Elon Musk catches a lot of grief, and to be fair, much of it is well-deserved. But if there is one of his endeavors for which I am an unequivocal fanboy and for which he is performing an unqualified good, it’s SpaceX. Where various NASA contractors have dumped almost $12 billion for the Space Launch System and haven’t even a single flight to show for it, Musk and Co. spent a mere $500 million of private money (no, that’s not much in terms of rocket development) and came up with the Falcon Heavy, currently the world’s most powerful launch vehicle. Tonight, it made it’s second successful flight, launching a commercial payload into orbit, while successfully landing all three booster stages, two at Cape Canaveral and one on a barge at sea. Bravo to Elon, bravo to everybody at SpaceX, and bravo to the private sector, which now runs rings around government sponsored space programs. More, please.
Since President Trump announced he would be pulling out U.S. troops from Syria, there has been an exceptional amount of caterwauling from the chattering classes and various politicians. Some of it has gotten to the point of ridiculousness – passive-aggressive call for a coup (by Erick Erickson), talk of impeachment – and most of it is over the top, as if pulling 2000 troops out of a mid-East country with little, if any, strategic value to the U.S. is somehow a disaster.
Much of this comes from the usual suspects, the neocon interventionists, who never see a conflict on the world stage they are not willing to send other Americans to fight (I’m looking at you, Bill Kristol). Some of it comes from people who, without any guiding principle, want to be on the opposite side of the president, irrespective of the issue (see Howard Dean, whose 2004 presidential campaign was rooted in opposing the Iraq War, now insisting Trump is making a mistake by discontinuing our intervention in Syria). And some of it descends into the area of being bat-shinola craziness, like Rachel Maddow’s insistence that the motivation for the president’s withdrawal of troops is being in the pocket of Vladmir Putin (pass the tinfoil, please).
For those of you that oppose this withdrawal, all hope is not lost. There are several things you can do.
First of all, you can call on congress to officially declare war (and if you are in congress, you can call on your colleagues to put such a motion to the floor and put your ‘yea’ vote on the record). If keeping 2000 American troops in Syria is that important, you should have no issue calling on congress to do its constitutionally prescribed duty of taking an up or down vote on declaring war. If you are actually in congress and are now complaining about the withdrawal (see Rubio, Marco; Graham, Lindsey), instead of advocating for war while putting all the responsibility on the president to make the decision, take control of the situation yourself in a manner that is constitutionally authorized and carries virtually no legal risk to you. For both groups mentioned here (including the overlap), your failure to call for a congressional declaration of war speaks volumes – and undermines your case, badly.
You can also show how important you believe it is to keep our troops in the Middle East by putting some skin in the game, to use terminology increasingly popularized thanks to Nicholas Taleb. If you are of military eligible age, stop complaining and head to the recruiters office. Tell them you want to sign up today, leave for boot camp as soon as possible, and request to be sent to one of the many combat zones in which the U.S. has troops, for whatever reason. It’s easy, really easy, to say we need to intervene here and there for whatever reason. It’s much harder to say it when you are the one there, when you are the one with bullets flying past your head never knowing if the next one might hit it, watching your fellow soldiers losing lives and limbs.
Now, if you are not of military age, but say, have kids that are, you need to be imploring them to sign up for military duty, stat. For example, Mona Charen, who pens a pro-intervention column at National Review today (I will not link it here) has, if I am not mistaken, two sons of military age. Are they putting on the uniform? Are they going to go into harm’s way? I seriously doubt it. Now don’t get me wrong – no decent mother wants to send her kids into a war zone, ever. But if it is this important, as she seems to believe, shouldn’t she and others like her have some skin in the game? Shouldn’t she and others like her bear some personal risk for the policies they advocate? Of course, they won’t, and they never do. The lives that are lost or broken by their preferred policies are nothing more than abstractions to them. Some kid from Alabama had limbs blown off and third degree burns across half his body? Well, it was important for American honor, or something. Yeah, she and others like her will wave flags and say they support the troops. But when the rubber meets the road, they will do everything they can to make sure they don’t bear any personal cost for the policies they advocate. That’s for other people to do. Sunshine soldiers and summer patriots, indeed.
So, if you’re not willing to advocate for a clear, constitutional declaration of war, if you’re not willing to put some skin in the game and bear some personal cost, why should I believe your position is principled? Your actions belie your virtue signaling words.
For those few of you that do have real skin in the game and think we need to keep our troops in Syria and elsewhere, I’ll at least cut you some slack – you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. But I still disagree with your position.
As inferred above, putting troops in Syria has absolutely no constitutionally prescribed authorization. Not one single vote in congress has been cast to authorize out intervention there. Furthermore, it’s laughable that so many people who shriek that Trump is Hitler or some authoritarian are shrieking even louder now that he is removing U.S. troops from a war zone, rather than deploying them to one. Their silence when President Obama did the opposite is quite telling.
Constitutional authorization notwithstanding … have you pro-intervention guys looked at the results you have gotten over the years – particularly since 9/11? Afghanistan is an absolute quagmire that, were it a person, it would be old enough to graduate high school. The Iraqis didn’t greet us as liberators as we were told they would, and the alleged weapons of mass destruction were few and far between. Meanwhile, the country descended into years of sectarian violence that has cooled some but has not ended. While I shed no tears for Saddam Hussein and admit to enjoying his ending, Iraq is still an absolute mess, one that was primarily created by the U.S. Libya? It’s true that they had their own tyrant, but our intervention there accomplished nothing more than making the place an unstable hellhole, which also now has open-air slave markets where they did not exist before. Meanwhile, in our own country, we’ve seen thousands of needless deaths, many thousands more broken lives because of it, and trillions of dollars added to our own debt which in and of itself is a significant threat. All for a region that was a mess before we plunged in head first, and is arguably a worse mess now. Why the hell should I or anybody else believe that this time will be different?
There is simply no argument that our interventions in the Middle East have been anything other than an abject disaster. To argue otherwise is delusional. There is no less hatred for the U.S. emanating from that part of the world than there was on 9/11, and that hatred will exist whether we are there to “help” or not.
What is just staggering to me – although it shouldn’t be at this point – is the complete unwillingness of the interention-istas to engage in even a little self-reflection and a little honest evaluation of their results of their preferred policies. To the degree they acknowledge any less than ideal outcomes of their policies, the intervention-istas sound like today’s socialists when confronted with the history of their sorry movement: it’s not the fault of the policy, and next time it will work if only the right people are allowed to implement it. Trust us. Um, no. You’ve been too wrong for too long, and only a fool would trust you at this point.
For those of you who agree with bringing the troops home from this and other undeclared wars, don’t feel bad for those on the other side of this argument. When you see them mocked, when you see them in agony that they are not going to be able to – consequence free – send others off to fight their pet wars, when you hear their drama-queen shrieks about what a disaster this or that troop withdrawal is … well, this is a time it’s ok for you to indulge in a little bit of schadenfreude. If anything, they are getting off light – very light – in terms of consequences for their disastrous policies. As for me, I’m going to go scour YouTube for some of those military homecoming videos where soldiers surprise their kids who didn’t expect them home so early. Those things get me every time.
U.S. making FULL withdrawal of troops from Syria. Neocons hardest hit.
Before I begin this introductory piece in earnest, I would like to take a cue from Tad Wert’s excellent piece about The Underfall Yard and display some gratitude. A little over six years ago, one of this site’s founders, Brad Birzer, co-founded another site called Progarchy.com. While dedicated to music in general, as it’s title would suggest, it’s emphasis was on my favorite musical genre, progressive rock. Not long after the site went live, I left a comment there that grabbed Dr. Birzer’s attention. The next morning, an email expressing thanks for the comment arrived in my inbox. We exchanged a few more emails and promised to enjoy a beer together if we ever met in person.
But that was far from the end of it. Only moments after that exchange ended, I received another email, this time with an invitation to be a contributor at Progarchy. Having more than a few opinions about my favorite music, I jumped at the chance to write there, and I was off and running. Still, I’ve never forgotten how I ended up there, and thus my decision to follow Brad here was made before the invitation email arrived.
As for me? Professionally, I’m a patent agent, which can be thought of as a patent lawyer sans law degree/state bar admission. By education, I’m an electrical engineer, so the patent applications I write and prosecute are related to computers, electronic circuits, things like that. Some of you are probably reading this on a device that has some stuff inside for which I wrote the patent. I’m also a Navy veteran, having served six years as a sonar technician on the nuclear-powered submarine USS Olympia, with the entirety of my enlistment served under the best commander-in-chief of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan.
Personally, I have a wife who originally hails from Koga, Japan (about an hour north of Tokyo by train), and most importantly, an eight year old son who is one incredible kid. It’s possible that he’s a bit spoiled, although I have absolutely no idea whatsoever how that happened (insert faux-innocent facial expression here).
Now to tie things up, I do a lot (and I mean, A LOT) of writing in my day job. That writing is primarily an amalgamation of technical and legal writing … with emphasis on the technical … and the legal. One of the joys of being a contributor at Progarchy was that I was able to write about something I loved, music. Here, I get to do the same, and more. I’m sure topics of many future posts will be musical in nature, but this site offers me a chance to write about other things. I’ve already got a few ideas bouncing around in my head. Please accept my apologies for the rattling noises.
In closing, I’d like to thank the founders of this site for having me. It’s truly an honor.