http://tellmehowthisends.com/

The link above is quite interesting. A good friend posted it on facebook and I have to say I was intrigued. The level of detail and the sophistication of the model used is compelling.
It is not your usual call for diplomacy and patience; international consensus and bilateral negotiations and the sort.
The above link is something far more insidious. It projects for its audience a "road map" of the Iranian crisis and the general context of the middle east powder keg we are all sitting on. What frightens me about an argument like the one above, is the certainty with which it makes broad assumptions about the complex chemistry of human interactions, political movements and violent conflicts.
Rather than a true question or policy debate, it proposes to tell us all, proponents and opponents alike, how this will end: desperately mired in a costly conflict we cannot bring to a decision and caught in the throes of a global economic meltdown. It assumes a diachronic model for both American policy and the subsequent and inevitable reactions in the across the globe. The dichotomy of move and counter move is accepted without question.

There are a hundred ways the eventual confrontation between a nuclear arms seeking Iran and the global order could play out. I don't think it will look anything like Iraq or Afghanistan. Or maybe it will look a little like Afghanistan circa 2002, when there were a couple thousand Americans on the ground for the collapse of the Taliban. We will see.

But I have a real question for the people who made this model above: can you tell me how this ends?

Iran gets a nuclear weapon and tests it.

Saudi Arabia develops it own nuclear weapons program, as does Egypt and Jordan.

Iraq and the Sudan start to follow the pack a couple of years later. The non proliferation treaty loses all credibility and significance.

How does this story end?

Any better than the one above? I'm not so sure.

The Shame of the Benghazi Tragedy

Some professional politicians and political commentators have urged that the public discussion over the Benghazi attack be kept apolitical. They have argued that conservatives and Republicans are attempting to hijack this tragedy and use it as a political instrument to attack the President of the United States during an election year. Democrats have come out in strong opposition against making this into a “political issue”, citing the deaths as a tragedy, where Americans should come together in support of the victims. Unfortunately, the cynicism of these comments is for some of us, too rank to stomach.

            First of all, everything is a political issue. That is the nature of politics. When there is a failure or tragedy or even success, of any kind, it will undoubtedly become an issue of public and political discussion. Take the Aurora, Colorado shootings as an extreme example: a terrible, senseless tragedy with very clear lines of right and wrong. For the most part the larger, national politicians kept it that way, but the special interest groups didn’t take long to jump into the political debate that was implied in the tragedy: gun control. And that is a discussion that should be had and Aurora should be used as a point of reference when having that conversation. Is that politicizing the issue? Maybe it is; or maybe the issue, like most, was already saturated in a preexisting political debate. So let’s talk politics for a minute, as a country, unfettered from all this hand wringing and grand standing and moral posturing.

            The current administration failed to heed the reports of its own intelligence apparatus that the security situation was deteriorating. It failed to respond to the requests of its State Department personnel on the ground to shore up the security for the mission in Benghazi. During the attack, which lasted over six hours, the administration failed to respond across departments and organizations in an organized and coordinated fashion. It failed to provide any support to the people on the ground at the time. In the immediate fallout of the attack, the incident was reported to the American people by the administration and most medias outlets as “the activities of a mob” run out of control.[i] In actuality it had been a coordinated, combined arms attack orchestrated by al Qaeda affiliates. In the past two months, the FBI has mounted an uninspiring and largely fruitless investigation into the details of the attack. The various heads of the President’s administration have seemed to deflect blame to one another for the security gap. The administration as a whole has been less than transparent, to say the least, in their reporting of the facts.

            Is this President Obama’s Watergate? I don’t think so. But I do think it raises some real concerns about how we approach the continued threat of militant Islamic organizations. Is it an effective strategy to be apologetic in the face of these terrorist attacks? To write off these events as some misplaced violence caused by the “the activity of a deranged individual ridiculing Mohammed”?[ii] Probably not. Some Americans still believe that Major Nadal Hassan, the Ft. Hood shooter, should have been denounced from the start by the administration as a terrorist. Whether or not you want to call this conflict we are living through “the global war on terror” is less important than simply recognizing publicly that there is in fact a war we are still actively fighting. It is being fought everyday in Washington and London, in Tehran and Wardak, and in North Africa too. To pretend otherwise is less than honest and is disrespectful to our personnel out there risking their lives outside the wire.

            The biggest problem is the complacency in all of this on the part of the American people. The Benghazi attack, and all the fallout and back peddling since, hasn’t even rated for most as worthy of a political discussion. Four Americans were murdered by al-Qaeda on September 11^th 2012 and most of us just seem happy enough to move on. Even for conservatives and Republicans it is not an issue of urgency. Nobody is taking this personally. What would the generation of 1941 think if they could see us with fresh eyes now? Have we lost a certain respect for our own service men and women?

            I understand the empirical barrier for most Americans is probably quite great. After all we are only talking about four Americans, in some far off, largely bush-league nation. I mean, it is a tragedy, but these things happen, right? Most Americans don’t know what it is like to write reports and debriefs for months counseling a serious need for reinforcements just to be told by the bureaucrats to drive on and make do. Most Americans have no idea what “small arms” fire sounds like when you are caught in an enemy kill zone. Very few Americans, very few service men even, have ever watched as mortar rounds impact all around them and the shrapnel explodes into the flesh of their brothers in arms. It is not an easy experience to convey. It is even harder, however, to communicate when one’s audience has no interest in understanding that sort of dread and abandonment. But let me tell you something: in a situation like that, even a simple “show of force” from a couple of jets flying close air support for you, can mean the difference between victory and defeat.

            I don’t know what happened in Benghazi. It will be a few years before the whole story is really fleshed out. But I can tell you from experience, it smells like we left those guys out there high and dry, outside the wire. And that is something we cannot afford to do. We are fundamentally stronger than our enemies in this new global conflict. But we lose our strength the day we refuse to stand by our own people. Someone failed our people in Benghazi and that should be something we as a people take very seriously. We should take it as an affront to our personal honor as Americans. But maybe we are not the people we used to be. Maybe America really doesn’t care for its people outside the wire. Maybe Benghazi just isn’t important enough for a political discussion anymore.

---

[i] from the Peter Fenn article in US News, “Mitt Romney's Disgraceful Politicizing of Libya Tragedy”.  http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Peter-Fenn/2012/09/12/mitt-romneys-disgraceful-politicizing-of-libya-tragedy

[ii] from the Peter Fenn article in US News, “Mitt Romney's Disgraceful Politicizing of Libya Tragedy”.  http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Peter-Fenn/2012/09/12/mitt-romneys-disgraceful-politicizing-of-libya-tragedy

The Spirit Between Us

Before I deployed to Afghanistan my brother sent me a gift. It was a six -inch, fixed-blade hunting knife with a leather sheath and classic, simple style. Engraved into the blade was a quote I had never seen before: “Wars may be fought with weapons but they are won by men” –General George S. Patton. Enclosed in the package with the knife was an encouraging and hopeful letter, wishing me a safe deployment. He included the rest of the quote: “It is the spirit of the men who follow and of the man who leads that gains the victory over hardship”. I took that letter with me to Afghanistan, where I had many opportunities to contemplate the truth of those words.

               The relationship between “the men who follow and of the man who leads” is vital. That relationship takes on its own nature; its very own spirit as Patton describes it. It is that relationship which stands at the heart of every organization and leads to its ultimate victory or defeat. In our Army today there are two keys to nourishing this spirit and the success of our nation in its future conflicts. Leaders across the Army must look to our history, to the examples of our predecessors in order to learn the secrets of their successes.

               The first key to building a culture of victory in our Army today may seem quite simple, but is of the utmost importance. We must treat our subordinates with respect. We must encourage their better natures, not through degradation or harsh treatment, but rather through empathy, reason and sincerity. When I was in Officer Candidate School, I was required to commit to memory Schofield’s Definition of Discipline:

“The discipline which makes the soldiers of a free country reliable in battle is not to be gained by harsh or tyrannical treatment. On the contrary, such treatment is far more likely to destroy than to make an army. It is possible to impart instructions and to give commands in such a manner and in such a tone of voice as to inspire in the soldier no feeling but an intense desire to obey, while the opposite manner and tone of voice cannot fail to excite strong resentment and a desire to disobey. The one mode or other of dealing with subordinates springs from a corresponding spirit in the breast of the commander. He who feels the respect which is due others cannot fail to inspire in them regard for himself; while he who feels, and hence manifests, disrespect toward others, especially his inferiors, cannot fail to inspire hatred against himself.”

Today I keep that definition printed on the front door of my office, so that every morning as I start my work, I am reminded of my obligation to the soldiers who serve under me in my unit. It is essential that we as leaders remember our Soldiers are volunteer citizens from the greatest Democracy in the history of the world. We need to talk to our soldiers; we need to communicate to them the importance of the tasks we assign them. Undoubtedly there will be instances when military necessity will force leaders to simply order their subordinates to accomplish a set of tasks, without sufficient explanation. As much as it is possible, however, we must remember that our soldiers are the top-one percent of our citizenry, and they deserve our attention and our care. They deserve to understand the logic behind the missions they will carry out.

The second duty we have as leaders is to always share in the hardships our soldiers are forced to suffer. We can look to the example of BG William O. Darby himself, who led from the front and shared in the greatest dangers of the enemy fire both in North Africa and then again in Italy. We often talk about “leading from the front”, but the trouble is it is often easier said than done. We must demand of ourselves as leaders a higher standard. We must be visible to our men, in all hardships at all times, whether it be in garrison, training, or combat. Our presence or absence will often be the determining factor in the attitudes of our units.

If we as leaders in the United States Army can commit ourselves to these two responsibilities, to treat our soldiers with the respect they deserve and to always share in their hardships with them, then I have no doubt we are fit to face whatever challenges this next century has lying in wait for us. It will not be the victory of our bright leaders, or even the victory of our strong soldiers. Rather it will be the victory won by the loyalty that binds us together as one fighting spirit.  It will be our victory together over hardship and tyranny.