Musings of a Factotum

The Need for the National Guard

2011-02-15T22:53:00.000-08:00

A Case for an Expanded Militia

Raising and training an army is a complex business. The politics of how to use that army are infinitely more so.

Not surprising, the public has raised important issues about how our armed forces are constituted. One of the most frequently debated topics is the propriety of the all-volunteer force (AVF).

A criticism of the AVF appeared about a year ago in this publication. In his essay titled, “The All-Volunteer Force—the Debate,” Lt. Col. Paul Yingling put forward his case in favor of conscription, as a return to our founding principles.

He is not alone. Commentators as diverse as Bill Moyers, Andy Rooney, and Tony Blankley have all made arguments in favor of reinstating the military draft. A common thread to their reasoning, is their assertion that mandatory service is aligned to our American traditions.

Yet, nothing is closer today to our founding tradition and ideals than the volunteer National Guard. The text of the Constitution itself reminds us of the Guard’s importance: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

In fact, we should rely more heavily than we do upon the modern incarnation of the militia system for our war fighting capabilities. Departing from the traditional debate over whether conscripted forces are more economical or effective than their volunteer counterparts, we should instead consider whether manning such a large standing army is sound policy. Analysis of American history and tradition leads us to conclude that it is not. We should favor instead a stronger part-time Guard force.

Throughout our nation’s history, we have turned to volunteerism as the best means to raise a fighting force. During the Revolution, the Continental Army was but a compliment to state militias, and seen only as a temporary phenomenon.

Since those revolutionary years, the United States has embarked on a unique dual system: the militia of English tradition and the regular Army created under emergency conditions. Today we have multiple components with vastly different cultures, yet all committed to the same overlapping missions. The National Guard fulfills a major role in the constitution of our overall military strength and capability. In fact, it is largely because of our numerous Guard forces that we have been able to successfully sustain two wars without a general mobilization.

Yet it seems that pressure on the Defense Department has caused it to disfavor too much use of Guard to meet the demands of our current combat needs.

Eighteen months ago, the AP reported a reduction in National Guard recruiting. Ostensibly, the Pentagon didn’t need such a large reserve component, and the National Guard was over strength. Others pointed to “suspicions inside the Guard and out that the reductions are part of an effort to shift the burden of fighting overseas onto the active-duty Army and ease the public outcry over the way that Guard units…have been sent on long, repeated combat tours in Iraq.”

It has become standard fare of demagogic politicians to decry the “overstretch” of the Guard. They often mask an anti-military worldview with feigned concern for service-members and their families. But if the public at large has reservations about the National Guard’s role in the overall national military strategy, it is misplaced. America has long relied on its citizen soldiers. It should do so even more now than ever.

Guard units are highly trained and just as effective in combat as active-duty Soldiers. And they bring to the fight the spirit of volunteerism and other important American values. Indeed, many of the arguments against the AVF would evaporate if the U.S. would move to the state militias to man foreign-fighting armies.

The Guard legacy goes back to 1636, when the Massachusetts Bay General Court ordered the formation of militia companies. Thus the National Guard, a direct descendant of the Massachusetts militia, is older than the United States itself.

According to military historian Michael D. Doubler, John Adams believed that four institutions were critical to American society: towns, religious congregations, schools, and the militia.

The importance of the militia in the War for Independence from the British Empire can’t be overstated. The famous and overwhelming victory at New Orleans in 1815 was achieved by an army composed mostly of volunteers and militiamen.

In every war, militia and Guard units have been key to American success.

The value of our militia is enshrined in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 distinguishes between “armies” and the “militia,” affixing limitations on the former. It also authorizes the Congress to call on state militias in order “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions.”

To be sure, since that time, the militias’ place in our society has evolved as much as our need for military forces. During certain periods, for instance, “militia” implied compulsory service. There was also an understanding, early on, that the militia would not be used for foreign or offensive wars.

Nevertheless, Guardsmen and their militiamen forebears have served the people with distinction and according to American ideals since long before the Revolution. In all our major wars, victorious American soldiers usually went home to families, farms, businesses, and careers, leaving the bloody mess of battle and its aftermath to the politicians.

Our founders entrusted the security of our republic to its citizens acting as part-time soldiers. Although the Continental Army, commanded by George Washington, was instrumental in guaranteeing American independence, a successful break from the British Crown would have been unthinkable without the militia, both militarily and politically.

Politically, many colonists took up arms to defend their rights against tyranny, and proved in action that such a defense was their natural and rational right. Mobilizing the citizenry for a common cause helped solidify public opinion in favor of the politics of independence.

Opponents of the AVF often attach the term, “citizen soldier” to their idea of a conscript. But it was the militiamen, mostly volunteers during the American War for Independence, who deserve the moniker. The volunteer state militias captured the imagination of the public whose support was never taken for granted. It was the spirit of community and fighting for common ideals that ensured the necessary support.

To be sure, some states, like Massachussetts, established “enrolled militias,” which did require that every able-bodied man be prepared to fight. Along with the duty to answer a muster call, he had to maintain his own weapon. Such legal obligations were reserved for necessities like invasions. At no time did the national congress compel military service of citizens.

Militias made political sense, but they were also imperative to the cause of liberty. To ask men to make the sacrifices that war demands in defense of ideals makes for the most politically-active and engaged citizenry. An armed citizenry willing to fight for freedom also keeps the government honest, and its actions close to the will of the people.

The Bill of Rights’ famous reference to a “well regulated Militia,” as a necessary condition “to the security of a free State” implies that volunteer militias—not a full-time standing army—would keep us safe, not only from outside invasion, but from the type of tyranny that spawned the Revolution in the first place. The Continental Army was all but disbanded after the Revolution, but the militia system remained in place.

Even in the 20^th century, a period to which proponents of a large, conscripted standing force look to bolster their claims, volunteer state Guard units were instrumental and effective. It isn’t hard to imagine that with a smaller federal force they could have accounted for more of the nation’s military manpower.

Today there are many practical reasons for the American people to put their faith in citizen soldiers. For one, Guardsmen and women have valuable skills that military academies and training camps can’t teach. Yingling rightly declares that “armies do not fight wars; nations fight wars. War is not a military activity conducted by soldiers, but rather a social activity that involves entire nations.” His sentiment is best put into action by the men and women who leave their families, communities, and civilian jobs in order to engage the enemies of the United States in combat.

Our Guard force is filled with accountants, firefighters, plumbers, truckers, police officers, teachers, nurses, and more. They represent our nation more genuinely than a full-time active force ever could. The men and women in the Guard are more grounded in the communities they represent, and thus are ambassadors to the world. The soldiers of the United States National Guard are the best our nation has to offer.

What of the military effectiveness of Guardsmen? It seems natural to think that part-time Soldiers would be less effective, but there is scant evidence to support that. While some studies have shown that the National Guard has higher combat death rates, too many variables are in play to sustain the assertion. For one, Guard units are often assigned to more dangerous missions. Also, Guard units at home often don’t train with the latest equipment that the active Army uses.

Both factors could be mitigated with a deliberate shift in policy. And there are measurable benefits to a larger Guard component. Maintaining a force of citizen warriors costs much less. They train regularly without requiring the burdensome costs of permanent garrison, salary, and family benefits.

With recruitment reductions, they are becoming even more elite. Minimum test scores are up, bonuses down, and age and physical requirements more stringent. Still, folks are lining up, eager to serve.

Expanding the National Guard would likely bring even more competent men and women into the military, since it presents itself as an option for people who would like to serve without leaving their communities and civilian careers.

Countless prior service personnel also find a home in Guard units across the country. Highly trained and motivated military men and women join their local Guard units after they have completed an active-duty contract.

Our active Army plays a crucial role in our national defense. It is responsible for the training of all defense forces. Its Soldiers test new equipment and establish doctrine. They maintain equipment and man foreign outposts. Yet, the U.S. ought to minimize the necessity of the standing army in order to advance the cause of liberty at home and abroad.

Technology can fill the gaps left by a reduction in active forces. Advanced logistics and a strengthened national will to fight important wars—fueled by the understanding that America’s citizens should and will be willing to fight only when civilian authorities have exhausted the alternatives—will enable rapid mobilization of reserve and Guard components.

America doesn’t need a bloated, full-time, professional army. The founders were mistrustful of that, and we should be, too. Instead, they believed that a robust militia system would be the backbone of our national defense. Today’s National Guard is the logical manifestation of that belief. Our founding fathers have been proven prescient on so many counts since. Too often to our peril we have ignored their warnings.

Big Brother Doesn't Care About Me

2009-08-03T20:27:00.000-07:00

My wife and I rely on Skype for our communication, it is a wonderful thing. But doesn't our reliance on and confidence in it put us at risk of becoming victim to some sort of "Enemy of the State" conspiracy in which the evil one behind dozens of computer terminals knows our every move and thought?

Indeed, it seems that the infrastructure for Orwell's 1984 is firmly in place.

But, instead of being hapless victims in the scheme to steal our anonymity, privacy, and individuality, we're willing accomplices! We voluntarily submit as much information to the machine as we possibly can.

I play along, of course. I don't worry one bit. As a matter of fact, it is one of my goals-- and I know I am not alone-- to rank as high as I possibly can on a Google search of my name. This is the price of status in our brave new world.

Some years ago I participated in the "unionization of we web surfers." The company was called AllAdvantage, and it paid people to surf while displaying ads in their proprietary ad bar. I must have made about $1500 all told.

A coworker scoffed, informing me that they were tracking my purchases, site activity, and personal habits on the web. No amount of money would be enough for him to surrender such private information.

Not for me. $30 bucks will do it in most cases. Call me naive, but I don't care if some computer in silicon valley knows what web sites I've visited, or if some algorithm in a grocery store's computer knows what kind of peanut butter I usually buy on weekends.

As to Skype, I told me wife that anyone who had the capability of listening in on our conversations probably had more important things-- or people-- to listen to.

All this technology is making my life easier. And if I worry too much about all the bad that could come of it, then I'm only making Big Brother suspicious.

Our Beloved George

2009-07-07T04:38:00.000-07:00

A member of our family died yesterday. George, our five year-old cat, passed away, probably of complications from a urinary tract infection.

He was personable (always ready to be held and share his unparalleled cuddling skills), talented (he could fetch as well as any dog out there), selfless (having taken his adopted younger sister, Weezy, under his wing in our huge house), and as hardworking as a feline could be (which is to say, not very).

Some memories that come to my mind and shared by others will be cherished. For one, George could eat anything. He would famously put his paws on the dining room table at dinner time and peer onto the surface not-so-subtly hinting that he felt excluded. At least he was not choosy; he'd eat bread, fruit, and anything else he could get his paws on.

He was decidedly self-sufficient in other ways. He awed many an onlooker by cranking the bath tub faucet to the on position in order to get a drink. He never had a problem with opening it up only slightly enough to coax out a drizzle, although when the shower stop was left up, he was in for more than he bargained. It was also problematic when we corrected the fact that the left valve opened the cold water. As a righty, George always preferred the left side. But he pressed on, never worrying about the fact that he couldn't close what he so easily opened.

We loved the way he would stand guard at the front window of our home, hopping off his perch excitedly as he saw us pull in the driveway. Out of the same window set he once decided to escape. We had the left windows open so the fresh paint on the sill could dry; his paw prints were the crucial evidence we needed to bring him up on charges.

If we had to list one fault, it was his impatience, at least in the morning. Though he would sleep well through the night, when morning came he needed that first meal, and devised ever more diabolical methods for waking the humans. At first he could strum the metal blinds, making an awful grating sound. Then he would drum the steel file cabinet in from a standing position, causing a steady beat that said, "Wake up!, wake up!" He then moved on to patting one's face, gently at first, with incrementally greater tenacity and claw.

We and our friends share many more wonderful memories of that cat (how about the time he was lost in a Utah snowstorm on his first Christmas?) Please comment back and share those memories here.

George, you will be missed.

Teaching at Musa Zajmi

2009-06-06T11:46:00.000-07:00

Serving a peacekeeping mission to Kosovo has given me many opportunities, and a recent one I had was to reconnect with my civilian profession: teaching.

I never realized how much I enjoyed teaching, especially math, until I began a career as a full-time professional Soldier. I left the classroom over two years ago, just days before I shipped to Basic Training. Since then I have worked as a consultant, visiting many classrooms and students, but not having any to call my own.

Last Friday visited another classroom, at a school called Musa Zajmi in Gjilane, Kosovo. I had asked the month before if I could teach a math class, and the teachers there graciously assented. It was a bit unnerving—I had never taught to a classroom full of Albanian-speaking students—but I feel very at ease teaching, so I quickly found myself lost in the moment.

Soldiers looking for improvement would conduct an After Action Review following any drill, exercise, or mission. Good teachers do the same thing. Here are a few things that I noted.

Three things I did well were in the areas of preparation and presentation. First, I followed a lesson plan that has served me well in my years of teaching my own students and evaluating other teachers. It consisted of a warm up phase, a short presentation, practice, and a closure. Even in the short classes (30 minutes) I was able to keep students interested by moving from one activity to the next frequently and efficiently.

My second strength was to have everything written for the students. I had everything translated into Albanian (I even learned a few phrases myself) so that student could check what I was saying against the written version.

Finally, I had a specific objective that corresponded with our activity and end-of-lesson exercise. Students understood that my expectations of them were very narrow, and they didn’t have to concern themselves with peripheral facts and formulas.

A few things I could improve on are: creating a small homework task that was more tightly-aligned to the objective, having students identify themselves, and being clearer about instructions during the lesson.

The last point is a particularly important one. Clarity is the most important trait instruction can have (after accuracy, I suppose). I did my best, given the circumstances, to make my intentions crystal clear to these Kosovar students. But even small things, like asking for volunteers, can get muddled and have cumulatively detrimental effects on learning. For instance, in an attempt to get a variety of students up to the board I employed a simple strategy that I have used in the U.S., which was to require the student at the board to choose the next participant. In my experience, students choose their friends or others who might not want to go to the board.

What happened at Musa Zajmi was that students chose their classmates who also raised their hands. Thus, only the most confident students got to the board. I could have been more explicit about my desire to see a greater variety of students demonstrating at the chalkboard.

I had a lot of fun, and practiced a skill that is too easily lost in my case. I want to remain sharp, reflective, and progressive. Teaching at Musa Zajmi helped me do it.

My One-track Mind

2009-05-19T07:00:00.000-07:00

I realized that I had not written much that was not military related in some time. It got me wondeing why I was so obsessed with the Army?

Well, isn't it logical? I am serving a deployment. To say that I am working for the Army full time is an understatement. I carry my weapon nearly all of my waking hours, and am on call for military duties 24/7. I do have some down time, but even that is spent performing maintenance on my equipment and getting ready for more work.

We are in a sort of news vaccuum out here, and the people I see, even at the "store" or at dinner, are all here for the same thing, and only reinforce the mindset that comes along with a deployment.

Needless to say, I have to make every effort to redirect my thoughts away from the Army, and I don't often have epitomies about things that used to occupy my mind. So, it's hard to be clever about topics about which a Factotum should be clever.

But it's important. I don't want to be so narrow. Does it not go to the heart of the question about whether it is good to be generalists or specialists? I would rather be the former, but certianly our society needs specialists. Maybe I am still looking for what really motivates me. Do we all find a speciality in the end?

I hope that's not the inevitable conclusion to our lives' paths. I love teaching, but I joined the military knowing full well that it could take me away from it. I am also trying to get into investing, but a teacher's salary doesn't exactly foster a climate of investment opportunity. The Army has taught me a bit about video editing, and I am learning more in hopes of applying it to my teaching. I also love writing, and both math and my military service have given me fodder to practice the craft.

At any rate, I like to dabble in lots of things. It's enjoyable, and I would encourage those around me to do the same. I am making my best attempt to avoid keeping my mind on one lonely track.

The Biggest Federal Work Program

2009-03-01T11:57:00.000-08:00

One realizes on an Army deployment that there are many Soldiers who don’t do much work. They represent all ranks and branches, and they are a drag on Army Efficiency.
But, if you’ve ever read anything I’ve written about the Army, you’ll know that I’ve never accused the Army of being efficient. Nevertheless, the reality is that too many Soldiers take advantage of the opportunity that Uncle Sam gives them to collect a paycheck without much effort.

A certain Sergeant Major—-representative of many, many more—-is past the point when he can retire. There are likely many E-8s who can fill his shoes admirably, so in the spirit of preparing the younger generation and giving troops an opportunity to grow, what does he do?

He stays on. And why not? He can take one more short year of his life away from home to collect good pay on deployment. He’s pulling in over $6,000 a month base pay. Add to that the housing allowance of over two grand, plus a few little extra goodies like sustenance pay, separation pay, and hazardous duty pay. All this is tax free.

So while the Army looks to replenish its ranks with young men and women, enticing them with bonuses and college money, it is merely adding to the dole of the largest Federal Work Program. Many politicians lament the size of our military, saying the money is better used helping put people to work. It already is.

Is the Army Effective?

2009-01-27T02:46:00.000-08:00

I was a Truck Commander today. That’s a glorified way of saying that I sat in the passenger seat while my buddy drove the humvee from the dispatch lot to our working area.

We had been assigned a vehicle, but the only one available was a tactical humvee. With any tactical vehicle come too many rules and restrictions. You need a ground guide to move in and out of parking lots, Kevlar helmets must be worn by all vehicle occupants, and drivers need to place blocks and drip pans whenever shutting down. So even though we are only driving the truck on paved roads in a one-mile radius at no more than 18 miles per hour, we are burdened with all these inefficiencies.

I understand that the United States Army is not designed to run with ruthless drive for profits. But the mentality of thoroughness translates into other areas. It took several man-hours to get the vehicle signed over to us. Two Specialists, a Sergeant First Class, a Major, and a civilian contractor all had their hands in the transaction. What productive items of business could at least some of these soldiers been engaged in?
There is no such thing as “military efficiency.” The U.S. Army is not efficient. It is thorough. Thoroughness can serve us well, but should it be the highest priority?
How many bright, talented people are stifled in the military because they are forced to comply with endless regulations and redundancies? In the world of the Army, even these people, as smart as they may be, end up as mindless automatons, more worried about compliance and approval from their superiors than about getting a job done right.

Frustration is the call word, even among these people. Everyone in the Army loves to say express how screwed up it is. One high-ranking officer told me not too long ago, “You need to become an officer so you can fix this.”

“You’re an officer!,” I shouted in my mind! It seems everyone can see how fouled up the system is, but no one sees how screwed up it is in their own area of responsibility, and nobody wants to tell their superiors that the way we’ve been doing it sucks.

At Basic Training, when I thought twice about executing a command that sounded mistaken, my drill sergeant told me not to second guess myself. As I noted then, even when you’re right, you look like an ass if you’re the only one.

That truism holds in the everyday institutional army. It is much easier to hide behind caution smothered in ineffectiveness, then to tread into open ground of risk, where the potential of figuring out better ways to do things lurk.

The Army is effective at being a behemoth of an organization, and can run itself for the sake of running itself.

Hobnobbing with Hall of Famers

2009-01-13T18:50:00.000-08:00

Today I met Tony Dungy. My battle buddy and went to shadow some videographers from the Indianapolis FOX affiliate. One story that we covered was the naming of Jim Caldwell as Head Coach of the Colts, and so I helped set up the camera and stood in the back to stay out of the way.

I watched the press conference with great interest, and I'll be damned of Tony Dungy didn't just walk right up and stand pretty much next to me. Kind of Cool.

How to Solve the BCS Problem

2009-01-06T19:00:00.000-08:00

If fair-minded and honest sports fans required any more evidence that the Football Bowl Subdivision is in desperate need of fundamental change in the way it crowns its title, then Utah's defeat of Alabam in the Sugarbowl should be it.

The major conferences have been determined to keep their stranglehold on the authority to grant the title of football supremacy.

The vestiges of a tired era designed to protect the established powers at the expense of the weak continues to reign, only because the people haven’t realized their own power.

The current system, whereby a veritable aristocracy of football elites chooses representatives from among its own ranks, is fraught with inequity and controversy. The plebeians clamor for a more just arrangement, while the power brokers ignore them with impunity.

Ever since its inception in 1998, the Bowl Championship Series has not been able to soften the din of cries for its replacement with a true, tournament-style playoff system. Among the most passionate opponents of the tyrannical system are the fans of schools from the non-BCS conferences which have virtually no chance of vying for the title.

Schools from conferences like the Mountain West, Mid-American, Conference USA, and Western Athletic Conference have heretofore assumed the role of loyal opposition—playing by the rules in return for the slimmest of chances to spend but a fleeting moment in the spotlight in and reap in huge rewards. Meanwhile, year after year, the BCS conferences get richer and more entrenched in their power.It is high time these loyalists to the current regime band together and secede from the Union.

The larger, richer BCS conferences, of which there are six, can safely ignore the mid-majors under the status quo. The current power structure heavily favors the larger conferences, but rests purely on the “consent of the governed.” The latter should dissent, in a violent way.

The way forward for the non-BCS conferences is to stage an open rebellion, whereby they format their own playoff system. They could call it the “Football Playoff Series” (FPS) and, starting from scratch, would be free to design the optimum scheme. It should have in mind three goals: to provide a more exciting postseason for college football fans, to earn its participants’ more money than they currently get, and to force the BCS to reform.

According to the rules of the new FPS, all participating schools would agree to boycott BCS games, even if invited. They would then stage their own 16-team playoff, to be scheduled against BCS game time slots. Let the viewing public decide which they’d prefer to see.

Under fair rules, even the lowliest conference would send a representative to the tournament, providing possibilities of Cinderella stories and thrilling moments. Much like the NCAA basketball tournament, the ultimate winner would usually be one of the grittiest, toughest, most battle-tested teams, even if an underdog. Thus, the FPS would crown its own, dare I say, more legitimate? champion—casting doubt on the superiority of the BCS winner.

With 15 games to be played (beginning before Christmas and ending sometime in mid-January,) the FPS would clearly increase revenue over the paltry sums they get now. With a hiatus in college football, viewers would abound during the first weeks, especially given the opportunities to see exciting teams and upset possibilities.

By the time the field was narrowed to four teams, television audiences would rival at least non-BCS bowls. And if these conference commissioners don’t think a true championship game would attract as big an audience as a non-championship Sugar Bowl or Fiesta Bowl—which is as far as mid-majors would ever get anyway—then they aren’t worth whatever salaries they’re getting.
A real football playoff would certainly bring NFL scouts to the stands, which in turn would attract more blue chip recruits to the FPS schools, and the balance of power would slowly correct itself.

Though it may take a couple of years, it would eventually become evident that there is more money and fan support in the FPS, at which point the scenarios all play in the FPS’ favor.

One possibility is that the BCS ignores the upstart which would only leave the FPS conferences in a better state than before. Either way, the FPS is making more money, attracting better athletes, and rewarding a more loyal fan base.

Or, the BCS sees the new champion as a threat to its own legitimacy and proposes an ultimate bowl game featuring the BCS champ and the FPS champ, similar to the way the NFL and AFL agreed on a championship in 1967. You want to talk about ratings? The first Superbowl had nothing on this. Most likely, the BCS would amend their own system to be more equitable and some sort of merger would result. To quote a unionist, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Imagine if Utah, TCU, Tulsa, and Boise State vied for number one in a playoff. Might we now be talking about a ratings war against games like the Fiesta Bowl? And even if the polls and computers voted for the BCS champ this year, a Utah would have a trophy and a tournament to boast.

BCS Commissioners are not going to vote against their interests, it's time the non-BCS commissioners did the right thing in the name of a more perfect union.

The Importance of History

2009-01-02T17:18:00.000-08:00

I have been reading a comprehensive history of the Balkans, mostly out of mere interest. Simplicity lured me, as it often does, to the title of a book several years ago. I bought the Balkans hoping for an engaging read into something I knew almost nothing about.

The simplicity of the title quickly gave way to the complexity of the subject matter, so it took a deployment to Kosovo to get me enthused again. Aside from the the load of facts about the pell-mell history of the region dumped into my head, I have learned a lot about why it is important to study history.

Very few modern wars are regarded as avoidable as the First World War. and it is almost trite to say that the Balkans was the powderkeg that ignited the global conflagration. The direct causes of the war are outlined in the most basic studies of World War I, but the deeper reasons can trace their origins much earlier than is usually reported.

For example, the Balkan nations waged a series of wars prior to 1914 to carve out the boundaries of their nascent states. They were able to violently scrap for elbow room because of the continuous weakening of the Ottoman Empire for the hundred years before.

Ottoman Turks failed to seize upon opportunities to reform their government, to the point that they and slowly but surely their influence on people eager for independence slipped away. They let modernization amble past them and were unable to cope with the nationalist movements that swept Europe in the nineteenth century.

Change is constant, but sometimes it is difficult to recognize which way the winds of change are blowing. In life, it is important to stay aware of the forces that effect change on our lives, and to maintain the preparedness necessary to take advantage of the opportunities that change brings. These opportunities are often in disguise. More often they seem to be so challenging that it is easier to stay on course.

Change is not bad. History, whether it be our personal life history, or that of our society, is an important part of who we are and where we are going. Make it count and learn to find the path that history has given us.

If the Army Changed Diapers

2008-09-17T10:27:00.000-07:00

As a new dad, I have the privilege of waking up to a screaming baby at the inconvenientest times of night. He is beautiful, and his cry is even adorable, even at ungodly hours. Sometimes he wants food, other times it a fresh diaper he wants. For the former, his mother promptly obliges. In the case of the latter, I can lend a hand, which I do quickly so I can get back to rest.

Though I don’t always get up eagerly, I don’t complain. Four days before Joseph was born I was at Fort Meade, Maryland doing some Army training. It’s the kind of place where you have to wake up at 0400 and present yourself for inspection. Fireguard duty in the middle of the night is the norm, and cleaning dirty latrines is a fact of life.

So waking up to change my own son’s messy diaper is no big deal. I do it and move on. But it got me thinking, what if changing diapers was an Army task?
First, everyone in the room would have to wake up and be in uniform before they could report for diaper duty.

The diaper changer would report to the NCOIC, who would ensure that everyone was in the right place and ready to go. Of course, any NCOIC worth his stripes would never abide a baby making noise while preparing to execute a mission, so someone would have to get the little one to forget the predicament that brought them to this point.

The next step in the baby-changing procedure would be the completion of all applicable DOD forms. This is to ensure that NCOs and officers can track the different diaper changings. Despite the fact that such forms never get read or followed up on, they are very important.

The Risk Assessment is the next step. The Army loves to assess risks, and there are many, even in a routine diaper changing. Take the risk assessment lightly at your peril.

Diapers and other supplies (wet wipes, lotion, powder) need to be requisitioned from Supply. More forms, and more approval. All requests need to go through the NCOIC for preliminary approval, but need the Commander’s signature. For any supplies used, forms need to indicate who used them, the quantity, and the time they were used.

Before changing the actual diaper that is dirty, a run-through should be conducted to improve accuracy and performance. After the drill, an After Action Report will help identify strengths and weaknesses.

Finally we are ready to change the diaper. By this time, the boy is potty-trained.

Raider Melancholy

2008-08-25T06:04:00.000-07:00

The Silver and Black got wiped all over the field at McAffee last weekend. Though they have fallen to 1 -2 this preseason, I have high hopes for the Raiders this year.

Russell looks like he's struggling, but Kiffin will open up the playbook more with time, giving the young quarterback a chance to show off his improvisational skills. The receivers performance will follow.

The McFadden-Bush tandem should lead the division in rushing, and the defense looks solid. Our wildcards are special teams and offenseive line.

My prediction is 8 - 8. The division in markedly weaker, and we play the NFC south. Eight wins represents high hopes, but it's definitely not a stretch.

Division winners:
AFC North- Steelers
AFC East- Patriots
AFC West- Chargers
AFC South- Jaguars

NFC North- Lions
NFC East- Eagles
NFC West- Cardinals
NFC South- Saints

Other predictions:
The Giants won't make the playoffs
The Patriots won't make the Superbowl
The AFC Champs will come out of the South

Go ahead...argue with me.

Stowell, Werewolf Hunter

2008-08-20T15:37:00.000-07:00

My Battle Buddy at DINFOS wrote this.

The night air brought a chill through Standton Park’s oldest and most run down cabin. It was an ancient and abysmal looking thing with cracked paint and gouged floorboards. Half the pipes running through the building had long since rusted out and others were hopelessly clogged. But none of this unsatisfying appearance had even the slightest impact on the lanky grim looking figure propped up in a dark corner of the cryptic cabin. The man just stood there silent and contemplating thinking about all that had come to pass to bring him here on this night. Stowell was no stranger to the bone shaking chill that accompanies loneliness in a place like this. He patted the left breast of his tattered overcoat and felt for the revolver it held. The cold steel of it gave little comfort but Stowell wasn’t in the business of comfort and the now howling wind outside promised only stinging cold pain. More than just the wind was stirring outside the cabin. A lurking black beast caught Stowell’s eye, he had found his mark. Stoic as ever he stepped out from the cabin, eyes flaring, an unholy fire behind a stone mask of apathy. Stowell glided over the snow covered ground stealthily approaching the now hulking figure. The creature’s back was still to him, something else was holding his attention. Step after step Stowell edged up on the beast until he could reach out with the revolver and touch it nearly. He fished a silver bullet out of his pant pocket and held it up to the moon’s light and for the first time, his stony face cracked into a sinister grin. In a swift fluid motion the bullet found it’s way into the revolver and Stowell swung the barrel up to meet the back of the giant wolf’s head. The night exploded in a bang and a shower of blood, finally the beast had been slain. Finally Stowell could sleep in peace.

Sic Semper Tyrannis!

2008-08-18T14:51:00.000-07:00

Last spring’s news about the BCS rejection of any semblance of a playoff is only a symptom of the powerful’s determination to keep its stranglehold on the authority to grant the title of football supremacy.

The vestiges of a former era designed to protect the powerful and elite at the expense of the weak continues to reign, only because the people haven’t realized their own power.

The current system, whereby a veritable aristocracy of football elites chooses representatives from among its own ranks, is fraught with inequity and controversy. The plebeians clamor for a more just arrangement, while the power brokers ignore them with impunity.

Ever since its inception in 1998, the Bowl Championship Series has not been able to soften the din of cries for its replacement with a true, tournament-style playoff system. Among the most passionate opponents of the tyrannical system are the fans of schools from the non-BCS conferences which have virtually no chance of vying for the title.

Schools from conferences like the Mountain West, Mid-American, and Western Athletic Conference have heretofore played the part of loyal opposition—playing by the rules in return for the slimmest of chances to play for glory and reap in huge rewards. Meanwhile, year after year, the BCS conferences get richer and more entrenched in their power.

It is high time these loyalists to the current regime band together and secede from the Union.

The larger, richer BCS conferences, of which there are six, can safely ignore the mid-majors under the status quo. The current power structure heavily favors the larger conferences, but rests purely on the “consent of the governed.” The latter should dissent, in a violent way.

The way forward for the non-BCS conferences is to stage an open rebellion, whereby they format their own playoff system. They could call it the “Football Playoff Series” (FPS) and, starting from scratch, would be free to design the optimum scheme. It should have in mind three goals: to provide a more exciting postseason for college football fans, to earn its participants’ more money than they currently get, and to force the BCS to reform.

According to the rules of the new FPS, all participating schools would agree to boycott BCS games, even if invited. They would then stage their own 16-team playoff, to be scheduled against BCS game time slots. Let the viewing public decide which they’d prefer to see.

Under fair rules, even the lowliest conference would send a representative to the tournament, providing possibilities of Cinderella stories and thrilling moments. Much like the NCAA basketball tournament, the ultimate winner would usually be one of the grittiest, toughest, most battle-tested teams, even if an underdog.

Thus, the FPS would crown its own, dare I say, more legitimate? champion—casting doubt on the superiority of the BCS winner. With 15 games to be played (beginning before Christmas and ending sometime in mid-January,) the FPS would clearly increase revenue over the paltry sums they get now. With a hiatus in college football, viewers would abound during the first weeks, especially given the opportunities to see exciting teams and upset possibilities. By the time the field was narrowed to four teams, television audiences would rival at least non-BCS bowls. And if these conference commissioners don’t think a true championship game would attract as big an audience as a non-championship Sugar Bowl or Fiesta Bowl—which is as far as mid-majors would ever get anyway—then they aren’t worth whatever salaries they’re getting.

A real football playoff would certainly bring NFL scouts to the stands, which in turn would attract more blue chip recruits to the FPS schools, and the balance of power would slowly correct itself.

Though it may take a couple of years, it would eventually become evident that there is more money and fan support in the FPS, at which point the scenarios all play in the FPS’ favor.

One possibility is that the BCS ignores the upstart and leaves the FPS conferences in a better state than before. Either way, the FPS is making more money, attracting better athletes, and rewarding a more loyal fan base.

Or, the BCS sees the new champion as a threat to its own legitimacy and proposes an ultimate bowl game featuring the BCS champ and the FPS champ, similar to the way the NFL and AFL agreed on a championship in 1967. You want to talk about ratings? The first Superbowl had nothing on this.

Most likely, the BCS would amend their own system to be more equitable and some sort of merger would result.

To quote a unionist, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” The BCS is unfair and ill-conceived, and any real football enthusiast knows it. Only when the BCS house of cards falls will we have a more perfect Union in college football.

The Responsibility of Learning

2008-08-18T09:15:00.000-07:00

I am an American Soldier.

My brief experience in the United States Army has been eye-opening. It strikes me with awe to think of the vast resources with which we are trained to fulfill our mission, and the professionalism with which most soldiers approach it. It has also given me plenty to think about in terms of learning.

Whether it's called "training," or "learning," the process is the same. What I get at DINFOS depends upon the same fundamental principlesas what a third-grader gets in his science lesson, or what a high school math teacher tries to give her students in a geometry lesson.

Given that an organization exists as a goal that its students learn a set of information, the entire responsibility of the affair rests on the organization. When students are learning, or don't meet the programmed outcomes, then at least one of the things designed to produce the outcome has failed. In standards-based teaching system, instruction is planned from the end. Each instructional unit is designed to bridge the gap between students' abilities to the standard ability.

For example, if I want to teach someone how to create a header in MS Word, and I plan the instruction, then I would expect anyone who recieved my isntruction to be able to create a header. If the student attempted to follow my instruction and couldn't create the header, then some part of my instruction was faulty. There is no other way around it.

Teachers have a hard time coming to grips with this reality. They want to attribute all of the gaps in learning to students. True, some student behaviors contribute to a lack of learning, but instruction can resolve such a lack.

The military instructors at DINFOS need to learn the lesson even more. If a certain instructional strategy consistently has bad reviews and results in poor knowledge acquisition, then it SHOULD BE ABANDONED. Whe do teachers continue to put their faith in methods that yield such dismal results?

Radio!

2008-07-24T11:58:00.000-07:00

We are done with our Radio course at DINFOS. I felt inspired to see the lifesize two-dimensional bust of Airman Cronauer in the music library as I prepared for my daily radio music show.