Brown address: I won't do stupid things,” Christian Science Monitor, August 19, 2014, https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2014/0819/Obama-s-Michael-Brown-address-I-won-t-do-stupid-things, (Obama is “ a president whose operating mantra is captured in the phrase “don’t do stupid things.”)

NJ’s Vietnam report. Personal experience; report unavailable.

Powell Doctrine. “Powell Doctrine,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine

Military opposition to war. “Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_United_States_involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War (“military critics of the [Vietnam] war pointed out that the Vietnam War was political and that the military mission lacked any clear idea of how to achieve its objectives.”)

While the Powell Doctrine cannot be considered “opposition to war” it is clearly a form of opposition to thoughtlessly starting wars; a checklist that, if followed, will often result in thoughtful folks abandoning the creation or participation in one. See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, “Six Step Program for Avoiding War,” November 11, 2014, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2014/11/six-step-program-for-avoiding-war_11.html, Nicholas Johnson, “Thinking About War Before Starting One,” March 20, 2013, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2013/03/thinking-about-war-before-starting-one.html

Number of bases. David Vine, “Where in the World Is the U.S. Military?” Politico Magazine, July/August 2015, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321/ (“Despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad—from giant “Little Americas” to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined.”)

U.S. troops in other countries. Kirsten Bialik, “U.S. active-duty military presence overseas is at its smallest in decades,” Pew Research Center, August 22, 2017, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/22/u-s-active-duty-military-presence-overseas-is-at-its-smallest-in-decades/ (Japan, 38,818; Germany, 34,602; South Korea, 24,189)

U.S. bases. Mele Mathieson, “How Many Military Bases Are in the US?” omni, September 3, 2021, https://www.omnimilitaryloans.com/military-life/how-many-military-bases-are-in-the-us/ (“How many military bases are in the United States?

“According to figures from the Pentagon as well as the Military Analysis Network, the United States has approximately 450 to 500 military bases. All 50 states have at least one base (Wyoming has just two, the largest of which is Francis E. Warren Air Force Base), but several have dozens.”)

Officers not intervening in George Floyd’s death. “Three Former Minneapolis Police Officers Convicted of Federal Civil Rights Violations for Death of George Floyd,” DOJ Office of Public Affairs, February 24, 2022, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-former-minneapolis-police-officers-convicted-federal-civil-rights-violations-death

Let’s you and him fight. Use as Google search. And, “Let’s you and Him Fight,” tvtropes, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LetsYouAndHimFight

Letter to the Editor
"The U.S. should ‘start studying war,’"
Jerry Smithey
The Gazette, March 28, 2022, p. 5A
Nicholas Johnson nailed it in his recent column: the “brake” in the House to declare war only works “if there is a draft of our youth, from families rich and poor, and [if] members of Congress accept their constitutional duty to debate and declare war (or not).”

Continued all-male draft registration — no active draft — means few Americans have had a personal vested interest in conflicts since Vietnam. Soldiers have either been volunteers or, in effect, mercenaries. That is not to disparage volunteers, but volunteers are very different from draftees. Additionally, most Americans don’t fully understand the economic consequences of war.

Our Congress lacks the intestinal fortitude or honesty to declare war — partly, at least, to avoid being on the record and, conveniently, to blame a president and his/her party, for perceived failures.

Drafted in 1970, I served for two years in the U.S. Army, not in combat, but I observed many disfigured and damaged Vietnam vets. With that perspective, I propose to engage Americans in war decisions by activating the draft, including women and all of a certain age range to serve in some capacity, with virtually no deferments, for a period of two years. Service could be in the military, in schools, hospitals, etc., but the wealthy, friends and children of Draft Board members, and relatives of politicians should not escape public service.

Americans “with a dog in the hunt” will then care about the decisions (or lack of decisions) members of that club called Congress.

Jerry Smithey
Swisher, Iowa

# # #

Who Let the Dogs Out?

Tell Me: Who Let the Dogs of War Out?

Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, August 26, 2018, p. D3
Most Americans and their elected representatives take “ain’t going to study war no more” to heart. They’re neither studying nor upset by war.

Put aside the inability to rationalize continuous wars of choice, personnel in 150 countries, the human slaughter and misery, devastated cities, death and lifelong injury to our troops. Just “follow the money.” When military-related costs exceed a trillion dollars a year, and are put on our grandchildren’s credit card, maybe it’s time to get back to studying war. [Photo credit: By DVIDSHUB - Operation Unified Response - CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22430525]

Conservatives care about constitutional “original intent.” Liberals care about sacrificed infrastructure, education, healthcare and other needs. Both should care why the founders gave Congress power “to declare war.”

The founders knew burdens of wars fall heaviest upon the people, those who fight and pay for wars. They explicitly rejected giving a president the unchecked power to start wars claimed by kings. They wanted the branch most responsive to the people to declare war. [Photo credit: Foreign Policy, WAKIL KOHSAR/AFP/Getty Images]

As the Constitutional Convention Record reports, “Mr. [George] Mason … was for clogging rather than facilitating war.” James Madison later contributed, “No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

Pay-as-you-go war meant increased taxes. World War II rationing meant little or no gas and tires for cars or bubblegum for kids. The draft impacted even small towns during the Viet Nam war. Without the draft we might still be there. [Photo credit: Ames Historical Society]

Not only was there no rationing during post-9/11 wars, our president told us to “go shopping.” No burden of increased war taxes. No young marching protesters, fearful of being drafted. Sacrifice fell only upon those 0.4 percent of Americans fighting the wars.

After 9/11, given the lack of public protest the founders forecast, Congress became more complacent and compliant about executive encroachment on Congress’ war powers.

(1) In 1961 President Dwight Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex. Its grip only tightened as legislators became ever more entangled with their districts’ military bases and generous weapons manufacturers.

(2) For-profit private prisons create political support for longer sentences. Similarly, political support for longer wars results when for-profit contractors’ battlefield employees outnumber the military.

(3) The old Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines have competitors. The CIA, once an intelligence agency, now has its own military arm. Both CIA and Special Operations, like Delta Force or SEAL Team 6, are outside the conventional chain of command and thorough congressional oversight.

These factors contribute to President Donald Trump’s signing a $717 billion Defense Department authorization bill. Like the banks’ insistence they are “too big to fail,” the DOD is “too big to audit.” Trillions can’t be traced. Add $200 billion for Department of Veterans Affairs, war’s share of $300 billion yearly interest on the national debt, billions for Department of Energy’s nukes, other military-related expenses and the total’s well over a trillion dollars.

Whose fault is this?

Those who wrote the Constitution assumed “we the people” – not the president, Congress, or judges – would tightly leash and not let slip the dogs of war. In response to the people’s sacrifice, their paying the human and financial costs of war, they would speak up, protest, organize and otherwise clog the path to war.

War hawks and weapons makers understand they must eliminate war’s impact on we the people if they are to continue their profits from perpetual war.

However, they have not eliminated our founders’ hope, nor our responsibility to honor their hope that we will fulfill our responsibility to resist.

As Edward R. Murrow closed his documentary about Senator Joseph McCarthy, “We cannot escape responsibility for the result. … Cassius was right. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.”
_______________
Nicholas Johnson, as U.S. Maritime Administrator, was involved with military sealift to Vietnam. www.nicholasjohnson.org Comments: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

Columns of Democracy (2018)
For those interested in more on this topic and others, Nicholas Johnson's latest book, Columns of Democracy (2018), is now available from Amazon, https://tinyurl.com/yama2h3b (scroll to "Books by Nicholas Johnson," click on "Paperback," for "Sort by" select "Publication Date"), Barnes & Noble, https://tinyurl.com/ybjwxuuh (scroll down), Lulu Press, https://tinyurl.com/yd8g47de, and all Iowa City bookstores requesting copies from the author, mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org.

Afghanistan: Our Unaffordable War to Nowhere

The Reasons We Should Leave
Contents

History

Absent Prerequisites for War

"War on Terror" is Oxymoron

Cost of Wars

The Powell Doctrine

Conclusion

Nicholas Johnson's Additional Writing on War and Terrorism

Some Recent Afghanistan-Related General Media News and Opinion

The shorthand for President Obama's foreign policy? "Don't do stupid stuff."[Christi Parsons, Kathleen Hennessey and Paul Richter, "Obama Argues Against Use of Force to Solve Global Conflicts," Los Angeles Times, April 28, 2014.]

Our 16-years-long military efforts in Afghanistan qualify as "stupid stuff." The list of reasons is long, and has been discussed in a variety of contexts by me since 2001, illustrated in the 23 examples linked below. So I'll try to keep this short.


-- Sam Cooke, "What a Wonderful World" ("Don't know much about history . . ..")

History. We fail to learn from history. When it comes to war, we go where "no nation has won before."

France had been interested in Vietnam since the 17th and 18th Centuries, ultimately creating a large colony (French Indochina) in 1887 which it ruled until defeated by the Vietnamese in the First Indochina War [1946-1954]. ["France-Vietnam Relations," Wikipedia.] Never mind. We're not French. Those Vietnamese won't be able to defeat our military might. Remember how that worked out for us?

And so it's been in Afghanistan.

"Great Britain and Russia [were] maneuvering for influence in Afghanistan" as early as 1826. The British brought military force to Afghanistan on three occasions: 1839-1842, 1878-1889, and 1919. None ended well for the British.

Following the 1839-1842 conflict, "The Afghans. . . would tolerate neither a foreign occupation nor a king imposed on them by a foreign power, . . . insurrections broke out" and ultimately the British were run out of the country. The outcome of the second Afghan War was a little more complicated, but ended with the murder of the British envoy, and a joint effort of Britain and Russia to draw what are today's Afghanistan boundaries.

After the 1919 war, Britain had to recognize Afghanistan's independence, and Afghanistan was one of the first states to recognize the Soviet Union (with a treaty of friendship). That "special relationship" lasted until the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Editors, "Anglo-Afghan Wars," Encyclopedia Britannica.

Russia (Soviet Union) was involved militarily in Afghanistan from 1955 to 1989. "The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the U.S. Response, 1978–1980," Department of State, Office of the Historian, Milestones: 1977-1980 ("Since 1955 Moscow had provided military training and materiel to Afghanistan; by 1973, a third of active [Afghan] troops had trained on Soviet soil.")

The results for the Russians were little better than for the British. "The War" lasted from December 1979 to February 1989. "Soviet-Afghan War," Wikipedia.

And with what results?

"In the brutal nine-year conflict, an estimated one million civilians were killed, as well as 90,000 Mujahideen fighters, 18,000 Afghan troops, and 14,500 Soviet soldiers. Civil war raged after the withdrawal, setting the stage for the Taliban's takeover of the country in 1996."

Alan Taylor, "The Soviet War in Afghanistan, 1979-1989," The Atlantic, August 4, 2014 (includes 41 large photos).

Absent Prerequisites for War. Might there be some common themes in why Great Britain, Russia, and the United States have been so unsuccessful over the past 200 years in trying to conduct "wars" in Afghanistan? Let's see.

In addition to our refusal to study history, and our hubris in believing we have a level of smarts and military might denied all other countries, it's as if we don't recognize that war1 is not war2 -- all wars are not the same. You can't expect to win wars you launch willy-nilly, wherever, whenever, with whomever you choose. There are conditions and characteristics that make for wars' successful, and unsuccessful, likely outcomes.

It's best if your military effort is a response to your country being attacked (e.g., Revolutionary War; World War II). Next best is coming to the defense of another country that has been invaded (Kuwait in Gulf War I). Worst are unnecessary, "pre-emptive" attacks on other nations that have not attacked us (e.g., Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).

Why? Think about it. If Iowa had a 200-year-history of Canadian military invasions from time to time, and Canadian tanks and military were now moving, uninvited, through Minnesota, toward Iowa -- regardless of their pretense for doing so -- even I would be picking up a gun. The Canadians would have a hard time "winning Iowans' hearts and minds." Similarly, when we create a war inside a country with a centuries-old history of foreign invaders, it's not unreasonable for those whose home it is to think of us as just the latest in that history, and respond as Iowans would to Canadians.

Obviously, supporting one side in another country's civil war is even worse. There's no way it can be universally popular ("a British shipyard [built] two warships for the Confederacy . . . over vehement protests from the US." "United Kingdom and the American Civil War" Wikipedia.org.)

Fighting in countries where most Americans know little or nothing about that country's language, culture, economy, history, politics, literature, religion, social structure, and geography -- such as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan -- is bristling with unintended consequences that make "winning" somewhere between extraordinarily difficult and impossible (as distinguished from the European Theatre of WWII).

"War on Terror" is Oxymoron." Whatever "terror" may be, it is not a country, or even a tightly coordinated group of individuals. Of course, every country seeks to minimize the death and damage to its citizens and property from acts of violence. But were the deliberate human and property damage in Oklahoma City, Boston, and Charlottesville really part of a "war"? The literary license in labeling anti-violence efforts a "war" is questionable at best; but strategies and tactics premised on the assumption that it really is "a war" are self-defeating and dangerous.

Wars are best when fought on behalf of, or against, countries rather than failed states; countries with some semblance of an organized central government -- more like Germany in WWII, rather than 21st Century Afghanistan, which is still largely a collection of tribal war lords' fiefdoms.

Wars are best when both sides wear uniforms that distinguish them from each other -- and the surrounding civilian population. The Taliban and ISIS often don't wear uniforms. Without uniforms it's very difficult to tell your enemy from your allies, and civilian casualties mount and further erode support for U.S. forces -- who are easy to identify.

Wars are best when there is a "front line" (as in Europe in WWII). (1) Fighting individuals without uniforms, (2) who can easily blend in with the population, (3) over constantly shifting parcels of land, (4) individuals who can easily shift from one place to another, (5) resulting in our gaining, losing, and regaining once again the same "battlegrounds," is a recipe for our seemingly endless wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, with their ever-increasing death tolls and financial burdens.

Cost of Wars. A year ago, the combined costs of U.S. military actions in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan (2001-2016) were estimated at $4.207 trillion ($4.792 trillion minus the Department of Homeland Security budgets). Neta C. Crawford [Boston University], "US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting; Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security," Brown University Institute of International & Public Affairs, September 2016.

Because it's hard to imagine that much money, how could we translate $4.2 trillion into its opportunity cost -- the other things we could have bought with it (but weren't able to)? What else could that $4.2 trillion have paid for? Here are some possibilities: a 35-year program of tuition-free college at public universities, or health insurance premiums for every American for 12 years, or wiping out all student loan and credit card debt while leaving an additional $2 trillion for rebuilding infrastructure, or a fund to pay for rebuilding after the damage from the next 41 major tropical storms. Ethan Wolff-Mann, "7 Amazing Things America Could Have Bought Instead of a $1.45 Trillion Jet," Money, May 2, 2016 (if you care, and can't follow my math, email me for an explanation).

While I believe the Brown University and Money magazine numbers do not distort the reality, even with the best of intentions precision in these matters is impossible. For starters, what do you count? The numbers do not seem to include the post-war costs of such things as rebuilding the infrastructure we've destroyed in war (such as the post-WWII Marshall Plan), lifetime healthcare for wounded combat veterans, the consequences from the opportunity costs mentioned above. If you include the costs in the war torn countries (as I think we should), although worse than economic numbers convey, what tort law calls the "pain and suffering" of the population, the survivors who have lost their primary income provider, not to mention their homes, the wounded, dying and dead, the children denied food, shelter, and education -- not to mention parents -- would be enormous. [Photo credit: U.S. Department of Defense.]

Even if we could agree on what costs to include, determining what they were is virtually impossible with a Defense Department that is so sloppy in its accounting that it is impossible to audit. "The Department of Defense . . . once again finds itself under intense scrutiny . . . because it couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions, not to mention dozens of tanks, missiles and planes." Tom Abate, "Military Waste Under Fire / $1 Trillion Missing -- Bush Plan Targets Pentagon Accounting," SFGATE, San Francisco Chronicle, May 18, 2003.

The Powell Doctrine. There are some basic questions to ask about any rational undertaking -- starting a business, choosing a college and major, planning a vacation trip, building a new home or office building.

The consequences of failing to do so can lead to physical injury, financial disaster or bankruptcy, or merely great disappointment.

In the case of war, the consequences can be much more serious, as the discussion above suggests. This is not to say that there are never acceptable reasons for going to war, or maintaining overwhelming military might as a strategy for avoiding the need to go to war. It is only to say that, if you prepare and use a checklist before packing the car and going on a family vacation, you might also want to have and use a checklist before going to war.

Here is a variation of the ways I've summarized that checklist of questions in the past -- sort of my version of the Powell Doctrine:

Is the national security of our homeland seriously threatened?

What, specifically, is the goal you’re trying to accomplish?

What nonviolent means might accomplish the goal, and have they all been tried and failed?

Why do you think a military operation will contribute to (rather than impede) the accomplishment of the goal?

In a benefit-cost analysis, what are the risks, what are the costs (including opportunity costs), what will a military mission require in troops, materiel, lives and treasure to achieve that goal, and what will be the benefits for the United States?

What is a reasonble projection of how long the military mission will take to achieve the goal?

Are the American people, their representatives, and the international community prepared to take those risks, provide those resources and pay those costs for as long as it takes?

What are the probabilities that a military intervention will make matters worse?

What are the metrics or other means to inform us whether we’ve ever been “successful”?

What, then, will be the exit strategy?

What will happen when we leave?

Will that be consistent with our original mission?

See, e.g., "General Semantics, Terrorism and War," Fordham University, New York City, September 8, 2006 (sub-heading "War: Military Control of the Civilians and the Powell Doctrine"); also as Nicholas Johnson, What Do You Mean and How Do You Know, ch. 6 "You As Citizen II: Terrorism and War," p. 61, and see, Stephen M. Walt, "Applying the 8 Questions of the Powell Doctrine to Syria," Foreign Policy, September 3, 2013.

Conclusion. I could go on with this -- indeed the list below suggests I already have. Why? Because President Trump -- after opposing our war in Afghanistan for years -- has recently announced that it will be perpetuated by his Administration. In fact, he wants to send even more troops and taxpayer money into the hopeless pit.

A "war" in Afghanistan was a mistake from the very beginning. If we were trying to punish the state most involved in 9/11 it was Saudi Arabia -- the country that supplied both the financing and the participants. But the U.S. didn't want to declare war on Saudi Arabia after 9/11 any more than it wanted to bomb Idaho after Oklahoma City. So we chose Afghanistan instead.

It was argued that Afghanistan was "harboring terrorists." But any near-failed state can and does do that. To totally eliminate terrorist training in Afghanistan (1) would require more like 200,000 to 300,000 American troops (as I, and others, suggested at the time; clearly President Obama's 100,000 weren't enough) -- if even that would do it. (2) Our efforts to do that turn out to be counterproductive: our mere presence in the Middle East only intensifies anti-American feelings and terrorist recruiting. (3) Terrorists can, and do, easily move from one part of the world to another. If we drove them all out of Afghanistan they would not disappear, they would merely relocate -- as they now have in at least 70 countries. "Michael Evans" "Al-Qaeda finds three safe havens for terror training" The Times (of London), July 2, 2008 ("Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organisation, driven out of Afghanistan and defeated in Iraq, is re-emerging in strength in three alternative safe havens for training, operational planning and recruiting – Pakistan, Somalia and Algeria – according to Western intelligence and defence sources").

To the best of my recollection, no American official has declared that our real motive for staying in Afghanistan is to plunder it's resources. I raised this possibility in "Why Afghanistan? Think Oil & Gas," September 25, 2009. Rachel Maddow recently suggested it might be our search for a source of the rare earth element Lanthanum (LA); transcript not yet posted. (If we were in Afghanistan for rare earth elements, however, we've been a little late. While we were sending troops the Chinese were sending negotiators, and have by now pretty much cornered all the supplies in Afghanistan's rare earth market.)

In summary, the politicians pursuit of our Afghanistan War has ignored virtually all of the Powell Doctrine checklist. We never should have entered Afghanistan in the first place. As soon as that was obvious we should have left. Having failed to do so for 16 years, it is a very expensive tragedy (in lost lives and opportunities to fund what America really does need) that our current president has gone against his earlier instincts and is sending more troops to keep it going.

# # #
Nicholas Johnson's Additional Writing on War and Terrorism
"Spending on Military Always Comes at al Cost," The Gazette, April 9, 2017, p. D5, embedded in "Of Missiles and Teachers," April 7, 2017

"Focus on Muslims Misplaced After Shooting," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 17, 2016, p. A5

Understanding Terrorist Thugs," The Daily Iowan, December 3, 2015; "What Motivates Terrorist Thugs," The Gazette, December 20, 2015,

Nicholas Johnson, "Sober Risk Assessment Needed to Respond to Terror," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 28, 2015, p. A11; and as "Sober Risk Assessment Needed to Respond to Terror," Standard-Times [San Angelo, Texas], November 28, 2015

Nicholas Johnson, "Syria's Refugees: Job One and Job Two," The Gazette, November 1, 2015

"Why Unwinnable 'Wars' Are 'Stupid Stuff;' Add 'Impossible to Win' to Objections to War With ISIS," September 23, 2014

"Six Step Program for Avoiding War," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 11, 2014, p. A7

"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

"Terrorism, War, 9/11 and Looking Within," September 10, 2011

"War in Libya, the Unanswered Questions," March 23, 2011

"General Semantics, Terrorism and War," Fordham University, New York City, September 8, 2006; also as Nicholas Johnson, What Do You Mean and How Do You Know, ch. 6 "You As Citizen II: Terrorism and War," p. 61

"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

"Teach Our Children Tolerant Ways," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 25, 2001, p. 9A

# # #
Some Recent Afghanistan-Related General Media News and Opinion
Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman, "Forceful Chief of Staff Grates on Trump, and the Feeling Is Mutual," New York Times, September 2, 2017, p. A1

Micah Zenko, "Bush and Obama Fought a Failed 'War on Terror.' It's Trump's Turn." New York Times, August 26, 2017, p. A17

Mujib Mashal, "Trump's Afghan Gamble Now Rests on General He Doubted," New York Times, August 25, 2017, p. A1

Mujib Mashal, "U.S. Troop Increase in Afghanistan Is Underway, General Says," New York Times, August 24, 2017

Max Fisher and Amanda Taub, "Why Afghanistan's War Defies Solutions," New York Times, August 24, 2017, p. A4

Bret Stephens, "On Afghanistan, There's No Way Out," New York Times, August 24, 2017

Rod Nordland, "What an Afghanistan Victory Looks Like Under the Trump Plan," New York Times, August 23, 2017, p. A1

# # #

Understanding Terrorist Thugs

If you're looking for material regarding University of Iowa, its new President Bruce Harreld, and the Iowa Board of Regents, CLICK HERE.

ISIS/ISIL is Neither Islamic Nor a State

Related: Nicholas Johnson, "Sober Risk Assessment Needed to Respond to Terror," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 28, 2015; Nicholas Johnson, "Syria's Refugees: Job One and Job Two," The Gazette, November 1, 2015; Nicholas Johnson, "Ten Questions for Bush Before War," The Daily Iowan, February 4, 2003


Understanding Terrorist Thugs
Nicholas Johnson
The Daily Iowan, December 3, 2015, p. A4

What Motivates 'Terrorist Thugs'?
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, December 20, 2015, p. C4
What is the ultimate goal of those terrorist thugs in Iraq and Syria with their random, if organized, attacks on innocent Westerners?

Until we figure that out, our responses run a serious risk of making us less, rather than more, safe.

Here’s a possible explanation.

In their minds, this is not a battle against the West as an ultimate goal. It is a battle for the hearts and minds of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims, designed to bring them into the thugs’ ambit. To achieve this, they need two things. They need evidence the West is, in fact, waging a war on Islam that puts all Muslims in danger. And they need plausibly to argue they offer Muslims protection from hostile Westerners. Where? In a state of their own, their Islamic Caliphate (Arabic for “successor;” in this case successor to the Prophet Mohammed).

To do this they want and need war with the West. Like a bully looking for a fight, terrorist acts that provoke our response of war serve their cause. What better evidence of a war than our organizing coalitions, bombing their territory, and sending in troops? When our leaders oblige, and then call this a “war” or “clash of cultures,” they just help the terrorists’ cause.

When our governors refuse to accept suffering Syrian refugees or say we should admit Christian but not Syrian Muslims, it further confirms the thugs’ case. When Muslims needing our protection are rejected by us, we leave them no option but to look to these thugs for protection.

We further aid their cause when we buy into the assertion that they do, in fact, control a state, using the reference they prefer: “Islamic State” (in the acronyms ISIS and ISIL).

That is why the name used here is “terrorist thugs” rather than any mention of their “state.”

Do they enjoy killing Westerners, by whatever means? Yes. They probably even get a chuckle from our seeming inability to find them with our global, industrial-grade surveillance — and then, when we do, our failures to use and share the results.

But it’s highly unlikely they share Hitler’s vision of taking over the territory of Europe and the United Sates or killing us all. Their goal does not require, nor do they have, such resources. That’s why they welcome our providing the video images of a war waged inside their state. Meanwhile, their public-relations media experts are tasked with the global distribution of recruiting material, along with claims of credit for events such as the downed Russian airliner and the coordinated Paris killings. [Photo credit: Daily Iowan/Associated Press, Evan Vucci]

We calmly accept 30,000 gun deaths every year as our constitutional right, but panic at the prospect of up to 1/10th of 1 percent more killings from terrorist acts. We erect buildings’ physical barriers, increase military and police presence, search fans at college football stadiums, and perform a theater of ineffective “security” in airports. Since the thugs’ provocations involve terrorism rather than war, every time we appear terrorized, more points are put up on their scoreboard.

Suppose a traditional war could be fought there, with a uniformed enemy, and frontlines on battlefields (rather than killing innocents in urban warfare). Even if we won, what then? Why would it be any different from the last time, when we imposed a Shiite government on the formerly ruling Sunnis, chaos reigned, and the opportunist Sunni tribal leaders looked to the thugs for stability?

Some of these tribes have hundreds, even thousands, of years of history. The last time they helped us, we turned our backs and left them to struggle. Why should they trust us now?

But they may be our only hope. Fighting terrorism is like a game of whack-a-mole. The more we kill the more recruits they get. New thugs-in-chief replace the old. Tribal leaders are our only long term hope. In Iraq, all wars as well as politics are local.
____________________
Nicholas Johnson, as U.S. Maritime administrator, managed sealift to Vietnam and maintains FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com. Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

# # #

Home Grown Drones

February 16, 2013, 2:15 p.m.

Drones Abroad, Drones at Home

The drones are coming! The drones are coming!

"The chickens will come home to roost," they say. So apparently do drones.

Drones Abroad

The primary problem with drones fighting our "war on terrorism" is not so much the technology as the absence of the traditional elements of a "war."

We are not fighting another country -- historically a necessary prerequisite to war. Thus, there is no territory we, or our enemy, are trying to take or defend. No frontline, or field of battle. No enemy equivalent of the Pentagon, or our Joint Chiefs. No easily identified uniforms worn by enemy soldiers. No way to produce an obvious victory, enemy surrender, armistice agreement, or even fashion an exit strategy. [Photo credit: multiple sources.]

We are not using drones to kill uniformed, enemy military killing our citizens, or destroying property, in the United States. We are using them to invade countries with which we are not at war, sometimes over the protests of their governments and peoples, to kill their non-uniformed citizens or visitors (and civilians). We kill them, not because they are engaged at that moment in destroying U.S. property, or attempting to kill U.S. military personnel, in one of the 150-plus countries where we feel entitled to have bases. We kill them because we believe they might someday do so, or are engaged in planning or training to do so.

After Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President John Kennedy, Jack Ruby shot Oswald before he could be tried in court. Suppose the Secret Service, or Dallas local law enforcement, had reason to believe that Oswald, and then Ruby, were giving serious thought to murder. Would those suspicions (or "knowledge," if you wish) have justified assassinating Oswald -- or later, assassinating Ruby before he could kill Oswald, in order to enable a trial of the latter? Because that is, in effect, what we are doing with our drones abroad. [Photo credit: multiple sources.]

When Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, it was considered a crime, not an act of war. Our response? He was given his constitutional rights and convicted of that crime in a court of law. Although he had come from a community of like-minded folks in Idaho, we did not respond by bombing Idaho or otherwise killing his former "fellow travelers" (to borrow Senator Joseph McCarthy's phrase) who shared his rhetoric.

We're not paranoid. We have real enemies. What they are doing to our property and people abroad is much more than a "crime" -- even if that is what it would be if we stopped offering them targets abroad, and they had to come here to vent their hostility. But neither is it a "war" -- by any of the standards historically applied and regulated under an international law of war, notwithstanding the Administration's efforts to make it into one; see, "Department of Justice White Paper; Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force," (undated).

And now, before we have even developed a vocabulary, and a legal and ethical set of standards for describing, not to mention judging, what we are doing with our drones abroad, we're confronted with another set of issues regarding our drones at home.

Drones at Home
We read that "A future in which unmanned drones are as common in U.S. skies as helicopters and airliners has moved a step closer to reality with a government request for proposals to create six drone test sites around the country. . . . Possible users at home include police, power companies wanting to monitor transmission lines, farmers needing to detect which crops need water or even ranchers counting cows. Privacy advocates worry that a proliferation of drones will lead to a 'surveillance society' in which Americans are routinely monitored, tracked, recorded and scrutinized by the authorities." Joan Lowy, "FAA takes step toward widespread US drone flights," Associated Press/Yahoo!News, February 15, 2013.

I can't say as I mind the idea of ranchers using drones to count cows. Neither does the FAA. It's just worried about drones getting in the way of piloted planes, and there are not a lot of them out where the deer and the antelope roam.

However, I'm not so thrilled about this small step forward for surveillance that is such a giant step backward for privacy.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution provides, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . ." -- a right primarily enforced by excluding evidence so obtained from criminal trials.

The drafters of that protection didn't have the Internet, drones, or other innovative revolutions in technology in mind.

The Fourth Amendment works pretty well when a judge is required to approve a search warrant before one person's emails can be seized and read. But how effective has it been, or could it possibly work administratively, when the government can simultaneously monitor all the emails flowing throughout the Internet?

We can't be said to have "a reasonable expectation of privacy" (Katz v. U.S., 1967) of those things we leave in plain view. But how should, how can, the law respond when everything we do is in the plain view of constantly hovering drones?

The law is years, often decades, behind technology. And so it is again, with drones.

Drones abroad, drones at home. Drones offer us, like the airline captain told his passengers, "Both good news and bad news. The good news is we're making very good time. The bad news is we have no idea where we're going."

We're skiing too far over our skis, folks. Plummeting downhill before our ethicists and legislators, just droning on, can even find their snow shoes.

_______________
Excerpts from this blog essay appeared in the hard copy edition of The Gazette, in its "Blogfeed" section: Nicholas Johnson, "From DC 2 Iowa," February 24, 2013, p. A10, as follows:

The drones are coming! The drones are coming! "The chickens will come home to roost," they say. So apparently do drones.

The primary problem with drones fighting our "war on terrorism" is not so much the technology as the absence of the traditional elements of a "war."

We are not fighting another country -- historically a necessary prerequisite to war. Thus, there is no territory we, or our enemy, are trying to take or defend. . . .

We are not using drones to kill uniformed, enemy military killing our citizens, or destroying property, in the United States. We are using them to invade countries with which we are not at war, sometimes over the protests of their governments and peoples, to kill their non-uniformed citizens or visitors (and civilians). We kill them, not because they are engaged at that moment in destroying U.S. property, or attempting to kill U.S. military personnel, in one of the 150-plus countries where we feel entitled to have bases. We kill them because we believe they might someday do so, or are engaged in planning or training to do so. . . .

We're not paranoid. We have real enemies. . . . But neither is it a "war" -- by any of the standards historically applied and regulated under an international law of war, notwithstanding the Administration's efforts to make it into one.

And now, before we have even developed a vocabulary, and a legal and ethical set of standards for describing, not to mention judging, what we are doing with our drones abroad, we're confronted with another set of issues regarding our drones at home. . . .

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution provides, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . ." -- a right primarily enforced by excluding evidence so obtained from criminal trials. The drafters of that protection didn't have the Internet, drones, or other innovative revolutions in technology in mind. . . .

We can't be said to have "a reasonable expectation of privacy" (Katz v. U.S., 1967) of those things we leave in plain view. But how should, how can, the law respond when everything we do is in the plain view of constantly hovering drones?

# # #