Reactions to Travel Restrictions Highlight Public Education Failure

Ironically, some of the ballyhoo surrounding the travel restrictions serves to highlight the failure permeating our system of public education.  One report describes how “tech giants” joined in an amicus curiae brief against the executive order.  The report states, “The ban prevents tech companies from attracting talent,” indicating they can not source enough “talent” from within the United States.

Public education is in shambles.  There is no other way to put it.  Story after story, report after report describe the problem from a variety of perspectives.  Attempting to counter these reports and stories, some elected officials employ a form of progressive sleight of hand to try to convince us the problem is not real.  One such ploy is reporting graduation rates are rising, thereby arguing education is improving. In perhaps one of the most egregious stories, in New York, “Mayor de Blasio and Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña cite the city wide 72 percent graduation rate as evidence that schools are improving. Rarely noted — only an average 37 percent of students graduate ready for college.” 

Only “37 percent of students graduate ready for college.”  Really?  And the same New York Post article reports, “But the stats are even worse at other schools such as Urban Assembly HS of Music and Art in Brooklyn, which boasted a 82.5 percent graduation rate but only 3.8 percent of the senior class was college ready.”  A measly 3.8 percent of a senior class was evaluated as college ready.  Almost concurrently the Mayor of New York touts “a record high graduation rate of 72.6 percent in 2016 after five straight years of improvement.”  Of course, teacher unions clap loudly at the otherwise abysmal results, with the Post reporting, “The teachers union also hailed the results.”  Even if accepting the claim of a 72.6 percent graduation rate, the level of college preparedness is highly questionable based on other reports.

The preceding examples come from one public school system in New York City, that bastion of liberal policies and approaches.  It can be argued that if New York City cannot provide quality public education, then it likely cannot be provided elsewhere.  And the tech sector relies on a highly educated workforce, though sadly the nation is meeting its public education responsibilities, with the former CEO of Sun Microsystems declaring public education is failing.  And this circles back to the views of “tech giants.”     

The tech giants complain about an inability to attract talent from overseas, implying if not outright stating they cannot find the talent they require within our country: a country with more than 50 million students in elementary and secondary education, according to The National Center for Education Statistics estimates.  Certainly the raw talent needed by the tech giants should be found in such a large student population.  Apparently not, if we are to believe the tech giants.

If nothing else decries the state of public education, certainly the complaints of leading tech companies that hire enormous number of employees must stand out.  Regardless of what the elected officials and school unions would have us believe, the public school system is failing too many of our citizens.  When major employers cannot find adequately numbers of prepared individuals for the workforce they need from local resources, and so complain about travel restrictions closing off some sources of potential employees, it rings as an indictment against public education. 

Ironic, isn’t it, that an unintended consequence of the ballyhoo surrounding travel restrictions is the stark and unambiguous condemnation of public education.    

Presidential judgment

A man is known by the company he keeps and whose counsel he accepts, because both reflect upon his judgment.  Arguably, no where is judgment more important than for the President of the United States.

The immediate past and current presidents have demonstrated exceedingly poor judgment in the company they keep and counsel they accept.  For Obama, it was Valerie Jarrett.  For Trump it is Steve Bannon.

Jarrett brought no distinctive credentials or skills to the position of Senior Advisor to the President of the United States and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental.  Reports swirled around her and the Obama administration concerning the extraordinary influence she seemed to hold over the president.  She was present is virtually every critical meeting.  She would take the place of agency experts at high level meetings.  She was provided Secret Service protection.  She reportedly was the one who persuaded (that is, told) the president to delay on multiple occasions the mission to get Osama bin Laden.  And the list goes on.  It became known that nothing would happen if Jarrett did not approve.


Now comes Bannon in a similar role.  If anything, it has been expanded upon, as evidenced by his being included in the Principals Committee of the National Security Council.  Bannon, like Jarrett before him, brings no distinctive credentials or skills to the West Wing of the White House (despite what some may say).  Like Jarrett, he is an ideologue.  Like Jarrett, he is of seriously dubious character.

Thus, there is justifiable reason to question President Trump's judgment.

Mr. President, please jettison Bannon immediately.  He is not the type company you should keep, nor is his counsel that which you should accept.  Your administration does not need, and should not have, a male version of Valerie Jarrett.    
  

Belittling the office

Much of the media is devoting time and ink to reports of elected officials and entertainers boycotting the upcoming inauguration.  Boycott as a verb,  according to Dictionary.com,  is defined as follows:

1.  to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion:

2.  to abstain from buying or using:

 

That entertainers choose not to attend the inauguration is totally inconsequential.  However, elected officials, who would otherwise attend, choosing not to attend, belittle the office into which the people have voted them.  This is no time for attempted intimidation or coercion.  Instead of celebrating the peaceful transition from one president to the next, an important cornerstone of our democracy, these elected officials are petulantly acting in a manner inconsistent with this same democracy.  Thus they belittle the office they hold.

 

A staunch supporter of the freedom of speech, I understand an individual's consuming desire to express his or her displeasure or support.  But sometimes the manner, place, and timing in which this expression is offered must be taken into account.  A sitting federal senator or representative can always take to the floor of Congress to express his/her views in opposition or support of the current administration and president.  We may not agree with with they say, but they have the right to say it.  That is democracy in action.

 

But to childishly claim they are boycotting the inauguration serves to demean the positions they hold.  As elected leaders of our nation, they must set positive examples by their actions.  Principled disagreement with the administration, coherently articulated at an appropriate time and place, exemplifies democracy in action.  A whining claim of boycotting the inauguration does not.

 

Rather than belittling their office, these individuals could take the moral high ground by stating their are attending the inauguration to visibly demonstrate their unyielding support for the peaceful transition of power characteristic in a free democracy, even when they vehemently disagree with the incoming president.     

33 years ago

It has been 33 years since the terrorist attack known as the Beirut Bombing took the lives of 241 American servicemen, 220 Marines, 18 sailors, and three soldiers on 23 October 1983.  (58 French peacekeepers were also killed in a separate bombing.) 

On that Sunday morning in North Carolina, I was assigned to the personal staff of the Commanding General 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing in Havelock, North Carolina.  Walking into the house after my morning run, I saw my wife's anguished face.  She explained that there had been an attack in Beirut and that lots of Marines were dead.

While watching the TV for reports, I called the Chief of Staff, Colonel Bateman, to check in.  Two reasons motivated the call.  Our Commanding General, Major General Keith Smith, and his wife Shirley had a son in Beirut, Captain Vinnie Smith.  And I did not know if we would be called out for some action, since Battalion Landing Team One Eight (BLT 1/8) and its parent command the 24th Marine Amphibious Unit (24th MAU) had been sourced from the II Marine Amphibious Force (II MEF) in North Carolina.  Colonel Bateman had no immediate orders, so I joined countless others in waiting and praying.

In the hours, days, and weeks to come, the extent of the tragedy became known.  It seemed most of us had some direct connection to the casualties, such as Major Bill Winter, with whom I had served on barracks duty in the late 70s.  That spring, while down at Camp Lejeune for training, I had briefly met with Bill, prior to the 24th MAU shipping out.  Captain Vinnie Smith, our Commanding General's son, was one of the last KIA identified some time after the attack.

A pall hung over the headquarters and the entire region.  Not long after, the medevac fights began arriving at the air station, from where some of the wounded were subsequently transported by surface means to Camp Lejeune.  President Reagan flew down for the memorial service at Camp Lejeune, which took place on a miserable, rainy day.  Funerals were scheduled and held.  Military families came together to support those impacted by the attack.

In one extraordinary display of respect and leadership, Bill Winter's widow received exceptional support from the Casualty Assistance Calls Officer (CACO), the Marine tasked with supporting the family in the event of a Marine's death on active duty.  Usually it is an assignment given to an officer from the Marine's unit, normally a relatively junior officer.  Years later I learned that Bill's and my Commanding Officer from our tour at Marine Barracks United Kingdom, in 1983 a Colonel at MCRD Parris Island, had himself assigned as the CACO.  Absolutely extraordinary and an example of exceptional leadership by a hardened combat veteran who had been presented the Medal of Honor for valor in Vietnam, James E. Livingston, who went on to retire as a Major General.

Now, decades and several wars later, monuments have been built, remembrance ceremonies have been held, and tears are shed at the memory and thoughts of all those young lives lost in that terrorist attack.

Now retired from the Marine Corps, I reflect on 23 October each year about what could have been.  The rules of engagement for the sentries that fateful day were that no magazines were inserted into their weapons.  In the context of today's world, it would not happen.  I think of the tactics employed in Iraq and Afghanistan to thwart vehicle borne bombs.  What if these tactics and rules of engagement were in place that Sunday? 

Though muscular talk flowed from Washington DC and Vice President Bush when he visited Beirut on 26 October, no retaliatory attack was undertaken.  Ironically, in view of what has transpired in the intervening years and the current threats we face, the suicide bomber has been possibly identified as an Iranian member of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, likely with Hezbollah involvement.

Despite loud declarations that America "would not be cowed by terrorists" and would remain, in February 1984 President Reagan ordered the withdrawal of American forces.

For this gray beard, it appears our adversaries learned all too well that the American will to respond to the attack was weak.  Kill enough Americans and they will depart.  In 1983 it was 241 dead Americans that led to our departure from Lebanon.  In 1993, it was 19 dead Americans that led to our departure from Somalia.  Two different presidents from two different political parties, with the same results.

This changed somewhat in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but underlying problems remain.

If unwilling to use all of our military capabilities swiftly, violently, and without hesitation to destroy our enemies, then do not send our men and women in harm's way.  Do not construct rules of engagement that restrict our ability and capacity to win.  Do not deploy our forces into combat without a declaration of war, which can only be made by Congress.  (The oft employed Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF] is woefully inadequate.  The AUMF also lead to "I voted for it, before I voted against" stances by politicians.)

And, if someone dares to attack our military in peacetime, respond immediately with overwhelming force to destroy those who would do us harm, plus their supporters.  No speeches.  No Rose Garden posturing.  No Congressional press events.  No focus group discussions.  No junior NSC staffer calling field commanders.  No days or weeks of floating ideas anonymously to the media.  Have plans and authorities in place for each of our combatant commanders, enabling them to immediately respond to any and all attacks.

Otherwise, the lessons of the past 33 years will have been lost and the deaths of all our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in the past three plus decades will have been for naught. 

        


     

Clinton Insults Voters

 

A candidate for president has insulted voters.  Here is how one news outlet reported it.

Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, told the fundraiser audience that half of the supporters for Trump, the Republican nominee, could be put into a "basket of deplorables."

“Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it,” Clinton said. “There are people like that and he has lifted them up.”

Though she attempted to soften the remarks, her comments displayed unmitigated gall and expansive narcissism.  Perhaps a bit of desperation in view of recent polling.

She can not bring herself to accept that voters just do not find her qualified to serve as president.  Poll after poll clearly show the overwhelming number of Americans find her to be untrustworthy and dishonest.

So, in typical Clintonian style, she attacks them.  Attacks voters through the use of vile and inflammatory language.  Attacks voters in a manner intent on fomenting racial, ethic, and social discord.

Ms. Clinton, a newsflash.  Opposing your candidacy does not make one deplorable, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or Islamophobic.  Opposing your candidacy is because of your corruption, perpetual lying, lack of integrity, "exceptionally careless" mishandling of classified information, greed, malfeasance in office, flip flopping on TPP, abysmal judgment, attacking women accusing your husband of sexual assault and harassment, and all sorts of other disqualifying actions over the years.  Such as thoroughly debunked claim that you landed in Bosnia under sniper fire.

People just do not want you to be president.  They are not deplorable.  They are exercising their right to choose for whom to vote.   

    

 

Trump insults our nation

Egad!  

Trump insults our nation.  Almost every time he tweets or opens his mouth.

A list of the insults, aimed at individuals and groups, would be far to long to repeat here.  But the accumulated impact is a massive insult to the nation.

One seeking the presidency of the United States should, above all else, be serious.  By words and actions, the candidate must demonstrate he/she understands the enormity of the position they seek.

Clearly, Trump does not.

With the verbal eloquence of a recalcitrant child, demeanor of either a bully or horrible Las Vegas lounge comic, and social media persona of an immature teenager, he has most assuredly made a mockery of the office.

Histrionic to the extreme, his utterances, tweets, and boasts demonstrate absolute unsuitability for the presidency.  One example makes the point.

Stipulating that the DNC unquestionably chose to have Mr. Khan speak as a provocateur, Trump's scurrilous response was unacceptable.

A response was not in fact required.  

If compelled to respond, Trump could have simply said, "Like all Americans, I honor all Gold Star families."   But he did not.  He chose to insult the Khans multiple times.

Again, a extremely long list of other examples could fill volumes.

Bottom line: Mr. Trump insults the nation and its people and is unworthy of their votes.

Footnote:  To be completely clear on the matter, Ms. Clinton is equally unworthy of our votes.    
 

Clinton can't have it both ways

Of recent, Ms. Clinton attempts to deflect justifiable criticism and concern of her by blaming subordinates, including her members of her innermost circle.  

As one working to persuade the American electorate that she is the leader for the future, she can not have it both ways.

Basic, elementary leadership means willingly accepting responsibility for everything your organization does or fails to do.  Good leaders know and practice this.  For example, in the military it is not uncommon for the commanding officer to held absolutely responsible for the actions of his/her subordinates.  This includes being relieved for cause, as the military saying goes.  Such as the commanding officer of a navy ship being relieved after it runs aground, even if he/she were asleep in his/her stateroom at the time of the grounding.

But Clinton, who demands that her adversaries be held to this very high standard of responsibility for the actions and words of their subordinates, wants to be a leader in name only.  

She seeks all the authority, without any of the responsibility.

In a recent situation, her advocates seek to deflect criticism of possible pay-to-play actions in the state department during her tenure, arising from emails revealing direct contact between her aides and those of former President Clinton, by saying she did not personally communicate with the external parties by email.  

Sure, two of her most trusted and closest aides did so, but according to her and others, she is not to be held responsible.

Simple answer...wrong!

The real leader creates a climate in which his/her subordinates, including the inner, personal staff, operate and for which he/she is responsible.  This climate sets the tone for the organization.  And it establishes that responsibility goes right to the top.  Responsibility for anything that is done or failed to be done. 

A leader can delegate authority to act in their name, but not the responsibility for the outcome of those actions.

The leader holds subordinates accountable for their actions in pursuit of the objectives the leader sets, and taken within the climate he/she establishes.  It is inconceivable that Clinton's closest and most trusted innermost staff would act on such high matters (described in one revealed email as on behalf of a "very imortant" person) without either her explicit approval (which did not need to be recorded in an email) or within their understanding of the objectives and climate she expressly set.  

Since no one was fired, the public can rightfully conclude the actions of Mills and Abedin (and others) have been and continue to be exactly what Clinton directs and desires.

Thus, in this latest of many, many questionable (if not criminal at worst or unethical at best) actions, Clinton can not have it both ways.  She can not stand for the most important leadership position within the country, seeking all the authority that comes with the office, and simultaneously seek to avoid the basic tenet of leadership: responsibility.         

Predictably

At a recent gathering, the older veterans' comments were predictably negative about the state of affairs in our country.  Equally predictable were words -- harsh, angry, condemning, frustrated, emotional -- about the choices in this presidential election.  "What fools!" from a retired Navy Captain captured it best.

It was a decidedly an anti-Clinton group, to no one's surprise I am sure.  As a retired Marine Colonel observed, when she falsely claimed to have landed under sniper fire in Bosnia, she insulted all those who have and do wear the uniforms of our nation's military.  This alone, in his mind, disqualifies her.

But make no mistake, Trump faired no better.  His scurrilous and despicable comments to and about a Gold Star Family enraged these veterans.  They were livid!  

The outrage across the nation at Trump was most eloquently captured in an op-ed written by the retired soldier who was Captain Khan's commanding officer at the time of his death.  As only a commanding officer can do, he put the entire matter in proper perspective.

But whether it is Clinton's hubris or Trump's maniacal attacks, their comments expose their unfitness for the office they seek. 

Predictably, it will likely occur that these episodes will be just others in the litany of episodes to come this election season.  One candidate continues to lie, obfuscate, and misrepresent, displaying a total absence of character.  The other candidate continues to insult, belittle, and attack just about every element of our great nation, displaying a total absence of judgment.

Predictably, however, one of these two fools, borrowing the retired Navy Captain's apt description, will be elected.

Predictably, the nation will bemoan that day.

Dismal and challenging times (that we will survive)

Dang, it is hard to keep smiling these days.  If the stock market reaction to the Brexit vote isn't enough to get the stomach acids churning at full force, then the continual, nay perpetual, bad news about the two presumptive presidential candidates should.

Ridiculous statements from each, unsupported by facts.  Inflammatory as well.

A previously undisclosed State Department email reveals once again Clinton's arrogant, if not manic pursuit of personal secrecy.  The email was most definitely official state department business, but did not make it into the 55,000 pages of printed emails Clinton ultimately provided (only after information about her personal server came to light). 

Trump's outlandish comments from Scotland reveal once again an inability to take matters seriously or understand the impact of his statements.  Can't the man think before he speaks?
 
Egad!

From where I sit, a cold beer and relaxing with my bride are in order this evening.

The stock market will rebound.

The country will survive whoever is elected president.  (It's not absolutely certain either Clinton or Trump will be the one.)

Our country will survive

Five months to go until the 2016 elections.  It hardly seems possible the political choices could be any more dismal.

For differing and similar reasons, the presumptive major party candidates for the office of the presidency are simply unworthy of the position they seek.

This leaves our nation facing a quandary for which no clear palatable, reasonable, or (dare it be said) sane alternative presents itself.

Legions of woefully uninformed, ignorant, greedy, and/or inept voters will certainly cast their ballots for one of these two.  Unless some cataclysmic event arises, one of them will be elected to serve as the next President of the United States of America.

At this point, one could start forecasting all the doom and gloom that will befall our nation.  It matters not which individual is elected, because the strident supporters from the other side can provide long lists of reasonable and unreasonable predictions.  Perhaps some of the gloom and doom, regardless of who is elected, will come to pass.  But it isn't reason to flee the country.   

A singular strength of our nation is its ability to survive.  It has survived the Civil War, multiple world wars, political scandals, slavery, economic recessions, the Great Depression, housing booms and busts, civil unrest, riots, 9/11, reconstruction, impeachments, Vietnam, high unemployment, the Dust Bowl, assassinations, Watergate, and countless other challenges.  It has survived its previous exceptionally poor choices for president.  

It has survived.

We cannot accurately predict what form survival will take in response to this new challenge, but survive the country will.  

There may be pain involved, but at the other end, our country will be better for its survival. 

We will endure the next months of hyperbole, insults, shrill voices, unfounded claims, stilted polls, expenditure of outrageous sums of money, ridiculous pronouncements, outright lies, clever misrepresentations, and perhaps even legal upheaval.  Then the election will be done.

Take a deep breath, exhale slowly, and remember that our country has survived worse and will survive this.  

An unwarranted victory lap

Following is a news report about comments POTUS made in Elkhart, Indiana, during his so-called victory lap, as he tells America how much better our nation, our citizens, and the world are since he took office.  In this case, he was discussing the economy.

Obama, speaking in Elkhart, Ind., had lamented the “primary story” he claimed Republicans are telling about the economy – one that focuses on how “moochers at the bottom of the income ladder” are squeezing middle-class families.

“We have been hearing this story for decades,” Obama said. “Tales about welfare queens, talking about takers, talking about the ‘47percent.’ It's the story that is broadcast every day on some cable news stations, on right-wing radio, it's pumped into cars, and bars, and VFW halls all across America, and right here in Elkhart.”

Obama continued: “And if you're hearing that story all the time, you start believing it. It's no wonder people think big government is the problem.”

His rhetoric is wholly unconvincing, in addition to taking an insulting and uncalled-for-shot at veterans.

If the nation is indeed so much better because of his time in office, then why are vastly more people out of the workforce than in it?  Why was the jobs report for May 2016 so dismal?  Why is the economy cited by voters as their number one concern?  Why is the national debt approaching 20 trillion dollars?  Why is the stock market performing tepidly and is currently below its high mark?  Why aren't savings accounts paying reasonable interest?  Why are health care insurance carriers departing Obamacare?  Why are health care premiums and co-pays dramatically increasing?  And the list goes on and on.

The most telling indicator though, is that voters from both the left and right are damned angry at his big government and its overreach, as indicated by the backlash prevalent in this year's election cycle.

Action speaks louder than words

People may doubt what you say, but they will believe what you do. ~ Lewis Cass

On Memorial Day we hear and read a great deal about honoring those who fell in service to our nation. This is as it should be.

Some allowed their comments to spill over to the general topic of veterans. For this, these commenters can be forgiven. At the end of this national day of recognition, hearing and reading their comments about veterans, I come away with an observation about POTUS.

 

When deeds speak, words are nothing. ~African Proverb

Watching several speakers on television and reading comments of others, many used the opportunity to decry the on-going issues with the Veterans Administration. During one such broadcast, the aforementioned observation came to mind about POTUS.

 

I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts. ~John Locke

It occurred to me that POTUS has said a great deal about the issues with the VA and veterans. But in my view, he has done very little. Though professing concern, in comparison to social issues he supports, POTUS has been notable for his lack of action. On social issues he has shown a proclivity to sign Executive Orders and to issue Federal Regulations. By some count, thousands of pages of the two.

 

Well done is better than well said. ~Benjamin Franklin

Setting aside for the moment the illegality of his Executive Orders and Federal Regulations, what is telling is that in spite of lofty rhetoric concerning issues with the Veterans Administration and care for our veterans, POTUS has chosen not to take the same approach in addressing them as he has with social issues, climate issues, the environment, LGBT issues, international security, and other matters not involving our veterans.

 

A promise is a cloud; fulfillment is rain. ~Arabian Proverb

A minor epiphany, but a revelation nevertheless. By his actions, POTUS demonstrates his lack of care for veterans and their concerns.

Actions speak louder than words.

A dangerous time for the nation

We all need to be concerned about recent reports stating the size of the active duty Army will soon be at the lowest point since before World War II.

All Americans should correctly look at presidents and politicians over several years and from different political parties as shouldering the blame for this situation.  We are told budgetary concerns are driving the lower, dangerous force levels and not mission ready aircraft and ships.

Smallest Navy, smallest Army, severely aged and inoperable Air Force aircraft, and half of Marine Corps combat aircraft not mission ready.  These are not the measures of a force in readiness to defend the nation.  

And our warriors are worn out and frustrated.  We are breaking faith with the less than one-half of one percent of the nation who voluntarily serve in our military.

Again, we are told this is a budget issue.

Feckless and reckless spending and equally reckless policies and decisions, by multiple administrations and Congresses, have not only created an enormous national debt, they have placed our military forces in a dangerous status.  A status of which others inimical to the country may choose to take advantage, much like what occurred leading up to World War II and Korea.  

This is indeed a dangerous time for our nation. 

Make military service a mandatory requirement for eligibility

We need a change to the eligibility requirements for high level elected federal offices, such as President, Vice-President, members of the Senate, and members of the House of Representatives.  Due to the extraordinary impact these individuals have on all facets of national security, to be eligible for these crucial offices, the laws should be changed to require satisfactorily and honorably completing at least three years of active duty in the nation's military.

According to a Fox News Report, "The 2012 election marked the first time in 80 years that neither major party presidential nominee had served in the military.  Two years later, the 114th Congress was sworn in with the smallest proportion of veterans on record. According to an October 2015 Congressional Research Service report, the high point was reached in the 92nd Congress (1971-72) when 73 percent of Congress had served in the military.  Today, veterans make up 20 percent of the Senate and just 18 percent of the House of Representatives."  And, "On Capitol Hill, veterans are even underrepresented among congressional staffs. Justin Brown, the founder of HillVets, told FoxNews.com vets account for approximately 3 percent of congressional staff members, a figure that reflects the high barrier they face."

These numbers reveal the exceptional disconnect between the nation and its military. With less than one-half of one percent of the nation's citizens currently serving in the military, the lack of understanding of the military is astounding, even dangerous.  Moreover, the disconnection makes it all too easy for our elected leaders to send our men and women into harm's way.  For example, the recent POTUS announcement that 250 more members of our military are being sent to Syria. (Can anyone remember the mission creep in Vietnam?)

With presidents allowed to send our military into combat without a declaration of war, under the pretense of spurious and inexact Congressionally approved Authorizations to Use Military Force (AUMF), the seriousness of such action is not debated by those who have actually served our nation in uniform.

Stop this practice and immediately enact laws mandating satisfactorily and honorably completing at least three years of active duty in the nation's military to be eligible for election or appointment to our highest elected federal offices: President, Vice-President, members of the Senate, and members of the House of Representatives.

  

The slippery slope of incremental increases in military deployments

It has been recently reported that SecDec announced that more members of our military will deploy to Iraq.  Astounding after Obama's unilaterally declaring the end of combat in Iraq.

 

Apart from the obvious contradiction, the more worrisome aspect is the slippery slope of incremental increases in military deployments that SecDef's announcement highlights.  Incremental increases by a president who ran for election and reelection on the promise of ending the war.  

And these orders ignore our own military history.

All of the past and current deployment orders, from presidential administrations led by both political parties, come without benefit of a declaration of war.  One need not have to think hard to draw the startling comparison of another long war fought without a declaration of war.

Vietnam also saw the slippery slope of incremental increases in military deployments, in spite of the worthless limits on troops touted by various administrations.  Then, as now, the real numbers were obscured by personnel accounting legerdemain.  For example, if only "temporarily" deployed, the count was not added to the troop ceiling.  Simply ridiculous.

Not only ridiculous, but dishonest and probably illegal.

If we are in a position that requires the use of military force, Congress must be called upon to declare war.  With the declaration in hand, the National Command Authorities then assign the mission to win to one of the combatant commanders, with the service chiefs providing the well trained and equipped forces requested by the combatant commander.  Then  the combatant commander fights to win.  (And without the widely reported interference by young inexperienced staffers assigned to the national security council.)

We have already begun the slide down that slope.  For example, Marine Staff Sergeant Cardin was killed in Iraq after artillery was deployed to assist our allies.  Most of the nation was blissfully unaware of this deployment.  And now more force protection assets will be required.  More aircraft are being deployed.  And then even more capabilities will be deployed because SecDef said only we can take on this mission.  So much for the end of the war in Iraq, as POTUS declared.  

Sadly, we have not learned from history.  Tighten your belts, because we are about to go down that same slippery slope.