This Week I Learned...

         In an effort to help me get a fix on some of the things I read over the week, I'm going to start writing up a few quick thoughts to summarize what I've gone over. Hopefully some of you will find it interesting and might see something that slipped by you over a busy week. I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and probably mentioning some things that slipped by me. Enjoy!

          By now everyone is aware that Russia is reasserting itself, and attempting to regain the clout that they once held. But Russia’s plans go a lot farther than simply stirring the pot in the middle east and upending the pot in Ukraine.  No one, for the foreseeable future,  is going to challenge the U.S. for the role of World Superpower. It is a role that, for the moment, everyone is content to leave to the U.S. What some nations, notably Russia and China, do want is to be Regional Superpowers.

                Russia has been taking several steps to strengthen its position, beyond locking up a strategically vital harbor in the Crimea. Perhaps the most interesting step is the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU),  which is based on and is designed to compete with the EU. Set to come on line January 1, 2015, the EEU currently consists of Russia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Belarus.

 Also set to join is Kyrgyzstan, a small nation that sits between China and Kazakhstan, though its government is less than excited about the prospect. The sanctions imposed on Russia for its actions in Ukraine have hit the surrounding nations hard, and Kyrgyzstan is also facing a sever energy crisis, forcing the nation into accepting Russia's overtures.

                Russia has also been reaching out to North Korea. Choe Ryong-hae, reportedly the number two man in North Korea, wrapped up a series of meetings with Russian leaders this week. Russia is looking to run a gas pipeline and a power line though the North and into South Korea. Besides giving Russia another market for its energy, this would add to the list of countries who depend, to some extent, on Russia for their power. Much of the EU is heavily dependent on Russia for oil and gas, and this provides Putin a valuable asset in diplomatic disagreements. North Korea is trying to lessen its heavy dependence on China, and Russia appears happy to oblige.

                Russia was one of the few nations to come out of World War II with not only the military machine and diplomatic clout to be a Superpower, but also the appetite to fight for it. After the collapse of the USSR, the clout and machine disappeared, but the appetite did not. As I said above, no one really wants to be The Superpower, but as growing nations continue to modernize and grow, so will their desire to become dominate voices in their regions.

Leadership Thoughts from 'Draft Day'

I went into 'Draft Day' hoping for something akin to 'Moneyball' and was not disappointed. Kevin Costner plays the GM of Cleveland Browns who is pressed by his owner into making a costly trade for the #1 overall pick in the Draft. Everyone agrees that a particular Quarterback is far and away the best in the draft, however Costner was set on a Middle Linebacker with a devastating pass rush, and his Coach was set on a running back with deep roots in Cleveland who would take the pressure off the good quarterback already in Cleveland. On top of all this, Costner learns the day before that the girl he has been seeing secretly, who is also the analyst in charge of the salary cap for Cleveland, is pregnant. So, here's the few thoughts.

1. Leaders take responsibility. When he announces to the team that they have the #1 overall pick, Costner acknowledges that they have not scouted the QB as well as they should have. "That's my fault, that's on me. But we're going to get it done now." He settles the issue and moves to address it. Similarly, he pulls aside his cap analyst and apologizes for not having the right reaction to her pregnancy. "I'm sorry I didn't get all excited and start talking about what color we were going to paint the baby room. I didn't respond the way you needed me to and I was wrong". He doesn't try to pin the blame on her, or explain it away. He acknowledges his failures, and then moves to correct them.
2. Leaders are not door mats. While he is quick to accept blame for his own failures, he does not give everyone else a free pass. When Cleveland's current QB trashes his office, frustrated by the apparent snub of being replaced, Costner does not apologize or try to be understanding, but puts him in his place. On Draft Day, the GM's responsibility is to acquire the best players for the team, not mentor and manage current members. When Costner finds his scouts looking at pictures of the QB in the Draft with his girlfriends instead of doing research he does not apologize for the culture he has created or for not providing oversight. "I am working very hard to not loose my shit on all of your right now, and you are making it extremely difficult." Leaders carry much of the responsibility, but they should not try to carry the responsibility born by their subordinates.
3. Good leaders know when to push their subordinates and when to let them work. Cleveland's owner can be debated, but I believe he made two decisions that helped Costner succeed. First, he impressed on him the importance of making a 'splash' in the draft, and then toward the end of the film, he shuts up when Costner tells him "give me five minutes and then if you don't like what I've done you can fire me." Sometimes the boss has to be the fire that gets his people moving. Without his involvement, Costner would have drafted the MLB at the 7th pick, instead of getting two great 1st round players. The owner never anticipated what Costner would do, but he provided the impetuous for Costner to be great. 
4. Good leaders know how to gauge intangibles. A lot of people said that Costner 'went with his gut' when decided not to draft the top QB. But he didn't. He found ways to gauge the things few other people looked at. 
1. He evaluated response to failure. By watching how the QB reacted to getting sacked, he saw someone without guts, who got rattled easily when things broke down and someone who focused on not getting hit over executing the plan.
2. He evaluated honesty. By looking at how the QB responded to the 100 dollar bill test and how the answered tough questions, he saw someone more concerned with appearances than dealing with reality.
3. He evaluated people skills. By looking at how the QB worked with his team mates, Costner saw someone who had red flags among the people who knew him best. 

If you haven't seen the movie, I highly recommend it. Leadership is, in part, a study of people, which is what 'Draft Day' ultimately comes down to; How does someone near the top of an organization work with, motivate, and evaluate members and potential members of the organization. Know your people, and you will be a good leader. 

Intentions and Decisions

During the sermon yesterday, the pastor made the statement that  'Intentions do not shape outcomes, your decisions do". The world is full of people with good intentions. Christians are known for their good intentions, but they are not known for their good decisions. 

Great leaders, people who truly make an impact make the right decisions at the right time. 

It is easy to have good intentions, but we lay the groundwork for our impact in the little decisions we make alone. More often than not, greatness is achieved not by making one or two large, far-reaching decisions that have great impact, but rather by thousands of small decisions that alone seem insignificant, but when strung together have great impact. 

As I am trying to get into better shape, I can intend to be better, I can even decide on the morning of my running test that I will be faster, but it will do me little good. I am made better by consistently deciding not to sleep in, by deciding to put in the extra work out, by deciding to do an extra five minutes, I can get a little better. By consistently making the right decisions we can act on our intentions to achieve our goals. 

Intentions are important, but they must be followed by disciplined decision making. So take a few minutes and think about what your goals are and what decisions you are making to achieve them. You have made the first step, now follow through.

"Left of the Boom"

"Left of the Boom" is a phrase that General McCrystal used recently in the 'Boots Off the Ground' panel discussed in my last post. I would like to discuss it as it applies to leadership. As an example I will use Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of Russia in 1941, as an example. General McCrystal used it in the context of our response to IEDs when they were first used in Iraq. Initially the response to the threat posed by IEDs was to deploy armored vehicles and secure the area after one was detonated. This allowed us to evacuate casualties and potentially kill or capture any insurgents who might have stayed to create an ambush. However, this did not solve the real problem, IEDs were still killing soldiers, contractors, and civilians, slowing or stopping our convoys, and creating chaos in general.
The solution, General McCrystal said, was to "get ahead of the boom", stop the IEDs before they were detonated. Thus they instituted regular patrols, sniper teams conducting over watch, and other measures that prevented the IEDs from being deployed in the first place.
This is a large and important part of a leader's job. Great leaders must be able to look forward and identify incoming problems and stop them before they happen. This happens at two levels. First, executive leaders are positioned to see the big picture and make substantial changes thereto. In our example, Operation Barbarossa, the freezing cold of the Russian winter represents the 'boom'. German high command knew about the cold, but believed they could make ti to Moscow and defeat the Russian military before the cold effected them too much. Not only did they fail to set realistic goals, they had no contingency plans for if those goals failed. When those two are combined they are fatal. Getting left of the boom for them would have meant either, a) equipping their men and equipment to operate in the cold or b) developing a plan to fall back to prepared positions if the Russian forces remained unbeaten by a certain point.
However, while executive level leaders have the ability to influence the big picture, they often overlook details, or occasionally miss the big picture entirely., which is where mid to lower level leaders come in. It is their responsibility to make the big picture as described by the executive leader happen as best they can ad pass up bits of information or warnings when appropriate. Thus, while mid level leaders must have a general understanding of the big picture, their focus must be on the areas under their control. Lower levels of an organization are often tempted to waste time and energy complaining about the ineptitude of their commanders. While such complaints may often be valid, and valuable in their place, they are often unproductive. The German infantry officer who sent a few messages up the chain and then proceeded to train his men to deal with cold weather would ultimately have more impact than the officer who spent most of his energy complaining to or about higher.
So, take time to get above the crush and grind of now, the things immediately important. A little time each week looking ahead will go a long way to getting left of the boom for you and yours. Even if you are not at the top, getting you and your people out of trouble, even if it isn't as neat and tidy as if higher had done it, will still make a difference, which is what being a leader is all about.


image from The Guardian at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/06/operation-barbarossa-russia-second-world-war

Wiley's "Boots Off the Ground"

With our struggling economy, shrinking national budget, and political gridlock, America has to decide how to effectively use the money and military she has to effect the policy goals she is trying to achieve. Covert Operations apparently promise cheap solutions to big international problem. But are they cheap in the long run and can we depend on their devastating success to continue for the foreseeable future?

Wiley Lecture Series recently hosted 'Boots Off The Ground: A 21st Century American Military', which looked at the role covert operations have and perhaps should fill. Retired Army General Montgomery Meig moderated the discussion between Ambassador Ryan Crocker who served in several countries in the Middle East, Mr. David Sanger a journalist who has focused on our confrontations with rogue states, and General Stan McCrystal, who oversaw U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan and led led JSOC for several years.

Before we can talk about how military forces accomplish their mission, we have to understand what is at the base of their mission. Military force is an arm of political policy. Military action always seeks to achieve a political aim, whether it is the destruction of Nazi aggression or the securing of national interests abroad. Use of Covert Ops should be seen not merely in how it helps us defeat hostile militaries, but in how they help us achieve our national policies at home and abroad.

At the center of the discussion was the benefits and costs of using cover operations in place of conventional forces. There were three specific types of covert operations discussed.

• Drones: They have proven themselves reliable and effective on a wide range of missions. However, in several instances they can cause collateral damage in civilian casualties, which may turn out to make them counterproductive in the long run.
• Cyber Warefare: Bloodless, high tech, and apparently clean, everyone thinks they are very cool. it has a very high potential to be turned back around on us. In 2010 the program Olympic Games malfunctioned and America's cutting edge offensive cyber weapon was broadcast all over the world for everyone to look at and pick apart. Also, leaks in the cyber age dwarf leaks in the Cold War era where files had to be photocopied one page at a time. Now someone can carry out on a flash drive or post on the internet millions of files full of sensitive information. 
• Special Forces. Very effective and precise, America boasts the best overall Special Forces in the world. However, a contributing factor in their success has been a technological gap between them and their targets that is rapidly shrinking. In addition, special forces are primarily useful to remove negative forces opposing our national strategy. They have limited usefulness in nation building or projecting positive influence that our policies may call for. 

America wants to project its influence around the world. While many are opposed to us swinging around the world police bludgeon, there are always areas we are expected to deal with, whether it is facilitating peace talks and general stability in the Middle East or South America, or Nuclear Proliferation treaties, convention foces deployed and with the willingness to be deployed are vital. Iraq could not have been stabilized and rebuilt without the surge of 2007 which put large numbers of conventional troops on the ground. 

Also, we have not yet faced an opponent with similar Covert capabilities. The targets we have hit so successfully are not too dissimilar from our own structures of command and control. What will happen to an american command and control post when a  North Korean or Chinese Spec Ops team knocks out the power? How will we prevent that from happening, and how are we going to develop contingencies for when it does? In 1960 we believed that air to air combat would be decided with high tech missiles and thus a gun was not necessary. The F-4E was modified with a 20mm gun not long after earlier designs first saw combat. we cannot rely on new high tech equipment to the detriment of conventional equipment. 

A modern military must balance conventional with covert forces in the same way the F-4 had to balance its armament. Not only will our technological edge shrink, but everyone is trying to figure out how to beat the army we have. We cannot sit content with the fact that we have gotten ahead of the curve with covert ops. We must continue to look for the next curve and figure out how to win the next conflict before it is fought and we learn the rules have changed while we rested on our superiority. 

We will always need a conventional force that is capable of conducting operations like the Surge which put boots on the ground and enforce order. Covert Operations are devastating as supporting arms of broader policy and strategy, but they need other supports to create that devastating effect. 

Civil Forfeiture & Personal Responsibility

John Adams is famously supposed to have said that the American legal system was fit only for a religious and moral people, wholly inadequate for any other society. I don't have a source for that, but whether he said it or not, it is a valid point. In this article by Sarah Stillman, Stillman discusses the use and abuse of Civil Forfeiture in modern law enforcement.
       "The basic principle behind asset forfeiture is appealing. It enables authorities to confiscate cash or property obtained through illicit means, and, in many states, funnel the proceeds directly into the fight against crime...In general, you needn't be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with “probable cause” is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner’s guilt or innocence."

The practice began with the prosecution of pirates and smugglers, where it was easier to prosecute the ship you had instead of the captain who was somewhere on the ocean thousands of miles away.  The practice was used later to help fund anti-drug operations, then expanded further with the Comprehensive Crime Control Act in 1984 which allowed a large percentage of the confiscated funds to be returned to local law enforcement by the federal government. This helps get funds out of the hands of drug cartels which are currently lopping heads off on the U.S.-Mexico border, and into the hands of underfunded law enforcement agencies. 
The problem arises with incidents like those recorded in Stillman's article, when local police use the law to fleece law abiding citizens. Officers will target rental and out of state vehicles, stop them for minor or made up offences like speeding or driving too close to the white line. Once stopped, they offer the driver two options, be charged incarcerated and charged, or sign over their valuables to the city. In one instance two parents were told their child would be taken away and placed in a foster home if they did not sign over their cash. I encourage you to take the time to read the article, it lays out a very interesting view of our law enforcement that it is our responsibility to hold accountable. 

This is the reason that a government of limited powers operated by virtuous citizens is a good idea. What we have in Civil Forfeiture is a piece of legislation, like many passed by our government, that has great potential to do good. Many of us would agree that confiscating drug money and funding local law enforcement with that money isn't a bad idea. However, the law's potential to be abused is just as great if not greater. Few of us would agree that innocent people being harassed in this manner is a good thing. 
The knee jerk reaction that many of us have is that there needs to be a new law, a new oversight committee,  some government action that will solve the problem. But all the laws in the world will not stop humans from behaving like humans. The IRS has oversight committees, the NSA has oversight committees, and every citizen sits on the presidential oversight committee. Yet in the last few months we have discovered that the IRS has been discriminating in a horrific manner based on organization's political leanings, the NSA has been performing unprecedented surveillance on our own citizens,  and Benghazi continues to be at best a grisly monument to the stupidity of our government or at worst an act of treason. 
We have long looked to the government as the solution to our problems, and are now discovering like the ancient Greeks that the ruler's power to do good is equal to its power to do evil.  

Humanities in Crisis

About a week ago, Martin Cothran  linked to this article by David Brooks on the subject of why the liberal arts are such a joke in education.  Brooks writes “the humanities are not only being bulldozed by an unforgiving job market. They are committing suicide because many humanists have lost faith in their own enterprise.” What is the reason for this? According to Brooks “Somewhere along the way, many people in the humanities lost faith in this uplifting mission. The humanities turned from an inward to an outward focus. They were less about the old notions of truth, beauty and goodness and more about political and social categories like race, class and gender. Liberal arts professors grew more moralistic when talking about politics but more tentative about private morality because they didn't want to offend anybody.”

I had the opportunity to see this first hand in my time at A&M, especially in my class on Literary Theory. Truth, in the class, was debunked and talked about as an unreal or irrelevant thing, and the focus was on how writers were influenced and how their works could be twisted to mean anything we wanted, thus proving an author had no control over his work. This was the subject of an essay I wrote for the class which I may post here at some point in the near future. Several people at The Imaginative Conservative have written replies to Brooks article which are very interesting, especially that of Louis A. Markos where he brings in a very enlightening quote from C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters.

However, while everyone points at the problem quite clearly, I think that most of them are missing the root of the problem. As Charles Clough says often, it all comes back to origins.

If evolution is true, if humans evolved from monkeys, then the humanities are a complete waste of time.

If mankind is evolving through history, which is the primary point of today’s scientism and atheistic revolution in the meaning of morality, then what Aristotle said thousands of years ago is monumentally irrelevant. What is driving much of the debate around abortions, gay marriage, euthanasia, social security, gun control, political philosophy, is the belief that mankind is advancing along a rising slope that begins with slime, rises through apes, rises through us today and beyond.

The problem with the humanities is that they deal with people, events, and philosophies all resting on that line between us and the apes, not between us and what we must become. They are, in effect, below us.

The humanities only make sense if we are created by a rational God who has revealed himself and his truth to mankind through the ages. Only if mankind is created in the image of God do the ancient philosophers have anything meaningful to offer besides a look at un-evolved man which should be taken quickly and mockingly.