Ruminations, June 6, 2010

Stolenvalor II

They’re at it again. First it was ConnecticutDemocratic senatorial candidate Richard Blumenthal who lied about his servicein Vietnamand abused the Veterans of Foreign Wars backdrop to extricate himself. Now,it’s Illinois Republican senatorial candidate Mark Kirk lying about his servicein Iraq.

What is it about these would-be heroes that makethem want to embellish their resumes? Is it a psychological defect? Hubris? Aploy to help get them elected? Something else? And, more important, is thereanything we can do about it?

Why yes, there is something we can do about it.We can make a bi-partisan example of these two discredited candidates. Underthe original Stolen Valor Act of 2005 there was little that we could do. But,in 2010, Senator Orin Hatch (D, UT) added an amendment to the original act thataddresses those who make “false statements regarding participation in combat operations … inorder to obtain honorariums, employment, elected office … If convicted … theperpetrator could face 6 months in jail and/or a fine.”

Now the question is: did either Kirk orBlumenthal specifically claim to have participated in combat operations? Maybenot in so many words but if someone were to say that he served in Iraq duringOperation Iraqi Freedom or that he served in Vietnam, isn’t the naturalimplication that the speaker served in the conflict – especially since he liedabout serving to begin with?

Contrast Blumenthal and Kirk with former VicePresident Al Gore who did serve in Vietnambut not in a combat role. Gore, to his credit, went out of his way to make surethat his audience knew that he had not been in combat.

What can we do about it? We can contact theDepartment of Justice and ask them to prosecute. You can reach the Justice at: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov. And you can contact your representative andsenators and ask them to promote prosecution through the Department of Justice.They can be reached at: http://electedlist.com/. You can do this — ifyou’re interested in stopping this embarrassment of liars.

Eric Holder sets a new tone

RememberGeorge W. Bush’s Attorney General Alberto Gonzales? When he was called beforeCongress to answer some questions, he gave the impression of complete ignoranceand no grasp of the situation. When Eric Holder was appointed to the office byPresident Barack Obama, whether or not you agree with his policies, Holder atleast appeared to be competent.

What’sHolder been doing since taking office? Well, right now he is searching high andlow for felony charges to make against BP PLC. "If we find evidence ofillegal behavior,” Holder said, “we will be forceful in ourresponse."  So, judging by hisstatement, there is yet no indication of a felony, no evidence of wrong-doing,nothing that gives an indication of a crime. But he will launch aninvestigation anyway. What’s the result of Holder’s actions so far? It’s causedBP, instead focusing all efforts on fixing the oil spill, to spend some of itsresources defending itself from a possible lawsuit.

Andif that’s not enough, Holder’s unfounded announcement caused a 15 percent dropin BP’s stock price. BP doesn’t have enough to do; now they have to worry abouttheir equity.

Remember Holder six months agoannouncing his decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian trial in NewYork City? And then announcing maybe it wouldn’t be in NewYork and maybe it would be by military tribunal?

And recently he said he mightbring suit against Arizonabased on their new immigration law – although he didn’t know what the law saidbecause he hadn’t read it.

Holder kind of makes onenostalgic for the crackerjack effectiveness of Attorney General AlbertoGonzales, doesn’t he?

The European banking crisis

American banks are in muchbetter shape than European banks. In Europe, the banks must deal with thefalling euro, the near-collapse of the Greek financial system, the cost of Greece’sbailout by other members of the eurozone (users of the euro), and the precarious fiscalsituation of Spain, Italy,Portugal and now Hungary.

But lest Americans feelconfident, they should remember that American banks hold about $1.2 trillion inEuropean debt. That’s just about the same amount of outstanding sub-primemortgages that American banks held in 2008. Hmmm.

NATO:a child of the United States

When you raise a child, sometimes the best laidplans run awry as the child matures. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO) is a child of the UnitedStates and it has learned things that we wish ithadn’t.

When NATO was created in 1949, it was thought tobe the bulwark against communist expansion in Europe.And, naturally enough, the one nation that had the military strength andeconomic power to provide NATO with serious muscle was the UnitedStates.

And so it stayed. As additional nations joinedNATO (28 today) the UnitedStates continued to set the direction andprovide most of the resources. This was OK with the U.S.because it assured NATO support for its policies and it was OK with the otherNATO members because they got security at little cost. Throughout the Cold War,this status stood all parties relatively well, especially since NATO neverengaged its enemies.

After the Cold War’s conclusion, NATO expandedand took on some tasks that were outside the scope of the original charter.They expanded to include new members of the former communist bloc and took onmilitary operations in the Balkans.

Then they began to develop ex-officio memberscalled Individual Partnerships (Ukraine,Georgia, Moldavia, Armenia,Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro,Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan)and Contact Countries (Australia,New Zealand, SouthKorea and Japan).

At the same time, the European Union (EU) wasestablishing itself throughout Western Europeby including 16 members of NATO. While the EU was putting in place fiscallyresponsible benchmarks for members of the eurozone — which members ignored –and NATO also put in place fiscal defense benchmarks — which all but five nationsignored (each nation is to spend at least 2 percent of its gross nationalproduct [GNP] on defense). (The UnitedStates, one of the five, spends almost 5 percentof its GNP on defense.)

Currently, with an economic crisis at hand, EUmembers are responsibly looking at where cuts in expenditures may be made.Questions are always good unless the answers are preordained. Many nations, ledby popular opinion polls, are questioning their commitment to the NATO effortin Afghanistanwith the intent of cutting expenditures in this area. This is especially truesince the learned behavior of NATO members goes along the lines of: Let the U.S.spend the resources since our commitment is insignificant anyway.

Pursuant to those ends:

• The Dutch are withdrawing their 2,000 troops this August.
• Canada is withdrawing its 3,000 troops next year.
• Also of concern are the 1,000 Australian troops who are dependent on the Dutch troops.

• In Britain, where the troop commitment in Afghanistan is second only to the United States, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat government is looking to cut its defense budget by 25 percent (which would still keep Britain within the NATO guidelines). However, Prime Minister David Cameron is committed to supporting British troop levels throughout 2010.
• In Germany, an Allensbach Poll showed that 59 percent of Germans thought the deployment in Afghanistan “was a mistake.” Germany has almost 5,000 troops in Afghanistan in support of the NATO mission.

Butthere are true believers in the NATO commitment. In an interview with The London Times, NATO Secretary-GeneralAnders Fogh Rasmussen warned members, “All governments should be aware of thelong-term impact of too deep cuts in defense budgets because we know fromexperience that economic growth is very much dependent on a secureinternational environment.”

But, European members of NATO are looking –not long-term as Rasmussen advised – but short-term. Their rationale is that ifthe eurozone collapses – or almost collapses — then they won’t be able to sendany troops to Afghanistananyway. And besides, the UnitedStates will do it if they don’t.

An old joke says that gray hair is inherited;you get it from your children. Have you looked at President Obama’s hairlately? It’s getting grayer and grayer. And NATO is a child of the UnitedStates.

Quotewithout comment

Dr. Karl-Heinz Kamp, thedirector of the Research Division at the NATODefense College,in an interview with Deutsche Welle: “Europehas about two million men under arms but only 3 to 5 percent of them aredeployable in combat. This is an incredible mismatch.”