Rescue at Sea

Earlier this week, TV news reports showed footage of an Iranian fishing vessel and crew rescued from pirates near the Straits of Hormuz by US Navy sailors.

The TV report mentioned that the operation was supported by the nearby aircraft carrier Stennis. Not mentioned, but of more interest to me is that the fishing vessel had been intercepted by USS Kidd (DDG-100) and the rescue was effected by sailors from Kidd. Kidd is an Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer with the Aegis combat system. After I retired from the navy, I worked for a few years as a senior member of the engineering staff and engineering project manager on the Aegis combat system at RCA.

Also of interest is that Kidd's commanding officer is Cdr. Jennifer L. Ellinger, a 1993 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. That calls to mind a couple of other personal memories:

1. It was about 40 years ago that the navy first authorized assignment of women to ships at sea. At the time, I was Operations Officer of USS Albany, a Talos guided missile cruiser built during WWII as a heavy cruiser. When the decision was announced, there was a lot of grumbling and assertions that women couldn't work at sea. When my officers joined in the grumbling, I suggested that there was not a single job in the operations department that couldn't be performed as well by a qualified woman. I didn't mean it as a put-down, but in hopes it would open their eyes. I also knew that the policy against assigning women to ships had created some irrational situations. For example, the Fleet Programming Center, Pacific, the organization supporting Albany's tactical data system, had civilian and military computer programmers, both male and female. The programmers were often sent to ride the ships at sea when the center received computer program problem reports, in order to see for themselves what the problem was. Some of the computer programs were on aircraft carriers. The computer programmer for the carrier programs was a female Lieutenant Commander. She was not allowed to ride the carrier at sea. Instead, the center sent a female civilian to ride the carrier. The 1972 change in policy opened these doors.

2. During my subsequent tour in the Pentagon (1972-1975), my wife Elizabeth worked for the National Organization for Women and took part in a coalition effort to open up the service academies to women. This effort was successful, and Congress opened the academies to women in 1976. Four years later I was on a NATO tour and was very impressed by one of the early Naval Academy women graduates performing a job on the staff of the Commander, US Naval Forces Europe. She was doing a job normally assigned to an officer two grades senior to her, and was doing it very well. Now about 22% of entering Naval Academy plebes are women.

By the way, USS Kidd's second in command, Cdr. Gabriel Varela, of Phoenix, Arizona, enlisted in the Navy in 1987, achieved the rank of Petty Officer First Class, and was commissioned at Officer's Candidate School in 1995.

The navy assigns only its best and brightest officers to serve in Aegis destroyers and cruisers.

YOYO vs. WITT

Much of today's vicious political discourse reflects a conflict between those who believe in YOYO (you're on your own) against those who favor concerted action for the common good (WITT - we're in this together). This is an ancient struggle, but the twentieth century saw great strides in the ability of American society to work together for the "general welfare," as our constitution puts it. We came out of the great depression and defeated the Axis powers by following the policies of WITT. We created general prosperity for two and a half decades after WWII by extending the policies and attitudes of WITT.

The efforts of government at both the federal and the state level to act in the public good has been under constant attack for about four decades now. Last night's attack by North Carolina Republican legislators on public school teachers is a recent example of the YOYO philosophy.

This Wednesday, Robert Reich, Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, posted a very thought-provoking article entitled "The Decline of the Public Good." I recommend it.

Reich makes it clear that the decline in spending on public assets that everyone uses is a consequence of relentless attacks. Not only public schools, but parks, roads, playgrounds and transit systems have been victims. His most striking statistic: "Outside of defense, domestic discretionary spending is down sharply as a percent of the economy. Add in declines in state and local spending, and total public spending on education, infrastructure, and basic research has dropped from 12 percent of GDP in the 1970s to less than 3 percent by 2011."

Anyone who uses those public assets knows about the decline.

Our New National Strategy

I have just read through the Secretary of Defense Report: "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense." I wish it were more inspiring.

It has been a long time since I have read through any of the documents generated in the Pentagon and purporting to be a "strategy." The problem I always have with such documents is that it is almost always impossible to ascertain the overall design. It reminds me of Winston Churchill's remark at a dinner party: "madame, this pudding has no theme."

If this were a management challenge (and it is), it should follow W. Edwards Deming's advice and first address the aim. "A system must have an aim," he wrote in The New Economics. "Without an aim," he emphasized, "there is no system." He goes on in his writings to explain that the system must have a method for achieving the aim.

I keep hoping for a new American strategy that truly identifies the aim of our policy and the method by which it can be attained. The best example of what I keep hoping for can be found in George F. Kennan's famous "X" article, published in Foreign Affairs  in 1947. The article addressed the problem of Soviet attempts to expand their power and influence. After a detailed rundown of Soviet history, Kennan observed, "In these circumstances it is clear that the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies. It is important to note, however, that such a policy has nothing to do with outward histrionics: with threats or blustering or superfluous gestures of outward 'toughness.'"

Here it is in one eloquent sentence. The aim: prevent Soviet expansive tendencies. The method: patient, firm and vigilant containment.

I see nothing that clear in today's document. Can't blame me for wishing.

How To Buy A State Law

Ever hear of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)? Sounds pretty harmless.

In fact, ALEC is a powerful and influential lobbying organization, able to influence its members (predominately Republican state legislators) to pass legislation (which ALEC drafts) favorable to wealthy corporate interests (who fund ALEC). A large percentage of the legislation passed by the Republican legislature of North Carolina this year was drafted by ALEC, including legislation affecting elections.

Business Week has a very informative article on ALEC entitled "Pssst... Wanna Buy a Law?" Makes interesting reading for anyone who wants to learn how corporate interests distort the legislative process.

Civilian Control Of The Military

I have to tell you, I am very uncomfortable with a sight I saw tonight in Iowa.

At Congressman Ron Paul's celebration of his impressive showing tonight in Iowa, he introduced a soldier in uniform who proceeded to give a speech supporting Ron Paul for president.

I'm not uncomfortable because he was supporting Ron Paul - I think those who have gone into harm's way for this country have every right to support their choices for political office. But not while wearing their uniform.

The soldier in question wasn't an officer, but that still doesn't make it right.

In the latter half of the nineteenth century, military and naval officers and their supporters in civilian organizations like the Navy League worked tirelessly to establish the military calling as a profession. As individuals, they often retained strong party loyalties. As military professionals, though, there was no such thing as a Democratic general or a Republican general; only competent and less competent generals.

During my time in service, I gave the same professional advice to my civilian superiors no matter who was in the White House. I would have had little respect for any senior officer who tailored his advice to what he thought the boss wanted to hear. Such advice is worthless.

We had not only the legal prohibitions of the Hatch Act, we had a strong professional ethic.

Make no mistake about it. I did not keep my political sentiments a secret from my colleagues and friends. But I never would have thought of appearing in uniform at a political event.

The most extreme case of a firm dividing line between partisan politics and military professionalism was that of George Catlett Marshall. General Marshall never voted. Ever. He thought the act of voting would have compromised his professional objectivity. Nor did he vote even after being appointed Secretary of State under President Truman. During all his years of service, General Eisenhower never disclosed his own choice of party. In fact, both parties tried to recruit him as a presidential candidate in 1952.

This all began to change after the creation of the "all volunteer force," when military reservists and members of the national guard became a more integral part of the armed forces than during the Cold War.

Now reservists and national guard members move back and forth between active duty and civilian life many times in the course of a career. The lines have become confused and the rules are apparently less clear than they once were. I think General Marshall wouldn't be pleased.

Nor am I.

On The Tiger's Back

The problem with riding a tiger is that it is hard to dismount without peril.

I have often wondered if our insistence on continuous, significant economic growth isn't a case of riding the tiger. It reminds me a bit of Lake Wobegon, where "the children are all above average." Clearly, we all can't be above average.

More to the point, we measure economic activity by "gross national product," which correlates very closely to how many resources we expend. Some of those resources are finite. Logically, we can't increase our use of finite resources forever. Malthus figured that out two centuries ago.

Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard economics professor and former chief economist of the IMF, raises the question today in an article entitled "Rethinking the Growth Imperative."

"Modern macroeconomics," Rogoff points out, "often seems to treat rapid and stable economic growth as the be-all and end-all of policy. That message is echoed in political debates, central-bank boardrooms, and front-page headlines." And then he asks: "But does it really make sense to take growth as the main social objective in perpetuity, as economics textbooks implicitly assume?"

After examining a number of possible explanations for the emphasis on growth as well as statistical examples of the effect of growth, Rogoff closes by observing: "In a period of great economic uncertainty, it may seem inappropriate to question the growth imperative. But, then again, perhaps a crisis is exactly the occasion to rethink the longer-term goals of global economic policy."

Good point. Can we figure out a way to get off of the tiger without doing too much damage to ourselves.

More On Hungary - News Isn't Good

Paul Krugman has posted another update on Hungary by his colleague, Kim Lane Scheppele. The news is really not good. Hungary is on the cusp of becoming a despotism.

New Years Objectives

I don't do New Years Resolutions.

As Popeye used to say, "I yam what I yam." If there is anything I have learned in more than seven decades, it is that I am unlikely to become a better person, wiser, more handsome, faster, thinner, healthier, more skillful, funnier, or more expressive. Popeye got it about right.

But that doesn't mean one shouldn't set more or less achievable goals for the near future. Some of mine:

1. Finish repairing our house from Irene's destruction;
2. Finish my novel;
3. Organize my photographs;
4. Read War and Peace;
5. Keep blogging.