Federal term limits

It is time to enact term limits for both the federal House of Representatives and Senate.  If our laws set forth a two-term limit for the highest elected office in the land, then it is appropriate and justifiable to change federal law to establish a two-term limit for the members of the House and Senate.

The Constitution should be amended to limit individuals to no more than two accumulative terms (elected and/or appointed) in either the House or Senate: a term in both chambers, one as representative and one as a senator, or two terms in either.

The dismal approval ratings for Congress irrefutably indicate “politics as usual” are not serving our nation and we the people.  From my perspective far from Capitol Hill, both major political parties emphasize not good government, but a perpetual state of campaigning serving the goal of wielding political power.  Two, three, and four years out, aided and abetted by the media, the discussion is not on good legislation, but dwells on who will run in the next cycle and how statements today will impact future elections and political party balance of power.  The incipient ramblings addressing future elections seem to offer promises of better government, though nothing could be farther from the truth.

Incumbents manipulate the federal legislative process for personal gain on Election Day, not for the good of the people they represent or the nation.  It’s all about getting reelected.  For example, instead of separate funding bills, taken to the floor for up or down votes based on merits, omnibus funding bills are pushed forward.  Why?  Because such monolithic bills contain just enough to enable incumbents to state they voted for a variety of pet projects, claiming thus to support their special interest groups, constituents, and (most importantly) donors.  By the time these onerous legislative maneuvers have fully metastasized, replete with countless amendments and pork barrel spending, forget about compromise or what is best for the nation.  Second to their personal reelection aspirations, remaining in office confers power, as longevity in the House or Senate provide for key so-called leadership positions within each chamber.  Term limits will favorably impact these leadership positions by forcing turnover, which will likely move incumbents toward increased deliberation, more compromise, better legislation, and more efficient processes.

Enacting term limits will not solve all of what currently ails our federal legislature.  But limiting the amount of time one can serve in these positions of enormous power and influence can diminish the impact of finding ourselves with what some describe as a permanent political class.  It was never intended for the nation to have politicians serve decades in either the House or Senate.  However, 26 members of the House served 40 years or more, with 25 Senators serving between 35 – 51 years.  That means a lot of time seeking reelection.  Term limits will go towards preventing repeats of these gross examples.

Looking at some of the most flagrant cases of abuse of power, criminal actions, and unacceptable behavior by members of the House and Senate reveals that said abuse, actions, and behavior usually occurs after members have been reelected multiple times.  Is it fair, then, to conclude that after multiple terms a representative or senator feels he/she is above the law?  Is it fair, on an equal basis, to conclude the continuous reelection mode requiring massive amounts of cash opens up the incumbents to perverse manipulation and corruption by outside forces and political party leaders?  Though not a guarantee, a two-term limit can work to control and mitigate these evils.  (Speaking of money, how is it that the longest serving members of Congress substantially increase their personal wealth while in office?)

Alternatively, if not a two term limit, then a single term of four years in the House and eight years in the Senate should be the objective.  A federal election would be held in each state every year, as one fourth of the House and one eighth of the Senate turn over.  This will bring a constant flow of individuals who may actually be seeking to serve our nation with honor and integrity, rather than person aggrandizement.  One term and out.  (As an aside, tough, comprehensive criminal statute legislation preventing the one-termer from accepting employment from donors and/or lobbyists for a period of 25 years after leaving office will be required.)

The prudence of a two-term limit for the presidency was seen clearly in the middle of the last century.  Our Constitution was then changed to make it law.  The same prudent stance should now be taken, as decades of congressional failure, individually, collectively, and institutionally; continuous campaigning for re-election, manipulation of the federal legislative process, and abuse, criminal actions, and unacceptable behavior; and creation of a permanent political class undeniably indicate the time is now to institute term limits. 

Character matters

We should be concerned about the character of individuals hired to teach our youth, particularly in the public universities in California.

You may have learned about an instructor at the University of California Santa Barbara, Assistant Professor Mireille Miller-Young of the Feminist Studies Department, who instigated a physical confrontation with peaceful right-to-life protestors on the university campus.  Allegedly, as caught on a cell phone camera, she stole from and then destroyed materials the protestors had brought to campus, after which she physically assaulted one of the protestors.

Currently, she awaits sentencing after pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges of theft, vandalism, and battery.

Per the UC Santa Barbara website Ms. Miller-Young is listed as the instructor for the following classes for 2014-15: Women of Color: Race, Class, Ethnicity; Sexual Cultures; Feminist Methodologies; and Genders and Sexualities.  Per press reports, she has been identified as teaching classes on pornography.  Her fate as a result of her no contest pleading will be decided in a court of law, with announcement of the punishment expected shortly.

It is tempting to challenge her academic schedule, but this is not the time nor place to offer criticism of those classes and majors offered by public universities.  It is the time and place, however, to offer criticism of comments reportedly submitted in support of Ms. Miller-Young by some of her academic colleagues.

Per published reports, one justifies Ms. Miller-Young's actions, including the battery, because of a "cultural legacy of slavery."  Another accuses, without citation or example, the media reporting on this matter as "fomenting racial hatred."  Both are patently absurd.

In her attempt to justify the actions initiated by Ms. Miller-Young, fellow faculty member Ms. Eileen Boris would have us believe that all acts of physical aggression instigated by African-Americans are justified purely based upon one's race.  Following her statement to perhaps an illogical extreme, her assertion of a "cultural legacy of slavery" as justification for battery, then all African-Americans are to be excused whenever and wherever they commit acts of physical aggression.  It is the same as stating that African-Americans are incapable of self-control.  Absurd!  

In his statement, fellow faculty member Mr. Paul Spikard accuses the press of "fomenting racial hatred" and portraying Ms. Miller-Young as an "angry black woman."  (However, Mr. Spikard offers to citations or other proof in substantiation of his statements.)  Absent any citations or proof for his statement, the only one seeking to create a sense of racial hatred is Mr. Spikard.

The statements of Ms. Boris and Mr. Spikard display an amazing lack of character.  It is they who are attempting to create a racial incident where none exists.  It is they who seek to waive responsibility for Ms. Miller-Young's actions.  It is they who try to obscure the facts.  An assistant professor at UC Santa Barbara instigated a confrontation with pro-life protestors.  This individual went so far as to steal materials from the protestors.  This individual physical assaulted one of the protestors.  This individual entered a plea of no contest to the misdemeanor charges of theft, vandalism, and battery.

Do we taxpayers want individuals who falsely seek to create racial tension and justify physical assaults to be instructing our students?  I think not.  Character matters and Ms. Boris and Mr. Spikard have certainly displayed an amazing lack of it.

Unbelievably....

Viewing and listening to the explanations offered for the employment of military airpower over portions of Iraq initially left me perplexed and concerned. Listening further to the examples touted by the White House and DoD increased those initial reactions. Two aircraft dropping a total of two bombs on one piece of artillery. Not exactly shock and awe. I shook my head in disgust. How incredibly ineffectual.

Then an epiphany!

This latest military action, which POTUS calls a "project," is exactly what he wants. All one need do is think about the previous public pronouncements regarding the use of military force in Syria. Secretary of State John Kerry stated, "We will be able to hold Bashar Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, very short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war. That is exactly what we’re talking about doing – unbelievably small, limited kind of effort."

So we see in Iraq an "unbelievably small" military action, an act of war, not a "project." Any individual with any knowledge of military matters will be highly critical of such an approach. This approach demonstrates to the world, again, Obama's failure to understand national security, foreign policy, and international security. Stated differently, his knowledge is unbelievably small. His leadership is unbelievably deficient.

His approach to international matters is unbelievably inconsistent. Why decide to employ military force in Iraq, but not Syria? Reading excerpts of his statement leaves me shaking my head.

"Today I authorized two operations in Iraq — targeted airstrikes to protect our American personnel, and a humanitarian effort to help save thousands of Iraqi civilians who are trapped on a mountain without food and water and facing almost certain death. Let me explain the actions we're taking and why."

"When we face a situation like we do on that mountain — with innocent people facing the prospect of violence on a horrific scale, when we have a mandate to help — in this case, a request from the Iraqi government — and when we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye. We can act, carefully and responsibly, to prevent a potential act of genocide."

How is using military force to "help save thousands of Iraqi civilians" more justifiable than doing so to save Syrians? Why does "innocent people facing the prospect of violence on a horrific scale, when we have a mandate to help...when we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye" apply in Iraq, but not in Syria?

Unbelievably small military action will not materially change matters in Iraq.

Unbelievably inconsistent foreign policy will not make the world a safer place.

It appears POTUS actually believes what he is trying to sell the American people and international community.

Unbelievable!

  

Over a cup of coffee

Most fulfilling and enjoyable is talking and sharing laughter with a close friend over a cup of coffee.  Might even add a warm cinnamon roll just to spice things up.  About mid-week, one of my fellow Marines and I carved the time out to do just this.

Our individual and mutual intelligence spike during these exchanges, which would come to a surprise to our brides.  Erudite on countless topics, our conversation led to pithy comments and observations.  These, in turn, provide the wellspring for irrefutable and certain solutions to the myriad problems we choose to tackle.  Uncommonly wise, well beyond what passersby may judge by our appearance, we see with crystalline clarity not only the ills besetting out country, but the remedies.  Ah, if only others would listen to us.

Being Marines, the matters are of the highest importance: national security, leadership, individual responsibility, ethics, integrity, politics, sports, physical fitness, vacations, public education, national economy, public engagement, tennis, grandchildren, and our brides.  In each and every case, our considered views are based on expert analysis.

Another sip of coffee, another condemnation of weak willed and unprincipled politicians, another bite of a cinnamon roll.  More laughter.

You surely get the picture.

Shifting to the serious, we two have between us 57 years of active duty in our beloved Corps, served protecting our country, while our families endured the military lifestyle.  This service established within us certain values, values we see under assault across the world and nation.  We both entered public education after retiring from active duty, certainly not for the money, but for the opportunity to help shape students.  We both departed public education, profoundly disappointed in both the failed union centric culture and the prevalent lack of expecting individual student responsibility evident in far too many parents.  We believe in our nation and the wisdom of serving it.  We understand there are evil people in the world who want to destroy our country from the outside, also recognizing there are those intent on its destruction from within.  We are disgusted by the reprehensible actions by the majority of elected officials.  Tolerant, though we actively resist those activists who demand we accept and embrace their views.  Memories of lost Marines are shared with reverence.  We also believe in the vast greatness of our nation and its people.  Terrific Marines with whom we had the privilege of serving are recalled.  The honor of commanding Marines is oft cited as the greatest achievement, other than our families.  We discuss at length the diminishing acceptance of individual responsibility for ones own well being, citing that education, hard work, and sacrifice will produce a better life.

Of course, not all topics are serious.

We comment about and look at attractive women.  We enjoy a good baseball game, plus a beer and a frankfurter at the ball park.  We prank each other, teasing about our idiosyncrasies.  We celebrate being men.  We drive pick-up trucks.  We like early rock and roll music.  We discuss good reads, which frequently involve military history.  We work out each and every day, committed to physical fitness.  Did you hear the one about....?  More laughter.

Another sip of coffee.  Dang, the cinnamon roll is all gone.

As the interlude comes to a close, time spent with a good friend over a cup of coffee produces a warm smile, slap on the back, and strong handshake.

      

Learn the right lesson

Of recent, reports about the Army downsizing its officer corps have made it into the news.  Most commonly, the point being addressed is how some serving officers (captains and majors) are receiving the military equivalent to the pink slip.  They are being released early, even if their intent is to serve a full career.  Most reprehensibly, some officers currently serving in combat in Afghanistan are being informed they will be separated from the Army no later than next spring.

As disgusting as is the Army's decision to inform leaders in combat that they are essentially being being fired, downsized if you will, the real learning point here is being missed in the pieces I have read.  The real learning point is that the Armed Forces of the United States of America serve a civilian leadership, a leadership that does not fully grasp that these large organizations do not inherently have the agility to respond effectively in short order to politically driven manpower or procurement decisions, without creating significant problems in the future.  Lest one read into this that I am being specifically critical of the current administration, even though it would be well earned, the learning point applies more broadly.

During 30 years of active duty, I witnessed first hand at least two similar rounds of what some call "peace dividends."  One in the mid-70s, right at the end of Vietnam, and one in the early 90s, after the fall of "the Wall" signifying the end of the Cold War and the lopsided results of Desert Storm.  Administrations and Congress demanded rapid military personnel cuts and reorganization, with each side of the aisle claiming ridiculous and unsubstantiated savings, while concurrently claiming to be preserving our national security.  Absurd!

As a young company grade officer during the first experience, I lived through a time when most units did not deploy for training; most units were woefully short of personnel; equipment readiness rates were dismal; and morale was low.  Re-enlistments were hard to come by.  The demanding training we sought was too small and too infrequent.  At my level, instead of rigorous training, I was faced with the challenges of keeping Marines occupied while on base.  It became more like an 8-5 job, rather than the military I thought I'd joined.

As a senior officer during the second experience, I lived through reduced training budgets; boards which sent Marines to early retirement; wholesale reduction of units; key capabilities being transferred from active duty force structure to the Guard and reserves; posturing instead of acting; and unwise employment of military forces.

Some of the results of the first experience included abysmal combat readiness, leading to failure during the attempted operation to rescue the hostages in Iran.  Let me quickly note and acknowledge the bravery and total dedication to the mission by all those involved.  However, combat readiness is based on years of consistent, challenging training to hone and maintain critical skills.  Upon this foundation, specific mission training can be designed and conducted.  Attempting to up the skills left dormant for all too long, while simultaneously attempting to conduct specific mission training, is an unacceptable challenge and task for our warriors.  Additionally, I fear too many great warriors decided to leave the military, finding themselves disillusioned by the lack of leadership and absence of rigorous training.  These may have been the battlefield leaders of the future.

Some of the results of the second experience paralleled the first.  Low combat readiness.  Some individual units were excelling, but we don't fight as individual units.  We fight as joint commands.  Further, an over reliance on push button warfare was embraced by the National Command Authorities.  Airpower, cruise missiles, and the like became the option of choice.  Sure, special operations was getting the resources and training it needed, but the larger Armed Forces were not.  This mindset continued for some time, much to our detriment.

Warfare means eventually a well trained Marine or soldier or sailor holding a rifle must stand on some objective and declare victory.  That level training requires resources, including manpower and time.  That rigorous and consistent training is what produces combat readiness.

Now we are once again seeing crucial training and experience being forsaken, as embodied in the captains and majors being unceremoniously separated from the service.

Our elected leaders, to whom the military reports, have once more failed to learn the lessons of history.  Take, for example, the peace dividend at the end of World War II.  How did that work out for us when North Korea crossed the 38th Parallel?  Or, how about the post-Vietnam hollow force so aptly written about by Colin Powell and others?  Did that deter our enemies in Iran or Beirut?  How did moving critical units into the Guard and reserve work out during OIE/OEF?

Elected leaders directing wholesale, rapid downsizing of the Armed Forces fail to recognize the potential negative future results of their rush to action.  The Armed Forces can certainly cut manpower in short order, as the recent reports of the Army's actions reveal.  But haste makes waste.

If a carefully considered and analyzed decision is reached to downsize, then an equally considered and analyzed process must be employed to attain the downsize objectives.  The size and importance of the Armed Forces require it.  Unfortunately, elected officials are ignorant of or ignore history when failing to recognize the lesson to be learned.  It takes time to recruit, build, and train a combat ready Armed Forces.  If it becomes necessary to reduce the size of the Armed Forces, the decision must not be taken lightly and must be based on comprehensive study of the future needs of the nation.

Quickly reacting to politically driven decisions does not serve our nation or its security.  Lacking agility to do so in the too short timelines demanded of the politicians without harming our future capabilities, the Armed Forces follow orders in a ham fisted, begrudging manner.  We are seeing the front end of those actions today.

I shudder to contemplate the future ramifications.