Sonoran Desert Digest

Thursday, June 11, 2020

Dealing in Trivialities in the Face of Real Issues

Rename military installations? It seems pointless to me (if not frightingly reminiscent of the playbooks of the worst tyrannies in history), to think that history can be repudiated or repealed...it...well...it happened, and can't be "unhappened." But, I was thinking about the whole idea, and...It might not be such a bad idea, but not for the reasons you think

I was always aware of the Confederate officers after which many army posts were named. (not all are generals...see Fort Bliss, though LTC Bliss' service in Mexico predates the American Civil War). It struck me as just a bit odd; weren't there enough Union (or US Army of other eras) Generals to name them after? I realized, of course, that these bases are located in the deep south, and at the time they were established, the "War of the Rebellion" was not as removed from contemporary memory as Vietnam is from ours; locating something in the deep south and calling it "Fort Grant," just wouldn't do.

Many army installations are named for Union (and United States) officers, of course. In addition to LTC William Bliss, named above, there's Fort Dix, Fort Ord, Fort Leonard Wood (General Wood was 5 years old when the Civil War ended). Fort Carson for Gen. Christopher Houston (Kit) Carson, a Civil War brevet Brigadier General, but far better known for scouting the west (and suppressing the Navaho, Apache, Kiowa, and Comanche tribes by destroying their food sources. I suppose there will be an effort to change that one.)

In any case, I was more struck by the fact that some of these installations are named after BAD (not immoral, but stupid, ineffective) generals than I was by whether they were of the North or South in our Civil War.

I was once stationed at Ft. McClellan, Alabama, so "Little Mac" quickly comes to mind. The Union commander was so inept (at all except camp drill, that is), that I suppose it's not surprising he is memorialized in the deep south. He probably did more to extend the life of the Confederacy than Gen. Robert E. Lee. So, we'll let that one slide as an appropriate "the joke's on you," by some unreconstructed rebel in the US Army hierarchy in 1917.

The real head-scratcher is Fort Bragg (though perhaps the same thinking--by a Yankee this time--as for Ft. McClellan might be in play). Even Bragg's "victories" -- Perryville, Stones River, Chickamauga--demonstrate his incompetence, an ability to turn a victory into something less by indecision, stubbornness, and inability to work with his subordinates. Again and again, that "turning away" at the critical moment infuriated his subordinates, who lobbied for his removal. If that wasn't enough, his personality alone made him the least-liked (some say "most hated") commander, North or South--pig-headed, argumentative...in a word, a complete jerk, so much so that even his modern apologists refer to his "staggering lack of tact." Only a close friendship with Confederate President Jefferson Davis kept him in command of an army until a disasterous defeat at Chattanooga.

Bragg's last command was a Corps at the Battle of Bentonville, North Carolina (William Tecumsah Sherman v. Joseph E. Johnston), one of the last engagements by armies of the Civil War. Sherman's victory there ensured the linkup of his army with that of U.S. Grant, making the surrender soon after at Appomattox inevitable.

Monday, March 23, 2020

Trade, Drugs, and Black Swans

In a recent exchange on economic (and medical, for equipment and supplies) impacts of the China Virus, it was offered that “we could, as a country do away with our free market and mandate against globalization.” Of course, most will recognize that statement as a 'straw man” argument.¹ It was made in response to questions about the outsourcing of US manufacturing over past decades. Straw man or not, there is a core of belief underlying it that deserves at least some response, and the question of outsourcing likewise deserves exploration. What has brought us to where we are today? How can we reverse the most egregious results of failed government policies and poor corporate decisions?

A Black Swan?

With the bleating that “it's not our (anyone's) fault,” let's first consider whether this pandemic is a “black swan” event,² the idea being that companies (and the government) were innocent bystanders to an entirely unforseeable cataclysmic event. Serious pandemics are not rare. The 1918 Spanish flu" pandemic killed more than 500,000 people in the United States and 50 million people worldwide. Between 20 and 40 percent of the global population was infected at a time when international travel was not at all routine. First identified in China, the 1957-58 "Asian flu" virus pandemic caused roughly 70,000 deaths in the United States. The H3N2 virus caused 34,000 deaths in the United States during the 1968-69 season. 13,000 deaths in the United States from 2009 to 2010 have been attributed to the Swine Flu virus. So the pandemic part of this is certainly not a “black swan” event. What about the disruption of supply chains? “Globalization” is admittedly a recent phenomenom, but unstable economies and governments are not. Essential products and commodities should not be hostage to the vagaries of disease, natural disasters, or the whim of totalitarian governments. Black Swan? It is not.

(see:https://theweek.com/articles/900400/coronavirus-really-black-swan-event )

The Prescription

In regard to our central questions, there are four actions we can take (and should have taken) that contribute to our current conundrum, and can largely avoid its repeat, or its severity. First, there is no need to "do away with free markets" to disincentivize the export of jobs (and to encourage supply chains that are at least more diverse, even if still global). This administration has already done so by negotiating trade deals that make domestic manufacturing more competitive. NAFTA, the much-maligned trade treaty with Mexico and Canada, has been replaced by the more balanced USMCA after decades of inaction by multiple administrations. More balanced trade relations with South Korea and Japan have been recently put into place, and there's a “Phase 1” agreements with China that, although limited, moves us in the right direction.

Second, and again without "doing away with free markets," there is nothing novel about regulating trade (which is certainly not and has not been “laissez faire,” not even in the 18th century...see "The Stamp Act") nor about protecting certain products and commodities as strategically and economically essential. In fact, every country does it. The explicit aim of the EUs Common Agricultural Policy is to create food security for Europe by protecting its agricultural sector. It's not unreasonable to expect that the previous two administrations would have been aware that more than 90% of pharmaceutical stocks (and end-form drugs) were originating outside our boarders, and much of that in China. Nor would it have been inappropriate to take policy action permitted by law to ensure some domestic ability to produce .Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) provides that essential security interests must come within enumerated grounds (for lawful protection). Certainly pharmaceuticals must easily fall within “essential security interests.”

Third, a diversified supply chain would seem to be obvious, since not all countries are equally reliable and stable (not to say friendly). It would seem to be reasonable that both the government and industry would be cognisant of this. One of those $20 million-per-year CEO's should have been smart enough not to risk the future of his company by poorly diversifying its supply chain. And no, the "quarterly" focus on returns is not an excuse to take clearly unreasonable risks with the shareholder's investment.

Fourth, and finally, we must distinguish between "countries of origin." At least some supply chain investment might be made with a nod toward the kind of government in place in the source country. Is this a "moral" argument? Yes, in part it is, but from my perspective, the important thing is that governments like Venezuela, Myanmar, Pakistan, and yes, China are inherently unstable, because of socialist, and often totalitarian, governments...which again risks both the country (for strategic goods) and individual companies (for everything else).
Summary

1. Negotiate improved trade agreements.
2. Use available legal tools to protect the supply of essential and strategic goods and equipment.
3. Build a diversified supply chain.
4. Limit exposure to inherently unstable totalitarian governments.
__________

1 A “Straw Man” is a logic fallacy involving the misrepresentation of an argument in order to strike it down.

2 An unpredictable or unforeseen event, typically one with extreme consequences.

Friday, January 10, 2020

The 2019 Christmas Letter

The year just past was one of researching, writing, traveling, reading, the occasional event, and sometimes nothing at all. It was filled with family, friends, and fun. The latter being activities that have in common that they're done for my own enjoyment and little else. You know, what the wealthy and me – retired guy over seventy – can get away with. The kids not so much, they've been doing important stuff. You know, the things you actually get paid to do. Here's a review.

In January I traveled to Minnesota for Christmas with Heather and Hailey, including the opportunity to be in the gallery for Heather's En Banc oral argument before the Minnesota Supreme Court. It was the start of a year of travel – more than I had intended. In March the racing buddies of the last century had a Florida reunion at Super Sebring, the weekend including the 67th 12 Hours of Sebring, and a ten-hour World Endurance Championship race. Later in the year we lost one of our group – we're that age when we can't afford to miss such opportunities.

With other Veterans of D Company 1/12th Cavalry, I visited the National Archives in April – my 5th trip – continuing to “build out” Delta's history. August was anther family trip to Minnesota, a Heather-sponsored “family vacay,” that included 42nd Street at the Ordway and a Twins game. Later that month Linda and I drove to Colorado Springs for the 74th Annual Reunion of the 101st Airborne Division Association. On the way we stayed with niece Ann and family in Albuquerque; coming back we explored Taos. October was a reunion (our 4th) of D Company 1/12th Cavalry for whom I am the tresurer and edit a quarterly newsletter, at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Heather, Courtney, Ashley and families were here in Arizona for Christmas. Linda and I ended this busy year in Henderson, Nevada at my sister Barb's Annual "New York New Year" party (appropriate to the age of the revelers, over at 9 PM local time), and (her) Birthday Party. We stayed a day into the New Year to see "Mystere" at Treasure Island.

Heather served her 5th year as a Minnesota Assistant Attorney General.

Significant Other Matt Schmit is a high school principal. Hailey's in first grade, as is Matt's daughter Siri. In fact, they share a birthday! Partners in crime. Big Sister Olivia is 13, a basketball player, and more.

In June Courtney moved on from Fort Bragg to take command of the garrison at Carlisle Barracks/Army War College in Pennsylvania. Dave relinquished command of his Patriot battalion to start Army War College in the same place. Courtney's

first book will be published by Fordham University Press in March. Both are being considered for promotion to colonel (O6) this year. Olivia is a busy 10-year-old once again in a new school.

Ashley changed jobs within the Human

Services Department of the State of Illinois, now teaching policy and procedure within the department. Caroline was promoted to Creative Director and Digital Manager at the University of Illinois, Chicago College of Business Administration.

We're all thankful for another wonderful year and wish all of you the best in the year ahead.

Monday, January 6, 2020

Presidential History for Our Times

The other day, I had an exchange with a life-long democrat, a

senior citizen in “middle America.” In the course of it, he wrote, “As for me, I don't like President Trump because he's a bullying, whoring, lying, bigoted a**hole who got out of the military with the rich-kid equivalent of running off to Canada.” Later, he wrote, “If you want “deep political analysis” look somewhere else.

Neither response was particularly surprising; they were what I have come to expect, not just from “ordinary Democrats,” but, sadly, from members of that party in Congress. However, it did get me thinking about US Presidents and who might be the "champions" at that list of Trump's alleged (they are seldom supported by facts) transgressions. But ignore that. I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth about the reliability – or not – of sources of those judgments, or their accuracy.

I'll take those judgments as they are. Besides being a bit of a “history geek,” I am old enough to remember a few previous Presidents and their reputations. “Top Ten” and “GOAT” lists are popular these days, so, considering all his predecessors, does Donald Trump compete with the absolute best at bullying, whoring, lying, bigotry, and (artfully) avoiding the draft? Not even close. Here are the Champions:

Bullying - Andrew Jackson defined himself not by enacting

legislation but by thwarting it. A charismatic figure, Jackson was combative, quick-tempered, and thin-skinned. To his friends he was generous, considerate, and loyal; to his enemies, mean-spirited and spiteful. “When Andrew Jackson hated,” a Jacksonian scholar wrote, “it often became a grand passion. He could hate with a Biblical fury and would resort to petty and vindictive acts to nurture his hatred and keep it bright and strong and ferocious.” He once fired his entire cabinet except one because they would not invite another cabinet member’s wife to parties. He at times exploded with anger, but it seemed he launched into tirades quite purposefully to intimidate his opposition. In 1834 he was censured in the Senate for assuming "authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both."

Whoring - Really no contest on this one: John Kennedy “If I

don’t have a lay for three days I get a headache.” - JFK to British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan

Notable dalliances: Marilyn Monroe, Judith Exner, Inga Arvad, Anita Ekberg, Ellen Rometsch, Gene Tierney, Mimi Alford, Marlene Dietrich, Mary Pinchot Meyer, Priscilla Wear, and Jill Cowen.

Honorable Mention goes to Thomas Jefferson, who started his sexual dalliance with Sally Hemings when she was 14 (he was 44).

Lying - A tough one, since the very act of running for office

apparently requires a certain amount of deception ("Medicare for all" is a pretty good example). Kennedy is in the running here, too, with the "missile gap," again, a lie while running for office. There have been lies while in office, like Clinton, "I did not have sex with that woman...", Nixon denying White House involvement in Watergate, Kennedy again, covering up his Addison's disease and his numerous affairs. But the winner has to be Lyndon Johnson's "“We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.” At the very same time and with Johnson’s approval, the Pentagon was drawing up plans to send the first wave of more than 100,000 American servicemen to Vietnam. Johnson’s macho determination not to “lose” Vietnam led him to keep increasing the number of American troops until they reached over 500,000.

Bigoted - I'm not usually one to apply current ideas of

morality to previous centuries and generations, but this one is historically laughable. Starting with George Washington, 12 US Presidents owned slaves, 10 while in office. The Huffington Post created a list of the 11 "most racists presidents" (before Trump was elected, or being the Huff Post, it would undoubtedly have included him). Though they put Andrew Johnson 1st for pretty much overturning the result of the Civil War and the emancipation policies of Abraham Lincoln, I'll go for their number 5. Thomas Jefferson, owner of over 600 slaves in his lifetime, became the preeminent American authority on Black inferiority. Among his racist statements, he wrote, “The blacks...are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind,” in his Notes on the State of Virginia (1787).

Draft-dodging "a**hole" – Recently, Clinton and Bush 43

avoided the Vietnam war (at least 43 served in the Air Force Reserve), but here is the current champion: Just a few months before Donald Trump received his now-infamous diagnosis of “bone spurs in the heels,” former high school football star Joe Biden got the same 1-Y draft deferment for “asthma as a teenager.” It was one of five deferments Biden received that allowed him to avoid being drafted during the Vietnam War.

Saturday, January 4, 2020

The Cousins Narrative - Adventures in Bad Sports Journalism

Peeling back the "Cousins Narrative." It's every day, every talking head "Cousins can't win a big game, can't win Monday night, blah, blah." Ok, the superficial stats say so. But consider. Do we really expect this Vikings team - with or wihout Cousins - to win in the Superdome this weekend? Of course we don't. So why will a loss "prove" this lazy narrative? I'm pretty sure that no quarterback in Vikings history would be favored to win this matchup.

Let's get past the lazy narrative and look a little deeper. It's been said that football is the ultimate "team game." So what do Counsin's teams look like. In 2013 and 2014, Cousins started a total of just 11 games (of 32) for the Redskins, who were 3-13 and 4-12, respectively, in those years. Is there any reasonable expectation that any quarterback would have won a game against any team with a winning record in either of those years?

The first year in which Cousins started regularly for the Redskins was 2015, and "he" lost his first-ever (and only) playoff game that year to the Green Bay Packers, 35-18. Cousins was sacked 6 times while throwing for 329 yards and 2 touchdowns. Did "he" lose that game, or were the 9-7 Redskins just overmatched by the 10-6 Packers?

The Redskins were 8-7-1 in 2016, third in the NFC East,and 7-9 in 2017, again, 3rd in the East behind the Cowboys and Giants. If those teams were to win ANY games against teams with winning records those games would certainly be considered upsets.

A closer look at 2017 is interesting, since the Skins played "primetime" games 5 times winning twice, a Sunday night home game against the Raiders, and a Thankgiving night game hosting the Giants. They lost Monday night games to the Superbowl-winning Eagles, and on the road to the 10-6 playoff-bound Kansas City Chiefs, and then a Thursday night game to the Cowboys.

2018 was Cousin's first Vikings season. Those "primetime/big game losses" included Sunday night games to the 13-3 Saints, and to the 12-4 Bears. A win in primetime over the Packers at home was followed by a road loss to the 10-6 Seahawks.

So here we are. According to the stupid, lazy sports talking heads those losses are "Cousins losses." And this weekend's game in the Superdome will be "proof" once again that "he can't win a big game."
In fact, if Cousins (the Vikings) were to win this one it will be one of the great upsets of at least this season. It's likely that the 13-3 Saints will beat the 10-6 Vikings in the New Orleans Superdome.

Which will prove just one thing: the Saints, a better football team than the Vikings, can win a playoff game in their own building...and absolutely nothing else.

UNIQUELY OKINAWAN - Determining Identity During US Wartime Occupation

Uniquely Okinawan explores how American soldiers, sailors, and Marines considered race, ethnicity, and identity in the planning and execution of the wartime occupation of Okinawa, during and immediately after the Battle of Okinawa, 1945-1946.

Author Courtney A. Short holds a PhD in History from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and specializes in Military, American, and Japanese History, as well as Race and Identity Studies. Lieutenant Colonel Short, US Army, presently serves as Garrison Commander,US Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania.

Reviews
This well-researched and organized work addresses how the US armed forces engaged the fraught question of how the Okinawa population would react to the April 1945 US invasion. This is far more than an admirable study of an interesting episode in the Pacific War. It abounds in lessons in planning and then handling encounters with diverse civilian populations caught on a battlefield with US forces. (Richard B. Frank, leading authority on the Asia-Pacific War, and author of Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire)

In a meticulously researched study including oral history accounts from both US and Okinawan sources, Short composes a compelling narrative to explore constructions of race and identity amidst the wartime and postwar encounters between the American military and Okinawans. Informed by the historian's personal experience of serving in the US armed forces on Okinawa, the author's archival evidence engages with layers of individual stories of a twice colonized people. Short argues that Okinawan culture permitted the people to reclaim an identity distancing themselves from a defeated imperial Japan, while also negotiating an uneasy relationship with their new American occupiers that continues to evolve. (Annika A. Culver, is Associate Professor of East Asian History, Florida State University, where she specializes in Japan and Northeast Asia-related topics. She is the author of Glorify the Empire: Japanese Avant-Garde Propaganda in Manchukuo)

Available for Pre-Order now from Barnes&Noble, Amazon, and Fordham University Press (Publisher).