Haitus... sort of

ALCON,
Obviously, I have taken somewhat of a haitus from this blog. I have been devoting the time I do have available for writing to our farmblog: http://flyingtnh.wordpress.com/

Please feel free to stop by and join our adventures and misadventures at the Flying T Ranch!

Check 6!

So, I'm reneging on a promise...

I said I'd write on a lighter topic, but obviously the big story in the world today is not light.

Less than 900 nautical miles from the artificial prosperity and land of dreams we call Disney World, Haiti is anything but. The target of strife since the beginning of modern history, the tiny island nation has been hit repeatedly by violent coups, corrupt governments, and natural disasters. It is among the world's poorest nations, the last in food security, and the least capable of dealing with even a small natural disaster, much less a catastrophe on the scale of this week.

Why should we care?

Of course, there are altruistic reasons. Some might cite the Golden Rule, or teachings from other religions regarding charity for our fellow humans. Others may even cite the self-serving benefits of service to others in their times of need. I am not disputing these. In fact, I encourage and even champion them.

However, let's talk practical matters for a bit.

Some have already spoken of the danger of a humanitarian crisis so close to our own borders. Even before this escalation in the scope of their national tragedy, the complications arising from unsanctioned immigration by Hatians, whether "boat people" or others, has been significant in southern Florida and beyond.

I am a strong proponent of opening immigration rather than restricting it further; however, under our current laws, illegal immigration creates a class of workers who are not integrated into society and are easy targets for exploitation. This exploitation may be by criminal elements that both welcome and corrupt immigrants, victimize them through various forms of human trafficking, or pay dirt-poor wages that the illegal immigrant has no way to contest (while saving the taxes that could help pay for the added load to our systems such as education and health). This causes economic, moral, and criminal impact on our society. On top of this, add the danger of the trip itself, which thousands upon thousands have decided to brave, finding the risk of death at sea better than the conditions of their home country. The scope of the tragedy and misery in today's Haiti will only increase this flow of immigration, legal and otherwise.

But the other danger is one I wrote of in November (Why should we care about starving kids in Africa). "In our country, we debate the increased risk of gang activity and violence in a society endangered by a lack of effective parental role models, poverty, homelessness, and sexual predation. These are significant concerns, but they pale in comparison to other parts of the world." How much more should we be concerned with our neighbor, Haiti, where thousands upon thousands are now orphaned, in extreme poverty, without housing, and subject to exploitation as I described above?

Conditions such as these create the fertile ground in which criminal and terrorist organizations thrive. Even if the altruistic reasons didn't exist (but they do), we would be ill-advised not to take action.

So... what are you doing? Go take action. Right now, the best way for most of us is to donate through well-established NGOs and charitable organizations - Doctors without Borders and the Red Cross are two that come to mind easily, but there are many others out there*. Get out and do it!

*A word of caution - just as the criminal element will be out to exploit the Hatians, many despicable individuals and organizations are capitalizing on their plight. Make sure you do a good check on any organization to which you donate.

Check 6,

Pat

Combatant or Criminal?

The buzz around the decision whether to try the underwear bomber, Gitmo detainees, and others as combatants at military tribunals, criminals in civilian courts, or not at all has been dominated by emotion and opinion rather than reason. That is understandable, as the nature of our current conflict involves two of the most primal elements: fear and hate.

As a republic guided by laws, ideas, and values, our national defense must involve not only physical protection of our citizens and borders, but also the defense of those laws, ideas, and values under which we have agreed to live. It is tempting, due to our emotional desires for revenge and restitution, or even in the name of physical security, to seek some sort of "justice" outside of the constraints of those standards, expressed by established domestic and international laws. However, by doing so, we give up the defense of those ideals which define our civilization and community in the first place.

If it sounds like I'm talking in rhetorical circles, perhaps it's because I haven't introduced specific examples. Here goes...

Under the Geneva Conventions, specifically the third and fourth (GCIII and GCIV), there are two classes of people during a war - combatants and noncombatants. Noncombatants are not only civilians, medical personnel, and the like, but can include persons actively involved in the conflict who don't meet the conditions of a combatant. Some of those conditions include: being under the command of defined leadership, wearing of a distinctive uniform or displaying insignia, and open carriage of arms.

The importance of combatant status is most relevant after capture. Any person who meets all of these criteria who is captured by a signatory of the GC is classified as a Prisoner of War (POW) and holds privileges and protections defined by GCIII. One of these privileges is that, if the POW is accused of a crime (including violations of the Laws of Armed Conflict), he or she will be tried under the same court system and standards as a military member of the detaining power would be subject to if accused of the same crime. In our case, that means the court-martial system, what recently has been called "military tribunals."

Arguments also could be made that some or all Gitmo detainees do not meet the conditions of a lawful combatant. Under established precedent going back to the 50s, that makes them "unlawful combatants," and they must be treated under GCIV under the same rules as noncombatants, notably including the requirement that they be tried under the same laws as civilians of the detaining power for crimes for which they are accused. In other words, if we declare them unlawful combatants, they must be tried under our civil legal system.

As stated above, arguments could be made for either status for Gitmo detainees, particularly those who were not captured during overt force-on-force military action. The status of the "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, however, is much more clear. Although one might debate as to whether he was under the command of Al-Qu'aida (or if that leadership meets GCIII standards), at no time was he carrying arms openly or wearing a distinctive uniform or insignia. He was either a civilian carrying out a violation of civil law, or an unlawful/non-combatant engaged in violation of civil law. As such, the only answer is trial by civil court, which is where we are headed in his case.

One way or the other, once we decide on the status of those we are detaining, our goal should be to ensure their humane treatment while we seek one the three goals below as expeditiously as possible:

1. An end of hostilities followed by repatriation of POWs.

2. Fair and speedy trials via military tribunals for lawful combatants accused of unlawful acts.

3. Fair and speedy trials via civilian courts for unlawful combatants/noncombatants accused of unlawful acts.

No matter what, endless detention without trial cannot be our strategy, because even if it is perceived to meet our needs for physical security, it violates our ideological security. In effect, it does the enemy's job for him.

Next post... something lighter. I promise!

F-22s vs. Exploding Underwear, part 2

Last post, I wrote about the interesting and sometimes dangerous disconnect we have between our post-DESERT STORM mindset and our current-day threat. The tease was that we could somehow find a way to solve the dilemma of balancing security and freedom with a combination of technology and human resources.

OK, Pat. Time to put up or shut up.

First, let's look at the extremes.

Extreme 1: Protect freedom at all costs, leaving security to the good will of the passengers. Leave the doors open and hope that no wolves sneak in the pen with the sheep. The most common example of the weaknesses of this approach is the late 1960s, which combined with the turmoil of that time to make hijackings commonplace, peaking in 1969 when there were 34 hijackings between Cuba and the United States alone! This phenomenon was one of the main catalysts for the institution of metal detectors in airports, the precursor to the security gauntlet we have today.

Extreme 2: El Al. Take a flight on the Israeli Airline, and you'll be required to report three hours early. Every passenger will be interviewed individually by a trained interrogator. Your luggage will be put in a decompression chamber to simulate altitude changes and hopefully trigger any pressure-sensitive device. Your pilot will be a former IDF military pilot. You likely will sit within a few rows of an armed Israeli security agent. El Al has had one successful hijacking in its entire history. It happened forty years ago.

Though some will disagree with me, I don't think we want to be at either extreme. Clearly, we must take precautions to increase security of our air transportation system. On the other hand, trying to implement El-Al security levels nation-wide would be cost-prohibitive. El-Al flew 1.9 million passengers in 2008, less than a quarter of one percent of the total 809 million passengers flying within, to, and from the US that same year. The cost of 100% El-Al level screening for that many passengers would be unsustainable, and the loss in convenience would drive more passengers to find other options, further crippling our struggling airline industry.

On the other hand, relying purely on technology to save us time and resources isn't the right answer either. Already, rumors are circulating that even the highly-touted body-scanners wouldn't have detected Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's exploding underwear. "Puffers" and other chemical scanners can be fooled. And it's probably only a matter of time until someone figures out how to make an exploding Twinkie or suppository that can evade all but surgical searches. How much do you think we'll need to pay someone to look for those?

The answer needs to involve both technology and people. Technology to do mass scans of travelers and luggage, and highly-trained and qualified professionals to conduct focused surveillance as well as interviews both of random samples of travelers and those matching certain profiles and behaviors. This, of course, must be combined with another mix of technology and people to detect and disrupt terrorist actions before the attackers even arrive at the terminal. I won't disparage the current cadre of TSA agents performing some of these tasks today. When you think of it, it's pretty impressive how quickly the agency stood up its operations. However, next time you travel on an airline (as I will tomorrow), take a good look at those people and tell me if they or their procedures meet this intent.

Do the agents look like this?

Or this?

We've come a long way since Underoos

A few years ago after another failed bomb attempt with peroxide-based explosives, the TSA requirements shifted to prevent a similar attack. That, if you recall, is when we started having to put our tiny bottles of liquids and gels into ziploc baggies. At that time, a friend remarked to me: "Our enemy is looking to attack us with toothpaste and contact solution, and our solution is the F-22."

Now, let me first say that as an air-to-air fighter pilot who believes that when we react to today's threat (unconventional organizations with global reach) without preparing for tomorrow's (which might be a more conventional, state-based actor), we do so at our own peril. But still, my friend's words have a lot of truth in them. Even with all we've learned over the past years, our Cold War (or for those younger folk, DESERT STORM) preknowledge and prejudices conspire, predisposing us to a worldview in which we look at all threats with a conventional eye.

During the years following the Cold War, even many of the most forward-looking strategists viewed present and future adversaries within traditional, structured, state-based systems. We envisioned future warfare as a refinement of DESERT STORM-era strategy, itself an evolution of the Clausewitzian modern war model, where strategic parallel engagement of specific centers of gravity coerced a fixed, at least marginally rational, and centralized leadership into capitulation or removed that leadership’s capability to act against our interests. Today, we face a threat whose decentralized leadership has values that defy what we define as rational thought. Using the communication capabilities of globalization, these terrorist organizations operate transnationally. They are able to garner support from, and direct actions in, dispersed and diverse locations throughout the globe.

Like their leadership, the footsoldiers in this conflict are different also. They are not regular military forces. Their values and even definitions of success and victory do not meet our concept of rationality. Instead, they attempt not to stand out as an organized force at all, attacking with concealed weapons under pretenses of being a noncombatant, and accepting any wound against their foe (us), even at a disproportional loss of life or treasure to themselves, as a "win." In fact, in many terrorists' calculations, our reaction to a failed attack (and definitely any overreaction) may be a higher-value target than the number of lives taken or assets destroyed.

Our answer to this threat, then, can not be the ones we would use on a conventional threat. We are learning (re-learning?) this in how we project our power, such as in the War in Afghanistan. These concepts; however, are more difficult to apply in the homeland defense and security, most notably because of the tension between security and freedom. While there is normalcy in restricted freedoms and a security mindset in the context of service in an expeditionary force, those measures run contrary to the values of a free society on the home front.

So, we are left with a dilemma: How do we prevent tomorrow's terror attack without doing the terrorist's job for him? Surely, some of this must come in technological advances in detection equipment, but if we rely only on technology and not on our greatest assets - our people - we might as well fight toothpaste with F-22s.

Coming soon: some possible solutions to the dilemma

The Crying Tree, by Naseem Rakha

I finished Naseem Rakha's highly-acclaimed novel, The Crying Tree, a couple weeks ago, but needed to process for a bit before I felt ready to write a review.

Although the enthusiastic recommendations of the Backspace community certainly helped, it was the premise of the book that drew me. For the past six years or so, I have been very interested in the concept and practice of forgiveness and reconciliation, especially how that applies in the most severe situations and particularly capital punishment. Ms Rakha treats this particular challenge beautifully.

Though this review is of Ms Rakha's book, I should mention two others that were the catalysts for my journey into a study of forgiveness and reconciliation: Why Forgive, by Johann Christoph Arnold, and Perry Yoder's treatise and word study on the Hebrew word and concept of Shalom. It should be no surprise that when I began this walk, it was anabaptists that mentored me.

The Crying Tree is the story of a mother's journey from despair after her only son's murder to forgiveness and even reconciliation with his murderer. That's a pretty short plot synopsis which does little justice to the story, and as I write this with my own son sitting on my lap the story's power returns to my heart.

Rakha has spent a lot of time in the prison system as a journalist, and her in-depth knowledge shows in the writing, but the storyline itself doesn't depend on the details but on the participants, particularly the emotional journey that Irene (the mother) follows. It's a journey in which I found myself entering and participating, all the time asking, "How could I forgive?"

I won't spoil the ending, but even the trailers will tell you that the primary conflicts presented involve not only her own challenges of forgiving and reconciling with her son's murderer, but the crises which arise among her friends, family, and community as she walks this path. One aspect that might raise the ire of religious readers is the caricature of her priest and other religious characters. On the other hand, those readers might instead take to heart that whether the depiction is correct or not, it is how much of the world views them.

As I followed Irene, it became obvious that it wasn't only the killer with whom she needed to reconcile, but also the vast array of other people involved in the tragedy. One of these people was herself, and as she comes to a clearer realization of the circumstances leading to her son's death, Irene arrives to a point where she must also forgive herself.

This leads to perhaps the greatest disappointment - that despite achieving reconciliation with her son's murderer, she doesn't reach this level with many others. In that aspect, Ms Rakha skillfully illustrates one of the great real-world tragedies of this life.

The Crying Tree, by Naseem Rakha

Broadway Books, 2009

www.naseemrakha.com

A Nickel on the Grass

The woman standing in front of me was wearing a black coat. We all flinched at the rifle fire, sounding so much closer in the freezing December air, but she nearly fell at the first volley. I heard a whimper, whether from her or someone else, I didn't know. Then, the quiet sounds of sniffs and wiped tears as her husband, an older veteran, pulled her closer. Two more sharp cracks of seven rifles each were followed by the mournful notes of "Taps."

Yesterday at Arlington National Cemetery, I said good bye to an American hero, Captain Nick "Rev" Giglio.

Rev died in a nighttime midair collision October 15th of this year while piloting his F-16C off the coast of South Carolina. He and his squadron were preparing to deploy, and the training necessary is sometimes more dangerous than actual combat.

Nick was a bit older when he entered Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training (ENJJPT), having spent a few years prior as an Enlisted Airman, and his maturity helped not just himself but his class. In every graduating pilot training class, one or two are selected to be sent through even more training to become FAIPs, First Assignment Instructor Pilots. Nick had done well enough in training to qualify, and volunteered enthusiastically.

I was blessed to get to know Nick and his wife, Leigh, when he was in the middle of his 3-year tour as a FAIP. Back then, we called him "WACO," a name he had picked up in pilot training for an unfortunate incident where his enthusiasm overrode his adherence to procedure and he went into afterburner with the canopy open, or at least attempted to. Needless to say, his check pilot gave him another "opportunity" to try to pass that ride on a future date.

Any IP worth his salt has a deep care for his students ("studs"), but Waco stood out among others. He didn't just want them to learn. He wanted them to succeed. Waco was the kind of guy who, when he asked you, "How are you?" he was looking for an answer, not just giving a greeting. You could see it in his eyes.

Waco's care for his studs and prowess as an IP led to his selection as a Military Training Officer. MTOs supervise a flight of 12 to 15 studs at a time, teaching them not only about flying but also officership. They are the true front-line mentors, forming future warriors for the US and allied air forces, and guiding, helping, and sometimes disciplining very young officers whose thousand-hour mouths often outpace their fifty-hour hands.

Nick and Leigh dove into the lives of the studs and their families, as well as those of other young adults in the community. They were active in the squadron, their neighborhood, and their local church. We got to get to know them quite well, but so did many other people. When their daughter, Grace, was born... well, I could see from the way he held her that first day in the hospital that no matter how good of a FAIP and MTO he was, he'd be an even better father.

Waco did so well in his FAIP tour that he was selected for the F-16C, and last year he headed out the door and on to training. It takes about a year for a pilot, even a FAIP, to become a qualified "Viper" pilot, but he did it in world-class manner. The three of them moved to Shaw AFB, SC, and were eagerly awaiting the birth of their son at the time of Nick's death.

There were probably 200 people, maybe more, at Rev's Arlington funeral, so many that the pre-ceremony waiting room, and even the lobby itself, couldn't hold the crowd. The squadron mates in the four-ship "missing man" fly by, honor guard, military band, priest, and cemetery officials all did a wonderful job making the funeral a fitting and honorable tribute to this fallen hero.

After the ceremony, Quizmo Brown, a leader of the "River Rats" - www.river-rats.org - led comrades in the time-honored "nickel in the grass" tradition, saying goodbye to an incredible friend, brother, and comrade.

The River Rats, through the Air Warrior Courage Foundation, have established a college fund for the Giglio's children. You can learn more about this at either the fund's facebook page or at airwarriorcourage.org. Please note "Nicholas Giglio Family Fund" on your check or in the comments section of the online form.

"So here's a nickel on the grass to you, my friend, and your spirit, enthusiasm, sacrifice and courage - but most of all to your friendship. Yours is a dying breed and when you are gone, the world will be a lesser place." - Unknown