Wednesday, April 15, 2009

For the love of guns

The power of ideas never ceases to amaze me. And the deeper ideas are embedded in our culture, in our most basic unspoken, indeed unidentified assumptions, the more powerful they are. Because they shape the way we see absolutely everything. They supply meaning to the sensory perceptions that makeup our conscious reality.

What else can possibly explain the surreal situation we have in this county with firearms? This image from today's NY Times makes my head spin. What are we as a nation thinking when we allow the public sale of arsenals such as this? (Lest I be accused of hyperbole, I checked my spelling of arsenal against her poster in the background.) And what can she possibly be thinking proudly wearing a shirt displaying a skull and crossbones, a symbol of death, connected to the word "GUNS" in large red letters?

The retorts are as asinine as they are well known. "The skull is obviously a symbol of freedom, and if you can't see that you must not love this country, you're not a patriot! If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Dum dee dum dee dum." Dumb. More like insane - we have completely lost any rational sense of this issue.

But it gets worse.

Reflect for a minute on the subtext on this front page story from today's NY Times. (Pause for reflection...)

The only issue being considered TO BE an issue here is the fact that these guns are moving south across the border. As if it were that they somehow stayed in the good old USA everything would be just hunky dory! Then life would be fine, both the good guys and the bad would be armed to the teeth and the universe would be in balance. Insane.

At least Bob Herbert hasn't lost his perspective on this issue. Terrorists kill 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and we get fired up enough to go start two wars and expend billions of dollars. But we kill 120,000 of our own, ourselves, and we scarcely notice. Insane.

I love this country with every fiber of my being. Daily I gain new perspective on the truly unbelievable blessings I'm afforded simply by having been born in the United States. I won the lottery at conception. But our love affair with guns is the blackest of black, blind spots in our national character. We must do better in this area. Somehow. And I believe we can, because I believe in life. Through some miracle, life has come to exist in this universe, despite all odds. That Truth is indisputeable and unstoppable and all the forces, the cultures, the twisted ideas of death cannot contain the life that is present in our reality. Life prevails. Nations rise and fall, but life goes on.

An even deeper American idea than gun control is that of progress. Our Constitution uses the word pursuit. Though I have absolutely no idea of how to "progress" in this area (Where do we begin to change a national mindset?), I remain hopeful that life will prevail and bring our country to its senses, before we kill ourselves.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Comments to a friend on the proposed Defense Budget

Sorry it’s taken me a bit to get back to you, but thanks for asking my opinion of the SECDEF’s proposed budget. I really do not have any better visibility of the details than what you see in the press. Given that disclaimer, my comments are simply on approach. (I generally agreed with Ralph Peters' analysis of the specific systems affected.)
I’m pretty much a fan of the direction Sec Gates has taken the department. He has been staunchly effective in forcing the services to pay attention to, and engage in, the fights we’re currently in. That is harder than you might imagine because of all the constituents in the congress and the defense industry that are driven by forces that have little to nothing to do with winning wars. Further the services themselves are each enamored with their pet visions of what future wars SHOULD look like are therefore are only interested in buying systems that fit those visions.
Were it not for two factors, I would be a big fan of severely cutting defense spending (like in half):
1. We’re (unfortunately) currently engaged in (at least) two wars. Given that we have committed the nation’s sons and daughters, we must continue to fund these expensive endeavors at sufficient levels to enable success.
2. The nation continues to derive significant unexpected benefits from defense funded R&D. Inefficient perhaps, but a historically highly effective means to drive innovation in areas and technologies that might otherwise get little or no private sector investment.
The secretaries’ budget at $534B is 4% higher than last year, but there are strong winds blowing that we will attempt to fund our current wars out of this budget and not request any supplementals. Doing so will require real discipline within the DoD and will represent a serious reduction in real defense spending (esp. given inflation). So, I like the level and the strong programmatic support item #1 above. Finally, just about ANY defense budget will support item #2 regardless of the outyear capabilities pursued, so I’m a fan of supporting a broad array of capabilities that can be employed in a wide range of types of operations. And I’m fan of continually relooking, revamping our acquisition strategies and programs in order to avoid expensive, overly specific systems (like the Army’s future combat system and the F22) that remove options as we evolve.
History shows how difficult it is to get the next war right, but it also shows that we must be diligent and constantly prepare. Therefore, what matters most is to have an ongoing vigorous national debate, flexible and transparent procurement and budgeting systems and R&D system based on partnerships between public and private sector entities that quickly and routinely moves technology to the private sector. I'm not sure just how the proposed budget would support any of these things, but Sec Gates has consistently shown progress on all these fronts.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

A dangerous idea: More anonymity is good

From the Edge Foundation's 2006 "What's your dangerous idea?"

by Kevin Kelly

More anonymity is good: that's a dangerous idea.

Fancy algorithms and cool technology make true anonymity in mediated environments more possible today than ever before. At the same time this techno-combo makes true anonymity in physical life much harder. For every step that masks us, we move two steps toward totally transparent unmasking. We have caller ID, but also caller ID Block, and then caller ID-only filters. Coming up: biometric monitoring and little place to hide. A world where everything about a person can be found and archived is a world with no privacy, and therefore many technologists are eager to maintain the option of easy anonymity as a refuge for the private.

However in every system that I have seen where anonymity becomes common, the system fails. The recent taint in the honor of Wikipedia stems from the extreme ease which anonymous declarations can be put into a very visible public record. Communities infected with anonymity will either collapse, or shift the anonymous to pseudo-anonymous, as in eBay, where you have a traceable identity behind an invented nickname. Or voting, where you can authenticate an identity without tagging it to a vote.

Anonymity is like a rare earth metal. These elements are a necessary ingredient in keeping a cell alive, but the amount needed is a mere hard-to-measure trace. In larger does these heavy metals are some of the most toxic substances known to a life. They kill. Anonymity is the same. As a trace element in vanishingly small doses, it's good for the system by enabling the occasional whistleblower, or persecuted fringe. But if anonymity is present in any significant quantity, it will poison the system.

There's a dangerous idea circulating that the option of anonymity should always be at hand, and that it is a noble antidote to technologies of control. This is like pumping up the levels of heavy metals in your body into to make it stronger.

Privacy can only be won by trust, and trust requires persistent identity, if only pseudo-anonymously. In the end, the more trust, the better. Like all toxins, anonymity should be keep as close to zero as possible

Tofflers' Institutional Rate of Change Model

From Alvin and Heidi Tofflers' book Revolutionary Wealth

Today institutions are evolving/changing at vastly different rates:

100 mph - The company or business
90 mph - "Civil society" (NGO's, pro/anti-businee coalitions, prof groups, sports federations, Catholic orders, Buddhist nunneries, pliastics manufacturing associations, cults, tax haters, whale lovers, etc)
60 mph - The American family
30 mph - Labor unions
25 mph - government bureaucracies and regulatory agencies
5 mph - IGOs - UN, IMF, WTO, US Postal union
3 mph - US Political institutions - Congress, white house, political parties
1 mph - The law. Two parts: 1. the courts, bar associations, schools, firms and 2. the body of law these organizations interpret.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Why Andrew Sullivan blogs

Andrew Sullivan's piece, Why I Blog, in the newly designed Atlantic Monthly that just arrived in our mailbox is timely. I've been told all my adult life that I need to write more, recently I've hoped that blogging might just be the medium that helps me develop the discipline. Sullivan provides a marvelously insightful analysis of what's involved (and at risk!) in getting engaged in, what he clearly portrays as, a way of life.

Blogging as he experiences it is not the same as writing for print publication with well thought out arguments. Instead blogging is full contact "conversation"; more akin to talk radio than printing press. Of course there's a spectrum of bloggers from neophytes like myself with less than 10 posts, to the pros (addicts?) who live online like Sullivan and Drudge.

21st century global society is learning about and changing with these new tools. We're coming to understand and expect that new tools don't necessarily displace, rather they compliment, find a place among and change the context for all other technologies, norms and structures. The mix gets ever denser and the speed of change disorients. Some believe we're losing our humanity, our ability to relate in the process of making new tools. Not Sullivan. He sees a grand, rich and immediate global dialog empowering our humanity as never before.

Our commander at US Southern Command started a blog this week - a nontraditional realm for a military Combatant Commander. We're not sure where it will lead, but we're confident we'll learn from the experiment. And I'm confident that, like Sullivan, we, the defense establishment, will be changed by the experience.

Friday, September 12, 2008

From Convergence to Collaboration

Peter Hirschberg's TedTalk provides a wonderously humorous look at the history of the computer and it's convergence with TV.

Hirschberg's tweener interviews are telling: TV is dying and the youngsters know it. This reminds me of Clay Shirky's talk wherein he tells of his friend's 6 year old daughter looking for the mouse behind the TV set.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

American Forces Press Service article

I learned some lessons in the process of this article, especially pay attention when the reporter states that the interview is "on the record". No matter how much it is emphasized that they are "friendly" media and regardless of how genuinely nice the reporter is, they have to get a story worth telling.

In the end Donna proved extremely workable, but there were a few moments there when I was a little uneasy as to the future of my job...

SouthCom Transformation Promotes New Approach to Regional Challenges
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

MIAMI, Aug. 26, 2008 - Along with U.S. Africa Command going fully operational Oct. 1, the Defense Department will reach another milestone as U.S. Southern Command completes a major reorganization that also promotes joint, interagency and even private- and public-sector cooperation.
The concept supports universal agreement among President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, the service chiefs and the combatant commanders that the military can't tackle 21st-century security challenges alone.
The 2008 National Defense Strategy, released July 31, reflects in its first update since 2005 the importance of interagency as well as interservice and international cooperation to face today's and tomorrow's challenges.
"We are working to create an organization that can best adapt itself to working with the interagency, with our international partners and even with the private-public sector," said Navy Adm. James Stavridis, SouthCom commander. "And we want to do it in a way that is completely supportive of all our partners.
"If I would put one word on it, it's partnership," he continued. "That is our [SouthCom] motto -- Partnership for the Americas and our objective is to become the best possible international, interagency partner we can be."
Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted the similarities between what's happening at SouthCom and AfriCom during his late-June visit to the AfriCom headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. Looking out at the audience during a town hall meeting, he called the new command's interagency makeup and the expansive capability it will bring a sign of things to come.
"I think you, in many ways, represent the face of the future with respect to our combatant commands," Mullen told the group. "You may be leading what we are doing in our government."
As they carry that charge, both SouthCom and AfriCom are breaking the mold for the way U.S. combatant commands have operated since passage of the National Security Act in 1947.
"The United States needs organizing structures that are custom-made for the age we live in, not where we have come from," said Army Lt. Col. Bryan Sparling, Stravridis' special assistant for long-range planning. "We in the federal government need to be organized so we can build and put together solutions to 21st-century security challenges, because they are not the same challenges we had in the 20th century."
Stavridis described the "enormous challenges" facing Central and South America during his mid-March testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. Without large-scale conventional wars looming on the horizon, the bigger regional challenges are poverty, drugs, the risk of regional terrorism and the beginnings of Islamic radical terrorism, he told the committee.
Like a long line of commanders before him, Stavridis recognized that traditional Cold War-era ways of operating didn't fit in SouthCom's area of focus, which includes all of Latin America and parts of the Caribbean. "Previous SouthCom commanders have recognized we need to fundamentally change how we do business around here," Sparling said.
Army Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, who preceded Stavridis as SouthCom commander, put together a tiger team in early 2006 to evaluate the command's organization, internal processes and strategy in light of its mission. "Our philosophy from the beginning was to say, 'This is about rethinking SouthCom and rethinking what a combatant command is,'" Sparling said.
Stavridis embraced many of the teams' conclusions and recommendations when he took command in October 2006, fine-tuning them with his staff before taking them to Gates for approval, Sparling said.
Gates gave the plan the green light, putting SouthCom's reorganization on his list of 25 transformation priorities for the Defense Department. SouthCom shares a single bullet on the list alongside AfriCom, with both commands to be structured as interagency operations by Oct. 1.
"So we are first cousins with AfriCom, no doubt about it," Sparling said. "The end state we and AfriCom are aiming for is really the same end state, philosophically."
Stavridis said he communicates regularly with Army Gen. William "Kip" Ward, the AfriCom commander, and Navy Vice Adm. Robert T. Moeller, Ward's deputy commander for military operations and a close personal friend, to share ideas about their ongoing efforts. "Our staffs are talking constantly, and we are indeed sharing lessons back and forth," he said.
He compared AfriCom's Africa Partnership Station initiative in the Gulf of Guinea, which provides maritime training to African volunteers, to a similar effort USNS Grasp is conducting in the Caribbean. "We are trying to do some very similar things, and it all goes back to partnership," he said.
Both commands have adopted a command structure with two deputies reporting to the commander ? one focused on military operations and one on civil-military activities. At AfriCom, Ambassador Mary Carlin Yates is the civilian deputy and Moeller is the military deputy. Their counterparts at SouthCom are Air Force Lt. Gen. Glenn F. Spears, military deputy to the commander, and Ambassador Paul A. Trivelli, civilian deputy to the commander and foreign policy advisor, who came on board earlier this week.
In addition, interagency staff members are spread throughout both commands, where they bring skills and expertise needed to elevate stability operations and prosperity-generating activities to the same level as security activities. The plan, Sparling said, is to increase interagency billets within the command by about 50 percent, to about 60.
While SouthCom and AfriCom are focused in the same direction, they're approaching their reorganization and standup, respectively, in ways tailored to their unique circumstances.
"We have the same end state, but our paths to get there are very different," Sparling said. "AfriCom was a top-down initiative that started with a presidential directive. Ours was a grassroots, bottom-up effort. It started down here, where we did some things internally, studied it, then ultimately, the commander took it forward."
As a result, "AfriCom has an initiation challenge, and we have a transformation challenge," Sparling said. "I won't say that one is easier or harder than the other. They are just different."
SouthCom approached its reorganization with a proven model of interagency cooperation in its Joint Interagency Task Force South in Key West, Fla. The task force, which has overseen air and maritime counterdrug missions in the Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico and eastern Pacific for almost two decades, has become a model of interagency success.
In addition to the Defense Department, the Coast Guard, Drug Enforcement Agency, Customs and Border Protection, Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency bring their unique capabilities to the task force.
The task force's success exemplified by last year's interdiction of more than 200 metric tons of cocaine ? didn't happen overnight and came through learning what worked and what didn't, Sparling said.
"You need to have all these folks working together and cooperating. You have to build a coalition of the willing," he explained. "And that's the way they work today. It is truly remarkable."
The task force has "without a doubt, been our model" for the SouthCom transformation, Sparling said.
To take that model commandwide, SouthCom started by breaking its mission down to three priorities: ensuring regional security, enhancing regional stability and enabling partnering.
"Our focus has broadened to maintaining security, building and increasing stability and setting the conditions for prosperity in the region," Sparling said.
The next step was to replace the old J-coded staff structure another constraint better suited to large troop movements than current operations in the region and realign SouthCom into what Sparling called a "strategy-focused organization."
The headquarters now operates with six directorates three mission directorates in line with the command's three long-term goals, and three functional directorates that support them.
The changeover to this new organizational structure began in February, with most of the internal shuffling of people finished by late May.
"We're in the refinement phase right now, and will call our provisional reorganization complete by the end of the fiscal year," Sparling said. "That's an important milestone."
While the reorganization provides a framework better suited to SouthCom's operations, Sparling said, a true transformation ultimately boils down to the people involved. "Yes, we believe the new structures will better enable us to work together in new ways to address the security challenges we have," he said.
But another benefit, he said, is that the reorganization forces people to rethink their individual roles in the overall organization.
The people at SouthCom have become key to the command's transformation, Sparling said. He described the close interagency cooperation they are demonstrating, along with increased engagement with nongovernmental organizations, private-sector groups and others who share the same goals, as the "mass of the iceberg below the waterline" that will ensure the command's long-term effectiveness.
Stavridis said he'll leave it to others to determine if what works in SouthCom will work in other geographic commands.
"My job is to try to build an organization that is appropriate for the world to the south," he said. "I think we have done that, and I think we will continue to work very hard doing that, and I'll let others draw appropriate lessons."
Meanwhile, he said, he's impressed with the broad support the command has received from interagency partners, Congress and others who are watching and participating in the transformation. "It's going very well," he said. "We are working very hard to make sure we answer everyone's questions and do everything within the boundaries of policy and law, and do it with full transparency."
"The bottom line is that what we are doing here makes sense," Sparling said. "We want to be a shaper of ideas, helping build partnerships between actors that don't traditionally work together, all focused on a common purpose.
"Ultimately," he said, "that's what will give us the ability to develop security solutions that will be effective in our new contemporary operating environment."
Biographies:
Navy Adm. James Stavridis <http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=107>

Related Sites:
U.S. Southern Command <http://www.southcom.mil/appssc/index.php>
U.S. Africa Command <http://www.africom.mil/>