Limits of US Military Power Need Review

America’s escape from its Vietnam quagmire and the end of the Cold War should have ushered in a more peaceful era for US foreign relationships.  Our Vietnam experience demonstrated the limits of military power in nation building and the Soviet Union’s fall without direct military conflict highlighted the value of other policy tools: diplomatic, economic and informational.

For a brief period US decision makers appeared to avoid openly meddling in the internal affairs of unstable states or in regional conflicts where US interests were weak. The end of the draft reinforced an initial reluctance to rely on the military as the leading agent of US power. Neither attitude lasted for long.

The US has seldom hesitated to insert itself unnecessarily into internal religious and territorial disputes in the Middle East.  In Jon Meacham’s 2015 biography of George H. W. Bush, Destiny and Power, the 41^st president admits that after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the region’s oil-rich sheikdoms were ready to accommodate the Iraqi leader.  Pridefully, Bush explains how vigorously he had to work to get the Saudis and their allies to allow him to create a coalition to kick Saddam out of Kuwait.  While the senior Bush resisted the urge to pursue regime change in Iraq, Al-Qaeda was spawned when US troops were stationed on Saudi soil.

A decade later, the 9/11 attacks led the administration of George W. Bush to deepen US involvement in the Middle East, launching military invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.  In the former case there was clear justification, but the rationale for attacking Iraq is still being debated.  In both cases, however, the US eliminated the governing regime, but we have been unable to craft stable replacements.

Obama’s plans for reducing US military forces in Iraq was frustrated by the new Iraqi government’s ineptness and by the rise of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS).  He had no better luck than the junior Bush in putting together coalitions to deal with insurgent groups or civil war.  Where joint efforts were initiated, there have been undesirable consequences. Relying on Kurds in Syria and Iraq has unsettled NATO partner Turkey, while Russia and Iran have taken advantage of the region’s turmoil to enhance their presence and influence.

The sale of military equipment and supplies to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen has been of problematic value.  Although the Saudis claim to be defending the legitimate government of the country against Iranian supported rebels, their tactics have contributed to widespread economic deprivation in Yemen as well as unprecedented civilian casualties.  Some international groups claim war crimes are being committed with US assistance.

In tandem with activities in the Middle East, the US has aggressively expanded its military footprint in Eastern Europe.  Although originated as a Western military alliance to confront Soviet aggression in the region, NATO has been enlarged, primarily with former members of the Warsaw Pact, its defunct Soviet counterweight. Initiated by the Clinton administration and expanded by both Bush and Obama, the enlarged alliance has been used more as political cover for unilateral US action than as a source of real military support. 

The Russians are of course suspicious as to the real target of enlargement, and much of the American public wonders about the wisdom of US commitments to defend countries like Poland and the Baltic States given their history of animosity towards Russia.  Some in the Obama administration were ready to extend our commitment to the Ukraine as well despite its long standing connections with Russia. So far, the Trump administration has not indicated a willingness to take that step.

Finally, the US also is pursuing a greater military presence in Africa. 

The deadly 1993 fiasco in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, in which 18 Americans died in an attempt to capture a local warlord, squelched US enthusiasm for African interventions for many years, but in 2008 the US established an African military command offering training programs to a number of countries.  A major drone base is being built in Niger at the estimated cost of $110 million.  Another drone base already exists in Djibouti.

The cost of a military-based foreign policy are extraordinary and the benefits uncertain.  Military funding is roughly 16-18 percent of the total federal budget and 50 percent of all discretionary spending.  The $600 plus billions the US spends annually is 36 percent of worldwide military expenditures and more than the next eight countries combined.  Seven of the world’s top defense contractors are American and they are responsible for one-third of global arms sales.  A proposed upgrade for the nation’s nuclear arsenal will cost over $1.2 trillion.

Most disturbing is the lack of serious discussion about US foreign policy in the US Congress. The last authorizations for the use of military force from Congress occurred in 2001 (to deal with 9/11 attackers) and 2002 (to invade Iraq).  There should be a national debate about the efficacy of the current strategy and its consequences for our capacity to deal with significant domestic infrastructure needs. Congressional candidates in 2018, incumbent or otherwise, should demonstrate an appreciation of this issue.

Is “Democracy” under Threat in America?

Claims of threats to “democracy” have a long history in American political rhetoric, and in some cases the peril has been very real.  Disturbing trends in the near past as well as recent revelations about machinations made possible by social media raise the probability that American democracy is again under assault.

The term “democracy” is widely used in today’s world, but it is often misunderstood if not deliberately misused.  The standard dictionary definition is woefully brief and vague: “government by the whole population, usually through elected representatives.”

Generally speaking, Americans always have assumed our political system to be democratic with potential threats being marginal or inconsequential.  Only when judging the veracity of a foreign government’s status as a democracy have American considered the issue seriously, and usually holding elections with a modicum of violence has been sufficient. 

But obviously some of the world’s most notorious tyrants have staged periodic “elections” to disguise despotism.  Vladimir Putin’s March 18 re-election for his fourth term as Russia’s president is a prime example, although he did show more restraint than Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.  Putin claimed 77% of the vote, the Egyptian military bully only 97% in his April 2 charade.

Clearly, in order for the democratic process to be valid, it should involve more than simply having people mark a ballot.  People should participate in the election process in a meaningful manner with the real possibility of influencing the outcome and without fear of retribution if they make the “wrong” choice. 

Essential to this kind of citizen participation is access to independent organizations, such as political parties, union, professional associations and other interest-related groups, through which the public can make their concerns and needs known to political leaders.  As well, in a democracy the rule of law must prevail and certain basic human rights recognized--- freedom of speech and press, access to the essentials of life---food, shelter, healthcare, education and the opportunity to earn a decent income.

Finally, the sustainability of any democracy requires the existence among the citizenry a level of trust and respect that allows the losers in an election to accept the results when unfavorable and requires the winners to exercise a degree of restraint in their victory celebration.   Countless revolutions for freedom and independence have crashed and burned when participants could not recognize a common interest once the struggle itself ended.

Has the American experiment reached this nadir in 2018.

“Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable; that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

Those words do not come from the latest editions of the New York Times, the Charlotte Observer or the Columbia State.  They were written by James Madison in The Federalist Papers #10, part of the campaign to achieve ratification of the newly drafted US Constitution.

They do resonant in 2018, however, and for some of the same reasons they rang true in 1787.

Today’s circumstances to some extent are rooted in developments that began with the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War.  In the case of the movement, the fact that our traditional political structures were not being responsive and change only occurred after massive civil disobedience raised questions about the capacity of our governmental institutions.  In the case of Vietnam, at great cost Americans discovered the information they received from their government regarding that conflict was either flawed or deliberately misleading.  In either case, it was another blow to the public’s confidence in their government.

Another significant development has been the mammoth growth in lobbying efforts by both profit-oriented groups and ideologically focused think tanks.  Lobbyists in Washington, DC  number 12,000 to 14,000, having doubled since 1981.  An estimated $3.5 billion are spent annually with roughly 70% of lobbying funds spent on behalf of groups representing business interests.

State and local governments have not been ignored.  The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) was created in 1975 as a 501©3 nonprofit.  It describes itself as a “nonpartisan, voluntary membership organization of state legislators.”  However, the IRS Form 990 it filed in 2016 indicated fundraising expenditures of over $500,000 dollars.  It has championed tax and expenditure limitations (TELs) for state governments and attacked public pensions as unsustainable.

It is not that lobbying in and of itself is inappropriate, but when lobbying organizations controlled by special interests are so numerous and so richly financed, they overwhelm the resources and authority of our traditional political parties or co-opt these institutions.  Neither major party seems capable of dealing with this challenge, consequentially, our individual elected representatives seem more beholden to the lobbyists than to their party or their constituents.

Also, the power of lobbyists usually is applied in pursuit of the interest of a single industry, company or cause, not in promotion of the general public interest.  This heightens political divisions and intensifies conflict instead of facilitating reconciliation.

In recent months we have learned about another sinister threat to American democracy---social media.  Allowed to develop with little government oversight, social media in this country has been virtually unregulated and motivated primarily by the profit motive. Personal data collected and marketed to advertisers has also been made available to organizations supporting political purposes or candidates.  Although voters have always been subject to pandering by ambitious, and sometimes insincere, politicians, social media sites like Facebook are so ubiquitous and beguiling the seduction has been almost totally unnoticed.        

 

That has now changed to a significant degree, but the fortunes accumulated by social media giants---Facebook is a $400 billion company---are likely to bankroll Herculean efforts to blunt regulation.  Last year Facebook spent $11.5 million lobbying the national government alone. Only continued public attention can insure some possibility that the industry will be reined in.

How Should the Role of American Business Be Defined?

A great deal of attention has been given in recent years to the role of American commerce, and rightly so.  But the role has been increasingly narrowed in the view of key actors.  Generally, business leaders and their political allies recognize two purposes---job creation and increasing shareholder value, although only the latter seems to inform corporate decision making. 

This narrow focus generates frequent economic turmoil and is the source of current threats to US economic stability.  It would be useful to examine more broadly the legitimate purposes of business in a democratic society.

The obvious first objective of commerce is the provision of affordable products and services needed and desired by consumers.  Improving such access furnished the initial impetus for moving from a barter system to a market system based on the division of labor. 

Generally speaking, customers dictate through the process of supply and demand what the market should produce.  Of course, some needs require government intervention, such as national defense, education, law enforcement and health care.

The authority of American consumers is undermined, however, by the extraordinary extent of advertising in this country on both traditional and social media.  US business spends more on advertising than any other country, nearly $200 billion in 2017.  China, with more than four times our population, spent $80 billion.

Consumers are barraged with commercials touting the latest technological enhancement, miracle cure or “essential” fad.   

Just how many apps do you need on your recently purchased, upgraded smartphone to stay in touch with friends and neighbors as well as the latest streaming service?  And will your doctor really remain ignorant of current medical developments without those drug ads on the evening news, even though health professionals in every other country in the world---except New Zealand---seem to be able to care for their patients successfully without them?

Job creation was a major justification for the recently approved tax cuts.  In the euphoria immediately after passage, a number of companies announced one-time bonuses and modest wage increases for employees, but there is no indication the 40% reduction of the corporate tax rate or the other cuts benefiting the wealthy will produce more and better jobs. 

Even with some recent job increases, the percentage of the American workforce employed remains at 63%---where it was in the late 1970s.   

Recent annual reports from US corporations reflect a lack of appreciation for the value and needs of their workforce.  Thanks to Dodd-Frank, companies must provide a comparison of CEO pay with that of the companies’ median employees.  The pay ratios are outlandish. Illustrative is the pay ratio of the Honeywell CEO---333-1.  Duke Energy’s CEO---was only 175-1 in 2017, but her compensation has doubled since 2015.

While individual companies may consider labor only a cost, for the overall economy, workers also should be recognized as consumers.  In the long run marginalizing the interests of employees is likely counterproductive.

As for the goal of enhancing “shareholder value,” obviously, to survive any business must be profitable.  The recent obsession with “shareholder value” among corporate managers, however, is unrealistic.  Not only does this sometimes conflict with creating jobs, but it appears also to result in customers and their needs being barely tolerated.  Both employees and customers are viewed as easily replaced.

Compensating corporate senior executives and board members with generous stock options in the name of maximizing shareholder value is another misguided practice.  Supposedly this ties their interest to that of shareholders. 

A study reported in Harvard Business Review challenges this claim.  It found that 449 companies in the S&P 500 index over a ten-year period (2003-2012) used 54% of their earnings for buybacks, and another 37% for dividends.  This left little for investments in productive capabilities or for increasing incomes of nonexecutive employees. 

 

Another drawback of excessive use of stock options is the probable impact on product quality.  A trio of Notre Dame Business School professors concluded in a study, Throwing Caution to the Wind, CEOs receiving significant stock options are more likely to ignore safety problems with the products the company sells.

Finally, all businesses should keep in mind that the environment in which it operates is an important factor in its success.  Good transportation insures access to available markets, a sound legal system protects contractual integrity, educational institutions provide skilled workers, and decent health care keeps those workers on the job.  The existence of well-ordered communities where the quality of life guarantees a desirable lifestyle for workers is essential to the operation of prosperous enterprises.

Providing this environment may mean that paying taxes could be more important than negotiating the maximum tax break from state and local governments.  And it may mean paying taxes as expected instead of hiring an army of accountants to exploit all possible loopholes. 

The Real Lesson To Take From Russia's Meddling

Russia’s attempt to influence the recent presidential election has dominated public attention since late 2016 when it was officially recognized.  This reaction is understandable and to some degree appropriate, although the actual impact of Russian interference has likely been overstated.  There is a danger, however, we will miss the real lesson to be learned from this unsavory episode:  today’s American media, both traditional and social, invites surreptitious meddling in our electoral processes.

Most Americans are surprised and vexed by the success Russian bots and cyborgs enjoyed in 2016 feeding stories into our political processes.  No matter what their objective---to elect Donald Trump president or to just stir discord in our political system---the extent of their activities and their accomplishments has been shocking. 

 

The same vulnerabilities the Russians have taken advantage of, however, are available to cyber outlaws based in other countries and those working for some domestic organizations.  In recent years extraordinary sums of money have been spent on media ads and disinformation campaigns funded by American entities created under section 501©(4)  of the IRS tax code.  These social welfare organizations are tax exempt and do not have to identify their donors. 

How have these circumstances arisen?

The deregulation passion that has seized the US in the past forty years has had a major impact on communications.  When I began work as a young television journalist some fifty years ago, the “fairness doctrine” reigned supreme.  Broadcasters were required to provide coverage of significant news stories and to do so in a balanced manner, laying aside personal political biases, and since the airways were considered to be owned by the public, the operating license of a station was subject to periodic review by the Federal Communications Commission.

Television advertising was tightly limited at the time, the result of a voluntary agreement among the three major networks that dominated the industry.  The limitations seem almost blissful today---no more than one product could be advertised in each 30-second spot; no more than five consecutive spots; and no more than 8 ½ advertising minutes in an hour.

First to go were the advertising limits. President Carter’s Justice Department filed an anti-trust suit in July 1979 against the three major networks arguing the voluntary code represented restraint of trade.  A settlement of the suit reached in November 1982, wiped out the aforementioned limits.

Another shoe fell in 1987 when the FCC suspended the “fairness doctrine,” citing the rapid development of cable television as justification.  The assumption was that competition among the growing number of broadcast outlets would guarantee coverage of key issues and insure access to the airways for all points of view.  

Things have not worked out as predicted.  The quest for advertising dollars has diminished serious news coverage, and where “news” has prospered it is on programs leaning perceptibly right or left---such as Fox News on the right and MSNBC on the left.  Unfortunately, ratings of such programs appear to depend on reinforcing prejudices, making the programs potential targets for tailored messaging whether from foreign or domestic sources.    

The Internet made possible the explosion of social media. Democratic and Republican administrations have both been reluctant to impede this growth with regulations.  Russian meddling has revealed the shortcomings of this restraint.

Editorial responsibility is virtually nonexistent in social media.  In addition, platforms are structured to encourage resharing of content rapidly---“going viral.”  Democracy advocates in the emerging world view this latter capability enthusiastically, citing the role social media played in 2011 enabling the Arab Spring.  However, these circumstances also facilitate the impact of bots and cyborgs, the primary instruments of Russian interlopers. 

The desire to monetize social media platforms opens the door for further abuse.  Online ads on social media websites are aggressively encouraged.  Ads could even be invited to this blog, and efforts to determine the accuracy or appropriate content of ads seems limited.

Nearly all social media platforms collect personal data from their users for marketing purposes.  Some of that information may be relevant to political research as well, but careful management of such data has not been a priority.  Facebook has just been severely rebuked for allowing personal data to fall in the hands of Cambridge Analytica, a data mining and data analysis company which provided support for the Trump campaign and a key US Senate race in NC.

Condemnation of Russian meddling and their hacking activities is essential. This behavior is unacceptable.  Even though the Trump administration claims the ongoing investigation is a witch hunt, it admits Russian hackers are capable of penetrating key sectors of our infrastructure, including energy, water, and transportation.  While the US may have countervailing capabilities, tit-for-tat on such a scale is not a comforting prospect.     

Whatever the US decides is the appropriate response to Russia, it will not diminish the need to encourage better management of our media resources and control of access.  An effective democracy requires information sources that its citizens are able to trust.    

Government is not a four letter word

A lot of politicians and many well-financed special interest groups today want you to see government as the ultimate pariah.  Whether at the federal, state or local level, they attempt to paint government as an unnecessary burden to citizens.

This has not always been the case.

When the framers of the Constitution gathered in Philadelphia in 1787, they were anxious about the absence of effective government under the Articles of Confederation.  Foreign powers were seeking to splinter the new nation and the individuals states were engaged in economic competition that threatened financial chaos.  The framers knew civilized society could not function without effective government. 

Structuring a system capable of creating rules to regulate political and economic interaction and of maintaining those rules in a responsible manner was the first priority of the Constitutional Convention.  And for most of our nation’s history this system has functioned  well---the Civil War being a major exception  that proved the rule.

As our nation has grown in population and geography, the world has becomes more complex and our lives more intertwined economically and socially at home and abroad.  Consequently, government has become even more essential to our security and prosperity.  America can no longer be characterized as a vast frontier where the rugged individual can fend for himself without help from neighbors and fellow citizens. 

Government is the vehicle by which individuals can address needs and concerns normally beyond our capacity to accomplish as individuals.  Streets and highways, airports and seaports, education, water and sewer, law enforcement and public safety, adequate health care and shelter, management of the economy, national security and international relations, all are areas where government can act more competently and efficiently on our behalf than we can on an individual basis.

Yes, historically, Americans have expressed skepticism about relying too much on government.  But even that paragon of “limited government” Thomas Jefferson took the broader view when confronted with the opportunity to double the nation’s land size and eliminate a potential foreign threat.  Over the years presidents of both major parties have exercised the authority of government with vigor when the national interest and the general welfare appeared at risk.

And yes, government can be inefficient and ineffective.  But when this is the case, we have not junked it, we have fixed it.  That has been the critical role of our elected representatives---overseeing government to make sure it performs as it should.

That government is sometimes inefficient or ineffective should not be a surprise.  So are banks, insurance companies, telephone companies, hospitals and drug companies.  No one suggests we do away with any of these bureaucratic institutions.  They do, however, require our careful observation---and yes, regulation.

It is not that government is always the best vehicle for addressing a particular problem or need, but when politicians and their special interest patrons rail so vociferously against “government” in a universal sense, they discourage responsible consideration of the real role of government.  Many issues facing our society require thoughtful deliberation as well as genuine empathy for the hopes and dreams of all our citizens.    

Beware the politician whose mantra is “government is the problems, not the solution.” He is expressing a reluctance to perform the duties of his office.  It could be he does not understand his responsibilities as your representative, but more likely he recognizes a stronger obligation to some special interest that has contributed to his election campaign and wants to avoid government oversight and scrutiny.

It is ironic that in his famous essay on dangers of political factions, James Madison took the position that in a large republic the multiplicity of interests would prevent any one faction from threatening democracy.  Madison did recognize that the greatest “durable source of faction” would be economic.  He could not have foreseen, however, the concentration of wealth plaguing America today.

During the past four decades in America powerful interests with access to huge sums of money and a sympathetic Supreme Court have aggressively sought to undermine our political system, seeking inordinate influence over the levers of government at all levels.  In the 2016 elections more than $6.5 billion dollars were contributed to candidates and causes.  Corporations and wealthy individuals provided most of the money with approximately one tenth coming from the richest 100 families.

The United States today is still a well-populated, sophisticated nation of more than 300 million people, envied by much of the world.  Our capacity to sustain our place in the world, however, is being called in to question by our failure to address the basic goals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If we are to have a viable and equitable society in the future, we need elected officials who believe in the efficacy and necessity of a government that serves all the people.