Re-Framing our own perspectives on North Korea

They control the narrative deliberately - we need to think about what that narrative says, and consider the implications of THAT narrative for their own domestic political reasons and how that could unfold regionally...

It would seem that our past analytical framing, possibly constrained by our own domestic Cold War rhetoric and politicization, may have had us looking at the tightly controlled country through a very narrow key hole... KJI assumed leadership on December 25, 1991.  Now his sun, born to a mother who was suppossedly born on December 25th (Virgin Mary/Ancient Solstice date comes to mind), has also assumed leadership as "supreme commander/leader" on December 25th - the birth of a new rising sun if you will. 

They are building a myth - where are they building it to?  Will the next (only the 3rd) transition occur in ~40 years on December 25th as well?  They have blurred religion, state, and party into "Juche" - and if we look at them holistically, and how they are building a mythology as they go, we might be better set...

(Note:  I wouldn't get wrapped up in the title "Supreme Commander" - when we have our own people claiming that we need a "'strong' Commander-in-Chief" (organizational titles shouldn't scare people into paranoia)... Point being, I think these kats might still be framing (the revolution continues, right?) their communist society (only 65 sum-odd years old now) around a Spartan-like mythology... Lycurgus (who starved his warriors to make them hardened and resourceful, and established a hard, communal, defensively-militaristic state) might be an archetype through which to consider KIS, KJI, and maybe KJU...

If these guys were an animal - they might be more like a porcupine, than a hyena... We might need a new (post Cold War) analytical framework for looking at these guys...   On starving rural peoples, we don't know the hard demographic stats (are their starving rurals like our starving rurals in W. Virginia?) ... finding this out will help us... on political camps - maybe they buy into Newt/Bachmann/Perry/Palin-like notion that if you don't buy off on the political-religious state that is "self-reliance", you are not moral enough to be a citizen or participate, and you need to have "coming-to-Juche' moment through a nice state sponsored correctional labor camp or public-school curriculum adjustment." 

Understanding their perspective may help us understand them (for good or bad)... Understanding them can help us prepare to deal with them, or continue to contain them, and t least deter them from acting in a way that would trigger a response that they themselves wouldn't understand (provocations vs. posturing) ...

Some fresh eyes might be in order.

Libya: Legitimate Mission Construct (From Leading to Support-as of April 1st); Domestic Political Distraction from JOBS for GOP

Ironically, Libya serves as a modern example of the UN building and acting on a consensus derived via the UN Security Council (res 1973).

Where right-wingers typically deride the UN as a fang less and weak institution, it now criticizes its efforts in Libya; meanwhile, left-wingers, who typically criticize unilateral military action, now criticize the US for acting multilaterally in Libya.

I am reminded of a quote Republicans used about Iraq, which is undergoing a successful transition right now..."Cut'n'Run."  Can it be said that Republicans are seeking to "Cut'n'Run" from our global leadership roles, even those that are simply symbolic and supportive of international efforts? 

This entire "debate" about Libya is a distraction from the fact that, despite the President's reluctant extension of the Bush Tax cuts in December, and the Republican House's resumption of appropriations "leadership," Republican trickle-down policies are still failing because they have yet to be undone (thank you "Do nothing Republicans" and the mighty Filibuster!)...

Luckily for them, we have forgotten the JOBS! JOBS! JOBS! promises and are now following WIENER-Gate...

Believe you-me, after G.W. Bush's abuses of power, asking tough questions and being aggressive is important: BUT the strategic scope for Libya should not be ignored, and neither should the realities on the ground.  We originally had the lead; however, we have now assumed a supporting role and are on standby, if needed. 

Operation Southern Watch (UN Resolution 688) is easily comparable to Operation Odyssey Dawn (UN Resolution 1973).

Also note the right-wing's criticism of President Clinton's enforcement of the No-Fly zone in Iraq (wasn't it cost per JDAM?) is the same as the right wing's made up conspiracy concerning Tomahawk costs, which CNO Admiral Roughhead seemingly debunked in a recent interview with Council on Foreign Relations during an exchange where he was prompted to account for inventory and cost,

QUESTIONER: Hi. Michael Stilpas (ph) from the Financial Times. I was wondering if you'd talk a little bit about the cost of operations in Libya. Specifically, some people are interested in the cost of cruise missiles, exactly how many have been launched, how much they've cost, and what that means for -- whether that's going to make sort of noticeable dent in -- (inaudible).

ROUGHEAD: Yeah. Thank you. I think the -- you know, kind of getting back to the use of naval power, with one exception, we moved nothing to conduct the operations in Libya. It was already on station. It was in the Mediterranean. And that's the employment model -- the deployment model we use for the Navy. That's what being forward is about. That's what being a deterrent force is about. That's what being responsive is about.

I'm always asked or complimented that, well, you guys moved really fast. And I said, well, we reacted quickly, but we were there. That's what you get with a global Navy.

And so there was no additional cost of moving the ships. They were on station. We had a guided missile destroyer that was doing ballistic missile defense in the eastern Mediterranean, and we said: Go down, there's a Tomahawk mission for you. So they shot a shipload of Tomahawks. Ship load, I said. (Laughter.) The -- and -- the

But we fired 228 Tomahawks. They're in the inventory. I was asked, do you have more? I have many more. But that's 228. In the program this year, we had another buy, and we have been buying Tomahawks, because we tend to not use them, and then, when we do use them, we use a fairly good tranche of them. So --

QUESTIONER: So you shot 228 over the course of --

ROUGHEAD: Over the course of the operation.

QUESTIONER: But you already had 228 more to buy in the pipeline.

ROUGHEAD: This year I want to say -- we were around 120 or so for this year, but I have a pretty deep bench on Tomahawks right now, in the thousands.

QUESTIONER: So didn't cost you anything. What do you mean, "bench"? Do you mean --

ROUGHEAD:   Inventory, inventory, yes.

QUESTIONER: Right.

ROUGHEAD: And so, that -- you know, we'll replace over time.

The only thing that we had to move was an electronic attack squadron that was operating. It was the new Growler -- the electronic attack version of the Super Hornet -- was on a deployment, first deployment of that type of airplane in Iraq, flying in (Al Assad ?) Air Base. They recovered from a combat in Iraq. We moved them to Italy, and 47 hours after the recovery in Iraq, they launched on a combat mission into Libya.

We're pretty proud of that. Those folks did some terrific work. But that was the only move that we made. So there were some transport costs associated with it.

But again, this is where I think you -- where the value of naval forces, particularly a global force, comes into play.

QUESTIONER: (Inaudible) -- you're not going to need to order any more Tomahawks in order to --

ROUGHEAD: There will not be -- there will not be a special order. You know, we'll have the tranche we have in this year's budget. And as we work with the '13 budget, we'll take a look and see how many that we need there. At the same time that we are ordering, we also have a refurbishment line that's running, so the older missiles that we have in inventory are rolling in and making sure that they're upgraded, that they're tested, that they're ready to go, recontainerized for use.

QUESTIONER: And how much does 230 Tomahawks cost, roughly? I mean, I know you don't have to buy more, but is there a --

ROUGHEAD: Yeah. There are -- I use a million dollars a copy.

I am not surprised at the Republicans playing politics with National Security (what else is usual?);  I am surprised, however, at their blatantly undermining their own argument about UN being a weak and feeble organization that cannot be mustered to action, (here the UN is "over-cooperating?")... Clearly, Libya is the post Cold War counterargument to their assertions about the UN otherwise...

As for the left-wing Democrats undermining of the UN resolved mission: well, that just plays right into the Republican argument that left-wingers don't understand post WWII and Post Cold War National Security issues...

Read Also:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38677&Cr=libya&Cr1=

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10266.doc.htm

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/110615_United_States_Activities_in_Libya_--_6_15_11.pdf

http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/2064

http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1919

http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2011/pr110426_2.html

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/02/157425.htm

A Proposal for Troops to Farmers (General Intent and Outline)

Troops to Farmers (Swords to Plowshares)

Overall Objective: Partnering with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), a potential "Troops to Farmers" program will train retiring troops and honorably discharged military personnel on managing, operating, and running Sustainable Farms and use investment to bolster small farming communities, enhance domestic sustainable farming capabilities, as well as lead and support the modernization of sustainable farming techniques that can be shared globally to enhance regional stability around the world.

Specific Functions:

• Train military retirees to assume a role in rural sustainable farming development;
• Train single term enlistees in working on sustainable farms;
• Use MGIB for work/Training Stipend in rural farming communities;
• Establish/support small sustainable training farms for developing future agrarian experts who are recognized as sustainable farming professionals;
• Develop Universities to train agrarian leaders from around the world in sustainable techniques:
• Sustainable Farming Academics (advance and develop advanced Sustainable Farming degrees
• Finance - (small farm farming finance management; small farm (business)management);
• Engineering - remote/rural systems farming design; mechanical engineering; Climatology and adaptation; land recovery and rehabilitation; erosion and degradation management; sustainable energy for small farms; hydroengeering;
• Science - Ecology; Sustainable Biology; hydroengineering;
• Policy - History of Agriculture and Farming; Domestic and International Sustainable Farming Development;
• Sustainable Farming Professional Certifications (workforce professionalization and development): hydroengineering systems; sustainable livestock management; pollution mitigation; sustainable farming training; sustainable produce management; soil management; small farm leadership.

Troops to Farmers should be used in conjunction with, and similar to, the Department of Education's Troops to Teachers program.

Troops to farmers can enhance education in rural communities and invite military pensioners to rural parts of the country, which can sustain and develop local economies, create jobs, and develop sustainable farming as an ethical industry that competes on, and advances, the global market. Indirect opportunities include:

• Modernization of logistical infrastructure by fusing modern rail technologies to export and exchange sustainable goods;
• Increase in community infrastructure needs can lead to a need for modernizing communications infrastructures;

Tangible investment returns

• Increase in Sustainable Agrarian Research & Development;
• Development of “Deployable Sustainable Development” capabilities for stabilization and peacekeeping ops;
• Use military pensioners to reinvigorate remote economies (indirect rural community subsidization through validly earned and politically acceptable government military pensions);
• Establish agrarian universities where sustainability techniques and concepts can be modernized and innovation can occur;
• Spur a "sustainable farming complex" that calls for legitimate private sector employment that feeds investments that encourage new era of peaceful and legitimate MNC investment and support;

Potential Military opportunities

• Enhance capacity to assist Department of State, USAID, UN Operations, and Non-Governmental Oganizations;
• Establish agrarian military capabilities (clear, hold, farm, train, leave)
• Recruit and Retain ruggedized and deployable farmer managers and hands who can support stabilization operations in developing Area of Operations (Similar to Navy Seabees)
• Use deployments to drive new sustainable farming capabilities
• Use deployments to drive/test remote/mobile grid new energy technologies
• Bolster UN Development and Stabilization programs and enhance international cooperative efforts
• Indirectly (and legitimately) influence WTO/IMF investment decisions that help developing countries stand up independent civil societies based upon democratic governances that are stable with law and order being used to protect individual rights as provided in the UN Charter.
• Suggested regions where sustainable industries and military training sites should be considered for establishment in the United States because of the challenges and opportunities provided by the terrain and the ability to simulate challenging agricultural environments found around the world: Yakima Washington, Marysville/Mount Vernon Washington, Wyoming, Pensacola, Florida (given the recent oil spill, they could lead the effort to develop sustainable mineral extraction strategies (environemental mitigation, technology development, alternatives and recylcing and reuse strategies of existing minerals in circulation); Maine, Nevada.

This initiative could also have Space Program implications, where new sustainable farming techniques could aid in the advancement of interplanetary exploration and sustainable operations in space.

Potentially, the United States could become the Sustainability and Civil Development Research and Education Hub for the World.

The Cold War is over and our biggest threat right now is not "Marxist-Communism"

To those who grew up as Baby Boomers, I can see your perspective and I understand the generational concern with Marxist-Socialism - the country was on a Cold War paranoia footing for essentially your entire generation's life. It makes sense.

(Note: My reply here is going to incorporate political theory as I understand it and an analysis that is simply provided from as disconnected a position as I can have. Of course, you know how anytime someone speaks of political theory, or provides comparative political analysis, the terms they use come off as weird, if not hyperbolic. But, in order to capture the context of current rhetoric and compare them to the historical context of some of the referenced philosophical writings, like Marx's, it is necessary).

While I do agree that the Republican Party is experiencing a purge much like the one that resulted in the Nazi party's coming to fruition in the Weimar Republic, I can't bring myself to accept that the party of Lincoln is entirely dissipated. While it is facing serious challenges, I am hopeful that it will reengage through its moderates (Chuck Hagel, Colin Powell, Charlie Crist, ...). These guys can at least keep the "light" lit by remaining engaged. I am optimistic, and the party did rebound after the Era of McCarthyism as well.

On the Democratic party, while there are fringe elements that could easily be labeled communistic (in 2008 some actually left the party and ran on a communist party ticket), they do not control the party, nor are they pushing the party's ideological directional trends.

Thus, the scary "communist" rhetoric is a timeless herring of an argument in the Republican Party (can you name any Democratic politician who has never been called a "Marxist-socialist?" I can't, they all have!)

In studying the history of health care in the United States, I recently learned that the Republicans called Harry Truman a communist (and he was the President that sought to contain communism). Hearing it leveled today, with that kind of historical context in mind, one can't help but think that the current rhetoric against the current President is similar in intent (motivate people to the polls through fear).

Some elements of the Republican Party even called President Eisenhower a communist because of his trying to control defense spending as compared to domestic spending, and because of his farewell address in which he warned of a "Military Industrial Complex" (he was a WWII General, who was a Republican).

Again, the current communist rhetoric is a strategy to mobilize those who grew up in the Cold War to vote in an off season primary and election. It's an emotionally charged strategy that will work for those who grew up during the Cold War, especially on those military veterans of the Cold War era.

But, (and here I'll briefly consider the most dubious principle of Marx's manifesto - private property), if Marx's socialism were coming to fruition, then I think we would see the government seizing property on behalf of the "underprivileged and exploited worker." This has not happened, in fact with foreclosures going the way they are, it could be said that banks (a potential oligarchic class?) are increasingly amassing property (especially through reverse mortgage strategies being used on the elderly to put owned property back into their hands for ultimate "resale")...

The general public, in a communistic society, would instead be gaining increasing access to private property through its being made public, which is not what is being seen. Instead, the banks are increasing their attainment of property through foreclosures, and this will likely lead to a concentration that more resembles medieval feudalism - where people will live on the land for rents, and work to sustain that access to rented property.

Marx's critique of capitalism, if the general public ever actually read it as a primary source, (especially if read right now) would probably drive a dangerous populist fervor given history (Robespierre’s French Revolution, Lenin's Revolution, etc.). And the President is not moving to commandeer property in any way, shape, or form, nor is he using any rhetoric espoused within Marx's manifesto. Indeed, Marx's manifesto has much more of a resonation that resembles the circumstances of Shay's Rebellion, which in 1783, provided some motivation to re-evaluate the Articles of Confederation, and to establish a strong central government to collectivize national debt, as families lost their property after the bills for the revolutionary war came due for the states.

Some people consider public schools a slide toward "socialism." Some people consider insurance to be a "socialistic" notion. Environmental Protection or Regulation for some is a "socialistic notion" as well (Teddy Roosevelt was decried as a communist for such things)... In the 1920's in Germany, there were riots and fights between Fascists and union leaders who were decried as "Communists"...

Currently, anything that has any sort of air of community interest is decried as "communistic Marxist-socialism," and in this this environment, is where Fascistic ideologies bloom, because they feed on individual egos... And the irony is, this ideology of individualistic ego is wrapped in a national flag, and the notion of a national religion simultaneously.

The important thing is for to people talk, debate, and communicate. And most importantly they engage IN the political process... the rest of the world will hold us accountable for the leaders we choose to represent us...

I do not think that they will tolerate a nuclear armed nation being led by another ideologue with a large industrialized military and a superiority complex. Indeed, I think the notion of a destabilizing political swing far right (again) in the United States is a large contributor to our economic problems right now as far as investments go.

Additionally, I also think it is why Iran continues to play games with its commercial nuclear program's posturing (they might not feel like they can show their cards so long as AEI's Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are waiting in the wings with their zionistic "defend Israel" rhetoric).

I also think this is why the President received the Nobel Peace Prize, they couldn't give one to all of us in the United States, so they selected the leader who represents us, and our withdrawal from a dangerous brink - he (or his election by us) at least put pause to the trajectory created by the dominance of neoconservative ideology in the United States (which has its ideological roots in the Weimar Republic - Leo Strauss).

I also think it is why START re-engagement is important as well.

As someone in the military, I also think it is why diversity in the US military is important, as most civil-military experts will tell you that since the end of the Vietnam war, there has been an ideological tilt of the military culture towards a Southern Conservative Christian (sometimes leaning towards its being potentially fundamentalist in nature), which at least illuminates hazard lights, given global military histories. Honestly, I think it is a pretty rational hesitation to reevaluate providing the control of a nuclear weapon to a fundamentalist who BELIEVES that a nuclear war with Iran will usher in the second coming...

The way I see it, We got problems mate, and they aren't necessarily centered upon the threat of an impending imposition of "godless Marxist-Communism," at least not this go round...

If People have Souls and are endowed with rights, and Corporations are people - How can their sole function be that of making a profit?

If we run with the logic that Corporations are people, with human rights, how can we say that they exist for the sole purpose of making money? Do people also exist for the sole reason of making money?

By equating a man-made institution with that of some thing that was naturally made (or divinely for some) are we not undermining our own notions of what humanity is?

Who among us is willing to say that their sole reason in life, the essence of their soul if you will, is to turn a profit?

An exercise: Look at your kids and call them over to you (if you have them) and tell them that they exist, their sole purpose on this earth, is so that they can make money. Could you do it, really?

How is it that the same people who rant about the significance of things like the Pledge of Allegiance and the role of "god" in it, also rant about the notion that "we" are created to make a profit?

I say this as a HUUmanist: Are Sundays that Short?

A Profound Leader: The Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen

I have a profound respect and admiration for the Chairman Joints Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen. We are extremely fortunate to have to have his ability to use rational reasoning in his role of supporting the Secretary of Defense, and advising the President.

In his 2009-2010 guidance (dated December 2009) he outlines his priorities. In his conclusion he states:

In providing my best military advice over the past two years, I have emphasized that military activities must support rather than lead foreign policy. We have learned from the past eight years of war that we serve best when we are part of an approach that employs all elements of national power. By operating hand-in-hand with allies and partners, supporting the interagency, and working outside organizations, we will provide the Nation with the security the Constitution guarantees.

I appreciate his sentiments on pursuing an apolitical military and affirming our organization's culture of professional accountability.

His reiterating Secretary Gates' statement that "the most important thing we do is send the right people into the fight..." is profound.

Sir - just say how high and I will jump, not only because you're the boss, but because I find that I believe in your leadership and I trust your judgement.

Thanks for your leadership, and your service. The bar for any future CJCS has been raised given your exemplary leadership and service.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mike Mullen
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Article: McChrystal’s War, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal believes he can win in Afghanistan. It's the rest of the world that needs convincing."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/216237
By Evan Thomas NEWSWEEK
Published Sep 26, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Oct 5, 2009

Here is a very relevent article on the ground strategy in Afghanistan and the complexity of the challenge, which calls for discreet and selective warriors.

General Stanley McChrystal is a respected leader who has specialization in leading "direct action" missions. This warrior has a very complex understanding of what will be the best tactics necessary for supporting the President's strategy for Afghanistan...

Exerpt: "McChrystal, 55, is a purebred warrior, the son of a two-star general, West Point class of '76, a former commander of the elite Rangers Regiment, and, from 2003 to 2008, the head of hunter-killer black ops in Special Operations. He eats one meal a day, works out obsessively every morning at 5, and is so free of body fat that he looks gaunt. Lately, as commander of the war in Afghanistan, he has become a kind of Zen warrior, preaching that often "the shot you don't fire is more important than the one you do." He is a student of what he calls "counterinsurgency math." If you encounter 10 Taliban members and kill two, he says, you don't have eight remaining enemies. You have more like 20: the friends and relatives of the two you killed....

Bill Richardson’s New Realism and the United States 2007 National Maritime Strategy

Here is a seemingly relevent article I wrote for a Graduate Level Public Policy Course that considers military, more specifically Maritime National Security Policy and Bill Richardson's (Prior UN Ambassador, and Governor of New Mexico) consideration of the realities of foreign policy on the 21st Century.

"Bill Richardson’s New Realism and the United States’ 2007 National Maritime Strategy."

“We have proven the awesome capability of the sea when used for war, but we have yet to realize the full potential of the sea when leveraged for peace, prosperity, increased understanding, transparency, and pervasive security. This, to me, is the real meaning, the real potential of Sea Power. It is the power of the sea to share and unite, to deter and defeat, to protect and to endure.” - Commander Naval Operations Speech to Students and Faculty of the Naval War College, 31 August 2005 at the Naval War College Newport, R.I. (2009, Maritime Strategy quotes)

Bill Richardson’s article, A New Realism: Crafting a U.S. Foreign Policy for a New Century, serves as yet another call for the United States to update its military’s strategic mindset. The United States Navy serves as one of the nation’s oldest institutions and has, at times, not been necessarily responsive to the national, or global, political climates. The good news is that, right now, the United States Navy’s leadership is pursuing a more relevant course for the nation’s Maritime Services: The United States Navy; Coast Guard; and Marine Corps. Bill Richardson’s identification of six global trends that call for an adjustment to U.S. Foreign Policy was delivered just months before the United States Navy’s October 2007 release (in collaboration with the Coast Guard and Marine Corps) of the National Maritime Strategy, which considers these trends that the global community now faces, and how the United States Navy seeks to play its role in pursuit of a 21st century foreign policy that advances United States interests and contributes to the nation’s national security.

The first trend considered by Bill Richardson identifies the “fanatical Jihadism bursting from an increasingly unstable and violent greater middle east” (2007, p 27). The United States Navy identifies the complexity of the Jihadi terrorist threat and is pursuing its role in combating terrorism in the region in a comprehensive manner, and it rightly associates the threat with the challenge of managing conflict in the 21st Century. The 2007 National Maritime Strategy notes that,

Conflicts are increasingly characterized by a hybrid blend of traditional and irregular tactics, decentralized planning and execution, and non-state actors using both simple and sophisticated technologies in innovative ways (2007, p 6).

This evolution in thinking reflects the reality that the U.S. Navy’s posture cannot remain as it had throughout the Cold-War, with war fighting technology being the crux of success against a large adversarial military force. The Navy’s leadership further identifies the reality that military force is not the sole guarantor of success against the terrorist threat. Admiral Mike Mullen states of the “global war on terrorism”, that “clearly we remain a nation at war against formidable enemies…[and]…The way forward in Iraq and Afghanistan – the path we take now and in the future – will shape the character of the longer, larger struggle against terror. It cannot be a military path alone. That much is clear” (2007). The United States Navy now ties its humanitarian missions to those combating terrorism. Admiral Mullen energetically points out that the Navy is “committed to providing humanitarian assistance around the world where needed. So it’s a mission that continues to grow and one about which … [he and other senior officers in the Navy are]… very excited. And, like Sailors around the world, [the Navy is] …making such a difference in people’s lives…[that]…in the long run [that is] how [the Navy will] impact the global war on terrorism (2007, podcast). The United States Navy is moving to address both the violent repercussions of the spread of Jihadism, as well as its “underlying causes.”

Regarding the perpetuating threat of transnational terrorism, the U.S. Navy is adjusting to neutralize specific threats, and curtail the proliferation of violent ideologies through proactive, non-colonial means. The National Maritime Strategy identifies that the “permanent or prolonged basing of our military assets overseas often has unintended economic, social, or political repercussions (2007, p 8). The Navy seeks to use its maritime capabilities to mitigate the problems arising from perpetual footprints by providing a sea-basing capability which allows for specific and focused missions to be conducted from regionally deployed afloat assets.

The second trend Bill Richardson notes, and the Navy addresses in its National Maritime Strategy as well, is the growing power and sophistication of criminal networks capable of disrupting the global economy and trafficking in weapons of mass destruction…[which] raises the terrible specter of nuclear terrorism” (2007, p 27). Within the National Maritime Strategy, the Navy continually identifies the need to maintain an ability to proactively engage threats overseas, while operating in concert with allies. The National Maritime Strategy specifically notes that,

Expanded cooperative relationships with other nations will contribute to the security and stability of the maritime domain for the benefit of all…[and]…Although our forces can surge when necessary to respond to crises, trust and cooperation cannot be surged. They must be built over time so that the strategic interests of the participants are continuously considered while mutual understanding and respect are promoted (2007, p 11).

Using a cooperative posture, the U.S. Navy seeks to position itself for successes as it postures itself for countering this global trend.

The National Maritime Strategy specifically identifies its “Global Maritime partnership initiative” as a strategic essential. The Navy notes that this initiative “seeks a cooperative approach to maritime security, promoting the rule of law by countering piracy, terrorism, weapons proliferation, drug trafficking, and other illicit activities” (2007, p 11). Again, the United States Navy is implementing a strategy that addresses new realities that the global community now faces.

The third and fourth trends noted by both Richardson and the United States Navy concerns the “extraordinarily rapid rise of Asian economic and military power” and the “reemergence of Russia as an assertive global and regional player [which] requires U.S. strategic leadership to ensure that these powerful nuclear-armed nations may be integrated into a stable global order” (2007, pp 27-28). The Navy’s preferred counter to these rising powers is to openly seek to deter war altogether; because for the Navy, “preventing war is preferable to fighting wars” (2007, p13). The Maritime Strategy points out that, “…where conflict threatens the global system, and our national interests, maritime forces will be ready to respond alongside other elements of national and multinational power, to give leaders a range of options for deterrence, escalation, and de-escalation” (2007, p 9). This flexibility allows the United States Navy to remain ready for any variance of contingency requirements that policy makers may face, given the rise of these nations. Citing its understanding of the consequences of military confrontation with these nations, the National Maritime Strategy notes that,

…no other disruption is as potentially disastrous to global stability as war among major powers…[and]…while war with another great power strikes many as improbable, the near-certainty of its ruinous effects demands that it be actively deterred using all elements of national power (2007, p 10).

By providing policy-makers with a diversified set of mission capabilities, as well as a ready and trained force to conduct these missions – that is mindful of the consequences, – the Navy displays an understanding of the global environment, and a cooperative nature to allies and adversaries alike.

The United States Navy is proud of its historical tradition as being a protector of commercial sea-lanes, which relates to what Bill Richardson identifies as being a fifth trend in the 21st Century. His fifth trend describes “the growth of both global economic interdependence and of global financial imbalances, unaccompanied by the growth of institutional capacities to manage these realities” (2007, p 28). Richardson’s trend analysis here considers “resource constraints,” “a growing global demand for energy,” and international trade as a commercial lifeblood. The United States Navy articulates its understanding of the reality that the “world economy is tightly interconnected” (2007, p 5). This interconnected nature, and the role that freedom of the seas plays in maintaining global economic stability, is examined in the National Maritime Strategy.

The U.S. Navy finds that its role is significant given that “sea-lanes and supporting shore infrastructure are the lifelines of the modern global economy, [and consists of] visible and vulnerable symbols of the modern distribution system that relies on the free-transit through increasingly urbanized littoral regions” (2007, pp 5-6). Here, the Navy rightly identifies the physical realities this trend poses, and the National Maritime Strategy further considers the political ramifications of the interconnected globalized markets. The U.S. Navy aptly predicts that economic growth and stability will be tested as “continued growth may create increasing competition for resources and capital with economic powers, transnational corporations and international organizations [which couple with] heightened popular expectations and increased competition for resources, coupled with scarcity, [which] may encourage nations to exert wider claims of sovereignty over greater expanses of ocean, waterways, and natural resources – potentially resulting in conflict” (2007, p 6). These resource wars will only become more exacerbating to global economies and political institutions, and they further point to Richardson’s sixth trend, which the Navy also considers in its National Maritime Strategy.

Richardson’s sixth identified global trend that calls for a “new realism” identifies the reality that globalization requires the United States to address the “health, environmental, and social problems” that cause destabilization when unchecked (2007, p 28). These destabilizing factors can foment problems and magnify the challenges posed by “weak or corrupt governments, growing dissatisfaction among the disenfranchised, religious extremism, and changing demographics” (2007, p 6). The Navy further points out the challenges posed by the “effects of climate change [which] may also amplify human suffering through catastrophic storms, loss of arable lands, and coastal flooding [that] could lead to a loss of life, involuntary migration, social instability, and regional crises” (2007, p 7). The Navy understands the challenges posed by this trend, and seeks to mitigate its affects.

The National Maritime Strategy is seeking to move the organization forward. The United states Navy is pursuing a strategy that calls for “building on relationships forged in times of calm,…to mitigate human suffering [and serve as] the vanguard of interagency and multinational efforts, both in a deliberate, proactive fashion and in response to a crisis” (2007, p 14). This new, proactive, nature is directly observed in the Navy’s work being done to combat an outbreak of H1N1 in the Middle-East-North-Africa (MENA) region, as today U.S. Naval personnel and Scientists collaborate with regional research groups in the fields of disease, surveillance, vaccine development, and vector control for tropical diseases…[while] also train[ing] local scientists in areas of medical research and dealing with public health challenges” (2009).

In reading Bill Richardson’s article calling for a “New Realism” and then considering the Navy’s design of a 21st century National Maritime Strategy, it becomes clear that there is a sound logic in how it seeks to address: Global Jihadists; Criminal Networks and the risks of Nuclear Proliferation and Terrorism; The rise in esteem by Foreign Nations in the Pacific, which includes China, India and Russia; Global economic interdependence; and global health, environmental, and social destabilizations which jeopardize critical interests.

The Navy’s “New Realist” strategy establishes that “United States seapower is a force for good, protecting this nation’s vital interests, even as it joins with others to promote security and prosperity across the globe” (2007, p 18). In 2009, the United States Navy is to be considered a leader within the United States Government in its pursuing a rational National Maritime Strategy that fits within a coherent, predictable, and understandable foreign policy.



 
References

Richardson, B. (2007). A New Realism: Crafting a Us Foreign Policy for a New Century. Harvard International Review, Summer 2007; 29, 2; ABI/INFORM Global. Pages 26-30.
Retrieved from PADM530 Course Resources on December 16, 2009.

United States Navy. (2007). A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower. www.navy.mil. October 2007. Accessed December 19, 2009 via http://www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf.

- . (2009). Navy Laboratory Supports Maritime Strategy Through Health Diplomacy. www.navy.mil. December 15, 2009. Accessed December 20, 2009. http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=50173

- . (2009). United States Navy Biography Quotes: War on Terror. www.navy.mil. Accessed December 20, 2009. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/leadership/quotes.asp?q=11&c=3.

- . (2009). United States Navy Biography Quotes: Commander Naval Operations - Maritime Strategy. www.navy.mil. Accessed December 20, 2009. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/leadership/quotes.asp?q=253&c=6.

Republicans Pursue a Terrorist State? Welcome to the 2010 Mid-term Elections!

OK... (I'll Bite)... so bringing terrorists to Illinois will make us "less safe." How much "less safe" will that be than what we were on, say 9/11? I'd say on that day, we were pretty "unsafe," yet, on that day we, essentially, had ZERO "GWOT" related foreign terrorists housed in the US - Camp Delta at Gitmo didn't even exist.

BUT, ironically enough, on that day Republicans did own all three branches of government. Maybe, the "safety" issue has less to do with foreign terrorists?

Just to be safe, we should be sure to never let all three branches be owned by the Republican Party again, because that is, at least, an observable statement of circumstance that can be tied to a catastrophic terrorist event occurring on US Soil.

I know it all sounds ludicrous - yet people say stuff like this with a straight face. 2010 will not be 2009 - the only thing this posturing is doing setting people up for the 2010 campaign.

Neither political party can completely "guarantee" our country's complete safety from terrorism - yet at least one party runs on the premise that it can.

How does one guarantee that terrorist events will not occur? I guess there are things like Wii, Ebay, and telecommuting. Who needs to be social?

If a political party runs on a "national security" platform, you're probably going to get a government that enhances its "security" institutions.

Thoughtful Entertainment: Kanye West, "Diamonds from Sierra Leone"

Video from Kanye West...seemingly seeking to encourage folks to think about where some diamonds come from.

What a great opportunity to encourage people to consider broader geopolitical realities.



Lyrics from:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/kanyewest/diamondsfromsierraleoneremix.html

"Diamonds From Sierra Leone (Remix)"
(feat. Jay-Z)

[Intro]
Diamonds are forever
They're all I need to please me
They can't stimulate or tease me
They won't leave in the night
Have no fear that they might
Desert me

[Hook]
"Diamonds are forever forever forever"
Throw ya diamonds in the sky
If you feel the vibe
"Diamonds are forever forever forever"
The ROC is still alive
Everytime I rhyme
"Forever and ever!"
For ever ever? for ever ever? ever ever?
Ever ever? ever ever? ever ever? ever ever?

[Verse 1]
Good Morning, this ain't Vietnam still
People lose hands, legs, arms for real
Little was known of Sierra Leone
And how it connect to the diamonds we own
When I speak of Diamonds in this song
I ain't talkin bout the ones that be glown
I'm talkin bout Rocafella, my home, my chain
These ain't conflict diamonds,is they Jacob? don't lie to me mayne
See, a part of me sayin' keep shinin',
How? when I know of the blood diamonds
Though it's thousands of miles away
Sierra Leone connect to what we go through today
Over here, its a drug trade, we die from drugs
Over there, they die from what we buy from drugs
The diamonds, the chains, the bracelets, the charmses
I thought my Jesus Piece was so harmless
'til I seen a picture of a shorty armless
And here's the conflict
It's in a black person's soul to rock that gold
Spend ya whole life tryna get that ice
On a polo rugby it look so nice
How could somethin' so wrong make me feel so right, right?
'fore I beat myself up like Ike
You could still throw ya Rocafella diamond tonight, 'cause

[Hook]

[Verse 2]
[Kanye From Original Song]
People askin' me is I'm gon' give my chain back (uh)
That'll be the same day I give the game back (uh)
You know the next question dog 'yo, where Dame at?'(uh)
This track the Indian dance to bring our reign back (whoo!)
'wassup wit you a Jay man, are ya'll okay man?'

[Jay-Z]
Yep!
I got it from her 'ye damn!
The chain remains, the game is in tact
The name is mine, I'll take blame for that
The pressure's on, but guess who ain't gon' crack? [laughs]
Pardon me I had to laugh at that
How could you falter when you're the rock of gibralter
I had to get of the boat so I could walk on water
This ain't no tall order, this is nothin to me
Difficult takes a day, impossible takes a week
I do this in my sleep,
I sold Kilos of coke, (so?) I'm guessin' I can sell CD's
I'm not a businessman, I'm a business, man
Let me handle my buisness, damn!
Kanyeez you got me, Freeway and Foxy
YG', Teairra Mari, Petey watch me
Bleek could be one hit away his whole career
As long as I'm alive, he's a millionaire
And even if I die, he's in my will somewhere
So he can just kick back and chill somewhere, oh yeah
He don't even have to write rhymes
The Dynasty like my money last three lifetimes
Shirley Bassey was in the rear sayin exactly
What I was sayin practically me whole carreer
The diamond is forever, I been mindin' this forever
Now the Louis Vuitton Don's timin' couldn't be better
People lined up to see the Titanic sinkin'
Instead we rose from the ash like a phoenix
If you waitin' for the end, the dynasty signed
And what seemed like forever is a mighty long time
I'm young bitches [laughs]
Goodnight!

[Thanks to Miss713south@yahoo.com for these lyrics]
[Thanks to Codac21@msn.com, crazyman11@fuse.net, wordsworth82@hotmail.com, LilSmileigh@aol.com for correcting these lyrics]

Thoughtful Entertainment:"Vanilla Sky" (Take Stock, Open Your Eyes)

Vanilla Sky (2001)

I first saw this movie while serving on the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) during our OEF, OSW, OIF deployment.

The first time I saw "Vanilla Sky," I caught it at about midpoint and I couldn't figure out what the heck was going on. So, I waited for it to be replayed and watched it again. Once I saw it all the way through, it made sense; especially to a guy on a military deployment that had been "indefinitely extended."

Some movies entertain; some educate. This one made me think. In fact, I felt bad watching the movie without my wife, as I usually like to share "thinking moments" with her.

One of the first things I did when I got home was buy the movie and watch it with my wife.

I recommend it. Especially for folks needing to really consider what matters in life.

My take: Take Stock in the little things (both the good and the bad); make a choice - take a leap even. But, wake up and live life conscientiously, in the world out there.

So, if you want a thinking movie for tonight's entertainment - check this one out.

"Vanilla Sky" Trailer



Grammy Performance by Paul McCartney (2002)
"Vanilla Sky"

Insightful Video on National Security, Blackwater

Inspirational Campaign to extend freedom to All Americans

Spread the word.

If we should care about the Iraq Elections, we should also care about Americans whose civil liberties are curtailed by religious zealots here!

Maybe we should make people put purple ink on their fingers after they get married to draw attention to this cause.

Get out, get involved. We have got to fix this.

Our military and diplomatic men and women are deployed around the globe defending freedom for people abroad - let's make sure our citizenry can exercise those freedoms here!

http://www.gettoknowusfirst.com/

Come on Folks! GOP has no strategists whatsoever - no economic strategy, no war strategy, no homeland security strategy, no healthcare strategy,...

Another example of how the "liberal" media elite on MSNBC shower the President with liberal praise...(yeah, right)




What this ideologue doesn't get is that giving tax cuts to the top 1% is also like buying ones constituencys' votes, and that giving tax cuts to the rich does not lead to the creation of jobs.

Here's my evidence (look outside folks!): If tax cuts for the rich did work, we would have jobs a plenty right now and John McCain would have been elected to continue with George W. Bush's policies.

We have had 8 years of this "trickle-down" theory and it has us where we are now - just as it did under Ronald Reagan.

Here's another recent and stinging argument, the outgoing Administration's no strings attached bailout allocations led to the first $350 Billion (of the $700 Billion) dollars in tax payers money not trickling down and enhancing the "average joe's" ability to run his small business by attaining access to money, but instead to $40,000 corporate executive parties, multi-billion dollar CEO bonuses, record corporate gas profits (and record gas prices) and record inflation.

These guys aren't bringing anything to the table but non-substantive arguments and "socialist" rhetoric. They are doing what any dying dragon would do, flail about and snort fire at the knight who slayed them.

Did you enjoy the Super Bowl folks? The real world is still here, isn't it?

"What I've Done" by Linkin Park

Albeit they were one or two scumbags away from being up to date, the video and song can project the progress that can be made by a new generation that gives a damn...I guess only time will tell...

Great lyrics, great sound, and a great video. The album, "Minutes from Midnight" is an entirely thoughtful album. I recommend it.

Linkin Park - Rock The Deuce - MTV Shows