FOOL'S CHOICE: AN AFGAHN THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

 

[This brief essay is not a partisan diatribe against our President and his advisors. Rather, the current debacle is used as a thought experiment on how to conceptualize our choices so we can better ones regardless of our situations.]

 

In my reading I recently came across the concept of Fool’s Choice, and I immediately thought it could be applied to our current mess in Afghanistan. Further thinking revealed to me that another concept- Hobson’s Choice- could also come into play. And it does.

 

Definition of Fool’s Choice- an either/or choice to choose between two outcomes (more options are usually available)

Definition of Hobson’s Choice- a free choice in which only one thing is actually offered (ex- take it or leave it)

 

Our President and his advisors perhaps thought they were offered a Hobson’s Choice as follows:

OPTION A- US military and civilians to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely.

OPTION B- US military and civilians to be withdrawn from Afghanistan immediately regardless of consequences

If indeed they did, they had an error in thinking. Even a majority of the President’s critics on this issue did not desire Option A. This option was a non-starter and non-decision which pushed them into Option B.

If our President and his advisors had thought through the situation they perhaps would have realized they faced a Fool’s Choice with a third option as follows-

OPTION A- US military and civilians to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely

OPTION B- US military and civilians to be withdrawn from Afghanistan immediately regardless of consequences

OPTION C- US military and civilians to be withdrawn from Afghanistan in a planned and orderly manner

 

This thought experiment suggests that if the President and his advisors had thought of their options through the perspectives of Fool’s Choice rather than Hobson’s Choice they would not have looked so foolish with the consequences of their decisions.

WHERE IS WINSTON CHURCHILL WHEN WE NEED HIM?

 

Of course, the title question is nonsensical. Winston Churchill the man has been dead for nearly six decades. What we need today in American leadership is the spirit of Winston Churchill. Two events stand out.

Churchill became prime minister of Great Britain in May 1940 on the same day Nazi Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. Per the British Army’s war plans, a large expeditionary force was sent across the English Channel to defend the British allies from conquest by the Germans. Unfortunately, the Netherlands was quickly overwhelmed and Belgium was teetering on surrender. So, it was the French army and the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) left to hold on. But they were no match for the rapid onslaught of the Germans.

Soon the BEF and the French forces in the north were in full retreat And by chance of geography they were headed for the small French channel port of Dunkirk near the Belgian border. With their backs to the sea, hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers would either be captured or killed unless they were rescued. Churchill thus ordered Operation Dynamo into operation. Dynamo had three components- 1) sea rescue by naval ships, fishing boats, private yachts, and any other motorized craft which could hold soldiers for the channel crossing back to Britain, 2) air cover was minimal due to Churchill’s desire to save the bulk of the Royal Air Force fighters- the Spitfires and the Hurricanes- for the coming air defense of the British Isles (the Battle of Britain), and Royal Navy Captain William Tennent was dispatched to Dunkirk with a team of 120 officers and sailors to organize the evacuation.

I have shared Tennant’s story in an earlier essay. But it worth noting again that when Tennant inquired about the expectations for him and his team, he was told they would very fortunate to rescue 30,000 soldiers off the beaches at Dunkirk. In the end, 330,000 soldiers were evacuated- 11 times the expected number for Tennant’s team.

When the Germans realized that the bulk of the BEF had been safely returned to Britain, they turned their attention to the rest of France. Within weeks the French surrendered and signed an armistice with Germany and its ally Italy. The status of the French fleet harbored in French North Africa now became a concern for Churchill. If the Germans took possession of the French warships the entire Mediterranean theatre of operations would be endangered as well as the Suez Canal.

Churchill ordered a naval task force- Force H- to Oran, Algeria and after negotiations broke down on July 3, 1940, Force H fired upon the French ships sinking one battleship, damaging five other warships, and killing over 1200 French sailors. That battle along with several other actions against French ships enabled the Royal Navy to keep supply lines open to Malta, Egypt, the Suez, and ultimately to India. Churchill’s resolve to keep French warships away from the Germans impressed the world that Britain was serious in its fight against the Nazis, especially President Franklin Roosevelt ot the United States. Soon Britain was receiving emotional and material support from the Americans.

Fast forward 81 years to Kabul, Afghanistan. What did we see and hear?

·       Monday, August 16- We saw images of the chaos at the airport. Afghans clinging to US aircraft as they were taking off with several persons falling to their deaths, No Dunkirk here.

·       Tuesday, August 17- We heard official reports that the Taliban now possessed millions of dollars’ worth of US military equipment and weapons. No Force H here.

·       Wednesday, August 18- We heard continued reports that the US government can not guarantee the safety and security of thousands of American civilians remaining in Afghanistan. No resolve here.

I ask once again, “Where is Winston Churchill when we need him?”

 

 

 

 

 

IMPERIAL HUBRIS, OVERREACH, & INCOMPETENCE: FROM SAIGON TO KABUL

 

This past Sunday our church’s worship service should have been a joyous event. Our choir was back after a hiatus of 17 months, and we heard an uplifting report from a visiting Sudanese pastor about God at work in his country despite the martyrdom of several pastors. But my mind slipped to images of the US evacuation from Saigon then to the US evacuation then currently happening in Kabul. I thought of the Afghan women and girls to Taliban bondage and illiteracy. I thought of our service men and women killed and those wounded mentally and physically. I thought of our Afghan friends facing certain executions. Finally, I noticed tears on my face.

In the summer of 1975, I was a young soldier stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas. I watched on television our helicopters flying from the roof of our embassy in Saigon rescuing our diplomats and some of our Vietnamese friends from the advancing Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces. “What a mess! I hope we never experience this again!” I thought. Well, I guess if one lives long enough one could see a repeat of events. It has indeed happened again in the last several days. I offer three reasons for this repeating disaster- imperial hubris, overreach, and incompetence.

Hubris: We Americans despite our good and idealistic intentions cannot repair all broken things on our planet, fix all the problems. Our military’s mission to seek out and kill or capture the enemy. Soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are trained to fight, not to “nation build.”

Overreach: Paul Kennedy in his book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers proffers the idea that great powers are tempted to overreach their limitations and thus suffer tragic consequences. The US did this in Afghanistan and we are now seeing the tragedy occurring there. But this is nothing new in world history. Philip Matyszak masterfully chronicles the military mission to Sicily by the Athens city-state of ancient Greece in his book Expedition to Disaster. The study of history can enrich our policies. Everyone in the current Administration should start with Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers by Richard Neustadt and Ernest May,

Incompetence: Overpromising and underperforming are sure clues to incompetence as well as repeating actions and expecting different results are allegiantly linked to insanity. When we entered Afghanistan in 2001 responding to the 9/11 attacks, we had two limited and clear goals: 1) destroy the Al-Qaeda network and 2) kill Osama Bin Laden. We disrupted the network but did not end it. We also attempted to kill OBL in late 2001 in the Tora Bora region. Delta Force Major Thomas Greer led a multi-national task force of American and British commandos in the search but according to his book Kill Bin Laden (written under his pseudonym Dalton Fury) political interference from Washington was in part responsible for OBL escaping to Pakistan. Missing those realistic and obtainable goals we settled for “nation building” which has proven to be impossible. By the way, after 20 years of war in Afghanistan, why did we not have a feasible and operational exit plan for Americans, our Afghan allies, and other nationals? Lack of one is pure negligence, not just incompetence.

My recommendations as an informed citizen and Army veteran:

1.     President Biden must take full responsibility for this debacle, offer no excuses, and blame no one but himself.

2.     All of President Biden’s chief national security advisors- including his secretary of state, secretary of defense, national security advisor, chair of the joint chiefs of staff, director of national intelligence, and CIA director among others- must offer their resignations to the President.

3.     Forget political correctness, wokeness, and critical race theory. Instead, read and discuss the following books-

·       The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy

·       Thinking in Time by Richard Neustadt & Ernest May

·       Expedition to Disaster by Philip Matyszak

·       Kill Bin Laden by Dalton Fury (aka Thomas Greer)

·       The Best and the Brightest by David Halberstam (how we enlarged the Vietnam conflict into a full war)

4.     Return to the ideal expressed by then secretary of state and future President John Quincy Adams that the US must not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.

5.     If war is necessary, then Congress must declare war not merely authorize prolonged conflict. Then Congress must be updated on the progress of the war every 30 days.

Later in that worship service our pastor was preaching on a text from the Book of Revelation in the Christian New Testament. He declared that the politicians will not have the last word- God will have the last word. My sad and angry mood lightened as I once again realized that my God will not desert me in times of trouble.

 

 

 

 

TWO-DIMENSIONAL MAN IN CONFLICT

 

[The use of man in this essay has two meanings- a particular male individual and a generalized humankind.]

 

Imagine an entitled young Jewish man, a daughter of Cuban immigrants, and a Haitian gang leader collaborating in Miami to create not one, but two tech start-ups in the Netflix series appropriately named Start-Up. That is the story of Nick, Isabella, and Ronald which my wife and I recently binged watched. The story line was excellent despite the gratuitous scenes of sex and violence as the trio deals with a corrupt FBI agent, flighty investors, unsupportive family and friends, Russian mobsters, quirky coders, a murderous CIA operative, among themselves, and within themselves.

We were particularly drawn to the character of Ronald, brilliantly played by the actor Edi Gathegi (you may remember as an assassin from the series The Blacklist). Raised in the Haitian ghetto of Miami, Ronald is married to his sweetheart and together they have a teenage son and a younger daughter. He is a very unusual gang leader- he avoids violence if he can and does so only at the last resort.

Ronald could have killed Nick in the first episode because his father stole $300,000 and gave it to Nick for safekeeping. Ronald decided instead to use the money to invest in the first start-up and become partners with Nick and Isabella. When a group of Russian mobsters shortchanges him on his share of the buyout when the Russians cheated the three partners out of the company, Ronald refused to kill them despite the taunts of his son to do so. When his son is murdered at a party by a jealous young man, Ronald also declines to kill him in revenge. In Ronald’s view most violence is senseless and achieves no useful purpose. He acts this way because he desires for himself and his family to leave the ghetto and become respectable middle-class.

But be not mistaken. Ronald does have his demons. He savagely attacked two strangers at his favorite bar because he felt they were there to see the wild side of town. He kills four Russian mobsters in self-defense. He beats up Nick in retaliation for reporting him to the police (it’s a long story so you just have to watch the series to get the details). And he has no problem with assisting his former gang “homeboys” in negotiating for better drug distribution deals.

The second tech start-up, ArakNet, leads to better things for Ronald. He becomes co-CEO and he and his family move to a better neighborhood. His wife even becomes the soccer coach at their daughter’s new school. Ronald is no longer a “rich thug” (as his wife put it) but is now a successful tech entrepreneur. Yet the dark side is still there. ArakNet is a “dark” website in which anyone can buy and sell anything without government interference. Then one day a federal agent arrives and tells them that terrorists have used ArakNet to facilitate the sale of poison gas for an attack inside the United States. The government needs their assistance in tracking information to ascertain the target and stop the attack.

What would they do in response? Ronald wants to share info with the Feds to save lives but the other partners and their chief investor desire nothing to do with it because assisting the government will hurt their business. Ronald acts but it is too late. (You need to see the series to discover the target.) At the end of the series Nick commits murder and Ronald and Isabella help him dispose of the body.

What are we to make of Ronald? Both good and evil live inside of him. He is in a struggle over which impulse will control him at any given moment. He is indeed a two-dimensional man in conflict.

But what are to make of Ronald is perhaps the wrong question. The right question is-What are we to make of ourselves? Look into the mirror- we are Ronald! Despite any goodness we may possess we can lie, cheat, steal, and betray others at a moment’s notice and even justify our evil actions to our “good” selves.

Ronald thought that success in the tech world would mean that he would not be considered a “rich thug” as opposed to just being mere thug. But even if one wins the “rat race” one is still a rat. As appealing and compelling is the story character of Ronald, he will not find redemption through his own efforts. And neither will we. We all need a redeemer and Jesus Christ fits that role perfectly.

[The four Gospels in the Christian New Testament offer four perspectives on this Redeemer in action. Start with Mark, then Matthew and Luke, and finally with John.]

 

 

 

A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS

 

 

Quickly- name the man who served as a deputy secretary of state, as national security adviser to the president, and as secretary of the interior without a college degree. Stumped? Most readers would be. He was William P. Clark, and he was Ronald Reagan’s right hand man for many years, first for Governor Reagan in California and then for Reagan’s first term as President. FDR had his Harry Hopkins, Trump had his Mick Mulvaney, Obama had (and now Biden has) his Jeffrey Zients, and Reagan had his William Clark. These are multi-talented individuals loyal to their bosses who can serve almost anywhere in high -profile government posts because they are generalists and not specialists.

Born in 1931, Clark attended Stanford University without graduating. Yet, his entrance score to Loyola Law School was good enough for admittance. While he also did not graduate from Loyola, he passed the California state bar exam. He also served in the US Army.

Clark was a rancher and a lawyer in coastal central California north of Los Angeles in 1966 when he was approached by the Reagan for Governor campaign to be Reagan’s campaign coordinator in his county. Gaining rapport with Governor Reagan Clark became his executive secretary (chief of staff). After several years Clark returned home and became a superior court judge. In 1971, Reagan appointed Clark as an associate justice of the California Court of Appeal and in 1971 to the California Supreme Court.

When Ronald Reagan was elected president, he appointed Clark as deputy secretary of state. While he certainly did noy possess foreign policy experience, his friendship with the president made him invaluable to watch after the temperamental secretary of state.  In 1982, Reagan made Clark his national security advisor where he attempted to be an honest broker among the State and Defense Departments, and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Late in 1983 Clark became tired of the White House intrigues and when the secretary of the interior became an embarrassment and resigned, Clark requested a transfer to that office and President Reagan duly appointed him. In 1985, after Reagan’s reelection, Clark returned to California to pursue his ranching, egal, and business interests. He died in 2013 at the age of 81.

Without college and law degrees, Clark could have been considered an intellectual lightweight and certainly many in Washington did so. (Of course, many of these folks held the same opinion of Ronald Reagan.) Nevertheless, Clark possessed certain personal qualities which enabled him to be a successful generalist in service in both state and federal governments.

First, Clark had a life outside of government. He loved his ranch. his legal business, and his community interests. He did not hesitate to leave Sacramento or Washington when he felt the need to do so. Second, Clark understood his primary client- Ronald Reagan as both governor and president- and served him appropriately. For example, Clark introduced a condensed memo process for the governor when he realized Reagan had a short attention span. Third, Clark did not hold political grudges. While in the White House, he frequently consulted with and visited with the three former living presidents and other former officials.

Finally, Clark proved to be a “quick study” in all his endeavors- from passing his law school entrance exam without a college degree to passing his state bar exam without a law degree to becoming an effective executive advisor to learning foreign and defense policies “on the fly.” It is indeed because of people like Clark that permit organizations to have flexibility of personnel, adaptability of strategy, and an ability to organize for results. William Clark was indeed “a man for all seasons” generalist in service to Ronald Reagan and his country.

[Note to reader- Leaders in smaller organizations should be, in my opinion, be generalists rather than specialists to allow more flexibility as circumstances change. Of course, organizations could use specialists in IT and finances, but those responsibilities can also be outsourced.]

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: OUR LAST REVOLUTIONARY FOUNDER

In earlier essays I have addressed how the Founders indirectly moved our constitutional republic to end slavery when they could not and how great leaders use Historical Imagination to inspire their followers to accomplish great things. But off-handedly I barely mentioned Abraham Lincoln as our final revolutionary Founder and totally omitted the fact that his Historical Imagination soared high above his contemporaries. So, Lincoln will be the subject of this essay but first I must deal with the two issues of revolution and history.

The ideal of revolution is romantic to some but something to fear for others. Even the leaders of revolutions are often fearful for the unintended consequences of their efforts. Thus, our Founders were often fearful not only of losing their own lives for being traitors to the British Crown but also very concerned about the kind of nation they were creating. For example, concerned about mob rule that would be fueled by a hyper democratic process the Founders created a constitutional republic with checks and balances among the three co-equal branches of the new national government- legislative, executive, and judicial. The Electoral College to elect our presidents was created out of a similar anxiety.

The Founders are often criticized for not abolishing slavery. The anti-slavery faction knew that to push for outright abolition would destroy the nascent republic. Nevertheless, they provided for the eventual end of slavery through three “poison pills”-

1.     The Confederation Congress, which governed the United States under the Articles of Confederation, was meeting in the summer of 1787 as was the Constitutional Convention. The Congress was in New York City and the Convention in Philadelphia; several of the Founders were members of both bodies. During that eventful summer the Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance which among other things prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory, that section of the new United States which included the present states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, and parts of Wisconsin and Minnesota. When the Northwest Ordinance was accepted as national law by the new federal Congress it established precedence that the federal government could prohibit slavery in newly acquired territories.

2.     The Constitutional Convention placed in the new Constitution a section that the slave trade into the United States was to be prohibited after 1808 (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). Although an illegal trade continued, this outlawry was curtailed by the United States Navy joined after the War of 1812 by the British Royal Navy.

3.     The so-called Three-Fifths Clause was placed in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. Erroneously vilified in many circles of historians and social commentators as assessing slaves as three-fifths human, in reality it gave power to the anti-slavery states through their increasing populations as compared to the slave states, especially after 1800. This clause also empowered anti-slave states through their presidential electors. My earlier essay on the Three-Fifths Clause gives more details than space will allow in this essay.

History shows us that from 1789 to 1861 we had 15 presidents. Most were either slave owners themselves, friendly to slave owners, or lacked the passion or the power to tackle the slavery issue head-on. Only two of these presidents- John Adams and John Quincy Adams- distasted slavery but lacked the political power to end it.

Finally, in 1861, the fruits of the Original (anti-slavery) Founders’ “kick-the-can-down-the road” anti-slavery strategy were realized. And it was a close one! First, Robert E. Lee was the man expected by most accounts to the “next George Washington.” After all, he was the son of Revolutionary General “Light Horse” Harry Lee, was a top graduate of West Point, had a distinguished career as a military engineer, was a hero himself in the Mexican-American War, and was considered by the general-in-chief to be the finest officer in the United States Army. Trouble was for Lee that when his country needed him. he violated his oath to the Constitution and became a traitor to the United States.

Then consider Lincoln’s odds to be president. The Republican Party was new as it only had previously fielded a candidate for president- John Charles Fremont- in 1856. (Good thing for the nation he was not elected as he did not possess the temperament to be president.) When the Republicans assembled in Chicago for their 1860 convention, they had a superb candidates from which to choose and Lincoln was not among them. But after several ballots the consensus was that Lincoln was a great compromise and he was nominated.

The presidential field was crowded in 1860. The Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas, an old foe of Lincoln’s in both love and politics. The Southern Democrats did noy trust their colleagues in the North, so they nominated one of their own. And then another party called the Constitutionalists fielded their own candidate. Lincoln not only had three major opponents but also his name was allowed on the ballot in several slave states. Nevertheless, Lincoln won 40 percent of the popular vote and a majority of the electors to win. The Founders’ genius in creating the Electoral College proved itself with the election of Lincoln.

We now had a leader with both the passion and power to end slavery. Yet, it is one thing to be nominated for election and another thing to win the election, it is a huge thing to be the president in this crisis. Could Lincoln pull this off? He had four years, one month, one week, and one day to demonstrate to the nation and to the world (and perhaps even to himself) that it could be done. He did it through a rich Historical Imagination which will be the subject of a future essay.

 

 

 

DOUGLAS MURRAY: BEING LUCKY AND MAKING GOOD DECISIONS

 

Douglas Murray is the author of The Strange Death of Europe and The Madness of Crowds, which focus on immigration, race, gender, and identity issues. He is a Brit with an Oxford degree and is an articulate conversationalist who has been interviewed numerous times on American television. I have listened to many of these interviews and have also read one of his books. Murray has superb insights which also make him very controversial in some circles and are worth noting here.

Murray believes that Western Civilization offers the best opportunities for self-enhancement and advancement. He also believes that the West is incredibly lucky in this regard and often asks the question, “What will we do with this luck?” He recounts in a recent interview that while in Norway he was approached by a prominent politician in that country who stated that he had it wrong. She told Murray that luck had nothing to do with the success of the West, rather it was the good decisions made in the West. She went on to compare Norway and Venezuela, two countries that possess about the same amount of oil reserves but are totally different because of the good decisions made in Norway and the bad decisions made in Venezuela.

Murray felt that he had been rightly corrected by this politician and now states that the West has benefited from luck and good decisions. He further believes that individuals, not groups, are responsible for these good decisions. Of course, Murray believes that the West has problems, but these can be self-corrected. He has no use for the radical critics of the West who proclaim that the West is the worst in ________________ (you choose the problem). In response, Murray will ask, “As compared with what?” (So, if you were given the opportunity to move to Norway or Venezuela, which one would you choose?)

Murray’s comments led me to the Four Freedoms as articulated by President Franklin Roosevelt on the eve of our entry into World War II. Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from a fear are some bedrock Western values, great answers if approached by a fellow guest at party or by a reporter on the street. One could also share the Declaration values of equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or rule of law, private property, due process, and reasonable search and seizure. There are undoubtedly others that come to mind. My point is that the great values of the West are the foundation on which our great decisions can be made.

Murray’s insights also led me to reflect upon the differences between opportunities and outcomes. I will use a baseball analogy here. Most of us are at or around second base, some at or around first base, and still others at or around third base. Our common goal is move closer to home plate. The government can and should make a good faith effort to create opportunities for us to do so by keeping “a level playing field.” But the government cannot guarantee that all, or even most of us, will ever reach home plate. And a massive effort to attempt to do so will leave a great majority of us somewhere around first base with a very tiny minority of us headed for home plate. Personal effort and discipline to make good decisions along with opportunity assistance from the government will propel ourselves and our future generations toward success.

Murray had two additional jewels of wisdom- transcendence and participation. He believes that each of us has a divinely crafted void that needs to be filled in order for us to see beyond ourselves. While he feels one can live a life without filling this void, Murray does believe that life will be rough for not doing so. Murray fills his void with music while acknowledging others will use other “fillers” for this void.

To defend Western values is not enough; one must also participate in Western culture to help make it better or at least, not make it any worst. Murray’s participation is through writing and social commentary. Likewise, he challenges everyone in the West to use their gifts and talents for the betterment of others.

So, let’s celebrate our luck in the West by continually making good decisions