Review: "Soul Repair: Recovering from Moral Injury after War"

When I sat down to read Soul Repair: Recovering from Moral Injury after War, I expected a serious and reflective dissertation on the moral consequences of war, specifically as it relates to the deep and soul-breaking trauma experienced by those we send to fight our wars. I expected to hear stories from those willing to be profiled for the purpose of the discussion, followed by the examination of the treatments and methods - successful and unsuccessful - used to address this idea of moral injury and soul repair. The anti-war dispositions of the authors did (and does) not concern me, because we need to be open to all voices and perspectives when it comes to healing the soul damage experienced by so many who return from war. Despite conventional wisdom, you would be hard pressed to find many "pro-war" citizens. But in full disclosure, I am one who generally abhors war, but recognizes that it is sometimes necessary. I further deeply value the necessity and importance of the military and the men and women who choose to serve. It is for this very reason that I had high hopes for what Soul Repair purported to offer.

Instead, I found it wanting, and borderline disingenuous. The stories shared by the veterans profiled in this work are important, and brutally honest in their experience, primarily in the context of Vietnam and the 2003-2009 war in Iraq. But conspicuously absent from this work are profiles of veterans of other recent wars, namely the 1991 Gulf War and the 2001 war in Afghanistan following 9/11. Virtually all of the veterans profiled share the belief that they were sent off to fight in "illegal and immoral" wars - a point relentlessly driven home by the authors in virtually every chapter, with the repetition of the descriptor "illegal and immoral" multiple times in successive paragraphs, and indeed multiple times within the same paragraph. It is as if the point of the book is not recovery, but rather to condition the reader (or beat him senseless) with the belief that Iraq 2003 was such a war. Quite honestly, that repeated editorial on Iraq takes the focus away from the vitally important topic of what we can do as friends, family, and society to aid in the recovery of moral injury.

This work would have been better served by a wider cross-section of veterans, to include those who believed (and perhaps still believe) in the causes for which they fought, and yet continue to deal to this day with the violations of their moral conscience. There are no such voices in this work, or at best, they are given reference as a passing aside. The vast majority of the book is mostly a take-down of all the ways we are failing our soldiers' recovery, with little to offer other than judgment. Only in the final pages of the final chapter do potential solutions or approaches surface, and there only in superficial form.

The reality of moral injury and the need for soul repair and healing is a critically important topic, and without question one that should be taken seriously, just as seriously as any treatment for our military men and women returning from action. In Soul Repair, an opportunity was missed, in my view, because the predominant message isn't about how we can contribute to the moral, emotional, and spiritual recovery of our warriors. And it should have been.

What History Will They Read, If Any?

As I sit here pouring over an account of Elihu Washburne – the onetime friend and confidant of Presidents Lincoln and Grant, and ambassador to France during a time of tremendous tumult and drama in the streets of Paris – I find myself marveling at how unaware we are of what is an undeniably riveting story of American honor and personal sacrifice, embodied in the valiant actions of a dutiful public servant in a hotbed of chaos and disorder. If I had ever even heard of Elihu Washburne in my youth, I have long since forgotten it. Yet here I am in my mid-40’s, and had I not encountered the story in the chapters of David McCullough’s The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris and my current reading of Michael Hill’s biography of Mr. Washburne (taken much from the latter’s own diary and dispatches during the Parisian tumult of the 1870’s), I would still know nothing of this remarkable piece of American history.

Mr. Washburne is most notable for his heroic actions to aid and protect American citizens and other foreign nationals in Paris during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 and the civil strife and political disorder shortly thereafter. Interestingly, the impact Mr. Washburne had on American history may be even more consequential, for it was Elihu Washburne who first befriended and advanced the career of a certain Ulysses S. Grant on the eve of the American Civil War. It was Congressman Washburne who, as a close confidant of President Lincoln, convinced the Commander-in-Chief to promote Grant to the rank of brigadier general, leading to the eventual rise of Grant to the command of the entire Union Army. It is a fascinating plot line, and to think that until a couple of months ago, Mr. Washburne was a complete unknown to me.

I am fortunate, I suppose, in that I had a teacher who instilled in me a love of history and the stories it has to tell. While the practical world holds me in bondage, relegating my passion for history to a mere hobby or pastime, I continue to adhere to the advice of that beloved teacher: if something interests you, go find a book about it and read, and then find another and read more, until your curiosity is sated.

I’m not inclined to rail against the trends of public (and private) education in this regard, although it is a vitally important topic. History is but a collection of accounts centered around people and events in time, and the unique perceptions and perspectives of what occurred and why. I have long thought that a proper study of history’s figures and events require not a view from a single vantage point, but an overlapping panoramic from a great many such points. I have no major qualms about the selection of topics and stories to be taught, provided that care is taken to ensure that students are presented with the opportunity to explore the different perspectives and accounts of those people and events. All stories have a bias; only the degree varies. At the very least, the history that is taught should serve not as an end to knowledge, but a gateway to further exploration and discovery of what we have collectively forgotten about our own heritage and civilization.

No, my greater question is more abstract than simply developing a list of what should / should not be taught, or identifying what is “essential”. I find myself pondering not just “What history should they read?” but perhaps more importantly, “What history will they read?”. What stories of the past will prompt the next generation to put down their phones and pick up a book? Will they even pick up a book, or wait for someone to produce a movie or an original series on Netflix? What does it take to create a genuine thirst for knowledge that goes far beyond the base need for entertainment and sensory stimulation?

I have no answers, only concerns. Meanwhile, I have left the brave Mr. Washburne on the cusp of the great siege of Paris at the hands of the relentless Prussian army. It is quite a tale, and in his own words, no less. See you on the flip side.

Review: The Killing of History

For the past many decades, even the casual observer cannot help but to see that any activity, approach, or viewpoint that takes on (or has forced upon it) the descriptor of "traditional" is increasingly portrayed in a negative light. The arguments over traditional vs. contemporary (modernism, postmodernism, relativism) play out in almost every venue imaginable, most notably in academia, religion, and politics. Keith Windschuttle's The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists are Murdering Our Past pulls back the curtain on one such pitched battle in the field of historical studies. For the layman who may be largely unexposed to the various positions, theories, and methodologies at play, this book is a difficult read, and will take additional effort and self-directed research to properly interpret and absorb. While Mr. Windschuttle does offer definition, description, and context in his presentation of the issues that form the basis of the argument, what is offered presumes a certain level of preexisting knowledge of the subject matter and the debate.

From the opening pages of Mr. Windschuttle's treatise, it quickly becomes apparent that his work is not so much an intent to introduce the layman to the ongoing philosophical battles surrounding the study of history and its methods, but rather it is in fact a series of salvos directed at proponents of more contemporary theories on the discipline. The layman is unlikely to be familiar with the works of Derrida, Foucault, and a host of other historical theorists, past and present, and so to a certain extent has to trust the author's presentation of their cases and viewpoints. Nevertheless, the reading is a worthwhile exercise, because in doing so one acquires a better understanding of the motivations and the deficiencies behind the movements and initiatives that do reach the public eye, particularly as it pertains to history curriculum in schools, the phenomenon of "cultural studies" as a substitute for the more traditional views identified with Western civilization, and so forth.

As one reads the final chapter and closes the book, the reader cannot help but to sense that an important opportunity has been missed. For while Mr. Windschuttle's aim is to expose as illogical and unsupportable the theories of history that cannot be supported by empirical evidence, his defense of traditional methods of historical study is often limited to the contrast he presents against the ideas and theories he opposes. In other words, he fails to make a strong final case in favor of the traditional model of historical study. This is unfortunate, because he has a case to make. The reader would have been better served if the author had provided a conclusive retrospective that summarized the supremacy of his preferred methodology, instead of a two or three paragraph write-off to close the work. As a result, one is left with the impression that the book is more of a broadside against the ideas he opposes, and less a defense of the ideas for which he advocates. There is fantastic research here, and worth additional study. But it could have been more.

I Will Vote for Whomever I Please, Thank You

Ah, election season. A time for advocates of all stripes to proclaim to one and all why their candidate is the best, last hope in saving this great nation. A time for desperate pleas to join the cause, to stay loyal to the movement, to place my trust in the one who pledges to “take on Washington” and all its corruption. A time to bet on the horses, because really, all that matters is winning, about keeping the lesser beasts from ruining our country.

Advocates are passionate for their preferred candidates, and so they should be. I can stomach most arguments on behalf of any candidate, because such arguments all take on the same form, once you step back and examine them. For any given candidate, the advocate lauds notable characteristics and policy positions while simultaneously dismissing any flaws, all the while augmenting the flaws and downplaying any notable characteristics or positions of another candidate. More simply, it is the parable of the beam and the mote. The politics of destruction is powerful temptation, even among members of the same “team.” Again, this is the established pattern, and by and large I can entertain such arguments, and on occasion even be entertained by them.

What I cannot stomach, however, is the following argument that I see thrown out from time to time, even from friends: “A Vote for Candidate A is really a Vote for Candidate F.” I find such approaches to be unpersuasive at best, insulting at worst. I find it to be both the weakest and most desperate of arguments, logically and factually incorrect on its face.

With every choice, there are consequences. When I cast my vote, I may pick a loser, but in no way can you logically extrapolate that unfortunate result into a plus for the winner. It may seem a “waste” to supporters of another candidate, and they are entitled to that view. Nevertheless, my ballot will lie in the stack of whomever I choose, and only in his stack.

I have the fortunate privilege and responsibility to vote, and I take it seriously. I will vote for the candidate that best fits my view and my values. Absent such a candidate, I reserve the right to make a third choice and not cast a vote for that office. This is a choice I make, and that choice is an extension of what I believe and what I think. No more, no less. I don’t make such choices lightly, and I will never in good conscience vote for any candidate that I don’t consider as sufficiently worthy of my vote. Results may vary, but by and large I hold this to be true. Rest assured, I would no more vote for a tyrant than I would vote for a criminal.

I hold allegiance only to God and Country, not to party, not to any interests but those that align to my views and my values. It is my right, my freedom, my integrity, and my decision.

So, please, spare me such a specious argument as “A Vote for A is really a Vote for F“. I will vote for whomever I please, and if in the end my vote doesn’t matter, or doesn’t make anyone else happy, so be it. But nevertheless, my vote will count, and I will gladly stand to be counted, win or lose.

Remember the Fear

You know what today is, and you know why we pause to remember the events that took place that day, now thirteen years ago. As is my wont, I am spending some time (as circumstances allow) on Youtube reviewing the archives of "as it happened" video from the major networks, as well as documentaries produced a few years afterwards.

Not everyone chooses to remember this way, and sadly, I've seen some evidence from some who would prefer not to remember at all. But I do, and for me, remembering the shock, remembering the disbelief, and remembering the fear are essential elements to my remembrance.

I know it seems strange to say "remember the fear." Many of you will take issue with the suggestion. I do not look to live in fear, but I do think there is some value in remembering the fear of that day. Hindsight has revealed so much that has both informed and clouded our memories, not the least of which is the long and enduring wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the rebirth of violent Islamism in the form of ISIS that is wreaking havoc in the vacuum left by our withdrawal from the Middle East.

The memory of fear serves as a motivation and a warning that, of all the things we should ask and expect our Government to do, it should "provide for the common defense." Politicians, bureaucrats, and citizens will ever battle over where the lines are to be drawn, and the prices to be paid, for that defense, but to ignore the fact that the threat remains may be fatal in more ways than one.

September 11, 2001 in many ways united us as a nation, for a time. The next verified terrorist attack on our homeland may very well ignite another battle that will shake the republic in ways we are loathe to imagine. Why? Because in the aftermath, the thirst for vengeance will lead many to blame not only on the perpetrators of the act, but those in power who failed to heed the warnings, allowing the act to take place. You think we are polarized now? Which ever party holds power in the next attack will bear the brunt of public anger.

I hope I am wrong. I deeply hope I am wrong. But I can't help but to feel the nation is a tinderbox.

So yes, I choose to remember the fear, even as I commit myself not to live in fear or to let even the memory of fear consume me. Remembering the fear with a certain detachment sobers the mind, and perhaps clears our vision, allowing us to see the world as it is.

We must cherish the liberty we have, and we must ensure that power remains in the hands of the citizenry. But those tasks we delegate to government, particularly the responsibility to provide for the common defense, we must also demand that such be taken seriously, and demand from the government the protection of our national interests. Otherwise, liberty will be compromised and fear will truly take hold.

These are dangerous times. But our God in Heaven remains sovereign. May God bless each of you.

July 4th Reflection

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it; and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. …

Generations ago, the men we now revere as the founding founders of our Nation lost faith in the system under which each had been born, under which each had been educated, under which each had thrived, and under which they had ultimately been oppressed. At some level, they had to be seriously disillusioned with the hand they had been dealt under a monarchy seeking to maintain control over a distant empire. But they also had a firm grasp of an ideal - notions of natural rights and liberty that is the birthright of every individual. They had to have had a hope and a faith in the potential of such ideals, to propel them through a costly conflict that led to independence.

That hope, that faith, that perseverance gave us the birth of a nation and the ultimate test of civilization - can a people govern themselves, or must they be ruled by others? For 238 years we have been engaged in this noble pursuit, sometimes thriving with the better angels of our nature, other times stumbling as we battle our own corruptibility. We've seen periods of great progress, and we've suffered periods of great regress that we often choose to dismiss or ignore. Prosperity is not the only measure of progress, nor is character the only indicator of regress.

We are in the throes of great political angst, a polarized battle of self-identity, spoils, and systemic institutional decay. We are a nation in crisis, although many would accuse me of exaggeration in saying so. But I believe it to be true, and will stand by this assessment.

A crisis can be faced and surmounted, but there is a cost that will be incurred along the way. We must relearn the fundamentals of our heritage as a free people, and once and for all recognize the aims laid forth in our defining charter. On the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, President Calvin Coolidge said the following words. I'll leave it here for you to ponder, and pray that its truth will take root in you as you celebrate the 4th of July holiday.

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

70 and 10

Today marks 70 years since the great D-Day invasion by the Allied Powers to liberate western Europe from Nazi control. Yesterday marked the 10th anniversary of the death of President Ronald Reagan. I took some time today to listen again to the speech he gave at Normandy's Point-du-Hoc on the 40th anniversary of the invasion. His remarks on that day are worth 13 minutes of your time.


I've said before, and I'll probably say again: our leaders don't seem to talk this way about America anymore. Yet I digress. One thing jumped out at me after listening to Reagan at Normandy. Toward the end of his presentation he said:

"We in America have learned bitter lessons from two World Wars: It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent."

After more than a decade of war in Afghanistan, and the toppling of a tyrant in Baghdad, it is painfully obvious that we have become a war weary nation. The isolationist impulse is increasing dramatically on both sides of the political aisle, although for different reasons. Consider Reagan's words, and it becomes clear that if we have not forgotten the lessons learned after two World Wars, we are clearly in danger of doing so. Authoritarian aggression abounds, and the ties that bind the West are increasingly weak and impotent.

Maybe we just can't afford to protect the peace anymore. Maybe we've just lost the will to do so. Lech Walesa may be the only international voice so willing to declare (and loudly) that the United States must lead. Because if we don't, the vacuum will be filled by someone else.

What does this say to the men and women over the past 70 years and more who have paid great sacrifices for the cause of liberty and peace? What does this say to the next generation who stands in the wings, ready to inherit the world as we've left it?

It is our duty to honor and remember the events that so dramatically shaped the world we have inherited. But that remembrance should carry with it a reaffirmation, a recommitment to the lessons it offers. Our history can inform our present, if we have ears to hear.

Who Fact Checks the Fact Checkers?

Warning: Cynical post to follow. My Grumpy hat is firmly affixed to my head this morning.

This is rich. The article entitled “Fact-checking journalism gains momentum” almost made me spew my coffee this morning. I couldn’t get past the first line:

Journalists have always faced up to facts, but a new wave of fact-checking journalism has gained prominence in the past decade to counter misleading or outrageous claims of political figures.

The article goes on to highlight notable notables such as FactCheck.org and PolitiFact, which won a Pulitzer, don’t you know. It references a study noting the growth of the “fact-checking” industry, and the rise of these self-styled, self-knighted bastions of truth.

I don’t deny that fact-checkers can have some value in our national conversation. But they would have far more value as a public service if they would turn the microscope on the journalistic product rather than serving as the arbiters of judgment on every utterance of some politician. Fact-checking certainly hasn’t stopped politicians from lying, but neither has it stopped the news media from presenting biased and misleading reporting. The fact that fact-checking is often just another subsidized branch of a media organization, what value should I give to their pronouncements? Is something a fact or a fiction just because PolitiFact says so? Sorry, not buying it.

But no worries. Soon every organization will have a fact-checking arm, custom-tailored to ensure that their cause or candidate is backed by an unimpeachable, self-accredited truth squad.

I’d like to think there are straight-shooters out there, without an axe or an angle. But the thing is, everyone has an angle. That’s a fact.

Losing the Peace

Last week, a colleague and I were having a broad-ranging conversation over lunch, highlighted by some armchair analysis of the recent Russian aggression and subterfuge in the Ukraine, sprinkled with our shared concern over the trade-off between entitlement and defense spending, particularly over the next decade. A key issue raised in that discussion was trying to assess the point where perception becomes reality with regard to the diminishing influence the Unites States has on world affairs. At that point, my friend said flatly, "we are losing the peace."

I had to stop and think a moment, because my first reaction was that he was overstating the case. The United States is still a force to be reckoned with in world affairs economically and militarily. And yet, as the week wore on, I began thinking about the signals that have sent to our allies, the public announcements of dates-of-withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, our "leading from behind" resulting in failed states across North Africa (Libya, primarily), our canceling of missile defense deals in Europe, and our dithering in the face of Chinese and Russian adventurism. And now the Chinese and Russians are upping their game in Latin America? Haven't we been here before? Suddenly, I find myself quite open to the idea that we are at risk of losing the peace.

But then, that presupposes there is/was a peace to lose. Since the so-called end of the Cold War, there is plenty of evidence that peace is but a mirage. From the 1991 Gulf War, to Somalia, Yugoslavia, the USS Cole, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, various uprisings world-wide in both hemispheres, this has been a tumultuous period in its own right. What peace is there to lose when there has been no peace, per se?

I think it is more likely that this sense of "losing the peace" has more to do with the perception that American hegemony is in decline. Maybe it is inevitable, as the cost of maintaining our role as the world's preeminent superpower is astronomical, made worse by the mountain of debt and domestic entitlement and regulation the progressives are heaping on our shoulders. If American hegemony is indeed in decline, other players will rush to fill the gap with impunity, and that certainly appears to be happening.

Influence and credibility can be lost in an instant. Regaining that which was lost may take a generation.

Razing Arizona

In rereading the history of Jefferson's election to the presidency in 1801, I am reminded that politics is a very nasty business.  Philosophies of government and natural rights are often lofty and inspirational, leading us to revere the high-minded achievements that have resulted in the America we claim to know and love. But at its core, politics is a device employed by human beings nevertheless capable of the very destructive and seductive impulses that produce tyranny, be it soft or hard.
 
Take this new Arizona bill. S.B. 1062, in short, is designed to provide a measure of protection to business owners who wish to run their businesses in accordance with their religious convictions. Basically, it offers them the opportunity to use their beliefs as a defense in court should they be sued for refusing to provide a service that violates their religious conscience. While I don't intended to dive into any of these specifically, I encourage you to read the following links on the matter, in the interest of context (don't be turned off by the titles - there is reasoned and rational information in each link):

Arizona Capital Times: Reality vs. Rhetoric in the SB1062 Debate
Arizona Capital Times: ASU Law Prof: SB1062 'means almost nothing'
The State Press: SB 1062 Offers Warped View of Religious Freedom
The Matt Walsh Blog: Yes, Of Course a Business Owner Should Have the Right to Refuse Service to Gay People

I can see the argument from both sides, to be sure. The vitriol is a flash fire burning out of control, and Arizona is being razed and excoriated with vehemence. No matter the outcome of the bill, there will be no "victory" for believers in this battle, or in any battle, where new laws issued by governments grant new "rights" with regard to religious belief. Natural rights, and those ensconced by the First Amendment, are no longer a sufficient defense against the forces at work, even though they should be. Rights issued by governments can be taken away. There has never been a time in our nation's history where the boundaries of freedom, liberty, and religion have not been at the flashpoint of our conflicts. The pendulum swings, sometimes decidedly. It remains to be seen if it swings back, or if it has been severed from its pivot.

What dismays me most is the effect this has on our society, our communities. Too many of us are now conditioned to see at work only the worst intentions of our neighbors, which may or may not always be the truth. To choose sides in any single matter is to be declared by the other as an enemy combatant in all matters. Tyranny of this sort, from such there is no escape, except by the rediscovery of grace.

This is the nature of our politics.  I submit that our history reveals that it has always been so.  For all of the evidence of the better angels of our nature, much more so is the evidence of our demons.  

This may yet be a government of the people, by the people, for the people, but it is clear that as people, we remain most decidedly, wickedly human.

Heaven have mercy on us.

An Excerpt in Search of an Essay

I like history. I wish I could get paid to just sit around and read, ruminate, and occasionally pontificate on the subject. But alas, no such freedom for me at this juncture of my life.

Currently, I am about 100 pages into Jon Meacham's biography on Thomas Jefferson. In the first pages, I latched on to a single quote that sent me down a philosophical trail that as yet has no clear destination, but remains a journey I am nonetheless enjoying very much. From Jon Meacham, on the subject of the study of Thomas Jefferson:

"... and if we are to understand what he was like, and what life was like for him, then we must see the world as he saw it, not as how we know it turned out."

I have turned that over and over in my mind, of late, as it captures well what I have long thought with regard to a proper study of history's figures and events: that the best view is a panoramic not from a single vantage point, but from a great many. Indeed, I am in a desperate search for the proper mathematical representation to explain this concept or approach to historical study. Even the great Google is no help to me in solving that puzzle, to my great dismay. Alas.

This philosophical trail has thus far produced a nugget, an excerpt, for which no essay has yet been developed. Maybe I will find a place for it someday, but for now, it must stand on its own as a fragment of an idea. A piece of a picture that is yet incomplete. And it is simply this:

There can be no one single, authoritative source for history. Such would be a singular view, as if one were to look out a single, rectangular window to the western expanse and be convinced that there is nothing more beyond that which the eyes can see, all the while missing what lies to the north, south and east. It matters not how large the window. The fullness of history must come from multiple angles of view, through the myriad of voices across the passage of time. It is through this panoramic that we may escape the danger of romanticizing the subjects of our study, and instead seed our passions for the study itself. For even our greats are flawed, compromised morally, and that frequently. It is this truth that makes their accomplishments all the more noteworthy, even and especially despite the sometimes unsavory qualities and disastrous consequences that lace their narratives. Yet the least of our least, too, have stories that leave their indelible mark, moments of honor, even if fleeting. Should we not celebrate all and the fullness thereof, or must we obscure the undesired in favor of summary judgment, good or ill?

The latter is easy. The former takes time, and a willingness to take in the full panoramic, even if it means standing in uncomfortable places.

I would love to elaborate on what this means. As yet, I'm still working through it. So why publish it now? One reason: I may never come back to it, or if I do, too much time will have passed for me to remember the particulars of the journey of thought that produced it.

So don't be surprised if you see this formulation again. For it is indeed an excerpt in search of an essay.

Perils and Parallels

We live an era of burgeoning neo-isolationism. This is not an original observation, but it is an important one. A decade and a half of war and conflict is the primarily catalyst for this philosophical retreat of the American socio-political mindset, and is not surprising given our traditional reluctance to engage too deeply in what some would term our "foreign adventures."

Much has been written about the purported decline of American influence in the world, the so-called failings of the benevolent American hegemony. Usually you find such conclusions written from the perch of left-leaning newsrooms or Ivy-league academia, the self-styled guardians of history and interpreters of events. The rise and fall of American prestige is typically laid at the feet of the occupant of the White House, and devolves less and less around policy than personality. That perceptions of American strength and popularity depend on the carefully crafted media façade surrounding any given administration is frightening, but any rational review of the way governments relate to one another prove that policy remains the primary driver behind diplomacy and international co-existence. If the American hegemony is indeed in retreat, we can lay the blame firmly at the feet of our collective failing in the diplomatic assertion of coherent principle, posture, and policy.

What's interesting about this neo-isolationist trend is that it is supported by an otherwise unlikely alliance of political foes - the die-hard libertarian and the leftist progressive. The former is all about individual liberty and freedom, while the latter is all about centralized control and management of society. Yet neither want a large footprint in foreign affairs beyond what is needed for basic trade and limited self-defense. One side wants to be left alone, the other wants to effectively rule or be ruled, both prefer to preoccupy themselves with themselves and leave the nations of the world to manage their own affairs and conflicts. And while our citizens and media alike turn their eyes inward, the maneuvering of governments continues apace, from Russia to Iran to China and beyond. I've long been preoccupied with Russia, somewhat less so with Iran, but until recently haven't concerned myself too greatly with China beyond the extreme discomfort that comes with the fact that China has the power to wreak chaos on our economy simply by calling in the loan on our massive national debt. But this fall, China began to extend their saber rattling beyond Taiwan into the broader Asian-Pacific region, and thus caught my renewed attention.

China and Japan have a long-running dispute over the territorial claims to a set of islands in what most call the East China Sea. In November, however, China asserted territorial rights to the airspace above those islands, extending far beyond internationally recognized boundaries. This move was disturbing in itself, but even more disturbing at first was what appeared to be a delay in American response. Why was an American response warranted? Because of our mutual protection treaty with Japan and other Asian-Pacific nations. But a few days later, in a response that both surprised and encouraged me, the U.S. flew two B-52 right down the center of that disputed airspace. The diplomatic message was decidedly mixed after that, but the military message was pretty clear. This whole episode drove me to pay closer attention to China's new adventurism. And I'm not the only one. Essays and articles are popping up everywhere, especially with 2014 marking the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I. The overriding question: is history repeating itself?

In a post at Ricochet.com, military historian and professor Victor Davis Hanson discusses the parallels that may be at play in the ongoing chess match amidst the almost willful ignorance of conventional wisdom. I urge you to read the whole thing. A couple of excerpts worth examination (emphasis mine):

The tensions, however, continue and that invites historical analogies, most frequently to the calm before the unexpected storm of late 1914. Then also, Germany (read: China) believed its newfound power was not fairly appreciated by colonial Britain and France. America was isolationist and indifferent. The early 20th-century intelligentsia still believed that breakthrough technologies in communications and travel had created a new, interconnected world economy that no European power would be stupid enough to disrupt. Yet, supposedly, miscalculation, accident, and the unforeseen followed, triggering the nightmare of World War I— a war that no one really wanted.

In truth, wars rarely are caused by accident. Most nations know exactly what they are doing. While miscalculation can accelerate or retard the outbreak of a war, it is infrequently its primary cause. Instead, an absence of deterrence encourages adventurism, as aggressive powers are unsure of the relative strength (or the will to use it) of their rivals and thus believe they might gain an advantage by risking or even inviting war. War, then, becomes a sort of litmus test for verifying which nations or alliances of nations were the more powerful all along. Peace returns when such clarity is reestablished, as the weaker, defeated party accepts post-war subordination.

This is the danger of neo-isolationism. The appearance or perception of American retreat from the world stage, the failure to back up our traditional allies, the willingness to kowtow to the aspirations of our adversaries leads to confusion over who counts among the strong. Iran pushes forward because it can. Putin throws Russian influence around his neighbors because he can. Al Qaeda is reasserting itself across the Middle East because there is a vacuum to fill. China has an overly male and restless population, vast economic clout, and a vision of ascendancy to broaden the boundaries of its own hegemony. Is history repeating itself? Do the parallels suggested by various scholars regarding the present day have merit? (After all, I've seen our present situation compared to the 1970's and to the 1930's. Why not 1914?) To this end, Hanson concludes:

China may think it will own the late 21st century, but it needs to be reminded diplomatically (backed by displays of strength) that such a day is not yet here. A determined U.S. needs to send the message that any aggression against Japan would be met by solidarity among a number of nations, spearheaded by Washington. Only by reestablishing deterrence in the region can the democracies guide China away from the path of the Kaiser and the Japanese militarists of old—and remind it that reckless new powers that act precipitously beyond their capabilities usually end up badly.

Of course that's what should be done. The question is, do present and future administrations have the will to assert principle, posture, and policy in this arena, under these conditions? We can navel gaze about universal healthcare and entitlements forever, but the games of nations continues, and we ignore it to our peril.

I don't know that history repeats itself. I do know that throughout history, civilization demonstrates cycles. Powers rise and fall. Societies come together, thrive, come apart, flail, and come together again in new forms. War is always a part of these cycles. This is the pattern of human civilization. What drives modern scholars and historians to look to history for context to modern geopolitics? Are they simply looking for predictive models to judge current events, justification to drive current events, or simply the academic pursuit of discovery that ultimately concludes: "here we go again"?

I don't know. What I do know is that it is foolish to believe that a large regional conflict, or even world war, is outside the realm of possibility, even within our lifetimes. And yet it is equally foolish to believe that it is inevitable. One thing is sure: we must engage, or we will necessarily retreat.

On This Veterans Day

Whenever I do a post like this, for a day like this, I struggle mightily, in part because I feel that token expressions of retail gratitude are far too insufficient a response when it comes to the recognition of the valiant service and sacrifice of those who serve and have served this nation.

Each year, I read over famous quotes, look through past speeches, drink in stories of the men and women who give so much for a cause that fewer and fewer seem to fully appreciate. I torment myself, in fact, over choices made and not made, always coming to the conclusion that I am where I am supposed to be, but nevertheless hobbled by the truth that I did not choose to serve.

I was tempted to give up today, and not write anything at all. And yet, I find myself unable to accept that attitude, even for a simple blog post.

John F. Kennedy once said, "As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them."

From Mark Twain: "In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

And from the passionate Patrick Henry: "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave."

It is within these words above today that I find my voice.

There is a scene at the end of Saving Private Ryan that came to mind as I reflected on these quotes. Watch and listen:


The clip ends abruptly, but what follows is worth the reading (from IMDB.com):

Old James Ryan: [addressing Capt. Miller's grave] My family is with me today. They wanted to come with me. To be honest with you, I wasn't sure how I'd feel coming back here. Every day I think about what you said to me that day on the bridge. I tried to live my life the best that I could. I hope that was enough. I hope that, at least in your eyes, I've earned what all of you have done for me.

I am a civilian. There are marvels and horrors my eyes may never see, bonds I may never know or fully understand, joys and anguish that may never mark my soul. For this I am grateful, but for this I am not entitled. I have done nothing to deserve this, but for accident of birthright. It weighs upon me, and challenges me.

I have been saved by grace alone, and that from my Father in Heaven. As for the life I lead here, I can only pray that I have and will continue to live that life in a manner worthy of the sacrifices of the many friends, family, and strangers whose service has made it possible.

Yes, I am a civilian. But I know that I, too, have a duty, not to just utter words, but to live by them. Not to stand only when it is easy, but to stand when it is especially hard. A duty to be vigilant, active and brave, whether I wear the uniform or not. How can I do less, when so many are willing to do more?

To you, our veterans, I thank you. For your service, and for reminding me of my duty.

God bless you.

Patriot Day 2013

May the memory of this day not be diminished or revised by friend or foe, but rather revered as one of those rare moments when we came together as a nation, as one people, under one banner. May the Lord have mercy on us, and continue by His grace alone to bless the United States of America.

Photo: Thomas E. Franklin/The Record/AP

Outmaneuvered

I've always thought there would come a day on this blog where I would regret - not something that I had written - but something that I had not written. I think that day may finally be at hand.

For the last several years, dating back into the presidency of George W. Bush, I've been collecting links to online material that taken in whole, chronicles the subtle and not-so-subtle maneuvers executed by Vladimir Putin both on the Russian domestic stage and the geopolitical stage. It's a fascinating look, really, but one I never felt fully comfortable writing, because of my lack of depth on foreign policy and strategy.

I've kept the powder dry with regard to politics lately. I've stayed away from Obamacare (starts in 3 weeks, you know). Benghazi still bothers me. Our various domestic scandals bother me. Now we have Syria. After Libya and Egypt, I can see nothing good coming from the U.S. getting involved in the Syrian civil war. I see so much of the current crisis as one of our own making. I find it hard to disagree with both the headline and content of this blog post in the Weekly Standard.

I cannot help but to think that we have made a cataclysmic error in our Middle East policy. But neither am I resigned to believe that Russia has fully ascended to role of patron benefactor to that region of the world. It may be true that America's role has been weakened, but that does not mean America has become weak. But it will take time, sound strategy, and better leadership to recover.

During the 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney said that Russia remained the United States' #1 geopolitical foe. The media laughed at him. But he was right. The stage is set for an increasingly adversarial relationship between these two nations and their interests. What this portends for the future remains to be seen.

The maneuvering continues. Our leaders best have their wits about them.

Simmering Summer

The summer slate has not been kind to the writing efforts of this blogger. Too many things command my attention these days, between work, my new role as a cub scout den leader, my aspirations to become a serviceable runner (nearly 20 miles logged across 8 runs in the last 3.5 weeks), and any number of other day-to-day demands. When I do have time to sit and write, I find the cup to be empty. When I look to headlines for, ahem, inspiration, I find instead only those precursors to the spontaneous detonation of what remains inside my head. In those moments, I want no more than to grab the conch and speak sense into this idiotic world in an effort to stave off our nakedly transparent, self-destructive trajectory. Yet to speak (or write) out of anger has limited effect and even less potential for lasting fruit, and would arguably be no better than those who get a pass for lawlessness simply because an adjudication of law didn't fulfill their expectations of justice. Ephesians 4:26 tells me that "in my anger, do not sin." I am angry - and distressed - at the shameless behavior of our political class, our media, and our society for allowing the unraveling of our social compact to occur. I am deeply disturbed at the systemic distrust that infects us all, compelling us to assume the absolute worst about each other in terms of motives, behaviors and views. And I fume at those who exploit that distrust for the sake of celebrity, sensationalism and power. And because I've been unable to see clearly and to speak calmly about the acceleration of our moral dystopia and its progression into the institutional, I've by and large just tried to keep my mouth (and pen) shut, keeping my contemplations to myself.

In truth, I need to regain perspective. Or at least I think I do. I need to exercise discipline and moderate my consumption of news. Staying informed and knowledgeable is essential, but it doesn't have to be so consuming as to rob you of the perspective a little distance can bring. And if regaining that balance means writing a little less frequently, so be it. At least until I find a new muse.

Still, I can't help but to be reminded tonight of a sign-off line from the old show Midnight Caller. It seems forlorn, and I suppose perhaps it is. The America we love is still out there, somewhere. I hope we find her again soon.

Until then, "Good night, America ... wherever you are."

Remember, Lest Ye Forget

In Deuteronomy 32:7, we find these words of Moses: "Remember the days of old, Consider the years of all generations. Ask your father, and he will inform you, Your elders, and they will tell you." We would do we to consider these words, and the advice and admonition contained within, for the days are speeding by, and the memory of our American heritage is fading into the annals of history with each passing generation. A false conclusion? Perhaps, but it is difficult to ignore the ongoing transformation of people from free citizens back to subjects of the state. I can only wonder if the angst so many of us feel about the state of our Union is actually comparable to those early Americans who were torn about the deterioration of the colonies' relationship to Britain, and the eventual break for their identity as Englishmen.

Have we willingly forgotten or foresaken our roots as a nation? Is it by intention that we fail to educate? Is it neglect, or perhaps the sad consequence of the breakdown of a society no longer built around the construct of the family? What have we become, that so many remain sedated and numbed by the siren song of the collective?

In an interesting post on the importance of heritage, I found this passage particularly interesting, especially extrapolated beyond just the personal (emphasis mine):

Heritage is an inheritance better than money or property. Unlike money or other property, heritage cannot be stolen or taken from you as long as you are alive. It can only be lost or forgotten by a choice that you make. This would be the choice of neglect and disuse. What value is an instruction manual to a complex machine if it is left in packing material and thrown away – none! But when we read that manual, encapsulate that knowledge into our mind, and use it – then there is great value.

We have a world today that has destroyed much of its heritage through war or through neglect. Our mobile society and fast pace world, with the immense prosperity we enjoy, has caused us to forget much of our heritage. We have used our time in meaningless pursuits. We have relegated our family history books, and our nation’s history books, to the corners of our library. We have watered down, or forgotten altogether, our traditions. We have sequestered the older generation to retirement communities and nursing facilities, and as they grow old and die – so does our heritage. Because more often than not, that generation failed to pass it on, while the next fails to retrieve it from them.

It may be too late to turn aside from our present course, but it is not too late to reawaken the sleeping giant that is the quintessential American psyche. A friend of mine has often said, the deceived do not know they are deceived because they are deceived. Until that cycle of deception is broken, until we see clearly the progression that is happening around us and recognize its ramifications, the calls for a resuscitation of liberty will fall on deaf ears.

Until then, Remember. Rediscover. Redeem. And Reclaim. For it is those of us who remember, rediscover, redeem and reclaim our American heritage that carry the torch of liberty for this generation, and our solemn vow to pass it on to the next. It is up to us.

Terms and Conditions

And the berries just keep blooming on the weed. A month ago, we were all talking anew about Benghazi, the IRS, the DOJ and the Associated Press, and the EPA. Now we have all of those plus the NSA and the State Department (again). Probably the only thing that surprises me at this point is the fact that these are being both investigated and reported. It is enough that I'm looking for a peaceful place on the internet to get away from all these stories, because even as a political junkie, it's getting harder to ignore the fact that the social compact between citizen and Government is taking some severe blows to the head. If there is such a safe haven, let me know so that I can buy some virtual real estate there.

Let's throw out some obvious truisms: "He who controls the information, controls the world." "Knowledge is power." Where does this information come from? It comes from us. We provide it willingly every time we sign our name to a form, click the box to accept "Terms and Conditions" from whatever service requires our registration, or otherwise entrust our personal information, numbers, emails, and SSNs to anyone who asks. It is an incredible act of trust to turn over our information in the hopes that the recipient of that information (corporate or government) will keep it private and use it only for the explicitly stated purpose for which it was required. But we do it, because we like our social media, we like our smart technologies, we like being able to see the doctor, have insurance, drive a car, go fishing, run a business, and be employed. To receive the requisite privileges, we are required to pay with our money and our personal information. We are by definition complicit, because we agree to these terms.

Are we due certain protections? I'd like to think so. But the fact that abuses occur like that of the IRS and possibly the NSA should surprise no one. And sadly, it is not at all clear that these abuses are technically illegal, although it may feel like they should be. The truth is that this oh-so-glorious Information Age has accelerated the evolution of the modern Surveillance State. Our information is no longer our own, and quite frankly, once you turn it over you can never get it back. You will never be able to elect a single politician who will champion, much less succeed, in rolling back the Surveillance State. The siren song of data is too alluring, too powerful, too deafening to be silenced. The citizen can at best minimize their exposure, but even this offers little protection.

I don't know how all of this is going to play out. There will be Congressional hearings, a season of wailing and gnashing, and quite possibly a major breakdown somewhere within the homeland and foreign security apparatus. But after a time, we'll all go back to our Facebook, our Twitter, our smartphones and our digital lives. Maybe we'll be a little wiser, or maybe not.

Why? Because we've already accepted the terms and conditions. The modern age is shiny. And we do like our shiny things. Unfortunately, so does he:

Berries on a Weed

Oh, where to begin? Scandal mania has hit Washington, and if the people elect to turn a blind eye now, then such is their folly. What's happening in our government to allow Benghazi debacle, the IRS targeting conservatives, the seizing of personal communications from the Associated Press, and the selective waiving of fees by the EPA based on political persuasion? Incompetence? If so, then why haven't people been fired or forced to resign? No one is being held accountable, no one is accepting responsibility - all are pointing fingers, obfuscating, and hoping it will all just go away before anyone really starts to pay attention. You thought trust in government was low before. What happens to America when all trust breaks down between the government and its citizens? Nothing good.

Benghazi: I've talked about this one a lot. This one comes closest to touching the White House, and at least the State Department. But don't worry, "there's no there, there."

EPA: You probably haven't heard of this one, but it's out there. Apparently the EPA is playing favorites when it comes to who has to pay for requests for information. Perhaps not a major scandal, but the appearance of selective or disparate treatment is worth investigating further.

DOJ and Associated Press: This one is just strange. On the surface, the fact that DOJ may have been trying to identify sources of leaks of classified information isn't inherently bad, but the manner in which they "seized" this information from a press very friendly to this administration is just bizarre. One thing for sure, the press didn't like it, and ticking off the press cannot be a positive development for this administration. The DOJ has been over-politicized, and gives the appearance of being just that - an enforcer for partisan politics rather than just law and order.

>> Daily Mail: Eric Holder points finger at his DEPUTY who secretly obtained journalist's phone records

>> NPR: Holder Isn't Sure How Often Reporters' Records Are Seized

IRS: This is the big one, or at least, the one that will suck all the oxygen from the room, because the IRS is everyone's favorite whipping boy. Bottom line, the IRS has admitted to targeting conservative groups purely on the basis of their political persuasion. IRS officials have been caught in lies, but so far, no heads have rolled. The administration is rushing to blame it on incompetence and mismanagement, but in my view the problem is too far reaching and too systemic, for too many years to be anything but intentional. We might be talking Nixon-level stuff here. If not authorized by the administration or its handlers, this activity certainly wasn't frowned upon, and was likely encouraged. Oh, and just to make you feel better, the IRS is in charge of enforcing Obamacare. We can all expect to be answering a lot of IRS questions in the next few years. Don't skip these links. You need to know what's going on.

>> Politico: The IRS wants YOU — to share everything

>> Washington Post: Inspector general says ineffective management at IRS allowed agents to target tea party groups

>> USA Today>: IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo

>> Daily Mail: Document: IRS ordered conservative educational group to turn over a list of high school and college students it trained

Remember which branch of government is responsible for running the State Department, the EPA, the IRS and the Department of Justice. It's the executive branch. All of this, ALL of this, the president has to answer for, because it is under his purview, his appointees. It is a reflection on his executive abilities. The bureaucracy has its own culture, to be sure, but you have to ask what kind of culture is being encouraged under this administration? I don't like asking such questions, and I don't like pointing out such things, but it is becoming painfully obvious that the so-called "politics of personal destruction" has been taken to a whole new level. If your right to freedom of expression and association falls victim to the heavy hand of government, your freedom is abridged, and the seeds of tyranny are sowed.

All of these stories, individually, are just berries on a weed. Each terrible and frightening in their own right, but not surprising. Why? Because the real scandal here is the accelerating unhinging of our political culture from any established norms required to maintain America's traditional social compact between the citizens and their government. When rules are optional to those in power, when accountability isn't even in the vocabulary, systemic abuses will follow.

Ingest too many of these berries, and you're bound to get a stomach ache. Indeed, it will poison your outlook, and leave you increasingly cynical. The ideal of America is not at fault - its practitioners are, and for that, we are all responsible.

The oligarchy of the bureaucracy, the press and the government are all fighting each other now. This may yet blow over and get swept under the rug again. Such to our peril. But I don't know. Maybe eyes will open this time, and people will see what we have created, and change course.

In the mean time, however, the feudal lords are fighting. Peasants beware.

Benghazi Breakthrough?

Well, maybe. I have made no secret on this blog of my feelings about Benghazi. What happened last September 11, the weeks and months leading up to that day, the months and months of obfuscation by all the major players, is nothing but a despicable travesty of the truth, of right and wrong.

I had all but given up on the story. The vaunted press, whose cause célèbre to shine the light on government has so clearly taken a backseat to an almost propagandizing patronage, has undeniably turned its back - for now - on its cherished Watergate heritage. Whereas then the press successfully exposed a government cover up, its modern progeny is working feverishly to assist in the effort to make Benghazi "go away." Today, however, there are signs, albeit small ones, that maybe - just maybe - the country might actually hear actual news reports and testimony about that horrible night. And maybe, they'll start asking questions.

This week, high level State Department whistleblowers testified at a House Committee hearing. These aren't some low-level lackeys, either. One is Mr. Greg Hicks - the deputy to the late Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed that night in the attack. Another is Mr. Mark Thompson, in charge of the Foreign Emergency Support Team who had direct knowledge of the alleged orders to "stand down" and not deploy a rescue force. Finally, there is Eric Nordstrom, assigned to head up Benghazi security, whose requests for enhanced security support for the consulate was repeatedly denied in the months leading to the attack.

If you go looking for balance in the American newspapers, you're not likely to find anything but an effort to paint these hearings as a Republican effort to beat a dead horse in the faint hopes of damaging Hilary Clinton's presidential prospects. The bile just drips from their words, dismissive and derogatory. Politics always matters, yes. But so does the truth, at least in the world I want to believe in. You'll have better luck gleaning information from UK papers, if you can believe that. But what is more interesting is that the big three networks - ABC, CBS and NBC - may be showing small signs of actually covering the story if not objectively, more objectively than their newsprint counterparts. Consider:

CBS: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks

NBC: NBC's Lisa Meyers: Benghazi Hearing "Reopens" Case Against Hillary Clinton See also: Democrats Actively Working to Undermine Testimony of Benghazi Whistleblower

ABC: Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

Go to the ABC link. Read the article, watch the video at the top of the page. Get informed. Will these questions lead to investigations, in turn leading to revelation of the truth? That remains to be seen. Careers should end over this, but unfortunately, the audacity of our present oligarchy and their loyal subjects in the press will do everything possible to avoid that outcome, honor and rightful shame be damned. But for the moment, kudos to ABC for the actual practice of investigative journalism.

Finally, though normally I wouldn't point to a political ad like this, this is just politically brutal, but it would have resonated if it had aired (which it did not).

Truth matters. And if an "objective" news source ever says a story "doesn't matter", question their objectivity. As the Wall Street Journal says, let the chips fall.

Update: I finally get a blog post out on this, and suddenly there's new and interesting developments. Not that we get to hear about it of course. Why? Because the White House decided to hold an off-the-record meeting with select journalists to provide "deep background" on the latest Benghazi developments. Why off the record? Probably because they don't want any names recorded with their quotes. More stories with anonymous sources to come. So, either the adminstration is providing the press a new set of talking points to push, or somebody's about to get thrown under the bus. Either way, it reeks of collusion. (Pardon me while I adjust my tin foil hat). Maybe it's nothing big, but one thing for sure - it sure is strange.