Monthly Archives: February 2014

Feb 1 2014

Book Review, Fourth Turning an American Prophecy


This is a must read book

There was a book written and then published by Broadway Books in 1997 titled The Fourth Turning an American Prophecy that was written by William Strauss and Neil Howe. There is also a web site available today for those that want the details of the book, just Google The Fourth Turning.  This section on social behavior is taken from the information contained in that excellent book.  These are not my ideas but after reading their book some thirteen years ago it is my belief that Strauss and Howe were 100% correct in their analysis.

This book is about people and how they collectively interact and respond to current events. This is not about “economics” nor is it about “government” and “politics” but it is how the people see and respond to those three always hot subjects. The key premise in the book is that “social” time is not linear.  So if “social” time is not linear then it must be cyclical and if it is cyclical then there must be a pattern to the cycles. Or another way of looking at this is that there are observed patterns of social behavior that seem to repeat themselves. Many philosophers have seen these cycles or patterns and many have written about them from various aspects.

Many of those that study these subjects have seen that large groups of people raised in a society seem to follow a common thread through life.  They are identified by words like a generation or a cohort and despite all the differences that exist between the individuals within a generation there do appear to be a common mood among them. The authors gave names to these generations, some of which we are familiar with. Currently we have the Boomers and the 13er’s and a few GI’s still around. My generation the old Silent generation lives up to its name as hardily anybody today knows that they fall between the GI’s and the Boomers. The authors of the Fourth Turning have done an excellent job of summing all the previous work on this subject going back thousands of years and giving the patterns logical sense.

The authors have found that all the previous work could all be summarized and brought together into one common line of thought or theory which they call the Four Turnings.  The Four Turnings, called a Saeculum by the Romans relate, according to the authors, to four repeating patterns that occur as a result of the four repeating generational “moods.” These social “moods” are based on how a generation or cohort was raised and is given an archetype name by the authors.  These archetypes follow one another in an almost unbroken chain going back well over 576 years now (from 2011) to the period of the English retreat from France in 1435 – 1459 which was a ‘crisis’ and both the end of the previous Saeculum and the beginning of the new one for them.

Since a generation is normally between ~20 and ~25 years long, four generations in a cycle make for a repeating pattern of between ~80 and ~100 years. However since the American civil war the pattern seems to be shortening.  That does coincide with advances in technology which maybe the reason. The Saeculum, and the archetypes (identified by Strauss and Howe) match well with what we can see looking back in time by studying the writings of the various periods. These behavior patterns or social patterns are historically well documented in the writing of the various periods. By the way the Saeculum is also the length of a long human life.  What this means is that there are few people alive at the end of a Saeculum that have first hand knowledge of the Last crisis.  Just like today where those GI’s still alive and who fought WW II as the privates and junior officers are now all well over 85 and all the leaders of that period are long gone.

We have now identified several elements that will need to be explained, however it should be noted that they are all interrelated and exist as a unit.  They can not be looked at individually outside the context of the “pattern.”  Keeping that in mind the Saeculum is the pattern. The Saeculum is made of the four possible combinations of Archetypes that can occur.  The Archetype is the reoccurring “mood” that results from the existence of the pattern contained in the Saeculum.  So the very existence of the current Saeculum is a result of the ‘crises from the previous Saeculum.

As defined in the previous paragraph a Saeculum contains four reoccurring patterns that start with the resolution of some Crisis. The authors have identified these four reoccurring patterns as a High, an Awakening, an Unraveling and a Crisis.  When the Crisis ends it is normally the culmination of some major defining war.  The last defining war was WW II which ended the Great Power Saeculum in 1945.

The change from one stage, or pattern, to the next the authors call a Turning hence the use of Turning in the name of their Book.  The other word used in the title Fourth comes from their prediction that in the early ‘00s we would enter into the Fourth Turning of the current Saeculum, which they call the Millennial Saeculum.  These are the four periods identified by the authors and the change from one to the next is the Turning they talk about.

The First Turning results in a High, an upbeat ear of strengthening institutions and weakening individualism, when a new civic order implants and the previous old values regime then in decay.

The Second Turning results in an Awakening, a passionate era of spiritual upheaval, when the new civic order comes under attack from a new values regime.

The Third Turing results in an Unraveling, a downcast era of strengthening individualism and weakening institutions, when the new old civic order decays and the new values regime takes hold.

The Forth Turning results in a Crisis, a decisive era of secular upheaval, when the new values regime propels the replacement of the old civic order with a new one creating conflict.

These periods or moods create in society a particular way that the children of that society in that period of time are raised; the critical period for those children is the first 5 years of life.  That in turns creates, in those Children, a way that they look at things. Each of the generations born in the past 576 years has been born into one of these four identified periods, which were just explained.  Depending which one they are born in they become one of the four possible archetypes identified by the authors.  This pattern of beliefs that they have for life is based almost solely on the “social” events in play when they are born, they are:

A Prophet generation is born during a High, grows up as increasingly indulged post-crises children, comes of age as the narcissistic young crusaders of an Awakening, cultivates principle as moralistic mid-life’s, and emerges as wise elders guiding the next Crisis. Today these are the infamous Boomers who are now in control of all aspects of America from government through Industry the very institutions that many of them tried to destroy in the ‘60’s and early ‘70’s. Profits bring change. Since Teddy Roosevelt there have been 7 Profit Presidents.

A Nomad generation is born during an Awakening, grows up as under protected children during an Awakening, comes to age as the alienated young adults of a post-Awakening world, and mellows into pragmatic mid life leaders. These are the Generation X or the 13th Generation (13er’s) that are now taking over mid level positions in Government and Industry.  Nomads make pragmatic leaders. Since Teddy Roosevelt there have been 2 Nomad Presidents.

A Hero generation is born during an Unraveling, grows up as increasingly protected post-Awakening children, comes of age as the heroic young team workers of a Crisis, demonstrates hubris as energetic mid-life’s, and emerges as powerful elders attacked by the next Awakening.  These are the born but yet to be named cohort, maybe the Millennial’s, that are the new Hero’s that like their older counter parts the GI’s, are going to be the ones that straighten out the mess that is coming. Hero’s bring stability. Since Teddy Roosevelt there have been 7 Hero Presidents.

An Artist generation is born during a Crisis, grows up as overprotected children during that Crisis, comes of age as the sensitive young adults of a post-crisis world, breaks free as indecisive mid-life leaders during an Awakening, and ages into empathic post-Awakening elders. Artists make for compromisers. Since Teddy Roosevelt there have been 3 Artist Presidents. These children have yet to be named as they are only now being born.

The four generations making up the Saeculum, as listed above, are also derived from the four cycles of life as the people grow from childhood into Elderhood. However, since the time of the Romans when four periods of life was considered the normal advances in medicine and public health have allowed more people to survive beyond Elder hood and so the authors added a fifth category which they call Late Elder hood.

We are seeing some of the issues with that, “extra life,” now with things like the rising costs of medical treatments and the costs of retirement; Social Security and Medicare. Although specific ages have been given here they are not fixed by any means and there is a fair amount of variability to them which gives the 80 to 100 years length to the Saeculum. Although identified the Late Elder hood grouping is not shown in their analysis but if advances continue especially those that keep an Individual mentally alert longer this four period Saeculum of the authors will no longer be valid.  That may actually be good for the remembrance of past crises may help to prevent or at least mitigate future ones.

Childhood (pueritia, ages 0 – 20); social role: growth (receiving nurture, acquiring vales)

Young Adulthood (iuventus, ages 21 – 41): social role: vitality (serving institutions, testing values)

Mid life (virilitas, ages 42 – 62); social role: power (managing institutions, applying values)

Elder hood (senectus, ages 63-83); social role leadership (leading institutions, transferring values)

Late Elder hood (ages 84 plus); social role: dependence (receiving comfort from institutions, remembering values)

The current split, or polarization, in the country is a result of the Boomer generation (The Prophets) moving as they grow older into all the key power positions in the government and the private sector.  They are both the liberals and progressives and they are also the conservatives and the Tea Party and since they are all Prophets they will feel very strongly about their beliefs and much like what happened during the American Civil War it is very, very likely that this split will result in a second American Civil War.

The Profits are very prone to become involved in causes and in many cases they do not see the ramifications of what they do.  For this reason the following thought was developed

David Pristash, “Passion of purpose does not constitute correctness of thought.”

Another civil war would be bad enough but throw in the Muslim issue with the War On Terror (WOT) that is now the “Overseas Contingency Operation” and the growing presence of Chinese influence and there is no telling how bad things could get if America turns to internal fighting.  Given that it’s American military power that keeps many of the word rouge states in line, taking that deterrent away spells big trouble for many parts of the world.

One last comment here that is my idea not found in the book, at least as I remember it. A strong case can be made that there are two primary drivers at work here.  The Hero archetype that builds a new social structure and then Prophet Archetype that tears it down.  In-between we have two secondary archetypes the Nomads and the Artists whose purpose it would seem is to mitigate the effects of the other two since they fall in-between them on both sides.

Feb 1 2014

Becoming a Military Officer in the United States


A Military Officers Oath of Office

I graduated from College in 1965 during the early stages of the Vietnam War. Since I was in college I was exempt from the draft until I graduated, but now I was out and my options were limited. I had considered grad school but the Military seamed better at the time than two or more years of school. So knowing I would be drafted I joined the Army in the summer of 1965. While in the induction center I got talked into going to Officers Candidate School (OCS). Ten months later I was one of 121 men that graduated out of about 250 that started. On 13 September 1966 I accepted a commission as a 2nd Lieutenant in the United States Army and along with 120 others took the oath of office that is required of all officers. That oath had a profound affect on me and how I looked at my country ever since. That Oath is what I want to tell you about today.

Most of the following information I’m going to talk about comes from a report issued by Lt Col Kenneth Keskel, USAF in 2002. His analysis was written from an Air Force prospective and being an Army man I did need to make some changes. I will apologize in advance for having to read a lot of this as the words and meanings are very important and I don’t want to screw them up.

The first law of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the first Congress on 1 June 1789, was statute 1, chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution. The founding fathers agreed upon the importance of ensuring that officials promised their allegiance and so little debate occurred before the first Congress passed this statute. The wording of the military officer’s oath has changed several times in the founding, but the basic foundation has withstood the test of time.

While developing the oath of office for US officers, the founding fathers had serious concerns about pledging “allegiance” to any specific person. For example, during the Revolutionary War, Gen George Washington issued a general order on 7 May 1778 that required all officers to take and subscribe to an oath renouncing King George III and supporting the United States.

This general order had significant weight. On 1 October 1779, Washington court-martialed Benjamin Ballard for “selling rum, flour, pork, hides, tallow and other stores the property of the public without any orders or authority for doing so and contrary to the tenor of his bond and oath of office.” This example shows that the oath represented more than a simple, ceremonial formality; rather, it provided overarching guidance and a standard of moral conduct, as opposed to dictating specific, limited criteria.

The first official oath of office for US military officers under the Constitution was established on 1 June 1789. The law implemented the requirement in Article 6 of the Constitution that “Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.” This first oath was short and to the point:
“I, YOUR NAME, do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

The current Oath had its origins in the civil war area and on 11 July 1868 40th Cong., 2d session, chap. 139 congress made a change to the Officers Oath as follows.

I, YOUR NAME, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Note that the last sentence is not required to be said if the speaker has a personal or moral objection, as is true of all oaths administered by the United States government.

Note also that this is not an oath to defend any specific territory or persons or property. This is an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.

Note also that there is no duration defined in the Oath. Once taken, it is a lifetime affirmation. Maybe even a bigger commitment that that of a marriage. But don’t tell my wife I said that or maybe I’ll be single again.

The Oath that I took on 13 September 1966 and as shown on DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers; is a variation of that 1868 Oath.

“I, David John Pristash (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of 2nd Lieutenant do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

The Oath of Office is a solemn oath taken by officers of the United States Uniformed Services on commissioning. It differs slightly from that of the oath of enlistment that enlisted members recite when they enter the service. It is statutory (i.e. required by law) and is prescribed by Section 3331, Title 5, United States Code. It is traditional for officers to recite the oath upon promotion but as long as the officer’s service is continuous this is not actually required.

One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders. Officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to “disobey” any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.

The following Descriptions give the logic behind the words that are used in each phrase of sentence.

I, YOUR NAME, Do Solemnly Swear (or Affirm)
The oath begins with an option to swear or affirm. This wording is also consistent with the option for the president to swear or affirm, as prescribed in Article 2 of the Constitution. Either way, the oath signifies a public statement of personal commitment. Officers must take personal responsibility for their actions.
That I Will Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States

The oath requires officers to support and defend the – Constitution of the United States – not the president, not the country, not the flag, and not a particular military service. The preamble to the Constitution succinctly highlights the ideals represented by that document. Because the Constitution was built on a series of checks and balances that distribute power across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, officers must give their allegiance to all three entities – despite the fact that the chain of command leads to the president.

These checks and balances create an inefficiency that is inherent in America’s democratic system that often proves frustrating for military officers, whose environment tries to provide the most efficient and effective fighting force available.

But it is also a key element to that which keeps us free. For the founding founders knew that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely that is why the Constitution is written the way it is — not because it is the most efficient method of government but because it is hard to consolidate power. That is a critical point you should never forget.

The words and defend were added in 1862, during the Civil War, when defense and preservation of the nation became paramount. The phrase support and defend the Constitution is purposely vague, allowing better minds to interpret and improve, within certain guidelines. To understand the significance of the wording, one should compare the US oath to the old Soviet Union version, the latter requiring officers “unquestioningly to carry out the requirements of all military regulations and orders of commanders and superiors.”

It is a true blessing that America does not require its officers to obey “unquestioningly” but gives them the opportunity and flexibility for innovation. But with that flexibility come both responsibility and accountability for one’s actions.

Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic

This phrase was added in 1862 as a direct result of the Civil War- specifically, to address the possibility of Union soldiers joining the Confederacy (most notably the forces commanded by Gen Robert E. Lee). That is, people who had previously sworn allegiance to the United States were now fighting against it. No one expects another civil war but this clause was designed to clarify the military Officers duties in every instance.

Military officers cannot simply maintain the status quo- they must look toward the future, identify emerging trends, and develop capabilities to counter the entire range of threats. Officers must ensure that they address all potential enemies. An officer’s oath demands that they support and defend against all enemies no matter where they are if they pose a threat to the Constitution.

That I Will Bear True Faith and Allegiance to the Same

The officer’s oath ensures allegiance to the Constitution as a whole. Even though the Constitution built a system of checks and balances to embrace multiple branches of government, the founding fathers cautioned against counterproductive parochialism.

In his inaugural address, Washington warned, “I behold the surest pledges, that as on one side, no local prejudices, or attachments; no separate views, nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage.” An Officers’ allegiance compels them to work together to develop the best solutions for the nation.

That I Take This Obligation Freely, without Any Mental Reservation or Purpose of Evasion

This passage also originated during the Civil War. Congress and President Abraham Lincoln, wanting to ensure that soldiers not defect, expanded the oath in an attempt to guarantee loyalty. In the final analysis, however, loyalty depends upon the integrity of the individual.

Integrity is a learned trait. Whether that learning is based upon a religious upbringing or an embracing of acceptable norms of society, honor and integrity are part of the core of all military services. Maintaining integrity is implicit in the oath and must guide officers when they face conflicts of interest and hard choices.

And That I Will Well and Faithfully Discharge the Duties of the Office on Which I Am about to Enter

This wording has its genesis in the first statute of 1789. This clause epitomizes the military values of “excellence in all we do,” “commitment” and “duty.” We must be proactive and perform our duties to the best of our abilities, mastering our specialties while we are junior officers and then gaining breadth as we advance in rank. The progress of the nation depends upon our doing so.

So Help Me God

So help me God became part of the officer oath in 1862, but the enlisted oath did not add these words until 1962. The Congressional Record provides superb insight into their meaning:

The words, “So help me God,” are not a part of the obligation assumed upon taking the oath. They constitute rather an assertion of sincerity to undertake the duties of military service in good faith and with the aid of the highest power recognized by the enlistee. It is directed solely to his or her personal conception of the almighty, whatever that may be or whatever it may not be. There is no effort to impose on the enlistee any established religious conception, or even to require his acknowledgement of any religious conception. . . . For the vast majority of the persons taking the oath, however, this addition will assure a unique degree of personal conviction not otherwise attainable, and will thus prove a welcome source of both personal and national strength.

So help me God also implies retribution if officers do not keep their word. Compare the part of the Soviet oath that ends with “If I break this solemn vow, may I be severely punished by the Soviet people, universally hated, and despised by the working people.” Although that is quite a condemnation, in actuality it is less severe than the potential consequences for someone who has a strong moral or religious foundation. So help me God acknowledges that no stronger commitment exists.
I’ll leave with this last thought.

The Men and Woman in the United States Military are the only Federal Employees that have knowingly put their very life’s on the line 24/7 for the citizens of the country and the defense of her Constitution. Their life’s are valuable, precious even, to them and their country but yet both they and their commander know that in any use of force their will be losses. Accepting that those losses will occur is what sets these men and woman above the rest.

Feb 1 2014

A Soliders Duty


I am an American Soldier

Liberty never ever comes free,
and a soldier’s life is the key.
My blood in Lexington first flowed,
giving sweet life to her precious seed.
But liberty is a demanding thought,
and its growth with much sacrifice is bought.
I am an American Soldier

Liberties demands are many,
and the price we all must pay.
When next my blood flowed a plenty,
it came forth from both blue and gray.
But liberty is a demanding thought,
and its growth with much sacrifice is bought.
I am an American Soldier

Some help for others was now needed,
and they were not to be denied.
Answered now was this distant quest,
with my blood in the Argonne forest.
But liberty is a demanding thought,
and its growth with much sacrifice is bought.
I am an American Soldier

Storms now formed both east and west,
and their deep darkness threatened all.
Now for my dear blood there was no rest,
until Midway and Bastogne brought evils fall.
But liberty is a demanding thought,
and its growth with much sacrifice is bought.
I am an American Soldier

The storms were cleared and the sun was set,
When new alliances brought a different threat.
Yet again my red blood was sorely needed,
From so many, before Pusan succeeded.
But liberty is a demanding thought,
and its growth with much sacrifice is bought.
I am an American Soldier

Now perceived threats a new do grow,
In places hidden both near and far.
Still my red blood in earnest does flow,
From far away Nam’s ever present scar
But liberty is a demanding thought,
and its growth with much sacrifice is bought.
I am an American Soldier

Freedoms path is by the two towers,
which our liberty’s bright torch empowers.
But now she cries for the loss so dear,
dealt from those that deal in fear.
So sons and daughters of this land,
Must yet again to battle go.
This time our blood will flow in the sand,
So those seeds of liberty can grow.
But liberty is a demanding thought,
and Its growth with much sacrifice is bought.
I am an American Soldier

 

Written by David Pristash after 9/11

Feb 1 2014

Memorial Day; May 27, 2013


This is a speech I gave on memorial Day

Today is Memorial Day the day we honor our war dead, those warriors who gave what Lincoln called, “the last full measure of devotion.” I’m a veteran but this is not our day that comes on Veterans Day on November 11th. We came home carrying our shields; they came home carried on theirs. Memorial Day is the day we raise our glasses to honor and remember all the absent comrades.

The History:

Memorial Day is now a United States federal holiday which occurs every year on the final Monday of May. Memorial Day is a day of remembering all the men and women who died while serving in the United States Armed Forces. The observance originated shortly after the American Civil War ended to commemorate the Union and Confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War. Memorial Day was formerly known as Decoration Day, but the name gradually evolved into Memorial Day in the 20th century and that was made official by congress in 1967.

The first well-known Memorial Day-type observance after the Civil War was in Charleston, South Carolina. During the war, Union soldiers who were prisoners of war had been held at the Charleston Race Course. During the war at least 257 Union prisoners died there and were hastily buried in unmarked graves. Shortly after the war ended, in May 1865, black residents of Charleston organized a ceremony, which was covered by the New York Tribune and other national papers.

Nearly ten thousand people gathered on May 1st to commemorate the war dead. Involved were recently “freedmen,” teachers, school children, Union troops, black ministers, and white northern missionaries. Most brought flowers to lie on the burial field. Years later, this celebration would come to be called the “First Decoration Day.”

Three years later on May 5, 1868, in his capacity as commander of a veterans’ organization for Union Civil War veterans, General John A. Logan issued a proclamation calling for “Decoration Day” to be observed annually and nationwide. It was observed for the first time that year on May 30.

That date was chosen for two reasons first because it was not the anniversary of any particular battle and, the second according to the White House was, this was the optimal date for flowers to be in bloom.

An interesting fact is that Ironton, Ohio, lays claim to the nation’s oldest “continuously running” Memorial Day parade. Its first parade was also held on May 5, 1868, and the town has held it every year since.

How many of our military have not come home?

America has been involved in small, medium and large conflicts almost continuously since its founding. According to Wikipedia the U.S. military has been involved in 74 military conflicts since the Declaration of Independence where our soldiers have fought, died and suffered for their country. Because of the poor record keeping (no internet or computers) and the intensity of the fighting in many of these early conflicts, the numbers shown here are estimates’ only but probably not far off.

The totals are:

664,401 KIA

40,915 MIA (which I will consider KIA here)

and 1,647,973 WIA

Also there were 652,602 (mostly in the Civil War) who died in theater

That makes a total of 3,005,891 military casualties.  Therefore, we can say since the formation of our country 237 years ago that we have incurred 12,683 casualties per year or 35 casualties per day since the founding.

But today we are here to give thanks to those that gave their all in “combat” which, including MIA’s, as of last month totals 705,316 KIA.

What were the worst conflicts?

Of the 74 conflicts that the American military has been involved in eight (8) stand out for the numbers of military personnel who died or were wounded.  These 8 conflicts account for 97.2% of all military casualties.

More military were lost in WW II than any of the other conflicts but that was not the worst war we were in. To put these conflicts in proper prospective and using the figures listed in Wikipedia under “Untied States Military casualties of war” I created a table where I could compare the military casualties to the size of the country at the time of the conflict.

This makes a big difference since when the country was formed there were fewer than 3 million citizens and today there are well over 300 million citizens, 100 times more.

I’ll start with the current War On Terror even though it is not one of  the eight to give a base of comparison to all those past conflicts since it is the one we are most familiar with today.
The Global War on Terror (WOT)

10/7/2001 to …

This Kinetic Action using today’s vernacular can not be rated as it is not yet completed, but as of April 2013 last month 6,677 have died to get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaida in Afghanistan and remove an evil dictator with delusions of grandeur from Iraq.

So far this war has lasted 4,223 days and we have lost 1.58 of our military per day. This is America’s longest continuously running war.

Considering the size of the country at 300.4 million citizens and even if we add in the wounded, that means that only a very small fraction of the country has served, or died, or was wounded in this conflict.

In all the following conflicts I will reference them as some multiple of the War On Terror.

The American Civil War

4/12/1861 to 4/9/1865

This was by far the worst war we have ever been in, since it was the South against the North, all were Americans and 624,938 of them died to end slavery and to keep the country whole. The war lasted 1,458 days and we lost 428.6 of our military per day. Considering the size of the country at 33.5 million citizens and adding in the wounded means that almost 3.2% of the population died or was wounded in that conflict.

That amounts to 1 out of 32 people. Nothing since comes even remotely close to what happened during the Civil War.

In fact we would have to add together all the remaining 7 major conflicts we have been in to equal that of the Civil War casualties compared to the size of the population. This war was 165.5 times more deadly then the current War On Terror.

The American Revolution

4/19/1775 to 9/3/1783

This was the second worst war we have ever been in with 25,000 who died to sever our relationship from England and form the country.  The war lasted 3,059 days and we lost 8.2 of our military per day. Considering the size of the country at only 2.8 million citizens means that this war was 93.0 times more deadly then the current War On Terror.

World War II

12/7/1941 to 9/2/1945

This was the third worst war we have ever been in with 435,713 who died to defeat the Germans and the Japanese who were trying to take over the world. The war lasted 1,365 days and we lost 319.2 of our military per day. Considering the size of the country at 136.7 million citizens means that this war was 42.4 times more deadly then the current War On Terror.

World War I

4/6/1917 to 11/11/1918

This was the fourth worst war we have ever been in with 119,866 who died to save England and France from being defeated by Germany. The war lasted 584 days and we lost 205.3 of our military per day. Considering the size of the country at 103.2 million citizens means that this war was 16.4 times more deadly then the current War On Terror.

The War of 1812

6/18/1812 to 2/18/1815

This was the Fifth worst war we have ever been in with 14,260 who died to prevent England from taking back her former colonies.  The war lasted 975 days and we lost 14.6 of our military per day. Considering the size of the country at 8.0 million citizens means that this war was 12.3 times more deadly then the current War On Terror.

The Vietnam War

11/24/1963 to 4/30/1975

This was the Sixth worst war we have ever been in with 60,698 who died trying to save the Vietnamese from being taken over by the communists’. The war lasted 4,175 days and we lost 14.5 of our military per day. Considering the size of the country at 202.6 million citizens this war was 5.5 times more deadly then the current War On Terror.

The Korean War

6/25/1950 to 7/27/1953

This was the Seventh worst war we have ever been in with 41,278 who died to prevent the Communist North from taking over the free South. Technically this war never ended as there was a cease fire but no official end to the conflict.  The active portion of this war lasted 1,128 days and we lost 36.6 of our military per day. Considering the size of the country at 156.2 million citizens means that this war was 4.5 times more deadly then the current War On Terror.

The Mexican War

4/25/1846 to 2/2/1848

This was the Eighth worst war we have ever been in with 13,283 who died to resolve the issue of Texas who had seceded from Mexico. The war lasted 648 days and we lost 20.5 of our military per day. Considering the size of the country at 21.8 million citizens means that this war was 4.3 times more deadly then the current War On Terror.

This ends all the major conflicts.

This day is personal for me!

From my Special Force camp in Vietnam in 1967 and out of the team that averaged fewer that a dozen men and in the order that they died I knew the following:

SP5 Joseph R. Beck, KIA

SFC Elmer Ables, KIA

SGT Michal Miller, MIA

SFC Herman A. McBride, KIA

SFC Ernest O. Broom, KIA

SP4 Gerry D. Schroeder, KIA

That was almost 46 years ago and I still remember them and the others that were wounded in my camp but made it back.

That almost ends my talk and I hope I have conveyed to you the spirit of, and meaning of this day.

So go enjoy your barbecues, your friends, and your communities parades, but remember you do so because those honored dead make it possible.

Sometime today turn your thoughts to the many gardens of stone around the globe where those who gave their all now rest and say a pray of thanks to them.

 

Now I’ll close with a few of the opening lines from a poem I wrote about war, and the purpose of service, shortly after 9/11.

I am the American Soldier.

Liberty never comes free,

and the soldier’s life is the key.

My blood in Lexington first flowed,

giving sweet life to her precious seed.

 

But liberty is a demanding thought,

and its growth with much sacrifice is bought

I am the American Soldier.

Feb 1 2014

Our Way of Life, Part I


Before we can start a discussion on civilization and society and our way of life we must briefly address the issue of how humans came to populate the earth, and this brings us to the issue of God, since all the major religions of the world teach that God created man.  Some believe that God created the earth some 5,000 odd years ago in a six-day period.  Others who are also religious are more flexible in this belief. Those that are of the first group of teachings are prescriptively rigid and therefore they cannot account for the abundance of observations and phenomena in our natural world, which point to a much greater age for the planet (ten to fifteen billion years).

Why the red shift in astronomy?  Why the many fossils that point to evolutionary development for all terrestrial life?  Why the existence of geological structures millions, even billions, of years old? Why human brains with the capacity to discover these things as we study ourselves and the universe?  Why would a God who had created the universe in six days go to such great efforts to make it appear otherwise?

We should bypass this issue by assuming that, given the existence of a God/Creator, the universe was created in a manner consistent with our scientific knowledge, but that man was an intentional result of the creation process, planned by the God/Creator from the beginning.  In other words, God created man via an indirect, evolutionary process, that many  today call “intelligent design.”   If we can agree to make this one simple assumption, then we can move on to the discussion and analysis of our humanity without getting into an argument about the existence of God and whether here is an afterlife. There will be more on this subject in future post.

Assuming that human life developed in an evolutionary process we can begin our discussion of civilization with the pre-human ancestors of modern man, who began to roam the planet coming out of Africa approximately two and a half million years ago.   By this stage of our development, pre-humans had developed a complex brain as a means of adapting to a hostile environment.   It is generally believed that at the time the earliest humans developed sentience they had banded together in small groups for protection.   The importance of this practice was three-fold:

First, living in groups provided general protection for all members of the band or tribe (in other words there was, “safety in numbers”).

Second, since the human female is particularly vulnerable during the later stages of pregnancy (pregnancy easily adds twenty-five to thirty percent to her body weight), group protection of gestating females was a very strong asset to the viability of the human species.  Whether it is politically correct or not — the primary purpose of a man is to protect and care for his mate and their children

Third, human babies are absolutely helpless (unlike most other mammals) for an extended period of time after birth, and children require many years of growing and learning before becoming independent individuals (14 to 16 years back then and much longer today), and thus group protection of infants and young children was absolutely imperative if the human species was to survive.

The females of almost all species with complex brains (and developmental patterns similar to ours) developed very strong protective instincts.  It follows logically that human males, unburdened with childbearing, became the aggressive gender of the species, whose core job was foremost to protect and provide for the females and young. In addition, males were much more expendable than females, since one male could impregnate many females.  Maybe this is one of the reasons that approximately 7% more males are born than females.  They were expected to die off and so more were needed.

These defined gender roles must have been beneficial to the development and propagation of the human species, or we would not have continued to evolve.  By the time humans had developed language and had begun to use tools and fire, the social roles of both males and females had been “programmed” into human DNA: Aggressive males protected the tribe (even at the cost of their lives), while the more passive females bore and cared for the young.  Probably as a direct result of the major physical demands of childbearing, females also became physiologically much stronger than males, thus increasing their longevity potential in comparison to males. This has major ramifications today as women live much long then men do and older people require more health care.

Based on observations of the social behaviors of other species with large, complex brains, we can assume that early humans developed specific social structures within their bands and small tribes.   Typically, a dominant male becomes the band or tribe leader; parallel to this, a dominant female also arises, thus providing the basis for a “pecking order,” or social structure, of both males and females within the group.

Probably about thirty thousand years ago basic, “civilization” was born when humans began to retain knowledge through speech, art, and writing, and the relatively simple social structure of early humans began to evolve into something more complex.  The evolutionary process became much more complicated as humans gained the knowledge that allowed them to exercise ever greater control over their environment.  Farming, mining, metal working, and the building of mechanical devices developed quickly and spread throughout the world in short very short order.

A critical mass of knowledge was reached about five thousand years ago, and the conquest of the planet then began in earnest.  It has continued in spurts ever since (periods of rapid gain of knowledge followed by periods of absorption of that knowledge) and is now progressing geometric rate. Given that most of the easy to get resources of the plant have been found and used it is critical that we continue to push the knowledge frontier so we can get to the point that we are not limited to ‘easy’ to get resources. Turing back now is not an option for if there is a second modern dark age it will not be easy to come back.

With the rapid expansion of civilization throughout the globe, the aggressive nature of the male began to constitute, at least somewhat, a liability to the development of the human race.   To some extent, war and the desire for conquest were simply an outgrowth of the male’s role as protector of the tribe.  As bigger and bigger territories were brought under the control of a single dominant, male, large areas assumed a certain stability, which, in turn, promoted the development of technology.  Since by this time no other thing on the planet could challenge the human race it began to dominate the planet.

As the number of humans grew and their knowledge base expanded, all areas or aspects did not develop equally.  Initially male-oriented skills predominated and resulted in the advancement of technology and the physical sciences.  The skills of warfare and conquest were perfected, driven by technological advances.  Human cultures that did not develop these skills were quickly swept aside by highly organized and increasingly mechanized armies.

Prior to the twentieth century, however, aggression and warfare did not impact the overall survival of the human race.  Today, unfortunately, with man’s ability to make nuclear bombs, lethal gases, and custom-designed killer viruses, warfare has the potential to threaten the survival of the human species and has become a very important issue.

“Civilization” has now reached a point at which mankind must rethink its purpose and, in fact, its very existence.  With billions of humans on the planet, and with the knowledge we now possess, it would be easy for mankind to destroy all life on the planet.  Some international tension has been displaced with the collapse of the USSR in the late ‘80s, but it must be kept in mind that, historically, a power always rises to fill a void. India, China, Japan (probably not now after the 2011 earthquake), or some other country will assert itself and replace the USSR in the pantheon of world powers. Disarmament is also not an issue as weakness breeds war, it always has and that cannot be allowed today.

Today with the apparent decline of the United States since 2008 this looks to be more and more like China will assume this role of the replacement country to the old USSR and in the process possibly even surpass the United States if the current direction is not reversed.  This is not a certainty as there are internal problems in China that are not obvious, but that is a subject for a different discussion.

The decline of the United States to a lesser status would be very bad for mankind for we can no longer allow these old aggressive power patterns of a strong leader as part of a closed political system trying to gain control of a region or significant portion of the world.  We must come to an understanding of who we are and why we do what we do; we must be able to address these issues realistically or our civilization will collapse under the onslaught of our increasing numbers our technology and our relentless impact on the ecostructure of the world.

The reason that our decline would be bad is that we are different. Because of this difference the U.S. rose to its present position as the world’s leading industrial and political power in less than 200 years. The industrial base, governmental structure and military might of our country are the culmination of five thousand years of western civilization.  The U.S. is presently unchallenged by any nation on the planet; simply said, we are the best (nation) and we got to where we are by being the best (individually) because there was no central control. However, since 2008 that is being changed and not for the good. This fact must be kept in mind or all discussion of change will lack a solid base, for if we already are the best than what are we going to change to that is better?

We got here by the intellect and hard work primarily by men of European ancestry.  This is not to imply that people with other cultural backgrounds did not contribute to America’s growth, but, prior to a very few years ago, the core leadership of this country came predominantly from western European stock (English, French, Italian, Spanish and German). This “melting pot” of people and ideas worked well as long as the melting was encouraged by the citizens.  The social structure that developed from this experiment in self rule became the “American” culture.  It makes no sense to postulate whether the contributions of eastern European or non-European cultures would have changed American culture in some substantial or “better” way, since the fact remains that the influence of these cultures was — nominal or minimal at best.

The American citizen was not ruled by the federal government and that was because of the U.S. Constitution and “Bill-of-Rights” which prevented an oppressive government from developing; that is until now.  We are being told that those documents are obsolete and must be changed or gotten rid of.  There is no logic to that thinking and it is only being promoted by those that want the power that those documents now deny. We should be very careful about making changes for another system other than what we have now for that is a return to past systems that do not and have never worked.

There are, of course, imperfections in our society we are after all human. But we should not abandon all the good we have accomplished within the parameters of American culture just because we have some negative aspects.  For sure we should not start over because of some perceived problems areas.  Make adjustments yes, but not start over.

Feb 1 2014

Book Review “Starship Troopers”


Starship Troopers is a science fiction novel written by Robert A. Heinlein, first published in hardcover in December 1959 and then much later made into a movie in 1997. This review is on the book since the movie, although a good special effects action movie missed the entire purpose of Heinlein’s book which was as much about political philosophy and morals as it was a Science Fiction novel. The book is a first-person narrative and is about a young soldier from the Philippines named Juan “Johnnie” Rico and his exploits in the Mobile Infantry, a futuristic military service branch equipped with powered armor and futuristic weapons. Rico’s military career progresses from a recruit out of high school (creating a moral dilemma for him with his family for joining, resolved later in the book, and which sets the stage for the real message in this book) to non-commissioned officer and finally to officer all set against the backdrop of an interstellar war between mankind and an arachnid species known as “the Bugs”. Rico and the other characters in the book discuss moral and philosophical aspects of suffrage, civic virtue, juvenile delinquency, capital punishment, and war.

Reading this book shortly after it was first published, while I was in college, I loved the story as it was a simple good guys and bad guys plot. But the hidden message of service, morals and philosophy made an impression on me that never left. It was probably a factor in my opting for OCS after I got my induction notice after graduating from Ohio University in 1965.  The boomer generation and those that followed don’t have the prospective that we did about what happened and how we got into World War II. Political correctness and multiculturalism have made it impossible to discuss any of the issues that most need discussing today. Heinlein, who was very involved politically, set the stage for the book in the 22nd century after a major global war had decimated the planet “again” and the million of veterans who had to fight and die again (being written right after WW II) basically said we have had enough and formed a new world government based on different principles than we have now.

This book reflects the turn in Heinlein’s life from liberal to conservative after WW II when like many i.e. Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan were discouraged by the social turn to the left started by Karl Mark.  The book to some degree follows Heinlein’s life as he was a graduate of Annapolis and served on the USS Lexington and later a destroyer the USS Roper in the 1930 attaining the rank of Lieutenant (Army Captain) before leaving the service (health reasons?). The story line or plot in the book is only the carrier for the true message in the book.

I think that Heinlein saw that society’s trend to gravitate toward what we call Fascism (Germany in Heinlein’s day) or Communism (Russia the U.S.S.R back then) both back then and now again today.  As W. Cleon Skousen’s writes in his book “The 5000 year Leap” there really is no difference between the two.  Both forms have a powerful central government and the only real difference being that under Communism the state owns the means of production while under Fascism or Socialism the state controls (though rules regulations and laws) the means of production. Powerful central governments are almost all lead by egotistical leaders that end up starting wars of conquest which the military than has to fight and die for.

Contrary to popular belief the American military does not want to go to war General Jack D. Ripper in the Stanley Kubrick 1964 movie Dr. Strangelove does not exist; hence Heinlein’s proposition in “Starship Troopers” that full citizenship could only be had by those that had served in the military.  The logic being that only they understood the reality of war.  Heinlein states through his Characters the principles that he sees important to creating a governmental system that would not be oppressive or war like.  Johnnie Rico relates, mostly though flash backs, these beliefs such as from his History and Moral Philosophy (subjects I have spent that last several years studying) teacher Jean Dubois and later Major Reid while Rico is in OCS (Officers Candidates School) the following ideas.

The collapse of 20th century society was because “their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of ‘rights’ … and lost track of their ‘duties’. No nation, so constituted, can endure. In response, the “reborn” society of the 22nd Century of Rico had previously reformed itself so that only veterans could wield political power, reasoning that, “Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of his personal advantage.”

One other salient point is a statement that Rico makes when questioned by Dubois who asks him, “What difference exists between a soldier and a civilian?”  Rico’s answer is, “The difference lies in the field of civic virtue. A soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. A civilian does not.” The first thing that an American military officer does today in accepting his commission is to take an oath to defend the Constitution which is the very core of our society.  Unlike most other societies that swear allegiance to the ruler of their country.

There is much more in Heinlein’s book and it was used in the military academies to show that service and duty were the important keys to the officer core. Whether this book is still used or not I don’t know but in my recent studies of the ancient Greeks the city state of Sparta comes close to what Heinlein wrote about with his Moral Philosophy.  I would be very surprised if Heinlein did not read Plato and Aristotle before writing this book and uses that knowledge as the base along with his service within the backdrop of WW II to form the ideas in his book.

We should also keep in mind that the founders of the United States did not believe in universal suffrage and back then those that created our form of government understood that a Constitutional Republic could not exist for long if everyone could vote. It was universally believed then that universal suffrage would in short order lead to a moral decay of the citizens and an eventual creation of a Tyrant as their ruler. This process is described in much detail when one studies political philosophy and it appears to me to be the track we are now on once more!