History Never Repeats Itself--Or Does It?

There was a time long, long ago when the foul odor of fear clogged all American's nostrils. There was a time long, long ago when US banks quivered and fell, when businesses closed. There was a time long, long ago when the sound of the auctioneer's call sounded from a thousand courthouse steps as tens of thousands lost their homes, their farms, their hopes.

A charismatic man with a winning smile and an awesomely beguiling voice accepted the nomination of the Democratic Party for the office of President.

At this man's acceptance speech he made a promise to the American people. This promise became the mantra for the campaign.

No. It wasn't a call for "change."

FDR promised the American people a "new deal."

The words were in and of themselves meaningless. What else could be promised in the midst of the worst economic collapse the US had experienced in over a half century. More of the same?

Not hardly. FDR's promise of a "new deal" and his skillful working of the fears which struck so deep and hard in the collective psyche of We the People gave him the election. Sent him to the Oval with an overwhelming mandate. At the same time We the People, expressing both fear and hatred for the Republicans who were (wrongly) indicted in the court of public opinion for having both caused the depression three years earlier and being indifferent to its effects upon the people, gave FDR a veto proof Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.

At his inauguration FDR spoke the most true and accurate words of his fourteen years in the White House when he said that the only thing the nation had to fear "was fear itself." He went on to address this fear in a flurry of legislation meant to provide for recovery, relief and reform. This legal snowstorm is the First New Deal. It lasted one hundred days.

For all the hype and hoopla, for all the bloviation then and now regarding whether or not FDR was a socialist or a conservative, the most important reality of the First New Deal was that it failed.

Not completely, of course. Some of the actions meant to alleviate human misery did do some good, did palliate some wretchedness. Some of the reforms did bring a greater measure of order, stability and fair play to the stock market.

But, in the area that mattered most, in the centrality of defeating the depression, the First New Deal failed. The American public grabbed its collective gonads not in a gesture of defiance but in token of fear and looked inward. Gazed at themselves and the systems of government and economy in which they lived and hoped to work.

Fear brought dismay. While many young Americans joined with the legions of young ideologues who believed in the majestic effectiveness of centralised, rational planning by "experts" and descended upon the new New Deal agencies, others, also true believers, followed the seductive message of social justice, political equality and economic parity coming from the Soviet Union. These Americans believed along with journalist Lincoln Steffens that, "I've been over to the future--and it works."

Under the lashes of fear and distrust, Americans flung ideological grenades at each other, enlisted under banners of foreign origin and doubted that the nation could survive--at least in the form which they had inherited.

The seemingly intractable depression went on and on. The First New Deal was followed by the Second. FDR challenged the Supreme Court and won--using fear as a weapon. The Court submitted in 1937 and allowed the creation of the administrative state--the system of federal authority under which we currently exist.

The administrative state was one of the many unintended consequences of the rather conservative FDR's efforts to defeat the depression. Other legacies of his fight against the uncertainties and deficiencies of the market are not so unintended.

An example is Social Security. FDR rejected the economically sound approach preferring instead the politically invulnerable "contract between generations" course of action. The FDR decision has saddled our young with the impossible task of providing for their own lives while carrying an enormous aging population on their backs. The polite term is unfunded entitlements.

"Wait one, Geek! Where the hell are you going with this? You're supposed to be focused on foreign affairs, military matters and that sort of good shit."

The Geek hears you, my friend, and is heading in that direction. But, it is necessary to understand first and foremost that there is no disconnect between domestic affairs and foreign policy. That is true in good times. It is even more true when We the People are consumed with fears over what is happening here at home and don't want to notice a damn thing outside of the scope of our up-close-and-personal apprehensions.

The decade of the Thirties was a time like the present. Both then and now illustrate why the Chinese toast, "May you live in interesting times," is actually a curse.

Throughout the years of the depression, throughout both of FDR's first two terms, the world grew increasingly dangerous for the US. The emergence of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan threatened core national and strategic interests of the US.

While we cowered in our cloud of fear and while our conflicting ideologies battled one with the others, we ignored what was happening over there--and over there and over there. These years, the years when the threats of Germany, Italy and Japan could have been dealt with quickly and effectively, were the period of most profound isolationism.

There is an irony here. A profound irony. A delicious irony for those who appreciate such things.

While We the People sat in our morass of fear, uncertainty and battling ideologies waiting for FDR and his bright core of experts to solve the never ending depression, war was brewing away in both Europe and Asia. When the war broke over our heads and shoulders with unmistakable force on Sunday 7 December 1941, it solved our depression.

Within six months of the bombs falling on Pearl Harbor we had suffered defeats on every front except one. That one? The Home Front.

The depression was as dead as the men lost at Pearl or on Bataan. We had full employment, full paychecks and would have had full lunches had it not been for rationing.

Playing to our fears FDR brought us a few reforms--some of which were and remain both useful and important. He also brought us the administrative state. Unfunded entitlements. And, worst of all, the unfounded expectation that the Federal Government could effectively address all the ails of economy and marketplace.

In conjunction with the fears of We the People, the administration of FDR also helped bring about as an unintended consequence the greatest and most destructive war in human history.

The New Deal for the American people may not have ended the depression but it did do much to assure the outbreak of the war which did bring recovery. At the cost of nearly a half million American lives.

That is something to remember today as we face genuine global threats to us and our interests. It is something to remember today as we face the latest storm of fears.

It is something to remember today as a man with a winning smile and a real gift for public speaking promises us "Change."

The Geek Must Be A Racist

Even though the Geek is three-eights autocthonous American (which makes him only one-eighth less a "person of color" than Senator Obama) he would be branded a racist by the Obama campaign and other supporters of the Nice Young Man From Chicago. The reason is simple. The Geek is completely unpersuaded that elevating Obama from the Senate to the Oval is in the best interests of the United States.

Rather the Geek is convinced that the election of Obama would be another example of collective bad judgement by the American people. It would continue the disasterous trajectory of electing individuals who were ill-equipped by any factor beyond ideology and ambition for sitting behind the big desk in the Oval Office.

As a nation we survived (barely) Governor Clinton. As a nation we have been schnitzeled by Governor Bush. Given the parlous state of affairs today both domestically and in foreign relations, we may well not survive an Obama administration.

In so far as he has a record during his few years in elected office Senator Obama has demonstrated two things. He is a creature of the machine, whether Cook County or the Democratic Regulars. Second he has shown a remarkable ideological affinity for what might be politely called "left socialism."

The Geek has carefully and repeatedly read the Senator's two monuments to awesome hubris and ambition--his "autobiographies." Leaving aside the impossibility of filling a notebook let alone two monographs on one's life when only in the early part of one's fifth decade, the two memoirs are most notable for what they leave out, not what they include.

The books are a record of a remarkably empty life, devoid of details and misleading as to many of the few particulars referenced. Perhaps that is keeping with a man who has a charming smile, an empty suit and a reliance upon TelePrompters even in the most "informal" presentations.

Most disturbing to the Geek is Senator Obama's sketchy rendition of his relationship with William Ayres. Dr Ayres along with his partner, Bernadine Dohrn, were central to Senator Obama's political debut in Chicago a decade or so back.

The MSM have been remarkably laid-back in their search for the roots of the Obama-Ayres relation particularly in comparison with their hound-dog-on-the-trail barking after Sarah Palin. When the MSM have mentioned Ayres and Dohrn in connection with the terrorist group the Weathermen, it has been fashionable to characterise the group as being bombers with a high regard for human life, for planting bombs where Federal and other property might have been damaged but no lives taken.

Of course that approach requires a selective amnesia equivalent to Senator Obama's. The Weather Underground cell in New York City planned an attack against the NCO club at Ft Dix which would have claimed two hundred plus lives.

It didn't simply because the plotters were as inept at making bombs as they were skilled at planning the attack. The bombers blew themselves and a Greenwich Village house into small fragments while preparing their IED's.

Senator Obama and the MSM would also have us believe that the Weather Underground wasted away to nothingness more than thirty years ago as the leadership languished either in jail or on the run. This overlooks the reality that a Weather Underground successor organisation was alive, well and plotting in the Big Apple at the same time as Mr Obama was a student at Columbia. One of the Weatherman follow-ons was sentenced in 1990 and another remains a fugitive even today.

Overall, the Geek is reminded of another election which saw a likable, articulate man with a great smile running against a symbol of "failed Republicanism."

JFK was a man with a carefully shaded past. No, Kennedy didn't have a (perhaps close) acquaintance with an unrepentant terrorist. (Although he did get in the rack with a woman who was an intelligence agent for a hostile foreign power.)

Rather Kennedy had a history which was carefully crafted to turn an unfortunate act of maritime stupidity into war hero status. And, JFK had a ghost written book on courageous profiles which was both a best seller and the presumed basis of Kennedy's intellectual repute. Then there were the successful attempts to conceal both Senator Kennedy's medical conditions and the treatments for them.

Much has been made of Senator Obama's lack of experience--a couple of years in the senate and a time before that in the Illinois state legislature. In comparison Senator Kennedy was a powerhouse of expertise having been in Congress for twelve years, most of those in the Senate.

When considering the value of experience, and character, it is instructive to review Kennedy's actual accomplishments in the Oval as opposed to the myth of the Kennedy "Camelot."

Kennedy failed in his widely heralded Summit with the Soviet leader Khrushchev. This resulted, in part, in the Berlin Wall Crisis. It also resulted in Kennedy's vow to be "tough" with the Soviets.

Toughness drew a line which led to the commitment of support to South Vietnam. It led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which had the Soviets not shown more good sense than the Americans we would still be recovering from the nuclear exchange.

Toughness resulted in the wide open "covert" campaign against Castro which would have culminated in a well planned attack upon Cuba which was averted only because JFK was shot in Dallas.

Kennedy's administration also brought the Alliance for Progress--which failed--and the Peace Corps which didn't fail but has scarcely been a world altering institution.

Domestically the years of JFK brought a tax cut which did serve to boost the economy out of a very mild recession. Beyond that the Kennedy record is as skimpy as his war hero record.

Remember John Kennedy was far more experienced than Senator Obama. JFK was mildly lacking in character, integrity and personal history. Senator Obama is more challenged in all these areas.

John Kennedy was not an ideologue. Senator Obama is.

JFK faced challenging times as has every president in the past century. The next American president will face problems larger in scale and more vexing in complexity than did Kennedy.

Even though JFK was relatively advantaged in character, integrity, lack of ideological blinders and experience than is Senator Obama, his administration must be evaluated as long on image and short on accomplishment; long on risk-taking and short on rewards.

Is it legitimate to expect better from an Obama presidency?

The Geek thinks not. Color him a racist, Congressman Lewis.

Afghanistan Goes Down The Tube--So What?

The Geek has never been a fan of our effort in Afghanistan. As outlined in post over a year ago, the American (read neocon ninnie) defined and driven mission of nation building in that loose assemblage of tribes was both idiotic and totally unnecessary. It was a mission almost certainly doomed to fail.

Afghanistan is a geographic expression. It is not a modern nation-state in the making. To put a long and complex history in one short, blunt and harsh statement: Afghanistan is and always has been a congeries of differing ethno-linguistic groups welded into a semi-coherent whole only during brief periods of either external invasion or a remarkably potent ruler.

Even during the Soviet invasion and occupation, the unity of the Afghan "nation" was conspicuous by its absence. The deep factionation allowed both the US proxy war to be effective and the Pakistani sponsored Taliban to finally seize power after the Soviet defeat.

Against this background--which was well known to any and all who had access to a library of more than minimal holdings--it is impossible to credit the war planners in Washington with even the most minimal grip on reality.

The ideological fanatics of the neocon ninnie core within the current administration might have seen the Afghanistan operation as an unwelcome diversion on the road to Baghdad. But, they also saw it as an excellent and low risk way to demonstrate the sovereign efficacy of "shock and awe" in jump-starting the process of building a Western style democracy.

Of course, We the People--or at least the High Minded in our midst--would never have accepted quietly the rational choice for us in Afghanistan. The outrage which would have followed the mounting of an "old fashioned" punitive operation aimed at killing or capturing as many of the Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders and shooters as possible and getting out as fast as possible after bouncing the rubble would have been heard from here to Mars and back.

Oh, well. Reality is an elusive commodity for the ideologically pure whether neocon or High Minded.

The misleading appearance of quick victory over the rag-tag forces of Taliban and al-Qaeda resulted inexorably in leaving behind an insufficient number of boots on the ground to finish the job. It also assured that the US and its junior partners would hoist an inept government equipped with a foreign made constitution into some semblance of power--or at least de jure existence.

Then, marching off for our Great Adventure in Regime Change in Iraq, the neocon ninnies waved over their shoulders in the general direction of Afghanistan. Sure, the US bribed Pakistan with ten gigabucks of military aid focusing on big-ticket systems. And, we brought in brigades of civilian contractors with supposedly requisite "expertise" in creating a liberal, pluralistic, secular democracy and free-market economy.

Repeat after the Geek, "What meds were they taking in DC? Hallucinogens?"

If the lads and lassies in the current administration were on 'shrooms or acid, they (and the rest of us) went on a very bad trip.

The bitch is that the trip was eminently predictable both as to its bad nature and its overall direction. The direction labeled "defeat."

More than three years ago the resurgence of Taliban and al-Qaeda in the border region of Pakistan's FATA was evident. More than evident, it was glaring.

Also glaring was the decrease in both perceived legitimacy and effectiveness of the Pakistani military dictatorship. No amount of cosmetics could conceal the failure of Musharraf and his regime to address either the recovery of Taliban and al-Qaeda in the FATA or the rapidly blooming Islamist presence and militancy within Pakistan.

With seemingly willful obtuseness, the neocon ninnies and their president ignored the unpleasant and growingly obvious reality in Afghanistan. They probably believed they had no choice. Events in Iraq were far more alarming and far more attractive for the media. And, Iraq had always been the Show as far as the neocons were concerned.

We surged to Iraq while pretending that everything was perfect and getting better in Afghanistan. Whoopie! We can "win" the big one even if it means losing the little one.

At least the surge assure that the US would accomplish a minimum strategic goal in Iraq. The goal which the Geek terms the third option--"not-losing."

Now the question before us is simple to ask and hard to answer. Can the US and its allies accomplish the same minimum strategic goal in Afghanistan? Can we "not-lose?"

The signs are mixed, but essentially pointed in a negative direction.

The positive indicators are few.

They include the Pakistani offensive in the FATA. If pursued the offensive might spell long-term organisational perturbation for the black turbans. The question of whether the current government of Pakistan can continue the pressure long enough to prove effective is open.

The increase in US combat troops is a necessary first step. The number of new boots is nowhere near enough, but it is a start. No matter how effective the Predator strikes on Taliban/al-Qaeda sites in the FATA might be, they are no substitute for the persistent presence of troops on the ground.

Of course, given the forthcoming election and the striking ignorance of both major candidates regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan, the political will of the US to continue and enlarge its effort is in doubt. Adding to the uncertainty is the effect of the present global economic collapse on the capacity of the US to continue its effort in Afghanistan.

The recent decision by US commanders in-country to work directly with tribal militias is perhaps the most favorable indicator. Afghanistan is not a nation. It is a collection of tribes. Authority and loyalty exist at the tribal not the "national" level.

However, this action may be five or six years too late. Only time will tell. And, that time may well not exist,

A meaningless indicator is the recent decision by NATO to allow and encourage its member states with troops in Afghanistan to attack the opium producers and morphine base refiners. True, some ninety percent of the world's heroin originates in Afghanistan and the black turbans get perhaps eighty megabucks from the trade. Sure, the opium traffic fuels the pervasive and growing corruption in the already less-than-liked Karzai ethnic minority government.

But, the probability of NATO member forces in-county being able to effectively erode the widespread cultivation of opium is minimal. It looks to be one of those all-too-familiar drug cultivation scenarios: one acre eradicated and two acres planted

The negative indicators are several.

Taliban both in Afghanistan and Pakistan is growing in numbers, combat capacities and firepower. There is no rapid end in sight for this trajectory.

Within Afganistan, the Karzai government is held in near universal disapproval. The corruption of the regime is increasing, which will drive more disapproval.

Without foreign stiffening and support, the Afghan National Army would collapse in a light wind.
Afghans are good and enthusiastic fighters--when they have a reason, a cause they believe in. At bottom the ANA is less important than the tribal militias. But, for the moment the Afghan Army is all we have as a credible indigenous force.

There are other negatives but these are the big two. In short, there are no inherently legitimate national entities. This gives the field to the Taliban.

The folks in the middle--the uncommitted majority--want peace. They want their own culture, religion and all. The foreigners and their strange ideas as well as their aircraft, bombs, shells and ever present soldiers are no longer welcome.

If the outsiders had brought peace and stability in their wake, that would be different. However, they didn't.

Taliban promises peace. It promises order. It promises the indigenous norms, values and culture will be undisturbed.

This gives Taliban the color of legitimacy. For the outsiders, Taliban may mean medieval views, medieval law and punishment. It may mean to us the return of repression which we find totally unacceptable.

Peace may come at a high price. But, to those who live in the midst of war day after bloody day for year after groaning year, the price is worth it.

The price of peace might be high for the Afghans. The price of peace will be much higher for the US if it comes without the accomplishment of the minimum goal of "not-losing."

A perceived defeat of the US and its allies will have profound and negative ramifications. The least and most obvious of these will be a strengthening of the militant Islamists who wish us nothing but ill.

In so far as we are seen to lose, the Islamist based terror groups and sponsoring regimes are seen to win. That is a very high price.

But, not the only one.

On Iran Robert Gates Tells It True

The other day at the National Defense University (probably on the same stage the Geek had the honor to stand a few times in past years) Secretary of Defense Gates answered a question. The question isn't important, the answer is.

It was an answer that showed a reality about our Secretary of Defense. He demonstrated a trait far too rare in Washington. He showed that he was (and remains) a realist. He has and continues to demonstrate the ability and the will to ignore ideology whether of the Left or the Right.

When asked about the search for a "moderate" in the Iranian government, Gates replied, "I have been involved in the search for the elusive Iranian moderate for 30 years." Without success.

He explained by referring back to the visit of President Carter's National Security Advisor to the new revolutionary regime of Iran. Gates was present at the conflab.

We will accept your revolution....We will recognize your government. We will sell you all the weapons that we had contracted to sell the Shah....We can work together in the future

The Iranians responded by demanding that we return the fugitive Shah for execution. Three days later the Iranian "students" seized the American embassy and commenced the more than four hundred day hostage siege.

Gates expanded his answer by noting,

Every administration since then has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed....The reality is the Iranian leadership has been consistently unyielding over a very long period of time in response to repeated overtures from the United States about having a different and better kind of relationship.

There's the truth. From the man who has been in the best position to know.

SecDef Gates is on record repeatedly in recent months saying that the time is not yet upon us to exercise any military option regarding the Iranian nuclear ambitions. Ever the realist, Secretary Gates is probably not sanguine about the effectiveness of the current diplomacy plus sanctions campaign being conducted by the P5+1. He is probably convinced that the Iranian government will continue to pursue its quest for the bomb.

He is also realist enough to understand completely the limits of the military option whether it is targeted on the nuclear facilities or aimed at a larger constellation. He probably knows full well that bombing one's way to policy success is as unlikely as a Palestinian being elected Israeli prime minister.

The Geek strongly applauds Secretary Gates' candor at the NDU. The Geek gives a strong thumbs down to the MSM for having not given play to the Secretary's remarks. Perhaps the good folks of the media are given too much to ideology to take the risk of having reality intrude.

Now, the Geek has a question for Secretary Gates. "What should be done about North Korea?"

The Geek's Closet of Anxieties Grows

You are no doubt familiar with the Insurrection Act of 1807. Also, you have closely read the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, right?

These two elderly pieces of legislation have stood for over a century in one case and over two in the other as a high wall between We the People and the use of our military forces against us. No more.

The current administration in its never-ending pursuit of establishing a pernicious artifact known as the Unitary Executive Theory has set the long existing protection against the use of the military against the citizens who give it life and nourishment.

Quite a few years ago the Geek was anonymously contacted by some Special Forces NCO's who were involved with the publication of a subversive periodical called "The Ratline." They were concerned about a growing leitmotif in the military.

This bothersome new factor?

An increasing indoctrination within the Army oriented toward overcoming resistance to the use of ground combat personnel and forces against American civilians. A theme these long serving senior sergeants emphasized in their communications with the Geek can best be encapsulated in a question.

"Are you able, if ordered, to use deadly force against family and neighbors if they refuse to hand over their personally owned firearms?"

These sergeants were not alarmists. No more than their comrades both in and outside the Special Forces. No more than their counterparts in the Marine Corps.

When giving a talk at Camp Pendelton, the Geek had occasion to talk at length with several Marine snipers. "The Marine scout-sniper," Tom Clancy once wrote, "is more feared by the enemy than a bomber filled with napalm."

When the Geek finished his conversation, he feared them too.

Why?

Because, as the men calmly told him, they had been strongly indoctrinated to be ready, willing and able to use their highly lethal skills against American citizens. "If the boss man says to take 'em out, we'll take 'em out. Don't matter who the fuck they are. They're all targets to me."

Remember, this was before Afghanistan, before Iraq, before the Great Global War on Terror, before the hideously expansive view of presidential power espoused by the Cheney-Bush Administration.

These encounters (and several others like them) took place while Bill Clinton was in the Oval. They occurred while a parade of diaper brigaders hostile to the military traipsed through the halls of power in the Pentagon and the EOB. They took place in the good old days of progressive, peace-love-and-flower-power government.

With this background, the Geek watched the the Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act slip, slide and flow away like the dikes and berms of New Orleans in Katrina. He watched with mounting trepidation the erosion of centuries of barrier between Army and citizen under the impact of the National Response Framework and National Security Presidential Directive #51 (also known as Homeland Security Directive #20).

As the current administration has long taken the position that the president is the sole decider of what he is Constitutionally obligated to do (or not do), the potential for abuse of the military forces of the US grew astronomically. There is nothing more dangerous, the authors and proponents of the Constitution argued on the basis of experience than a Chief Executive (magistrate they called him) with the unchecked royal prerogative to use the military whenever and against whoever he might chose.

The split between the Congressional power to declare war and the Executive's authority to conduct war was one response to the ever present danger of an expansive understanding of Presidential prerogative(s). The passage of the Insurrection Act of 1807, which narrowly and specifically defined the conditions of armed political unrest which allowed for the use of Federal military force, was another. Even though the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was part of the cheap and unenlightening bargain that assured the victory of Rutherford B. Hayes over Democrat Samuel Tildon, it was a well-intentioned, well-crafted prohibition against the use of the military in American streets except under closely controlled and limited conditions.

Say good bye to all that.

Just as the waves of Katrina washed away and flooded over the berms protecting New Orleans, the massive changes in the powers of the presidency driven by the hurricane winds of Cheney and his neocon associates undercut and eroded the barriers erected by the Constitution and prior laws protecting us from the possibility of the guns of our military being turned against us at the ambition or fear of a president.

On 1 October 2008 the vibram of Army boots was placed to march on the streets of any of our towns whenever the Commander-in-Chief says, "Go!"

The 1st Brigade Combat Team (BCT) was placed under NORTHCOM, the Northern Command.

NORTHCOM does not exist to protect the US against attacks by Canadians or Inuits. It is not in place to guard the Alaskan frontier against North Korean or Russian threats.

No. The area of operations for NORTHCOM is the continental United States (CONUS). Stood up in October 2002, NORTHCOM was established to provide "command and control for Department of Defense homeland security operations."

With the addition of the 1st BCT of the 3rd Infantry Division, NORTHCOM has something very real and very threatening to command and control.

Army sources ranging from the Army Times to NORTHCOM spokesman, Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jamie Goodpaster, have played soothing mood music and uttered soft and reassuring words. The 1s BCT which has been in Iraq controlling "unruly" crowds and kicking in doors is said to be standing by to perform humanitarian relief operations in the wake of natural disasters and to manage the consequences of a WMD attack by terrorists.

Humanitarian relief? "Consequence management?" By a combat experienced infantry unit?

Just who in hell do the powers-that-be think they are fooling?

Engineer units would be believable in the roles mentioned. So also would quartermaster contingents. Certainly medical formations would fit the described mission.

But, an infantry combat brigade?

The mission of the infantry is to close with and kill the enemy in close combat. Infantrymen are well trained and equipped for that mission as well as its corollary, occupying land and repelling attacks.

Infantrymen are trigger pullers whose weapons are quite lethal. Far more lethal than those possessed by their predecessors in Vietnam let alone ancient conflicts like World War II.

If butts are to be kicked and names taken, the infantry is the right choice, the best choice. They are not social workers, relief workers or consequence managers.

In its initial report on the transfer of the 1st BCT to NORTHCOM, the Army Times stated the unit "may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control." This burst of accuracy and candor must have annoyed someone topside as NORTHCOM issued a speedy correction. The command assured us, "This response force will not be called upon to help with law enforcement, civil disturbance or crowd control."

This statement of good intentions sure makes the Geek feel a whole lot better about life. There must be some really, really omniscient folks running NORTHCOM to be so certain about the intentions of the current administration--and all future administrations as well.

Unless and until either Congress or the Supremes vitiate the encroachments of the once discredited Unitary Executive Theory, we are unsafe. Unsafe from our own military.

Regardless of the assurances provided by the mood music producers of NORTHCOM, the old protections of the Insurrection and Posse Comitatus Acts are a pair of filleted fish rotting on the dock of history.

The current president or the next can pick up a pen, sign a "finding" and issue and order as Commander-in-Chief through the SecDef to NORTHCOM, and the boots of the 1st BCT will be on the back of your neck.

GOP Does The Wrong Thing--For The Wrong Reason

In an action ignored by the MSM in the tidal wave of financial crisis and bail out bill votes, Senate Republicans blocked an enhanced Iranian economic sanctions bill for the second time in roughly a month. The bill which had already been passed by the House was a melding of two previous bills (one "authored" by Senator Obama) would have both taken action against companies doing business with Iran's banking and energy sectors and encouraged divestment in foreign companies commercially involved with the mullahocracy.

On 2 October Sen Wayne Allard of Colorado exercised his "prerogative" to stall passage.

Unsurprisingly Senate Majority Leader Reid accused the Republicans of playing politics with the legislation because of Obama's connection with it. No doubt that is part of the story.

But, only part.

The rest of the story revolves around the word, "prerogative."

How's that?

Earlier attempts to pass the components of the bill as two separate enactments were resolutely opposed by the White House. The opposition came not because the Cheney-Bush Administration had suddenly gone soft on Iran. No. Nothing like that at all.

The opposition came, not because the neocon ninnies of the Current Administration hated Iran less, but because they love the "prerogatives" of the Presidency more.

Of all the sins committed by the Current Administration--and they are legion--none has been greater than its single minded fixation upon elevating the power of the Presidency to heights undreamed of by such "imperial" presidents as Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt. The goal pursued so diligently by the neocon theoreticians under the direction of Dick Cheney was to exalt the power of the President to a level surpassing that advanced by Alexander Hamilton.

As Vice President Cheney made clear and public more than seven years ago, well before 9/11, the Administration had the intent of permanently "strengthening" the Offices of the President and Vice President. He put it in terms of regaining power lost to the Congress since Watergate and its aftershocks. But, it was clear that his vision was not limited to simple restoration of authority.

He wanted more. Much more.

Along with his personal legal counsel, David Addington, Cheney used the Office of Legal Counsel, which serves as a sort of in-house Supreme Court for the Administration, as well as his close personal relationship with George W. Bush to pursue the end of firmly installing the Unitary Presidency Theory as the axis mundi of American government.

The pursuit of secrecy along with the invocation of executive privilege were part of the process. So also was the constant reiteration of the discredited notion of "inherent powers" deriving from the President's role as Commander-in-Chief.

Brilliant but warped young neocon lawyers exemplified by John Yoo cranked out the necessary opinions from the bowels of the OLC which made "legal" reprehensible actions such as the use of waterboarding and other mechanisms of "intensified interrogation." Or, the unending confinement of "unlawful enemy combatants."

The neocon views of Yoo and Company justified the President's action of unilaterally abrogating the ABM Treaty with Russia (OK, to err on the side of accuracy, the Soviet Union.) The notion that the Senate having ratified the treaty and thus, under something called "the Constitution," giving it the force of Federal law should ratify the abrogation was brushed aside as an unnecessary and Constitution eroding infringement on the President's sole "prerogative" to conduct foreign policy.

Cheney, Yoo and all the other neocon ninnies overlooked then, as they have more recently, the slight consideration of historical fact.

During the run-up to and the waging of the War of Independence, much patriotic vitriol was poured on the idea of the British monarch's "royal prerogative." During the writing of the Constitution and the campaign to see it ratified, the proponents of the new US organic document took great pains to show how the American president would not have any shadow of the much hated "prerogative." (Take a look at Federalist 69 for a good example of this. Madison at his most incisive.)

The President as Commander-in-Chief is "First General" of the US military. He has the authority to conduct the war. He does not have the authority to decide to have a war so that he might conduct it.

Congress is given the sole power to decide when the US is going to wage a war. Then the President, not the Congress, conducts it.

In a similar way, the President conducts foreign policy. He does not have the "prerogative" to define it on his own authority. Neither does he have the sole capacity to formulate it.

Given that the Constitution is silent on the precise distribution of authority to formulate and define the foreign policy of the US, it stands to reason that Congress and Executive must engage in the messy game of conflict-and-consensus.

When Congress wants to take the lead in foreign policy, particularly when it considers legislation which places it in the role of not simply formulating policy but directing a specific mechanism of implementation, the Executive has both the right and obligation to inform Congress as to its stance on the proposed act. If Congress passes legislation which the Executive finds unacceptable in the conduct of foreign policy, then the correct course of action is to veto the bill.

Claiming "prerogative" is not the right thing to do.

But, at least the claim was consistent with the Current Administration's multi year campaign to manufacture the-all-powerful-presidency from the gossamer of historical distortion and legal logic rooted only in a will-to-power.

Shows of Force Are Theater of the Absurd

Amid talk of Somalian piracy the nuclear powered aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt hove into Table Bay at Cape Town South Africa. Ninety-seven thousand or so tons of warship whose planes could distribute more death and destruction than all the air forces of all the combatants of World War II without emptying its "special weapons" stores.

And about as relevant to the problem of piracy off Somalia as a harpsichord to a fish.

While the port call of the Teddy R. might have had some vague use in our relations with South Africa, it has no utility in the waters off Somalia.

There is already a plethora of US force in the aforementioned troubled waters. Six, count them, SIX US Navy warships of assorted sizes, descriptions and capacities are within ten miles of the Ukrainian ro-ro and its cargo of tanks. Undoubtedly this small armada has lots of lethal force at its disposal.

Along with warships of other nationalities the US contingent constitutes a classic show of force. Like most shows of force in recent years it is equivalent to a snarling but toothless dog.

Shows of force are meant to demonstrate both the capacity and the resolve to use force if the opponent does not change its obnoxious behavior. The six American warships "monitoring" the seized cargo carrier are supposed to overawe the pirates into backing down from their criminal ways.

So far the pirates have metaphorically flipped the bird at the US vowing not to give up a single cent of their ransom demand. For extras they once again threatened to kill the hostages if anyone would seek to emulate the French and stage a nocturnal raid on the ro-ro.

There's a simple reason why the pirates ain't scared of the big, bad American ships, each and every one bristling with weapons and men able to use them.

The reason?

The ships fly the stars and stripes. The pirates are betting as are their fellows on shore that the US will not use the force at its disposal. They are betting the US lacks the political will to fire the first shot.

In short, the US lacks street cred with the pirates.

That is pretty darn pathetic.

Now, get a grip on this.

Shows of force work only when two preconditions are met. First it is necessary to have a clear cut political goal of limited nature in firm view. This condition can easily be met off the Somalian coast.

The second condition is harder to meet, at least for the US. The target of coercion, the focus of intimidation must believe that the shower of force has both the capacity and political will to employ force effectively.

The capacity of the US is obvious. The will to use force isn't. Here lies the rub.

Only one thing can erase the certainty in the minds of assorted pirates and their landbased ilk.

Use some force.

Not indiscriminate force. Use up-close and personal force. Bring the USS Howard to a couple hundred meters distance. Using the loud hailer tell the pirates that the captive ship will be sunk by gunfire. Give them a short set time to evacuate the ro-ro. Tell them the hostages must come first.

Count down the seconds remaining on the deadline. Put three or four rounds of solid shot or other non-explosive round into the engine room at the waterline when the deadline expires.

Tell the pirates that those were only preliminary. Order them off the ship, hostages first and separate. Go ahead and guarantee the thugs safe passage ashore.

If they do not cooperate, hit the ro-ro with a few more rounds again at the waterline.

Remind the still uncooperative pirates that unless the hostages are released immediately and safely there is no reason to restrain the naval gunnery.

If the blackhats remain obstinate, sink the ship. Of course, try to save the hostages from the water.

Video the entire operation and make the unedited footage available to the world's media. The message will be received loud and clear by all those who harbor notions of a pirate's life.

The High Minded both here and abroad will howl and shriek. That's unimportant in the larger picture.

The larger picture is one of protecting peaceful maritime commerce. Showing the will to use force assures far better than mere patrols let alone any number of UN resolutions to protect the interests of the world in open, safe maritime operations.

To end piracy requires elevating risks and reducing benefits. Sinking a captured ship perhaps with the loss of crew members' lives does just that. Nothing less will accomplish the task.

The navy of some nation, the US, Russia, France, has to play the role of "bad" or at least tough cop. The Geek would prefer it be the US Navy.

He would prefer that the US not forget that it is a maritime power. He would prefer that we recall our own history. Once upon a long ago and perhaps forgotten time the toast of the day was, "Millions for defense. Not a cent for tribute!" The pirates then were on the Barbary coast of North Africa.

Back then when Administrations did not worry about how their actions would be portrayed in the WaPo or NYT. When we started shooting and stopped paying, the pirates sought less dishonest employment.

This reminds the Geek of a line from a song popular at the opening of World War II when we were losing in every theater of the war. "We did it before. We can do it again."