American Unexceptionalism

In an earlier post, I wrote about how it has become a norm to confuse fact with opinion which is an obvious and unfortunate testament to the country's disintegrating morals. Another contributory factor to this confusion is a pervasive anti-intellectualism which has resulted in the younger generation being less informed, despite a wealth of knowledge at their fingertips. After all, it makes it easier to confuse facts and opinions, if you don't really know what are the facts. The younger generation sees the internet not as a learning tool, but as a social networking tool with a focus on themselves and their friends. Mark Bauerlein, in his book, The Dumbest Generation, revealed how a whole generation of self-absorbed youth has become less informed and less literate than preceding generations. Coupling ignorance with a doddering moral compass does not make for a shining city on the hill. 

Are Baltimore rioters the beginnings of ISIS in America?

Counter terrorism officials observing the recent rioting in Baltimore should be concerned that those responsible for the mayhem could be co-opted by ISIS and unleash home grown violence reminiscent of the race riots in the late 1960’s or worse.  The parallels between the ISIS zealots and the Baltimore rioters are noteworthy. These rioters are fundamentally rootless and are untethered from society having little or no ties to family, culture or faith.  In a classic case of trying to extend one’s own values to another segment of society, media pundits incessantly admonished the mothers and fathers. The media is right, of course, that IF the rioters did come from a strong family environment, they would be less likely to be thugs. On the other hand, the more likely scenario is that they come from single parent homes, a mother struggling to support her family, family members involved with drugs and criminal activities/incarcerated – or all of the above. The erosion of the family in the Black community has been well documented, and the Baltimore riots are yet again a consequence.  Institutions and other organizations that should be trying to fill this void have not.  What sort of school is teaching these kids that it is OK after classes to go on a rampage at the local mall? The only difference between these thugs and the ISIS fighters is that ISIS is better armed and organized.  The situation would seem to be a huge opportunity for the radical Nation of Islam.

Philosophical differences between ISIS and the Nation of Islam are almost indistinguishable. Ironically Mayor Stephen Rawlings-Blake during a press conference stood alongside the leader of the local chapter of the Nation of Islam and thanked them for helping her deal with the riots. Last November  in a speech about the Michael Brown case, the leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, told the crowd: “We’ll tear this ******* country up! We going to die anyway, let’s die for something.” This sounds a lot like the tweet urging the Baltimore high school students to go on a “purge”. The fact that the Nation of Islam has long standing ties to Lybia increases the likelihood of ISIS co-opting and channeling the anger and violence of untethered black males in our major cities. 

Remembering Lunghua

With fewer and fewer of the Greatest Generation, WWII commemorations and remembrances have become more and more meaningful.  Amidst this historical retrospective there are some aspects of the war that have been largely ignored, namely the Japanese internment of over 13,500 civilian men, women, and children in China. Case in point, Shanghai which was a bustling commercial metropolis with a large international population had no less than 12 internment camps.  Residents of the International Settlement, predominantly British, were colonial officials who enjoyed a privileged life of afternoon teas waited on by a bevy of servants, and exclusive activities like cricket and polo. This blissful existence effectively ended on 8 December 1941, when the Imperial Japanese Army entered and occupied the British settlement.  

European Shanghai residents were cut off, isolated, and faced an uncertain future.  They were forced to wear armbands to differentiate them, were evicted from their homes, and subject to mistreatment. The Japanese sent more than 1800 European citizens to be interned at the Lunghua Civilian Assembly Center, a work camp on the outskirts of Shanghai. Conditions were severe with food and clothing in short supply. Lunghua was made famous by JG Ballard’s fictionalized version of his experiences, Empire of the Sun, followed by the Steven Spielberg film of the same name. Despite poor treatment and persistent lack of food the internees met these challenges and more. They organized themselves, ran the kitchen, dispensary and educated their children. In the face of adversity, they were a shining example of human resilience. One day in August 1945 the internment camp awoke to find that the ever present guards had abandoned their posts to never return. Today the main building of the camp has reverted to being a schoolhouse, its original function before the war.  My mother, her sister and parents were interned at Lunghua. As a measure of closure and in response to an intractable lack of contrition by the Japanese, the British compensated surviving internees and their widows with an ex gratia payment of ₤10,000. As Prime Minister Tony Blair speaking to survivors said at the time: “It is very hard for someone of my generation to understand what suffering people went through. You saw the very worst of human nature and yet I think you showed the very best of human nature.”

Nature-Nurture Redux

In 1690 John Locke proposed that humans start with a tabula rasa and acquire most all of their behavioral traits from environmental experiences, thus denying the influence of heredity.  

This nature-nurture controversy is again in the news with a recent study that shows poor children have smaller brains than affluent children.  Neuroscientists studied the region of the brain that handles language, memory, spatial skills and reasoning and discovered that the brains of children in families that earned less than $25,000 a year were smaller than those whose families earned $150,000 or more. The children with smaller brains scored lower on a battery of cognitive tests.  The purpose of the research was to better understand the academic achievement gap between poor and more affluent children. While the new research does not explain the reason for brain differences, the researchers have postulated two theories: (a) brain size may related to poor nutrition and lower-quality health care, or (b) poor families tend to live more chaotic lives, and that stress could inhibit healthy brain development. There is now a study to investigate whether giving low-income mothers a small or large monthly sum of cash impacts the cognitive development of their children in the first three years of life. On the other hand, James Thompson, a psychologist at University College London believes that there is a genetic component that should not be overlooked.  His point is that basically less ability people marry other people with less ability and have children which on average have less ability.  To be sure all children are capable of learning regardless of their backgrounds or economic situation.  Steven Pinker famously emphasized in his best-seller that the behaviorist’s position is rooted in the ideology espoused by John Locke that humans are conditioned by culture because social influences can be used to educe desirable traits or repress undesirable traits. The pile of evidence to the contrary including this recent brain size study are an inconvenient truth. 

Join the Navy and become a nuclear detterant

Speaking this year at the Navy League’s Sea Air Space conference Frank Kendall, undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, said that to replace the country’s aging nuclear-missile submarines, ICBMs, and long-range strategic bombers has become unaffordable without radical policy changes or budget increases.  Given that the latter is unrealistic in the current fiscal environment, there is an undeniable imperative to revisit the triad, a relic of the Cold War and the threat of mutual assured destruction. Today’s threats, while perhaps even greater and more diverse clearly do not warrant maintaining a triad. Maintaining our overwhelming force if anything signals that US has been intransigent in not shifting from a Cold War mindset to a strategy that recognizes today’s threats more appropriately.

Numerous studies have concluded that the U.S. strategic triad could be restructured without sacrificing international security. The Global Zero study which was spearheaded by the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs Marine General James “Hoss” Cartwright, advocates doing away with the nation’s first-strike capability by cutting the strategic nuclear arsenal to no more than 900 warheads, as well as eliminating U.S. land-based nuclear missiles which could save $100 billion over a decade.  Nuclear-missile submarines alone carry enough nuclear warheads to reach the level determined by the Obama administration for effective deterrence (around 1100 warheads).  Because of their survivability, firepower, and accuracy they are the one component of the nuclear triad that should be maximized. Bombers and missiles are more easily intercepted. Because of its dispersion, mobility, and concealment, an SLBM force is effectively invulnerable while at sea. The solution for maintaining the country’s nuclear deterrence is to discontinue the land based component of the triad, reduce proposed bomber budgets, and put the savings into the SLBM leg. 

Internet in your car?

Recently Chevrolet began touting the ability to seamlessly connect their vehicles to the internet using the built-in OnStar 4G LTE Wi-Fi hotspot.  That’s right, in the face of one the biggest threats to car safety, namely texting while driving, GM has decided that it would be a good idea to make it easier. The dangers of cell phone use while driving are incredible. At any given time throughout the day, approximately 660,000 drivers are attempting to use their phones while behind the wheel of an automobile. In 2011 at least 23% of all auto collisions involved cell phones.  Worse, more than 7 in 10 young adults feel confident that they can safely text while driving. It is no wonder that 11 teens die every day as a result of texting while driving.  Instead of encouraging bad behavior, GM and the rest of the auto industry should be exploring technologies that inhibit cellular use in a car.  One example is the use of location-based technology that detects texting while driving utilizing the GPS and Network Location services of Android mobile phones to estimate the speed that the cell phone is travelling at the time text messages are sent. There is no available a technology based solution for iPhones, due to Apple’s long standing policy of denying access to low level device interfaces.  As a result an iPhone app cannot block or auto respond to a text message while a person is driving.

 A relative simplistic solution is to jam the cellphones in the vehicle by transmitting a signal on the same frequency and at a high enough power that the two signals collide and cancel each other out.  Although, this technology is available, Federal law prohibits the operation of jamming devices in the United States. The FCC considers radio frequency transmitters that intentionally block, jam or interfere with authorized communications such as cellphone calls, GPS systems, Wi-Fi networks and first-responder communications illegal. Not only should the FCC revisit this prohibition in the case of auto vehicles, the Federal government should take the initiative in making cars safer by requiring that this jamming technology be installed in all vehicles, similar to what was done for seatbelts. It should come as no surprise that GM has made yet another bad decision with respect to vehicle safety in light of the $35-million fine levied by the the NHTSA against them, recalls and a plethora of safety issues. By all accounts, GM is trying to change their culture to meet quality and safety issues head on. The decision to put Wi-Fi in their vehicles is a clear indication that GM may not have yet turned the corner. 

When leading from behind is a good thing

Fiscal pressures mandate a defense strategy that accounts for the requisite resources to execute it. Accordingly, it is a propitious time to revisit our NATO commitments. Recently, European President Jean-Claude Juncker called for the formation of a 'European Army' in response to the amplified Russian threat to member states.  Others have called for a consolidated EU Air Force because of the evident benefits of pooling large investments in procurement, operation, and sustainment. Operation Atalanta comprised of EU naval forces which deter acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast has been an undeniable success, but making this European naval force even more remarkable is the juxtaposition with NATO maritime forces

conducting related Operation Ocean Shield counter-piracy operations. Furthermore, both NATO and EU maritime forces operate with Combined Task Force 151 which is the US led multinational counter piracy naval task force. Participating countries are compelled to calibrate their level of commitment to these maritime forces notwithstanding national tasking. It is worth noting that nontraditional partners like Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and even China have joined the counter piracy operations.  Cynics might argue that the rush to join in counter piracy is because piracy is an easy target with an adversary that poses no realistic threat to coalition forces.  By any measure, a sophisticated multi-million dollar ship chasing an outboard powered skiff does not make a lot of sense. The point is that the EU maritime forces are extremely capable and are effectively interchangeable with their counterpart maritime forces.  From the standpoint of command and control, NATO and EU maritime forces enjoy a close relationship to the point where their respective operations centers are collocated.  It would seem to be a no brainer to advance this proof of concept to the next level, and have the EU maritime forces supplant NATO’s.   There are at least three unquestionable benefits: (1) unity of effort, (2) fiscal efficiencies and (3) consistency with US strategy. 

(1) Because the same forces and capabilities form the basis of both EU and NATO defense efforts ("separable, but not separate”), current doctrine  espouses no duplication of what was done effectively under NATO, no decoupling from the US and NATO, and no discrimination against non-EU members such as Turkey. While for the most part, this approach has been successful, there is no doubt that there is duplication of effort (e.g. counter piracy) resulting in separate chains of command that may or may not be aligned.  Consolidating these operations would be of obvious benefit to the unity of effort.  

(2) The drumbeat to rebalance our contribution to NATO was initially sounded by Secretary Gates who famously warned that the alliance risked “a collective military irrelevance” if it continued to rely on the generosity of the US taxpayer which according to NATO’s 2013 annual report was about  73 percent of the alliance’s defense expenditures. Worse is while the US contribution has been increasing our European partners are shrinking their investment.  Secretary Hegel has warned that if the Europeans do not invest in their security, the US will rebalance to partners that share the burden more equitably.  Shifting the cost of mutual security from NATO to the EU, would make the EU responsible for enforcing compliance with contribution guidelines (at least 2% of GDP). The raison d'être for EU defense forces is independence from US control. Now is an opportune occasion for the EU to pick up the slack. Obviously, this transition will need to be a phased approach, maybe taking as long as ten years.  

(3)  US naval strategy has for some time been shifting to an emphasis on promoting and supporting global maritime partnerships. Recently the commander of US naval forces in the Pacific signaled a willingness to support a combined ASEAN maritime patrol in the South China Sea should ASEAN members take the lead. With the stark recognition that the US cannot do it alone, the US must increase its reliance on maritime partnerships. Consistent with these realities, our strategy should include charting a course for consolidating EU and NATO efforts.