Where Do I Check “None-of-the-Above” On This Ballot?

Decision time: a former Massachusetts governor who has public and private executive experience; a former Speaker of the House known for “big think;” a Senator from a swing state; and a long-time Representative who approaches policy from a new perspective.  Great choices with very broad experiences, and each can bring something to the table.

At least they don’t have any heavy baggage or big weak point in their conservative armor, right?  I am sure I can find something in each aspect of their policy (fiscal, social, defense/foreign) that appeals to me.

That’s where it gets a bit messy.  The Massachusetts governor passed the precursor to, and according to some accounts the model for, “Obamacare.”  He defends it by saying it was “a Massachusetts solution for a Massachusetts problem.”  While that may be true, it is a state issue, it is also indicative of his position vis-a-vis government as the solution.  It gets deeper.  There is video of him from past elections as an opponent of issues he is now acting as a proponent of.  At least he has a personality?  He’s not getting my vote.

The former Speaker brings a lot of personal baggage that will not likely play a role in how he governs, but that puts a lot of extra arrows in the quill of the Obama reelection machine.  I’m okay with that; he’s found faith and has sought forgiveness, and who hasn’t made mistakes?  A session on a couch with former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the opponent we successfully ran against in 2010?  I am not liking this.  He supported the individual mandate?  He has hard links to the government run mortgagers who were a catalyst in the financial collapse of 2008?  Oy vey.

Swing state Senator, probably pretty good.  Comes off a bit whiney at times, okay, I can deal with that.  Endorsed the turn coat Arlen Specter; ugh, but hey, how could he have known?  Supported big-government programs during his time in the Senate.  I’ll pass. Thanks though, you almost made it.

Okay a Congressman from my home state, we should be pretty close.  Fiscal policy, okay; social policy, a bit more Libertarian than I, but not on the things I hold higher (abortion mainly); I am nodding my head in agreement.  Last box to check off: foreign and defense policy, let’s see how this goes.  Did he just say Iran would abide by a “lie-and-let-live” policy?  Adios.

I know I will never find a candidate who I can call “perfect.”  None of them will ever meet all of my criteria of conservatism.  Hell, I don’t think I would be able to.  Give me someone who is at least reasonable though please.  I, for one, am not a fan of holding my nose and closing my eyes for any candidate in the primaries. Now what do we do?

We hope.  We pray.  We wait.

Believe it or not, there is still time for another candidate to get in.  The proportional awarding of delegates, after April 1^st, ensures no single candidate jumps out to an insurmountable lead after the first three states, or even up to “Super Tuesday” for that matter.  Additionally, large delegation states have later primaries this year, thus leaving a lot of delegates on the table after April 1st.

Get ready for some math.

If a yet-undeclared candidate enters the race in the near future, he or she will have access to ballots in 32 states and territories that conduct primaries or caucuses and be eligible for a total of 1,377 delegates, 233 more than are needed to clinch the nomination.  It has become common knowledge in recent weeks that Virginia does not allow citizens to “write-in” candidates on the primary ballot; however, if only Virginia applies this rule there are an additional total of 736 delegates available, leaving the undeclared candidate a total of 2,113 available delegates, merely 173 less than the total number of delegates available at the start of the primary race.  If all of the states have a similar rule, those initial 1,377 delegates are enough to win the nomination.

Of the 1,377 delegates they would definitely be eligible for, only 426 are pre April 1st and subject to proportional awarding (except Florida’s winner take-all, which Romney carried easily), theoretically giving the candidate enough time to enter the race, build name-recognition, gain a foothold and make a run at the nomination.  An additional 951 delegates are up for grabs after April 1st in “winner-take-all” races in states such as California (172 delegates), Texas (155 delegates), New York (95 delegates) and Pennsylvania (72 delegates).  Texas may even push its primary back from than the current April 3rd date as redistricting maps are tied up in the judiciary, thus leaving the two biggest delegate rich states, Texas and California, with late primaries in May and June, respectively.  Delegates are not an issue, it is possible, especially as the current candidates, with the exception of Rep. Paul (who had strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire) have split the first three states and their delegates.  At the very least, a new entry can force a brokered convention which could work out positively or negatively depending on where one stands.

While delegates are winnable, money is required for any and all campaigning; former House Majority Leader Dick Armey’s motto of “hard work beats daddy’s money” will only advance a candidate so far on the national stage.  It’s not called the “mother’s milk” for nothing.  Speaker Gingrich’s super PAC, Winning Our Future PAC, was running on fumes until a few weeks ago when a casino mogul injected five million dollars into it, the mogul’s wife recently matched the sum.  Governor Perry’s super PAC, Make Us Great Again PAC, no longer has a candidate to support.  This election cycle, donors have shown a willingness to shift support and money to a surging candidate who appears capable of winning the primary and beating the incumbent president; with all the time left in the race I would find it unlikely if they stop now.

Delegates are out there.  Money is out there.  Is there a new candidate out there?  Preferably a conservative governor who hasn’t been mired in scandal, and preferably one who can speak well (I may even settle for “speak good” at this point) as they articulate their record of successes, their plans to get the nation back on track economically, and espouse the conservative viewpoints I hold dear?  Someone who truly believes in the ability of the free market and will unleash innovation in the private sector by removing the millstones of burdensome regulations and tax burden from the necks of American entrepreneurs?  Someone who believes the United States is a great nation and will not shy away from saying so, and if driven to it, use the big stick of the American military and all the might that comes with it?  Is that too much to ask?

I hope they are out there.  Maybe he is parking his Harley at the red brick residence six miles north of Lucas Oil Stadium.  Or he may be sitting at his desk in the governor’s mansion near the banks of the mighty Mississippi River, a few miles north of “Death Valley.”  Maybe he or she is somewhere else.  Honestly, I don’t really care about what they are doing right this second, or for that matter where they are doing it; I just hope they get in the race sooner rather than later, especially if they are planning on waiting until 2016.

Kenneth Depew :: University of St. Thomas (TX) :: Houston, Texas :: @Depewk

In Defense of Our Defense

Right out of high school (after a well spent summer), I went into the Army.  First stop, Fort Benning – home of the Army Infantry School on “Sand Hill.”  In the woods of western Georgia I learned a lot of things: how to conduct drill and ceremony, how to properly fold my clothes and make my bed, how to maneuver under enemy fire and how to conduct myself while on patrol.  At one point I think it was literally knocked into my head that “security is the first priority of work.”

It was a recurring theme even after I left Fort Benning.  At Fort A.P. Hill in northern Virginia: security first.  At Fort Hood, Texas; security first.  It was written in the army field manual for “Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad,” FM 7-8: security first.  On my first year long deployment to Iraq in early 2004, it was my responsibility, as a non-commissioned officer, to ensure my Soldiers were abiding by this rule we had been taught since day one in uniform: security first.  It was in Baghdad that we really understood why.

Unlike the training we received before deployment in the United States, which was high quality and intense, there were real bullets being fired at us by real “bad guys” who really meant to kill us.  The lesson was reiterated on my second deployment to Iraq in late 2005 and my first deployment to Afghanistan in 2009.  In theater of combat operations, security must be first, otherwise nothing else mattered: chow halls for food; shower trailers for hygiene; morale, welfare and recreation, internet cafes were all rendered unimportant and useless if they couldn’t be protected, but more importantly, if their intended users were not alive to use them.

If you’re not in Iraq, Afghanistan, or some other war zone, what does security have to do with anything?  In my opinion, everything.  A nation with a bustling and growing economy, low unemployment, energy independence, and a strong leader will be insignificant if it cannot secure itself from enemies.  Apparently President Obama believes that since we do not have any if the aforementioned qualities we shall not have the ability to secure ourselves either.

Recently, President Obama unveiled his new strategy for defense.  Some aspects are laudable: expanding focus on Asia and an ability to react to a rising China and reinvigorating the ability of the military to fight traditional force-on-force battles by remaining focused on advanced equipment and other technological assets and not losing sight of what future warfare may entail; however, others aspect are unworthy of any commendation.

High-tech planes, manned or unmanned, new cyber capabilities and modern ships are great assets in modern warfare, but like the days of the Peloponnesian War, it is the basic Soldier (or Marine) with little more than a personal weapon who takes and holds the terrain on which war is waged.  Part of the new defense strategy cuts the number of active Soldiers and Marines, the very warfighters who risk their lives on a daily basis and secure victory against foes in Afghanistan and other locations outside our borders.

Today, we have men and women who deployed as part of the Global War on Terrorism in Afghanistan, Kuwait, the Horn of Africa, and other locations worldwide.  Though high-tech state-of-the-art equipment is beneficial, they are mere facilitators and enablers of the individual Soldiers and Marines who will place the sole of their boots on hostile terrain.

In addition to being ready and willing to fight our enemies, men and women stand ready to deploy in order to conduct contingency operations or humanitarian operations like the ones conducted in Haiti after their devastating earthquake in January 2010, in Pakistan after the floods which displaced hundreds of thousands in August 2010, and in Japan after the horrific tsunami in January 2011.  These humanitarian missions, though not directly defense related, build good-will with citizens of the beneficiary country, which can effect perception of the United States and can preempt those who would be willing to carry out hostile actions against our nation and our citizens.

In order to ensure our defense we must have adequate personnel in our military forces to be able to deploy, find, fix and kill our enemies; in more than one theater at the same time if necessary.  Under the new defense strategy, this will not likely be possible and the U.S. military will face the same problems encountered in the early days of the Global War on Terrorism: units were under strength; squad, platoon and company leaders were inexperienced as those with experience we turned loose after the Clinton drawdown of the 1990’s; the military was forced to add manpower out of a pool which sacrificed quality for the sake of quantity. (The last statement is not meant as an insult by any means, but it is undeniable that enlistment standards were lowered and more waivers for enlistment were granted to fill the void.)

We cannot draw down, not today, maybe not tomorrow either.  We face an ever changing and hostile world: Pakistan’s government, which has approximately 100 nuclear weapons, has moved their collusion with al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban out of the backroom and into the sunlight; Iran seeks to obtain nuclear “energy” and has been implicated in the intent and planning of carrying out attacks on U.S. soil; the corrupt, yet stable governments of Libya and Egypt are now controlled by Islamist; NATO partner Turkey’s ruling AK Parti has moved closer to undoing the secularism emplaced by Ataturk to a more theocratic regime; Russia bullies its former republicans, notably Georgia and the Ukraine, as Putin seeks to reclaim the nations lost position as a world power; and China, the number one holder of our foreign debt, looms over our friend and ally Taiwan, recently adding an aircraft carrier and a new stealth fighter to it’s armament as it seeks to enforce the “dibs” it called on west Pacific.

We all know we must do something to curb the deficit spending and debt the nation incurs, but not at the sake of our safety and security.  Defense of the nation and its citizens is an enumerated responsibility of the government and must be carried out and planned for responsibly; therefore, in the pie chart that shows government spending the defense portion should be the largest, because it ensures the others are possible.  The current and future risks we face as a nation are too ominous for us to be drawn into a gunfight only bearing a knife, if the military can still afford it.

Kenneth Depew :: University of St. Thomas :: Houston, Texas :: @DepewK

2012: Goldwater, Not Rockefeller

The presidential election of 2012, regardless of the Republican nominee, is bound to be a fierce, no holds barred, bare-knuckle race.

The Obama machine plans to use its billion-dollar war chest to buy victory from the jaws of defeat by brutally negative attacks on the yet-to-be-decided Republican nominee.  He can’t run on his record, nor the “hope” and “change” his first term forced upon the nation.

The Obama campaign will be ruthless, and the American people will have to decide to stick with him or choose a new road to travel.  The course of action we take that would help him achieve his ends would be to nominate a moderate, an Obama-lite, who could be portrayed as the evil the public doesn’t know as opposed to the evil the public does know, Obama.

Some of my fellow conservatives, though a bit weaker-kneed than I, have expressed their concern about the loss of the race by the nomination of a “Goldwater candidate.”  Those same advocates urge us to nominate someone who is undeniably “electable,” even though they don’t reflect conservative values.  I understand their concerns; we must get Obama out of office.  What price are we willing to bear to do so?  Becoming liberal Republicans?  I, for one, say, “No, thank you!”

As for the comparisons, are any of our current conservative candidates running campaigns similar to the 1964 Goldwater campaign?  Parallels are extant, but short: Senator Goldwater, like our future nominee, faced an incumbent; thus ends the similarities.  The differences are what is key, and will propel the nominee, if conservative, to the presidency.

In 1964, the nation still reeled from the assassination of President Kennedy less than a year before Election Day.  Though the assassination was linked to a communist sympathizing extremist, the Democrats were able to use the opportunity to run against the opponent of extremism, which they successfully linked to Goldwater.  Goldwater’s most memorable quote from the race of 1964 was used, out of context, by liberals (in both parties) to smear Goldwater by saying he justified extremism, or at the very least condoned it.  He never refined and clarified his statement, giving his opponents an easier time in achieving their ends.

Goldwater was also successfully painted as an unabashed and unhesitating hawk, ready to partake in nuclear war with the Soviets.  The United States was at the height of the Cold War, with multiple incidents occurring less than 100 miles south of Florida.  The decade opened with the downing of an American U-2 spy plane over the Soviet Union, the Bay of Pigs incident occurred a year later, and the Cuban Missile Crisis stoked American fears of a nuclear holocaust in 1963. Goldwater was portrayed as an unstable warmonger by democrats and their proxies (though at the same time Johnson was ordering thousands of troops into Vietnam), not suitable for unsupervised presence in public, much less the presidency.  They answered his campaign slogan of, “In your heart you know he’s right” with “In your guts you know he’s nuts.”  They achieved their goal.

Another key difference was the approval rating of President Johnson as opposed to that of President Obama.  Johnson’s approval rating peaked at 79% in February 1964, seven months before the November re-election campaign against Goldwater.  Obama’s approval rating, as of today, peaked at 65.5% less than a month after his inauguration in 2009, almost 4 years before his re-election bid.  At this time in the 1964 election cycle Johnson enjoyed an approval rating north of 75%; whereas Obama enjoys 43%.  Unlike Johnson, the public doesn’t appear to be with Obama.

There is no doubt (in my mind, at least), that Obama and proxies will attempt to employ the same strategy used against Goldwater, no matter whom the candidate may be; however, unlike 1964, we also have an historic card to play: 1968.

The most memorable scenes from the 1968 election cycle were the protests, which culminated in riots outside of the Democratic National Convention and Mayor Daley’s police force displacing and arresting them by the hundreds.  The chaos outside the convention was mirrored in a more civilized form inside Chicago’s International Amphitheater.  In addition to the chaos outside the convention, 1968 was the unraveling of the Democrat coalition first formed in 1932 by Franklin Roosevelt.  The Democrat Party began to lose its appeal on “Main Street” as it became more associated with extreme liberalism which ran counter to the social trends of large swaths of American voters.  Johnson’s approval sagged as the chaotic summer ensued and the “Silent Majority” found its voice.

In these examples of 1968 we have modern parallels: the Occupy Movement, the crumbling of the coalition which elected Obama, sagging poll numbers and a Democrat Party which has lurched too far left for the liking of the American body politic.

To counter, there must be a bold contrast to Obama and the policies of national Democrats – not a pastel that can be mistaken with the failed liberalism of the current administration.

Obama has proven himself to be a master campaigner; however, when it comes to policy and presiding over government, he is quite the opposite.  The American people agree.  A November “Battleground” poll conducted by Politico and George Washington University found that 74% of respondents had a positive view of Barack Obama as a person; however, only 44% of the same respondents approve of the job he is doing (3% more than those who strongly disapprove of the job he is doing).  Even more damning, 75% of respondents think the country is on the wrong track.  Therefore, a candidate who can establish themselves as a clear contrast can win, especially if that candidate can instill confidence that their policies will solve the problems most Americans will be thinking about on election day: the economy, government spending and the budget deficit, and jobs.

Who can answer these questions?  A conservative who believes in letting the market run it’s course and self correct without “stimulation;” a conservative who will slash government spending to a reasonable level, will ensure neither government spending nor debt exceeds a certain portion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and support a balanced budget amendment; and a conservative who will unleash the ability of the American entrepreneur to create or expand businesses and put Americans back to work.  It is time for a conservative, not a moderate.  It is time for a Goldwater, not a Rockefeller.

Kenneth Depew // University of St. Thomas (TX) // @depewk

Ignorance and Dysfunction: The Obama Administration and the War in Afghanistan

A few weeks ago, after a stealth drone crashed in Iran and its subsequent recovery and publicization by the Iranian government, I thought we appeared weak.  The official response was a formal letter to the Iranian government requesting that they please, nay, “pretty please with a cherry on top” give it back or else we’ll be really upset.  Iran replied with the expected “no, finders keepers” defense.  So we moved from being weak to simply appearing impotent on the world stage.  At least it can’t get any worse…right?  Way to keep me on my toes Obama administration, now I know there is no lower limit to what you will do. The fact is, this incident is only the icing on the cake of Obama foreign policy ineptitude. The administration continues to pursue a muddled and naive approach to Afghanistan as well.

Afghanistan is a crazy place, which often seemed dysfunctional to me when I was there.  Apparently that dysfunction has seeped into the current administration’s policy on how we engage the Taliban in that country.

Recently, news broke that a deal, in principle, for peace talks had been struck with the Taliban.  The U.S. will release “high ranking Taliban officials” in exchange for the initiation of negotiations to take place in Qatar at a “Taliban political office.”  Among the leaders to be released are Mullah Khair Khowa, a former interior minister and governor of the northwestern province of Herat, and Noorullah Noori, also a former governor and a senior Taliban military commander.  These are just two of the “high-risk detainee[s]” named in the apparent barter.  Other reports indicate that a deal hasn’t been reached, but that the individuals have been mentioned in previous meetings between the U.S. and the Taliban over the past year.

Why is this ignorant and dysfunctional?  After all, negotiations and diplomacy are a part of the conflict resolution process and could lead to the United States ability withdraw it’s men and women in uniform from the far-flung stretches of the globe.

This agreement shows that the Obama administration doesn’t understand who our enemies, in-country known as “Anti-Afghan Forces” (AAF), are.  Mullah Muhammed Omar may be the former president of the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan,” and he may be the spiritual leader of the Taliban. He may be worth up to 10 million U.S. dollars on the U.S. State Department’s “Rewards for Justice” program; but he is not the leader, in the typical sense, of the AAF, or for that matter the average fighter who attacks Afghan, U.S., and coalition forces on a daily basis in Kandahar, Kabul or Konar.

The average fighter in Afghanistan is not necessarily ideologically aligned with the Taliban or other groups, such as Al Qaeda, the Haqqani Network, Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG), Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LET), Jaysh-e-Muhammed (JEM) or any other of the organizations that compose the alphabet soup of the Afghan insurgency.  They may be affiliates or offshoots (as many of the groups were offshoots of a previous group), but not the typical “card carrying member” we wish we could envision here in the West.  Rather, the typical fighter is a local villager who, like most other Afghans, doesn’t have a means of sustenance and can make money by carrying out an attack.  Usually, they are paid a bounty through “hawallah” banks funded by wealthy sympathizers who don’t wish to dirty their own hands but still support the jihad.  Fire a mortar, $15; shoot at a convoy, $25; plant an improvised explosive device, $50, fight for a month: $300.  This is especially hard to quell when “pay day jihadist” can make more money a month than an enlisted soldier in the Afghan National Army.  It’s all economic to a lot of the foot soldiers (a similar phenomenon was prevalent in Iraq, where children would be paid to throw a grenade at a US convoy).

Even if all the fighters were affiliated members of a particular group, peace negotiations would be inconsequential, as most of these organizations are “bottom-up,” as opposed to “top-down” in the manner of Western hierarchies.  A peace struck with Mullah Omar, Hekmatyr Gulbuddin or any other insurgent leader in Kabul, Quetta or Qatar will not necessarily translate to a peace in the valleys of eastern Afghanistan or the barren planes of the South.

This is especially worrisome when it is considered that the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is merely a line on the map that only Western governments appear to recognize.  As long as there are safe havens in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (specifically Bajaur, Waziristan, and Khyber) and Nuristan, Nangahar, Konar and Laghman (N2KL) Provinces of Afghanistan, they will continue to be impediments to any brokered peace deal.  Our policy vis-à-vis Pakistan has been to treat it with kid gloves at the best and turning a blind eye to its support and sustainment of the Afghan insurgency at worst.  Our inability to mass enough force to adequately control N2KL (specifically Nuristan and Konar) for sustained periods of time has caused locals to learn the lesson the AAF has preached in that area: ‘The Americans will leave, but we will stay.  Choose your side wisely.”

Consider the Pech River Valley and it’s corollaries (for which I have a special affinity having served there and for memories’ sake carried back some grenade metal in my knee and shoulder).  Marines initially occupied it in 2005, the Army took over and expanded the sphere of influence into the Korengal and Waygul Valleys.  After a series of attacks in 2007, U.S. forces pulled back from the Waygul Valley, the Korengal was left a few years later; AAF took control of previous U.S. Combat Outposts, delivering AAF a huge morale and propaganda victory.  Months later all U.S. forces withdrew from the Pech Valley only to reoccupy it six months later with less troops.  Needless to say, gains that were made over the years were lost in those six months.

Obama's "Friends With Benefits?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If they do proceed, these peace negotiations will merely offer the Taliban leaders cover and reinforcements as high-level detainees are released back onto the battlefield.  Winter is the typical period used by the AAF to rest, rearm, and refit.  The harsh winters of the highlands deny them safe haven and adequate egress once they have conducted attacks on coalition forces; additionally, resupply lines, usually through mountain passes, to Pakistan are inaccessible.  If the U.S. is engaged with the “leaders” it is not likely that the military will be allowed to conduct offensive actions, thus allowing time to better prepare and organize for the annual “spring offensive,” or “fighting season.”

Additionally, the fact that the U.S. recognizes the Taliban enough to negotiate with them legitimizes their standing.  When else has the U.S. negotiated with a non-state actor, much less a non-state actor hostile to our interests?  It appears that since Iran didn’t want to play ball President Obama is getting his wish to negotiate with someone without preconditions and doubling down by possibly releasing high valued prisoners.

Kenneth Depew // University of St. Thomas (TX) // @depewk