Nationally Interesting

Poked my head in a little while ago to see what was going on and noted that the bulk of the commentatorship appears to be feeding one of the usual "OMFG taxation is theft!!!" trolls, which in my biased opinion is like try to teach German irregular verbs to a cat. The effort is infuriating and the cat has no intention of doing anything but licking its ass.

If you think that your government is "wasting" your tax dollars you seriously need to spend a year or two working for a national corporation. Fraud, waste, and abuse? Those people pretty much invented the notion. Not to mention greed, vanity, short-sightedness, venality, nepotism, and credulous stupidity.

Just sayin'.

Anyway, I wanted to offer up another topic for discussion. Specifically:

"If the United States had some concrete "national interests", what would you consider them to be?"

For example, in the previous post, jim asks several questions along the lines of:

"Do U.S. and Saudi interests intersect? Did they ever?", "Has Saudi Arabia split off from U.S. policy by supporting an invasion army in Iraq? If so, how does this differ from previous U.S. actions which sought to create buffer zones a la the Monroe Doctrine?", and "Why does the U.S. need allies like S.A., Pakistan and all the rest of the jokers we call "NATO allies"?

All worthwhile questions, IMO, but still short of the larger question which would be;

"What are these 'national interests' of the United States, and how would acting towards them look (fill in the blank; in the U.S., in Eastern Europe, in Asia, in the Middle East)?"

Let me offer up just one example of something I think falls under this question.

One of the most salient features of the United States that I grew up in - that is, the U.S. of the Sixties and Seventies - was the widespread availability of semi-middle class/living-wage jobs that didn't require 1) an advanced degree or similar specialized training, or 2) some sort of personal "pull" or nepotism. This had the effect of producing a fairly broad swathe of Americans that lived as, thought of themselves as, and voted as "middle class". A shit-ton of government programs like the GI Bill and similar educational loans, and the mortgage-interest deduction helped that happen, too.

And, I should add, so did some fairly hefty tariffs. For most of U.S. history tariff rates have averaged in the teens, with highs as much as 44% (1870) and lows in the high single digits (about 8% in 1917 and 1946). Since 1970 tariffs on imported goods have fallen off the table - the average tariff rate in 2010 was 1.3%.

Now...in my unscientific, openly biased opinion it is in the U.S.'s best interest to have widespread economic "comfort"; that is, that the bulk of the citizenry should be neither so massively wealthy so as to become in essence a nation in themselves nor so poor as to be economically and socially fraught 24/7. IMO the political system set up in the late 18th Century doesn't work well with a small elite and a vast peasantry.

So it would seem to me that this, in turn would dictate some fairly obvious economic and social policies for the U.S. to further this "interest". Limit capital mobility so that corporations cannot flee overseas. Ameliorate techological change so as to find work for people unemployed when buggy whips become obsolescent. Provide tax and tariff incentives to prevent the destruction of domestic industries.

And that, in turn, leads to some - to me, at least - foreign policy imperatives. Don't provide incentives for foreign trade partners to undercut U.S. business. Don't subsidize subsidized foreign industries (i.e. China's...). Don't blunder around knocking over foreign governments and destabilizing other parts of the world, creating refugees (who become cheap labor pools for foreign competition) and impoverishing those who remain behind (ditto).

And that's just me, and that's just one issue.

So; here's the question for the readership.

What, in your opinion, should are U.S.' (or the EU, or whatever your polity of choice is - mine's the U.S. just because I live here...) "national interests"? And, given them (or the one you choose) what sorts of actual national behaviors, economic, political, and social acts should that polity take to address them.

Remember; we're talking purely about broad interests here, not those of any particular group. And we're also talking interests and not fantasies, interests and not dogmas; the teahadis may not believe in "anthropogenic global warming" or that "taxes are the price we pay for civilization" but that's beside the point - I don't believe in "arena football" and, yet, there it is.

So; let's talk about "national interests". What are they? What sorts of things could or should nations do to further those interests? Are there some that conflict with others? Which are "big" interests central to a people's welfare and which can be negotiated or compromised or amended?

Have at it, ladies and gentlemen.

A Drinking Club with a Book Problem

Jim and I have been kicking around the idea of starting up a monthly discussion of some printed work.

In other words - a MilPub Book Club.

We thought we'd throw this out and see if there are any other takers. Our thought is that it'd work like this;

Every month one of us would throw out a suggestion for something for us to read. We thought that it wouldn't have to be restricted to military affairs and politics, but since that's what we talk about most we thought that they'd probably turn out that way. Jim says no fiction or historical fiction, and I would suggest trying to keep it to items published within, say, 20 years, to keep from circling back to the Classics. Journal articles are OK, but I'd suggest we try and keep it a little more strenuous than the typical Atlantic magazine piece. Yes?

We'd then take three or four weeks to read the thing, and then the original poster would open the dance with a "open discussion" post, giving his synopsis of the work and perhaps some commentary, whereupon we'd all get to chime in/pile on/discuss.How's that sound? Anyone else like the idea?

Airland Battle

For your consideration, I refer you to scan Robert Farley's column at World Politics Review "A User's Guide to Inter-Service Conflict". As an article it's really just a stub. But I want to use it to suggest an idea.

Here's Farley on the the impact of two typical inter-service conflicts: "Whereas resource conflicts (emphasis mine) can shift a nation's strategic orientation, they typically leave a military organization with a set of tools appropriate to the solving of certain defense problems. They can even produce genuine moments of strategic decision-making. By contrast, mission conflicts hamstring the ability of military organizations to do the jobs that are asked of them, especially when civilians use the disputes to cut procurement."

In the article he gives an outline of several of these mission conflicts between the air forces and the army and navy of the U.S. and Great Britain. Most of us here are familiar at least in brief with these conflicts and the problems they generated.

Now the UK is in the position of having to make hard choices about military budgets, and I would argue that the U.S. will soon - or should now - have to think about the same sorts of cost/benefit analysis in reducing its military spending.

I want to consider returning the Air Force to the status of a Corps within the Army and Navy.

The Air Force has five overall or general missions:

1. Tactical support of land and sea operations; close air support, or CAS.
2. Local through theatre-level air defense and deep-attack missions in support of ground or naval operations. This would include interdiction and theatre air defense, air superiority, SEAD, interdiction, and deep tactical strike sorties.
3. Continental air defense, including aerial and satellite surveillance, and interception.
4. Strategic deep attack, to include nuclear attack.
5. Air transportation and air movement, from the tactical (theatre) to the strategic (intercontinental) levels

Of these five, it would seem to me that at least four could be done by a sub-service level Army Air Corps or Naval Air Arm. And I'd argue that one - strategic deep attack - is problematic as a mission at all.

Let's review.

1. CAS has always been a problem for the Air Force. It's not cool, it doesn't encourage wearing scarves or sunglasses, and, my dear, the people! I've often thought that one genuine innovation the USMC ever came up with was holding on to its own air arm. Marines tend to get pretty good air cover because their wing wipers are often Marines, or Navy pilots who train and fly with Marines. I can't see how returning these missions to the Army and Navy would be a problem.

2. The theatre-level missions are a little more dicey, in that they call for fighter and medium bomber aircraft that don't really intermesh directly with the ground or sea missions. They would require an Army theatre commander, or a Navy task force- or fleet-level commander to broaden their mental horizon beyond the grand tactical to the local strategic level. But I think this could be done. Difficult, but do-able.

3. I don't see how this can't become a naval mission. The USN was our continental defense prior to Kitty Hawk; I don't see how a naval officer couldn't be taught to think of the defense of North America in three dimensions rather than two.

4. The USN is already in control of a third or more of our ballistic missile defenses; putting squids in silos in North Dakota doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility. And I would argue that "deep strategic attack" - the sort of thing that reached its apogee in 1944-1945 over Germany and Japan - is really questionable. What does a manned strategic bomber really give you at this point, other than target practice for enemy air defenses and the chance of a POW? I would like you to consider that deep penetration bombing, like mass tactical airborne operations over defended airspace, is really a relict of WW2 whose utility in the 21st Century is not just unproven but unlikely.

So give the missiles and the AWACS and the DEW line to the Navy. And mothball the heavy bombers.

5. Military airlift is also a mission that does seem too "aerial" for the land and sea services. Yet the USN flies large four-engine patrol aircraft, and it would seem like an Army Air Corps could fly and maintain tactical transports of the C-130/C-17 variety, leaving intercontinental transport of the C-5 sort and aerial refueling the only thing I would consider a truly "aerial" sort of mission.

I realize that this is truly woolgathering; the lobbying power of the USAF, and the vested interests of the Air Force community, will prevent any serious attempt at distributing the USAF's capabilities between the other two major services.

But the problems, costs, and difficulties incurred by "mission conflicts" are real, and in time where the demand for the specialized "air" sorts of missions seem to be declining and likely to continue as such, and the costs of the specialized air force seem to be rising, I would consider we might want to at least give the idea enough thought to formulate reasons why it shouldn't go further.I wonder - if the SecDef, Army and Navy chiefs had known in 1947 what they know now...might they have had second thoughts?

(Disclaimer: for the record, my father was a naval aviator (V-12) 1944-1945, while I have never really forgiven the USAF for trying to bag the A-10 - beyond that I have no animus beyond the usual contempt for lower military life forms common to the Artillery, which as a branch lends tone to what would otherwise be a Vulgar Brawl)

Thoughts for the Near Future

How about this?

I'd like to put this out there as a topic for the next round of posts from our bar staff.

What do you see coming in the immediate future?

Talk about whatever you're interested in; politics, war, peace, the economy, more politics, the military, even more politics, fashion, science, industry.

But let's turn a little from the topics of the present day to a murky look at the coming turn of the seasons. What do our servers think will be important over the short term. What should be important? What will we be talking about in November? In February? Is there something we as individuals, we as groups, we the People, we as (many of us) soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen or former versions of the above...should, could, be doing?

Do you have a particular hope? A fear? An idea?

Let's throw it out there and talk about it.Whaddya say?

A Question for the Readership

The last couple of posts have discussed our government and its economic policy. Based on the comments, there seems to be considerable disagreement about the details but a general understanding that the U.S. government seems to be doing something wrong; the GOP and their blue enemies both at fault, more or less.

So.

We've talked about what the U.S. seems to be doing. I would like to hear from the group what they think we SHOULD do. My questions would be these:

1. What would you say are the fundamental functions of a national government - specifically, what should it pay for? Certainly things too big for individuals to do; build harbors, airports, bridges, armies, submarines...but which? And is there a real need for subsidiary governments - provinces, states, regions...and how do they fit into this scheme?

Is medical care for its citizens a good idea for a national government to provide? A state government? How about pensions for the elderly or infirm? Support for science, or the arts? Subsidies for fishermen or farmers?

Is there a sort of Maslow's Hierarchy of governing? Where would you rank these things? If you had to throw something or things overboard to right the Ship of State, which would you recommend?

2. How do you pay for these things? What sort of taxes would you recommend, and how would you apply, administer and collect them? Who should collect more, the nation, or the state/region?

3. And last, to what degree should all of this taxing and spending impinge on the private economy of the nation?

I'm not asking for "perfect" solutions - just ideas. And, I would also ask - to what degree would you consider your ideas practical? Given the state of the nation today, is there any hope, in your opinion, that your ideas could ever be adopted?