The Lieutenant--Courageous, or...

Well, it's happened. The US Army has preferred charges against "The Lieutenant."  The Lt (according to the Seattle Times) enlisted in June of 2003, to go to Officer Candidate School, receiving his commission following completion of that school.  His enlistment, and subsequent commissioning, were all contemporary with the start of the war with Iraq in March of 2003.  Despite having a family history of war protesters and resisters, the Lt says that he believed Iraq had WMDs and thus he supported the war.

Now, he believes that the President lied to us, and thus he should not be required to participate in what the Lt believes is an illegal war.  That's all well and good, except he apparently didn't pay attention during any of his schooling.  Let's lay out a few things.

1.  Lying involves knowing the truth at the time of the statement, but saying something else (lie of commission, as opposed to omission).  The charges against Bush made by the "Bashists" tend to be that the President took us to war to stop Hussein's development of WMD's and there were none, therefore he lied.  Let's ignore, for the moment, that Bush enumerated many reasons for toppling Saddam, and focus on this one aspect.  How do we determine, given that the intelligence agencies of every major world power at the time concluded Iraq had WMDs, that Bush somehow knew Saddam didn't and acted anyway?  That is what is required to support the charge of "lying."

2.  Determination of "illegality" is not the Lt's call.  Officers take an oath at commissioning.  In that oath officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" which of course can lead a few to think that they then are the final arbiter of determining what is, or is not, Constitutional.  Of course, as I have recently written elsewhere, if we allow everyone to determine what is or is not legal/constitutional, then ultimately we have anarchy.  Last time I checked, the US was still operating in Iraq under UN resolutions. The Hague (The International Court) has not issued and rulings condemning the resolutions, or the actions of the coalition.  The US Congress has not passed any law ordering the removal of US Troops.  The Supreme Court, the final arbiter in the only branch of Government with the authority to determine what is and is not constitutional, has not delivered any verdict that would lead one to conclude the US involvement in Iraq is unconstitutional. The authority of the Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court are constitutionally granted authorities.  It is not the Lt's place to usurp the authority of the US Supreme Court, Congress, and the President.

3.  Military service is a commitment of life.  That same oath also has the officer state "that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion." It would appear from much of the stories written about the Lt and his decision to enlist, and then receive a commission, that he had reservations about the US military.  The fact that, of all the reasons given for US involvement in Iraq, he was able to convince himself he could support the action based on only one of the reasons given at the time, could lead one to question whether he actually had some significant "mental reservation(s)" at the time of commissioning.  In fact, quoting from the article in the Seattle Times the Lt made it clear he had reservations apparently at the time of commissioning:

"I had my doubts," he said. "But I felt like the president is our leader, and he won't betray our trust, and he would know what he was talking about, and let's give him the benefit of the doubt."

And apparently, he also made it clear that there existed conditions upon which he would or would not engage in combat.

In January, Watada told his commanders that he believed that the war was unlawful, and therefore, so were his deployment orders. He did not, however, consider himself a conscientious objector, since he was willing to fight in wars that were justified, legal and in defense of the nation.

These do not appear to me to be statements from a man who, at the time of commissioning, accepted his office "without mental reservation."

4.  Actions have consequences.  I can understand, and even admire, someone who stands up for what they believe and are willing to pay the cost.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer understood the repercussions of his actions.  Our founding fathers understood the possible repercussions of their actions.  "Give me liberty, or give me death" was not a jingoistic attempt at PR by Patrick Henry, it was a recognition of the demise that awaited him upon failure.  A courageous man accepts the consequences. 

5.  Military Officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts Martial.  The Lt, and his lawyer, seem to think that his remarks about the President are a First Amendment issue, and that the Lt was exercising his right to free speech, when he spoke out against the Commander in Chief.  In fact, the lawyer is quoted as saying "'What's going to happen is there's going to be a major First Amendment litigation, which I think they're really crazy to invite,' Seitz said."   Alas, this shows that the counsel sought by the Lt is unfamiliar with the military justice system.  There are protections established for the military, but the nature of military service requires a different way of understanding and acting with regards to the US Constitution.  In fact according to Findlaw.com  the Supreme Court has recognized that "while constitutional guarantees apply, 'the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections.'1455."  Perhaps the Lt should hire a military lawyer?

The US Army has done the right thing.  They have refused to let one Lieutenant interpret national and international law, and told him that he cannot sit as judge and jury over the actions of this government.  To do that would overstep his bounds as an officer in the US Military. 

Inconvenient? Perhaps. Truth? Perhaps not...

I have sat on this one for a while.  Another left-leaning blog that I frequent, "Pressing the Flesh", has had several postings singing the praises of Al Gore's latest theatrical success.  One of the implicit arguments seeming to be that as the movie rakes in the dollars, the revenues are seen as votes of support for Gore, and his agenda.  Of course, this has two effects.  First, it ignores the fact that movie goers typically like a horror flick, and second that by arguing that box office sales equates to support, it keeps people like me away.

All this aside, we could have lengthy discussions about global warming and the impact of mankind on such an event.  The debate is stifled though, by statements from media sources such as Earth and Sky radio show, where they state "The result is a warming climate -which no reputable scientist disputes anymore."  By making such a statement. (In all fairness, they backed off of on their website by saying "You're right. We should not have said "no reputable scientist disagrees." That is an incorrect statement and too strong a statement. We apologize. We should have said that the vast majority of climate scientists believe that global warming is real and caused by humans." )

Here's the problem, however.  There are vast numbers of scientists, most with bachelor's and Master's degrees, and some with PhDs, that have come out supporting the notion that science has shown that mankind has caused global warming.  But then there are those senior scientists, the chaired, full professors at major universities, that are essentially pulling on the reins.  They aren't saying that there isn't climate change, and they aren't saying that it might be a warming trend.  They are saying that to make a causal conclusion (and thus infer we can "stop" the change) is imprudent.

For instance, Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. I think we can all agree that MIT is a reputable science and engineering university, and that being a full professor in Atmospheric Science qualifies one to speak on the topic of climate change.  In fact, being a Chaired Professor shows that the university believes him to have demonstrated expert knowledge in the area. 

This being said, consider the opinion piece he has written for the Wall Street Journal.  In this piece he tackles the assertion from Al Gore that "the debate in the scientific community is over." Professor Lindzen points out that the debate is far from over.  He lists the various bits of data that are mis-represented, mis-understood, or ignored by the "non-scientists" as they seek to achieve policy.   What is most striking about this opinion article is that the Professor strikes a tone of balance, and reason.  Perhaps this is the tone that should be brought back into the discussion?

Let's reward scientists for good science, and not seek out those whose findings are the most scary, shocking, or sensational.

The Professor.

Tax relief again...

Loyal readers will recall back in 2004 I critiqued the Congressional Bashists for their mis-reading of the CBO report concerning the distribution of the tax cuts.  It is nice to see that another blog (far better equipped as actual economists) have tackled this one, as well.

A "time line" or an "Event line"?

Today seemed like as good a day as any to write about something that has been slowly gnawing, nay, chewing at me, for a while.  It seems appropriate today, on the 5th of July, the day following another successful return to flight for the Shuttle program.

Many (whom I now call "bashists"--those whose rage against President Bush is so great they see no good in his actions, bashing all that he says or does; a response to calling supporters "apologists" but I digress...) Many have called for a timeline for the removal of US forces from Iraq.  Most of Congress have seen the error in such an action, although the Bush detractors have taken it upon themselves to continually argue that there "is no plan."  The notion that there is no plan is humorous, since not only has there been a plan, the general outline of the plan has been around since our war against Saddam began.  I am sure you, kind reader, recall that the President talked about rebuilding Iraq, re-establishing a government with free and open elections, and ensuring that the new government would be strong enough to survive.  That has been the plan all along.

That leads me to this conclusion:  We should stop debating the red herring of "time lines" and start discussing "event lines."  It seems clear to me that we will withdraw our troops upon satisfactory completion of certain events.  We can develop estimates of when those events will occur, and those estimates may be rooted in optimism, pessimism or realism, but they remain estimates.  It seems to me that in many areas of life we live on "event lines" rather than time-lines. 

• College. One graduates from college upon successfully completing the requirements for the degree.
  
• High School.  Again, when the requirements are completed (although some seem to argue that holding kids to standards is somehow demeaning.)
  
• Marriage.  When one finds a mate (although the sitcom "Friends" had their gang with "Back ups" in case they reach the timeline before the event-line.)

Even more time-critical events have an "event line" associated with them. Most noteable is the Shuttle launch.  Yes, the shuttle has a "countdown" and they have the "launch windows" but those timelines are event constrained.  There exists a long sequence of events that must occur before a Space Shuttle (Space Transportation System) can be launched.  When those events are not reached, but can be overcome quickly, NASA puts a "Hold" on the countdown.  If it seems to NASA that they cannot satisfy the event requirement, they then "scrub" the mission and reschedule the launch.  The satisfactory completion of the mission is more important than meeting an arbitrary timeline.  Of course, when meeting a timeline becomes more important than meeting the "event line" we see catastrophic results.

So let's learn our lessons from the hard-earned lessons from NASA.  We cannot simply set a "date certain" for the withdrawal of troops in something as complex as the situation in Iraq.  Pick on this administration all you want (Rage on, you Bashists) but it is prudent to trust your military leaders on the ground. It is wise to see that a sequence of events has occurred.  It is foolishiness to say pick a date, and point to that as success.