Archive for History
September 23, 2008 at 6:05 am · Filed under Business, General, Government, History, Internet, Law, Money, Opinion, People, Politics, Technology
I’ve decided to conduct an independent study of the economic plans maintained by our two mainstream Presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama. I came to this decision after enduring much consternation this election season regarding people who talk about these policies as if they have themselves authored the plans, despite the fact that most of what they say tends to seem very misinformed. There are people out there, and far too many I might add, who are planning to vote for a particular political camp based on their own, poor interpretations of the economic plans that McCain and Obama have put forth.
Here then is my careful analysis of each plan. The information and quotes that you will find here have come directly from the official campaign website of the relevant candidate. I will not be quoting any third party sources, nor will I be adhering to any third party analysis. The point of this exercise is to get an unfiltered look at each plan in order to better inform. As such, I will not be taking any third party shortcuts. Today we will begin with the John McCain economic plan.
The McCain website (JohnMcCain.com) immediately establishes that their economic plan covers eight major economic areas:
- Workplace Flexibility
- Relief for Families
- Government Reform
- Supporting Small Business
- Cheap and Clean Energy
- Better Health Care
- Simpler and Fairer Taxes
- Lower Barriers to Trade
Prominently placed on the front page of the McCain economy plan, in addition to the eight major areas, is the list of economic advisors who endorse McCain’s economic strategies. An aesthetic little banner scrolls through a list of names and credentials, though there is no indication of who supports what, exactly. This may be intended to imply that each of those on the list supports every facet of the McCain plan, though this seems unlikely. We’ll begin with Workplace Flexibility.
Workplace Flexibility
“John McCain understands that today’s changing economy is making it harder for parents to balance the demands of family life and their jobs. He believes that strong families require that parents be involved in the lives of their children. Flexible work arrangements can help families strike the right balance.”
This page opens with two examples of previous workplace flexibility related legislation that John McCain claims to have been involved with, including the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (incorrectly titled on the McCain website as “Family Medical Leave Act of 1993″), and the Family Friendly Workplace Act.
While McCain’s vote for “Yea” on the former can be found in the United States Senate Roll Call Vote record (103rd Congress), McCain’s name is strangely absent from H.R. 6025 (110th Congress). In fact, even amongst several lists of amended co-sponsors to the bill, his name appears nowhere. Odd that he claims to be a co-sponsor when the congressional record seems not to support the allegation. This could be a typo or perhaps the congressional record is out of date, but it does warrant a mention.
The McCain workplace flexibility page goes on to explain that McCain supports portable health care benefits along with worker driven training incentives in order to allow for upward mobility within the middle and lower classes. The language does seem to paint a positive image of the McCain workplace, at least for motivated employees who intend to better themselves and further their careers. The requirement does not seem unreasonable to this analyst.
McCain would create a National Commission on Workplace Flexibility and Choice:
“…This Commission would bring together a bi-partisan set of leaders representing workers, small and large employers, labor, and academics. The Commission would make recommendations to the President on how modernizing our nation’s labor laws and training programs can help workers better balance the demands of their job with family life and to enable workers to more easily transition between jobs.”
It seems odd that the candidate whose platform is based squarely around smaller government and fiscal responsibility should want to create a commission with such a narrow focus, and right out of the box no less. It almost seems to be an unnecessary growth in government rather than a reduction. And to be totally honest, as a member of the working class I have to say that I feel there are far more important economic issues facing our nation right now. I’ve never had any real trouble with getting days off when I have needed them. This is probably because I don’t abuse my sick days or call out for clearly arbitrary reasons.
According to the McCain website, the commission would focus on the following issues:
- Modernizing the nation’s labor laws so that they allow for more flexible scheduling arrangements
- Ensuring that the nation’s labor laws don’t get in the way of working at home
- Promoting telework so that workers can spend less time commuting
- Making health more portable so that workers don’t lose their benefits when they switch jobs
- Ensuring that workers can choose retirement plans that best suit their needs
- Providing workers with more choice in job training assistance so that they can build the skills they need for new and better jobs
Relief for Families
“John McCain will help Americans hurting from high gasoline and food costs. Americans need relief right now from high gas prices. John McCain will act immediately to reduce the pain of high gas prices.“
McCain’s method for reducing gas prices, according to his website, is to strengthen the dollar and give warning to foreign oil producers that our national plan includes oil independence. He professes that these two items, when used in tandem, will simultaneously bring the price of gasoline down. But realistically, “strengthening the dollar” is not something that can just be done at the push of a button. There are factors in that equation that exist independently of U.S. policy, no matter how well written or how widely supported that policy may be.
Even if McCain had some kind of an “ace in the hole,” able to bring immediate strength to the dollar, the impact would not specifically be on gasoline but would actually include many other commodities. To say that this is a means of reducing the price of gasoline is to make a blanket accreditation. It’s like claiming that by spending less of your money you will become more wealthy. Of course one affects the other, because it actually affects every part of the equation. It’s also much easier said than done.
McCain would support a “gas tax holiday” from Memorial Day to Labor Day. According to the figures posted on his website, this would alleviate $6.8 Billion of tax burden from the American worker. What the site does not mention is how it intends to make up the resulting $6.8 Billion gap in the U.S. budget. With two wars that are shaping up to be the most expensive armed conflicts ever in terms of dollars spent, it seems fiscally irresponsible to offer a gas tax holiday that would create such a huge gap in our budget while simultaneously giving out tax breaks to the oil companies. That money has to come from somewhere, obviously, and it certainly won’t come from reducing taxes or creating $7 Billion tax holidays.
McCain also claims to support the repeal of a $.54-per-gallon tax on imported ethanol. He mentions no means by which to support the American farmers who have reluctantly made the switch to ethanol markets for their corn harvests. They will likely be unable to compete with an untaxed foreign source of ethanol and will find themselves in the position of having changed their business model only to find that they can’t compete with foreign suppliers.
If you think that ethanol is a non-player in our economy, that is to say that if you don’t believe that by cutting off support for American producers of the corn-based hybrid fuel we will experience any ripples in our markets, just consider the recent moves made by General Motors toward their line of FlexFuel vehicles. They now offer 11 models that are E85 ethanol capable. To walk away from ethanol altogether at this point would have a negative impact on American farmers and industry alike.
For homeowners McCain has what he calls his “HOME Plan:”
“Under his HOME Plan, every deserving American family or homeowner will be afforded the opportunity to trade a burdensome mortgage for a manageable loan that reflects their home’s market value. “
This is an interesting claim, though the language of “deserving American family or homeowner” worries me some. Who will be making the assessment of what “deserving” means in any given context? McCain also states that he would prevent 200,000 to 400,000 Americans from losing their homes by adopting elements of a proposition being floated by Democrats.
“…at the same time, McCain is calling for aggressive federal action to help keep 200,000 to 400,000 families from losing their homes. That plan has many of the elements of a proposal by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn...”
Think carefully about the math there. “200,000 to 400,000″ is the same as stating, “200,000 plus or minus 200,000.” That’s not a margin of error, that’s a non-claim. If you are comforted by a statement like that then let me assure you that I too can be of assistance to you and yours. I will gladly give you $1,000,000…give or take $1 Million. See my point?
Plus, according to the McCain website, he would put the burden of distributing applications for the HOME Plan program upon the U.S. Postal Service. Cross-tapping of government agencies is not an efficient way of running a bureaucracy. You can’t save one agency money by charging items to another. This doesn’t offset costs, it merely shifts them around.
Finally, McCain makes a very brief reference to assisting college students who face the potential of evaporating loan opportunities as a result of the present trend in the American banking community toward seeking government bailouts. McCain claims not to support bailouts for financial industry businesses that might fail as a result of improper credit risk assessment, yet he closes out this page by saying that he intends to “expand the lender-of-last-resort capabilities for each state’s guarantee agency.” In other words, he wants to federally subsidize loans for companies that offer them to risky borrowers, a policy stance that he claims to be against as I have already pointed out.
Government Reform
“John McCain will balance the budget by the end of his first term. The near-term path to balance is built on three principles:
- Reasonable economic growth...
- Comprehensive spending controls...
- Bi-partisanship in budget efforts…“
It is no surprise to hear that a Presidential candidate would like to balance the budget. But, much like “strengthening the dollar,” it is a claim that is far easier to make than to make good on. The first bulleted point on this McCain campaign page seems like a no-brainer, “…historically the greatest success in reducing deficits (late 1980s; late 1990s) took place in the context of economic growth.” How profound; we paid off more debt more often when we’ve had more money. What a massive realization!
McCain’s next statement is perhaps the most frightening for Lower and Middle Class Americans yet:
“In the long-term, the only way to keep the budget balanced is successful reform of the large spending pressures in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.“
Sure, turning our backs on senior citizens in their retirement and denying the poor critical medical assistance is a guaranteed way of reducing expenditures. It’s also a surefire way to go to hell if you subscribe to traditional Christian values. If you do not count yourself as a Christian, as I myself am somewhere between an agnostic and an atheist, it is at least a questionable way to show voting Americans that you stand behind them.
If you look at the McCain website, you’ll notice the lack of any alluding toward where Americans will turn for sustenance in their retirement, or when they are gravely ill but too poor to pay a doctor. Then again, back on the “Workforce Flexibility” page McCain did make mention of allowing seniors to work until later in their lives. Perhaps he plans to do away with Social Security by simply not allowing us to retire?
McCain would also show deference to “Small Businesses” by “…minimizing expensive mandates - such as those for health insurance and pro-union initiatives like card check.” Yet another head scratcher in the McCain economic plan. He states that he wants to increase workplace flexibility, partially through making health care benefits more “portable,” but he concurrently supports eliminating the need for small businesses to provide health care to their employees. Sure, no health care is more portable than any health care. But is that really a solution that we want to explore?
McCain goes on to state that he will provide incentives for corporations to keep good jobs in America as well as deterrence to corporations who would otherwise export their labor needs. He says that he will do so by providing tax incentives to corporations who employ Americans, by encouraging corporations to invest in technology, and by balancing the budget. I’ve already pointed out that the third item in this group is not something that anyone can claim to have direct control over.
As for the first item in that group, I personally believe that tax incentives have proven wholly ineffective at reigning in big business. In fact, more often than not such fiscal experimentation leads to creative energies being put toward tax avoidance rather than toward labor market improvement. And as for the second, and only remaining item in that group, I would first state a question. Has investment in technology improved the labor picture or worsened it? If you consider automotive manufacturing, it has clearly cut jobs by the thousands. Conversely, it does create a few tech sector jobs, but the number of jobs lost is never equal to the number of jobs created. This is not to say that our nation would benefit from avoiding technology, only that by embracing technology we do not aid our labor markets.
In terms of government spending controls, McCain begins with what seems to this analyst as a very strange statement that seems to be made in detachment from reality:
“The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.“
Two questions; 1) What victory?, and 2) What savings? Honestly now, is Senator McCain suggesting that we’ve been profiting from this war and therefore we’ve somehow been able to create a savings from that profit? Because that certainly doesn’t seem to be the tone of the headlines that I’ve been reading:
And the list goes on, and on, and on. I’ve chosen to list only the first three to pop up in the Google search results for the purpose of brevity. But the simple fact remains that the cost of current U.S. policy is no secret. The payout, however, certainly seems to be.
The McCain website then provides an answer to one of my above questions, “What savings?”:
“A one-year spending pause. Freeze non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for a year and use those savings for deficit reduction.”
Read that as absolutely anything that isn’t directly related to the business of war will phase out of existence for at least one year, assuming that the McCain administration wouldn’t then find it decidedly convenient to continue such a policy. Folks, that means health care, that means education, that means Homeland Defense. This essentially means that—for the term of no less than one year—your government will not be there to serve you, unless you consider furthering the depletion of our already nonexistent funds (hence the deficit) through the continuation of one very nearly failed war with Iraq and one wholly ambiguous War on Terror.
Both of those wars are inflating the national deficit exponentially. Neither has provided an immediate, tangible benefit to the American people. If Americans are concerned about their safety at home, they should encourage their representatives to fund the department of their government that is actually charged with providing that safety—and people, that just is not the Department of Defense, somewhat ironically. Onus for providing national security actually falls upon the Department of Homeland Security. If the goal is to defend our nation, why open our coffers to the aggressive, occupational department of our government rather than fund the defensive and protective department? This just simply does not make sense. But it’s standard procedure, and so Americans often just go along.
McCain then mentions the importance of bi-partisan cooperation when addressing the economic factors facing this nation. This may be because so much of McCain’s fiscal policy tends to borrow from concurrent efforts being made by Democrats. It’s almost as if the Senator from Arizona has chosen to “upgrade” Democratic policy as opposed to floating his own.
One policy that appears to be truly germane to a potential McCain administration:
“McCain could use the bi-partisan commission structure used for the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC). Such a commission could be required to report to the President who would then submit the recommendations to the Congress for a straight up or down vote. “
For those who don’t know, the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) was responsible for the closure of a slew of military bases and installations around the globe. Now, I am not arguing that reigning in military spending is a bad idea. But certainly if John McCain wants to make the case that America is in the position of needing a strong military, then why is he suggesting on his campaign website that we should close down more bases and further restrict our global military operations? Again, it makes no sense.
Having served in the Navy myself, I can tell you that the BRAC agenda was one of the most reviled by members of the armed services. I can recall countless “old timers” complaining about the effect that BRAC “realignments” (the term was almost always accompanied by the speaker pantomiming quotation marks) had on the nation. The effects weren’t limited to military strength and agility either, though those are two major problems that result from BRAC base closures. The local economies that surround a closed military base are often decimated by the sudden withdrawal of millions upon millions of government dollars from their incomes and tax revenues in the form of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines spending their hard earned checks “out in town.” Take that away from an otherwise small town, and watch the bankruptcies begin to roll in with the tide.
There is a good bit of what comes across as fluff text filling up the next few screen fulls of this page. McCain makes the typical political claims that he aims to reduce corruption, enhance accountability, serve with indifference to party or creed, and so on. These are conversations that any politician would have well rehearsed and ready to go at the drop of a hat. Then he returns, albeit briefly, to Social Security.
McCain apparently supports private retirement accounts as a supplement to, but not as a replacement for government entitlements. But he has also already indicated that Social Security is one of three major areas of government spending that he intends to eliminate. He talks here about reform, but he does not reassure the voter that he will not simply make Social Security go away.
Finally, he states that he will do what amount to good things for health care, but he excludes any mention of what exactly those good things might be. Of course, being that Medicare and Medicaid are the other two items on that list of government programs to be phased out by McCain, one is left to wonder what McCain’s idea of a good thing really might be. It also leaves them asking the question, “Good for who?”
Supporting Small Businesses
Here the McCain website seems to wander a little. There was more mention of policies that might support small businesses on the Government Reform page than I found in the opening paragraphs of the Small Business page. The page begins with a short word about reducing energy costs. There is mention of new construction for tens of new Nuclear generation sites as well as investment in clean coal technology. How this is supposed to relate to the small business is not exactly clear.
The Small Business page continues with a short word on Health Care. Once again the McCain campaign paints the corporate “burden” of providing health care to employees as a problem with the economy. But I ask, how much larger will the burden then be on the American Hospitals who provide health care to an increasing number of uninsured? Do we “save” the small business by sticking it to the Health Care industry? Health care is one of the fastest growing industries in the country right now. Why in the world would we put a stop to that growth—which provides high wages in skilled and rewarding professions—just to reduce the ability of the American workforce to pay for the care that those new jobs were created to provide? This doesn’t seem to be an overtly wise approach to Health Care in my analysis.
Roughly midway through the Small business page, the conversation returns to Small Business. Arguments are again made for reducing corporate taxes and encouraging R&D and technology investments. While technology is a wonderful thing that often brings high paying jobs for highly skilled workers, it doesn’t often bring the “highly skilled workers” along with it. If McCain won’t be supporting lenders who provide tuition assistance to American college students—arguably the riskiest demographic to lend to—how exactly are Lower and Middle Class Americans supposed to get qualified for all those wonderful new jobs?
McCain closes out the Small Business page by stating that the creation of new markets abroad is vital factor in the success of our economy. He then contradicts a previous policy stance that claims to shunt the idea of exporting labor. Here he claims that allowing American corporations to export goods and services will have a positive effect on our economy. But earlier in his economic strategy he claimed that he is interested in, “Enhancing international competitiveness to keep jobs here; not abroad.” Well Senator McCain, which is it?
Cheap and Clean Energy
Here the McCain campaign seems to find some coherency, and if not that perhaps at least a hint of clarity. This page opens with some background and policy plans for three major areas of energy reform:
- Nuclear Power
- Coal
- Renewables
McCain intends to construct 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030, though the fact that his term in office faces a maximum expiration date of December 2016 seems to be an item for consideration when examining this intent. Ultimately McCain sees American building 100 new nuclear plants.
“A rough estimate is that 45 new nuclear power plants will create roughly 700,000 jobs - jobs in construction, engineering, operation and maintenance.”
Notice though that two of the four categories of these “new jobs” are temporary. They only include the designing and building phases which means that once the projects are completed, those jobs go away. Only the other two categories of operation and maintenance would create long-term employment opportunities, and then only to those elusive “highly skilled workers” that I have already mentioned.
When it comes to coal McCain intends to, “commit $2 Billion annually to advancing clean coal technologies.” This is an admirable plan; it would be more admirable though to promise that those $2 Billion would come directly from a Department of Defense spending reduction. Such promises are not likely to come. McCain also mentions that he would like to enhance the coal production capabilities of our nation in order to allow for larger export of our coal to nations like China who have the infrastructure to consume the coal. No mention is made regarding the environmental impacts of allowing an unregulated nation such as China to see such growth in their consumption of unclean technologies for power generation.
The area where McCain seems to have it right is in his affirmation that renewables are of growing importance in the larger energy picture of this nation. He states that permanent tax credits for the booming solar and wind power industries will enable the gradual shepherding of the fledging industries into a commercially viable market. He does not, however, say what those credits would be or what one would have to do in order to qualify for the credit. Such ambiguities are not often fertile grounds for political support.
Some very moving words are then said about domestic oil and gas production. If the claims made by the McCain camp on this issue are true, then we are certainly losing much American wealth by exporting oil and gas production overseas. This much I agree with. But the numbers can be deceiving. McCain points out that:
“Estimates from the Minerals Management Service indicate that technically recoverable resources currently off limits in the lower 48 OCS total 18 billion barrels of crude oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.“
Here are the numbers they don’t offer you:
Average number of barrels of oil pumped daily by OPEC nations: 31.9 million.
Number of months required for OPEC nations to pump the entirety of the 18 billion barrels available for production domestically within the U.S.: 18.
A drop in the bucket, for sure. What happens to all of those new jobs when we’ve tapped our domestic resources, in under two years, and there simply is no more oil to pump here at home? Unless concurrent investments in renewables are able to completely offset the American market for fossil fuels, a major economic crisis will loom on the horizon. I hate to sound so ominous, but the fact is that domestic drilling really is a stop-gap measure at best. To base a nation’s entire energy policy around a two-year, temporary fix is like playing Russian Roulette with America’s economic and energy futures.
Next on the Cheap and Clean Energy page, McCain suggests some fiscal incentives for companies who play an active role in the transformation of America transportation. But the figures he has posted are laughable, even when compared to his $2 Billion in planned funding for the development of the notoriously dirty use of coal for power. He would offer $600 Million in what he actually calls “prizes” to a company who improves battery technologies for electric vehicles. A $300 Million prize would go to a company who improves battery and gasoline efficiency in hybrid vehicles. It almost seems that his sincerity for supporting renewables is less than candid.
McCain continues to discuss transportation reform and suggests that through more efficient energy consumption we can reduce the need for energy production. He cites high-efficiency light bulbs for American homes and the “greening” of our federal government as priorities.
Better Health Care
This page is perhaps the least impressive of the entire McCain economic plan. The majority of the ideas on this page are presented in an incredibly brief list of buzzwords where each idea is described in less than a paragraph. Though the list does outline some concepts that the McCain campaign wants us all to know that they feel are important, there is almost no depiction of how they would bring a resolution for any of these concepts to fruition. In fact, this page comes off sounding more like a list of wishes than a plan for action.
The list of McCain’s health care buzzwords is as follows:
- Cheaper Drugs: Low cost medication is desirable.
- Chronic Disease: Chronic disease is undesirable and expensive.
- Coordinated Care: Having multiple caregivers is preferential.
- Greater Access and Convenience: More is better, and quicker.
- Information Technology: Technology improves safety.
- Medicaid and Medicare: Reform is needed to avert fraud.
- Smoking: Cessation is desirable.
- Tort Reform: Rampant suing of medical caregivers is a burden.
- Transparency: Secrecy and complexity are undesirable.
I am really disappointed by the massive lack of any sort of suggestion relating to how any of these issues will actually be addressed from a policy standpoint. The list does, however, fill up an entire page or more with what seem to be well thought health care catch phrases. Still though, considering the fact that there is an entire section of the McCain website dedicated to health care, one is left wondering if this page was seen as fluff material by the web design team.
Following the list are three paragraphs that deal with reform and the promulgation of portability and lower prices within the health care system. As with the list above them though, these issues are broached but never quite addressed from a policy standpoint. Here McCain mentions that he would give a blanket tax credit out to all American families in the amount of $5,000 ($2500 for individuals), what it calls “cash towards insurance,” though it clarifies by mentioning that the money would actually go straight to the insurer and not ever into the hands of the taxpayers themselves. This seems more to me like a health care industry subsidy than it does a tax credit for the American worker.
Simpler and Fairer Taxes
This page follows the example set by the previous page on health care in that no one item seems to have warranted more than a single paragraph of discussion. The very first item on the page relates to maintaining low taxes. “John McCain will keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax. ” You’ll notice that the McCain camp have taken care not to mention middle or lower class tax changes here.
This seems to be the single most common item of misunderstanding between the McCain and Obama followers that I have spoken with in person and, as such, is the primary reason behind my decision to write this analysis. The simple fact is that while McCain tiptoes around telling us that under his plan corporations see tax cuts of 10% and the rich keep their current tax rate, but the Lower and Middle classes will see tax hikes. One can at least take comfort in Obama’s tax hike floor, which has been openly declared at the $250,000 per year income level. This means that unless a family makes a quarter of a million dollars per year or more, they will not see their taxes go up.
In fact, under Obama’s plan an effort would be made to triple the Earned Income Credit—which, as a parent I can tell you for certain is the single most important fiscal policy that relates to me as a lower class income earner and a parent of two) . Obama would also move to reduce or eliminate taxes on retirement benefits. It seems odd to me when I hear senior citizens and my fellow members of the American Lower Class talking about how Obama wants to increase the size of government and therefore raise taxes on us. This notion is purely misinformed.
The Simpler and Fairer Taxes page of the McCain economic plan closes with more discussion, albeit brief, relating to technology and innovation. There is mention of eliminating taxes on the Internet which McCain says, “threaten this engine of economic growth and prosperity.” This sounds well and good, though for the life of me I can’t recall the last time I heard Americans complaining about how the “Internet Tax” was destroying their lives. Also, McCain would halt any new taxes that might otherwise be placed upon cell phones.
Lower Barriers to Trade
Oddly enough, there are only three paragraphs on this page, and at that only the first has anything to do with Lowering Barriers to Trade:
“John McCain believes that globalization is an opportunity for American workers today and in the future. Ninety-five percent of the world’s customers lie outside our borders, and we need to be at the table when the rules for access to those markets are written. To do so, the U.S. should engage in multilateral, regional and bilateral efforts to reduce barriers to trade, level the global playing field and build effective enforcement of global trading rules. “
For reasons unbeknownst to me, the final two paragraphs of the Lower Barriers to Trade page deal with unemployment benefits reform and improved access to local and community colleges. The shortest page of the entire McCain economic plan, I almost get a sense that the author was growing impatient by the end of writing this section of an eight-part plan for the economy.
All in all, being that I don’t own a corporation and that I’m a member of the American Lower Class, I really have not seen any indication from the McCain website that his party has any concern for me. Indeed, as per the relative norm, I tend to get a sense of their penchant “bootstrap” phraseology, and that has always left a bad taste in my mouth.
JMK
Buy me coffee!
Sphere: Related Content
September 19, 2008 at 7:42 am · Filed under Books, Excitement, Hawaii, History, International, People, Radio
I am pleased to announce that at 10:00 AM Central today I will be doing my first official interview for the book! The Odd Mind, hosted by AngelLesa at BlogTalkRadio.com, is an internet talk radio show about all things publishing. I’ve listened to several of their shows live now, but the real fun is in the archives.
It’s a good thing too, because I’ve pretty much dropped the ball on promoting this appearance! Of course, because it’s my first live interview, this may be a good thing. Oh well. I’m truly looking forward to pointing all of my readers to the archived show with my interview!
I’m a bit nervous, so wish me luck!
WHEN: 10:00 AM Central/9:00 AM Mountain
WHERE: Blog Talk Radio
Come and listen! Even if you miss the live show, you can find the entire thing in the archives—so relax, and take your time. Now somebody tell me that, hurry!
JMK
Buy me coffee!
Sphere: Related Content
September 11, 2008 at 2:26 pm · Filed under Books, Excitement, Government, History, International, Military, Opinion, People, Politics, Technology
By “We” I mean Americans and our staunchest allies, such as Canada, Great Britain, and Australia. Most of what I am about to relay to you is of primary concern to Americans at this point. But all of the metaphoric planets are lining up right now to make the following of concern to us all. I will do my best to convey this information without any overt partisanship, though when you consider the events that have led up to the present state of global affairs, please realize that it is hard for me to keep my finger from pointing.
First, let me re-establish my credibility on the issue. I am by no means an expert, nor am I “in the loop” with the intelligence community these days. I am, however, a former all-source intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy, having worked for nearly two years as a North Korea Tactical Analyst. My areas of responsibility were Air/Air Defense Forces, Ground/Ground Defense Forces, and Weapons of Mass Destruction. The only aspect of North Korean military activity that I did not scrutinize directly was that of the North Korean Navy, though I did earn a Joint Services Achievement Medal for an event that required me to transcend my given duties and report on Naval issues for the Merchant Vessel SoSan incident.
Prior to this I served as a military police officer, guarding the gates of Pearl Harbor immediately following the attacks of 9/11. This was a five month, full-time assignment that resulted directly from the terrorist attacks. Before both of these assignments I spent 18 months aboard the USS Reuben James (FFG-57). I made two deployments with the Reuben James, one to South America, and one to Southeast Asia. I mention this because I want to underline the fact that I have a fairly strong grasp of the concept that is commonly referred to in American military circles as Projection of Power.
An astute military analyst knows from training and from actually observing the military behaviors of other nations, friend and foe alike, that there are certain indicators that he/she must be on the lookout for. An example of this would be observing a massive buildup of troops along international borders, or observing (whether by satellite or through other means) the arrival and preparation for launch of a ballistic missile at a known launch site. When certain of these indicators are observed, red flags go up instantly. Usually though, the developments are far more subtle.
Case in point: the modern world as it exists as of September 10, 2008. Yesterday was a very scary day for someone with my training. For weeks and months, indeed for seven years now, the minor indicators have been adding up. America has lost her sway with many nations on the international stage, and many several more are teetering on the brink of flat out hatred for us. To a certain degree, this is to be expected with any hegemony. The pluralistic nature of interests amongst large populations typically means that dissenters can be expected in response to just about any political trend. This is normally a good thing, a form of that popular American sentiment that checks and balances are necessary within government.
But the simple fact is that, no matter how much we puff up our chest and flex our muscles, being the strongest power in the world does not equate to being the most stable. This is a simple fact, not a matter of opinion. Indeed, in my opinion it actually makes you more likely to be the least stable based on the fact that anything you do that might negatively affect a foreign population will bring on retribution, or at least a strong will for retribution, tenfold and for ages to come. Sadly, good will and friendship are much more easily destroyed than animosity is reversed. In the last seven years we’ve gone a very long way towards destroying the good will and friendship that had existed previously, or that might have been developed in the future, with nations around the world. Only now, it all appears to be coming to a head.
I mentioned earlier the indicators that an analyst looks for as a role of his/her duties in relation to geopolitical developments around the world. I will here do my best to explain to you the indicators that I have been observing, for seven years now yes, but more importantly in the last few months. In fact, the simple reality that such indicators have been coming in increasingly rapid fire, coupled with the escalating nature of said indicators is cause not just for concern, but for grave concern. These are indicators that you will not see or hear outlined cohesively in the media as I am about to do for you, mostly because without proof positive of an obvious and intentionally aggressive act against our nation nobody wants to be the one to ring the bell. I am here today to ring that bell.
North Korea
Kim Jong-Il, the despotic leader of North Korea and self-ordained deity, has long been in favor of the brinkmanship approach to international relations. Brinkmanship is the practice of “pushing the envelope” as far as is possible without causing any long-term change to regional stances. The examples of such behavior are many, including the September 1998 launch of a ballistic missile directly over Japan, which resulted in almost no tangible response from the international community.
More recently North Korea has agreed to dismantle their primary nuclear research facility at Yongbyon, based on what was nearly perceived to be a diplomatic success on the part of President Bush and his allies. But, as has always been the norm for the DPRK, they have since rescinded their support of the pact that led to that dismantling. They are now thought to be rebuilding their nuclear facility, and thumbing their noses at leadership around the globe in the process.
As if brinkmanship tactics weren’t scary enough, there is a new development within the “Hermit Kingdom” that gives, potentially, far more reason to harbor dire concern. Kim Jong-Il is on his way out of power. It has been rumored for quite some time that his health has been waning, and now it seems that the rumors have been undeniably confirmed. His recent disappearance from the public eye is one of those indicators that I mentioned above, and for good reason. When a despotic leader is removed from power, or falls from power, an environment of uncertainty—sometimes violent—almost always ensues.
One of the last official reports that I had the privilege of reading while serving as an intelligence analyst assigned to the North Korean dilemma outlined just exactly how scary such a scenario might be for the region. The analysis has since been discussed openly by American media outlets, so I do not feel that I risk divulging any sensitive information by sharing that analysis with you. The problem with the factions who are rising to power within North Korea is that they are the product of complete and utter isolation from the realities of the international stage.
Due to the isolationist policies of Kim Chong-Il, which are merely the furthering of policies put in place by his father Kim Il-Sung—himself a deified leader—the North Korean people have been stewing in a two-ingredient broth: 1) Isolation has prevented them from having a realistic grasp on the goings on in the rest of the world; 2) Constant bombardment by state propaganda has taken that lack of real world knowledge and replaced it with false concepts of DPRK superiority coupled with a perception that the “Western World” is vile, evil, and wholly inferior.
This becomes a very scary state of affairs when you consider that those who have been in control of both the political and military assets of the DPRK are contemporaries of Kim Il-Sung, themselves aging and facing related ailments. Their hold over the direction in which their nation will head is waning. Coming up through the ranks has been a new generation of ferociously nationalistic youth. Despite the confrontational nature of North Korean policies to date, the “old guard” have managed to keep the nation from reigniting the flame of the Korean War, which was aimed at a forceful reunification of the Korean peninsula and which was never officially ended. Instead, it has loitered in the realm of an incredibly fragile armistice for decades.
In my book Five Years in Hawaii I describe several instances of armed conflict between the North and the South that could very easily have reopened massive armed struggle on the peninsula had it not been for careful diplomatic intervention coupled with some good old fashioned American muscle flexing. After all, we still have some 30,000 troops stationed in South Korea, a fact that nobody has overlooked, rest assured. In another book, The High Cost of Peace, former director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism Yossef Bodansky, outlines an armed conflict that, had it come to fruition, would have transcended even the incidents in my book, taking the potential for chaos in Kim Jong-Il’s absence to new extremes.
In 1994, according to Mr. Bodansky, Iran had attempted to ally with Kim Il-Sung in order to create a two-front war that would have mired the U.S. with armed conflicts in two disparate regions, thus splitting our fighting forces in half and weakening our ability to fight either conflict completely. The plan fell through because of Kim Il-Sung’s waning health, and a lack of faith in Kim Jong-Il’s leadership abilities. Today, with Iran so carefully scrutinized by the U.N. and by the present Administration in Washington D.C., the sudden absence of Kim Jong-Il in an increasingly anti-U.S. global political climate could be catastrophic for the “Western World.”
Iran
Collaboration between North Korea and Iran has been long in the making. Most of Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal are modified and renamed products of the North Korean ICBM program. Iran, in return for this missile technology, has funded North Korea both with hard currency and, perhaps more sinister in nature, through handing over precursors to poppy-based drugs such as morphine and heroine which the North Korean leadership then distributes clandestinely in order to convert the processed drugs into cold hard cash.
When our current President came into office, he was very quick to outline the nature of relations between Iran, Iraq, and North Korea by including them, perhaps without adequate consideration for the consequences of making such a bold claim, in his Axis of Evil. Today most analysts will admit that Iran and North Korea certainly should have been included on the list, but will likely scratch their heads when asked about Iraqi involvement in such a tryst. Yet we invaded anyway.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made little effort to hide his disdain for the West, and in fact has been actively anti-American with his rhetoric. Of far more concern than rhetoric, however, are the allegations that have been made which claim that he is actively supporting opponents of, and perhaps even clandestinely fighting with his own forces, the U.S. in Iraq. In my estimate, this is a response similar to the Chinese intervention in Korea during that war.
They simply cannot permit, according to their own policies and posturing, a U.S. led democracy to exist on their border. Though I do not support these regimes, I have a difficult time questioning such behavior. After all, we’ve done the very same in the past, simply consider the Bay of Pigs to see my point. We weren’t okay with a Soviet presence so near to our borders, why would they be okay with one of ours? Such dualities are a clear indicator that this type of reaction is not seated squarely in the realm of radical opposition to the U.S. Indeed, we’ve behaved before in precisely the same manner. Hell, the CIA has been supporting the violent overthrow of foreign dictators for ages!
When you consider the past in terms of Iranian relations with North Korea along with the condition that I have just described, the sudden absence of Kim Jong-Il is a very scary notion. Alone, these issues may not be cause for widespread panic, I agree. The DPRK has been up to their childish approach to foreign relations for some time. But sadly for us, the fact that the top office of the tyrannical despotism that we call North Korea has suddenly been vacated is not an event that has taken place in a vacuum. Actually, if you look around the globe, you will see several other instances of evacuation of power within long-standing “enemies” of our state. The consequences of such shifts in global control are already making themselves known.
Pakistan
Pervez Musharraf, the former President of Pakistan, has also vacated his office recently. Though he was considered by our current administration to be a staunch ally in the War on Terror, it is clear now that this is a position that was held only by the politicians in Washington. It certainly is not the feeling of Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who recently told the world that the U.S. is not winning the war in Afghanistan primarily because the Pakistani government is not holding up to their end of the anti-terror deal that President Bush has been so quick at pointing to as a success of his team in Washington.
In fact, U.S. military leadership has begun launching clandestine assaults within Pakistani territory. This is a development that the Pakistanis are not happy with at all. Beginning yesterday and continuing today, photographs of Pakistanis burning American flags have appeared in major American news outlets. Current Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, while considered to be a pro-U.S. leader, has questionable levels of control over the sentiments of his people, and more importantly over the actions of his nation’s strongest government entity—the Pakistani Army. Indeed, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani, along with the Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, have been clamoring to denounce the U.S. incursions, calling them a threat to Pakistani sovereignty. And yet our forces have begun to launch more raids into Pakistan.
President Zardari, while considered to be pro-U.S., is only one man in a long line of people who have been grabbing at Pakistani control for a very long time. The Islamic nation has a very robust history of military coups and internal power struggles. Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who was also Zardari’s wife until she was assassinated in one of these internal struggles, was also considered to be pro-U.S. That position undoubtedly led to her demise. This does not mean that it was a bad position, just that it was—and is—a very dangerous one. While I hate to speculate at such things, there is a very real threat to Zardari, and his control over his people and his military are questionable at best.
Cuba
Cuba is yet another long standing political opponent to the U.S. that has experienced a recent evacuation of power. Much like recent developments in North Korea, it is a condition that was brought upon the world by the waning health of their dictator, in this case Fidel Castro. While arguably more stable than Pakistan and North Korea, the sudden removal of the driving force behind their foreign policies is an indicator of a potential for chaos in the region. Admittedly, not all news out of Cuba is bad these days. In the wake of the recent slew of hurricanes and tropical storms that have pounded the region, American news agency have recently managed to broadcast live from the historically isolated nation. This is something that certainly would not have happened under Castro.
But just as the departure of their leader can lead to positive developments, so too can it lead to terrible developments. Those in Cuba who support their ailing leader are radicals, a condition similar to that of present day North Korea. True, Castro has never enjoyed ubiquitous popular support, due heavily to their close proximity to the United States. Many Cuban refugees have made their homes here. But ties to other Latin American nations in the region who have recently been very boisterous in their Anti-American rhetoric, and who just yesterday secured the symbolic support of the former Soviet state of Russia, are very close to these radical factions within Cuba. A recent and reportedly jovial phone call from Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, placed to an ailing Castro, indicated the Venezuelan President’s intent to fly a Russian bomber low through Cuban airspace.
Venezuela
Whether the call was made to indicate a realistic intent or if it was simply intended as a bit of levity between two Latin American dictators who are both Anti-American in their posturing, is not the issue of importance. In fact, the likelihood of Russian commanders allowing the South American President to fly one of their most prized assets is very near to nil. The fact that Russia has flown two long-range, strategic bombers to the Libertador Military Airfield in Venezuela is a massively symbolic development in and of itself.
Landing Russian bombers in the Western Hemisphere, a bold move to be sure, was the first instance of Russian military assets establishing a presence here since the draw down away from from the Cold War. You can bet that American military analysts like myself were squirming in their seats and working around the clock in an attempt to glean the true intentions of Russian commanders even as the intercontinental flight took place. It is a concern that won’t likely be allayed in the near future.
President Chávez has been one of the loudest contestants to U.S. policy and has repeatedly referred to us as “The Empire,” even going so far as to call upon other nations to take up the fight, both politically and militarily, to crush the U.S.A. He has also, in the wake of President Bush’s decision to turn his back on the region as a result of their refusal to support the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, been handing out huge loans to, and offering Venezuelan oil at a major discount to, those countries who have been willing to be as raucous about their anti-U.S. sentiments as he has been. In essence, he has been buying their loyalty and, sadly, it has been working.
In the sense that Chávez has been loud and upfront with his disdain for the U.S. hegemony and the following globalization created by our Capitalist economy, he has in some ways limited his ability to strike such anti-American deals with leaders outside of the South American region. He has been seen, by many leaders, as a sort of nuisance. He behaves much like that kid on the block who simply hasn’t learned when to shut his mouth. Even nations who are themselves postured against U.S. interests are hesitant to get in bed with him for the simple fact that he is too brazen with his words and actions. Allying with him is seen in some circles as geopolitical suicide.
Russia
The fact that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev even considered a move as audacious as flying strategic bombers into our hemisphere, and then basing them out of Venezuela in spite of Hugo Chávez’s seemingly irrational behavior, is perhaps the most frightening of those indicators that I have mentioned. It is a highly visible move to make the Russian position on U.S. actions around the world public, and to leave global leaders on no uncertain terms as to which hat they’ve thrown their lot with. Either Medvedev is as crazy as Hugo Chávez, or they’ve forged an alliance that will not easily be reversed in the eyes of Washington.
All of this comes on the heels of the Russo-Georgian conflict, in which the U.S. has squarely placed itself on the side of anti-Russian posturing. Without having been there, it is hard to say who was actually in the wrong, if anybody. Americans typically are not willing to embrace a notion that does not leave somebody holding the blame for international issues. But Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has admitted that his forces attacked the breakaway province of South Ossetia, which in turn provoked the Russian military response. His complaint, understandably, is with the fact that Russia decided to invade sovereign Georgian territory in their response. But would the U.S. have acted any differently if, for example, Mexico had decided to attack Texas? It is unlikely.
In fact, Russia has already claimed that the decision to send their bombers to Venezuela was a tit for tat response to the U.S. decision to send military cargo planes into Georgia following their invasion of the former Soviet state. If this is true they’ve modeled the behavior on our own, a notion that Washington is likely to disregard, but one that deserves much more careful consideration. Surely U.S. leadership can see that the very same policies which have brought us to our present confluence are being reiterated against us in a diametrically opposed position held by our enemies, and even by our supposed allies like the Russian giant.
If you recall, the decision to invade Iraq was one that the United Nations did not support. As such, President Bush decided to create, out of thin air, his Coalition of the Willing. In essence, America has thumbed their nose at both international sentiment, and international law. Being one of the U.N.’s Permanent Five it was an easy act to orchestrate, but it cannot logically be called any more legitimate than Russia’s recent aggressive behavior in their previously held territory. Indeed, it would seem that modern U.S. policy is now being used against us. Who can raise a legitimate objection to this without coming off as the pot calling the kettle…well, you know.
China
The one wild card that, as yet, seems not have have fallen in favor of the anti-American crowd is China. Economic reform in that nation has been leading to an unprecedented surge in wealth. This is good for the Chinese people, but more importantly, it is “good” for the Chinese military. We must not forget that the Chinese maintain the largest standing army in the entire world. But the mere fact that free trade with America has been good to China does not mean that their historically pro-Communist and anti-American stance has changed any. If anything, it’s a bit like the kid who gets bullied handing over their lunch money in hopes of appeasing the bully. But as anyone who has been bullied before can tell you, they generally just come back for more, peaceably or otherwise.
Coming full circle with my analysis, I would like to point out once more that China has been quite willing to engage the U.S. militarily in the past. Had it not been for their intervention in Korea, there would be no such thing as the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, better known to us as North Korea. In fact, were it not for their intervention, coupled with the Soviet installation of Kim Il-Sung, and added still to the fact that both Russia and China have a history of supplying weapons to our most vehement enemies, and one begins to wonder what China might be waiting for.
Sadly, I fear that we may not have to wait much longer for an answer to that question. With Russia openly defying U.S. and international sentiment, as did we in 2003, the recent evacuation of strong figureheads in three of our harshest detractors—North Korea, Pakistan, and Cuba—is certainly cause for dread concern.
In this analyst’s opinion, all the indicators are in place to suggest that the global, anti-Western crowd has been busily forming a coalition of their own. It may be the beginning of the end for U.S. military, political, and economic supremacy. But what’s worse, it could be the end for the U.S. altogether. If a conflict were to break out between Western and anti-Western factions, you can be sure that it will reach proportions that will earn it the moniker of World War III very rapidly.
JMK
Buy me coffee!
Sphere: Related Content
August 22, 2008 at 8:02 am · Filed under Book Reviews, Books, History, International, Military, Navy, People
What a wonderful story! This book, written by David A. Kearns, is one that I would never have known about had it not been for a close friend recommending it. He is an Internet Marketing consultant who has been approached to be involved in the George 1 Recovery Project in one way or another. I really do not know the specifics of his association with the effort, but thank goodness that he is part of it!
This book tells the true story of a 1947 PBM Mariner flight crew who, in the middle of a coastal photographing and mapping mission, encountered a white-out storm in mid flight. Attempting to turn around and exit the weather event, the crew scraped a large snow drift, creating just enough friction (or perhaps a static charge) to ignite over 2,000 gallons of aviation gasoline, sending crew and plane hurtling toward the icy landscape below. Thus began their encounter with the land near the South Pole.
The crew survived for nearly two weeks on essentially nothing more than peanut butter and apricots, only to find that when help did arrive, their rescuers could not access their position. So began a ten mile hike, after surviving for two weeks on meager rations, through a crevasse field, and down a sheer and razor sharp ice cliff. The very fact that anybody survived at all is a true testament to the men’s will to live. But the fact that five men survived such an ordeal with severe wounds, incurred in their mid-air explosion and the subsequent tumble through open air space ending in a less than gentle impact on an Antarctic mountainside, is truly a miracle!
I would recommend this book to anyone with even the slightest interest in adventure and/or tales of survival. I’m pretty familiar with the story of a soccer team that found themselves stranded in the Andes, and in my mind this story blows that one out of the water. Sure, that soccer team went through hell and back, but the brave aviators in Where Hell Freezes Over did what they did back in 1947, and never resorted to cannibalism (hooray)!
JMK
Buy me coffee!
Sphere: Related Content
August 19, 2008 at 12:01 am · Filed under Book Reviews, Books, History, International, Mathematics, Military, Publishing, Writing
Dave Richardson’s Vietnam Air Rescues is now in its fifth edition, proving that his story is still relevant to a world that very much remembers the Vietnam War. I took to reading Dave’s book mostly because my own father (biological) had served in Vietnam. When he became estranged from my mother, my access into the world of an American soldier in Vietnam was limited to what I could find in movies and in books.
Dave’s book came about through years of prodding and consideration. It had never been his intent to write a book that could access the coffers of a national, or perhaps international audience. But the simple fact is that this is exactly what Mr. Richardson is poised to do. In my humble opinion, this book is a great read, and well worth the day or two (at most) that it will take to read.
Because the interview is a little bit long for the narrow column view afforded by the theme here at Words From, I will also provide a Word document that you can download and read offline.
Please enjoy the following interview with author and Vietnam rescue pilot Dave Richardson. Then, head over to Amazon and throw it on your wish list—or better yet, order yourself a copy!
——————————
JMK) First and foremost, I’d like to thank you for writing this book. As the son of a Vietnam War veteran, and a veteran myself, I can’t tell you how valuable the stories in your book are. Vietnam is a subject that many American veterans are simply not willing to talk about. I understand that your children were a major part of the process of writing your story down; can you please share with my readers the story behind what motivated you to write this book?
DR) “Thanks for your comments, Justin. Yes, my children did play a major part in this project. The book has a somewhat convoluted history. When I finished my tour in Vietnam, I was assigned to Germany as a helicopter pilot flying VIP’s and light cargo.
“While in Germany, our family participated in the Volksmarch program, which consisted of walks of varying length through the German countryside. Each participant who finished the route earned a souvenir medal. To pass the time while on these hikes I began relating my Vietnam experiences to my two older sons.
“After 24 years in the Air Force, I retired, returned to California, and began teaching 8th grade Math in the public school system, retiring from that in 1999.
“In 1998, thirty years after my last rescue, my second son, Craig, who was by then an Army helicopter pilot stationed in Korea, found an Internet listing searching for me. With the connivance of my wife, he furnished my contact information to the requesters.
“So it was that, on a Sunday afternoon, I received a call inquiring if I was ‘Jolly 09′. I was flabbergasted and asked who wanted to know. Turns out it was one of the ‘Sandy’ pilots who said the Air Force had requested that the surviving participants of that rescue travel to Nellis AFB in Nevada to brief them on that mission.
“I jumped at the chance and my wife and I traveled to Nellis. It was there that I met (under much more desirable circumstances!) many of the folks who had flown on my final mission. One of them was the survivor I had picked up. We began an on again/off again correspondence via email.
“Having gotten the ball rolling, so to speak, Craig began pestering me to write down all those stories he and his brother had heard so many years earlier. I, however, was reluctant to do this as it sounded like a lot of work. So, the project just faded away.
“A year later, I retired from my teaching job and my wife and I moved to Kansas where Craig and his family (with, at the time, our only grandchildren) resided. Craig began pestering me anew about writing a book, but I wasn’t interested.
“Then, I received an email from the survivor of that last rescue. In it he jotted down the essentials of what had occurred; at least from his point of view. Intrigued, I wrote a counterpoint and found the task to be enjoyable.
“I decided to attempt a written record of those events from so long ago. A key ingredient was locating my old flak map and discovering that I had recorded the dates and location of each rescue on the back. Then began a lengthy period wherein I would write down the particulars of each rescue, while Craig researched and produced maps from the grid coordinates I supplied. We were also able to scan and use the old pictures I had taken while over there.
“We decided to produce our efforts on standard typing paper, bound with a ‘comb’ format. Since this would be a ‘legacy’ of sorts to my children, I was faced with the problem of what sort of style to use. After much soul-searching, I decided to write my own (very unauthorized) history of the Vietnam War for their benefit.
“In January of 2003, we printed 10 copies under the title, ‘An Old Helicopter Pilot Remembers Vietnam’ on a laser printer and distributed them between the boys and myself. It had been fun, but I was glad it was over. This was the first edition.
“Apparently, however, it was not over. Friends and other family members found out about this project and began requesting copies for themselves. Initially, I copied everything onto a CD and sent one to those who asked. I also added a few anecdotes which I had failed to include in the original version. This became the second edition.
“The third edition came about when I discovered a method of producing your own paperback books. Determined to try it, I produced six copies, which included minor typographical changes. My experience was that, although producing your own paperback books is fun, it is also extremely time-consuming, so I once again resigned from the book writing business.
“But that was not to be. After awhile my eldest son, David, suggested that I produce the whole thing as an e-book. At first, I resisted this effort, but finally decided it was the way to get me out of the CD production business. David insisted I change my ‘stogy’ title, so, after much thought, I renamed the book, ‘Vietnam Air Rescues’. Producing the material in e-book form was a lot of work, but we finally got it ready. This became the fourth edition.
“Once again, I ‘retired’ from the book business. Or, at least I thought I had. It wasn’t long before David came up with the idea of having an actual book printed and began bugging me to do just that.
“As always, I was reluctant. I had heard horror stories about rejection notices and the general inability to get a private venture published. David countered these objections by locating several POD (Publish on Demand) companies.
“So I embarked on the fifth version of my book. After looking at several POD publishers, I concluded that Amazon offered the best package through their CreateSpace program.
“They offered exactly what I wanted, a no cost upfront, quality product with no minimum number of books required. They also provided a free sales website.
“I already had my own website (www.vietnam-air-rescues.com) which I had developed after relying heavily on both David and son #4, Mark.”
JMK) Why now? Why not publish your story sooner?
DR) “That’s a fair question, which I think I alluded to earlier. Initially, I was a rather reluctant author, not because it bothered me to write about my experiences in Vietnam, but I simply did not think anyone would be very interested in hearing my stories. I give full credit to my 2nd son, Craig, who got the thing started, and to my other 3 sons, David, Eric and Mark, who quietly encouraged (pushed) their Dad to keep on with the project.”
JMK) I understand that you published this book through CreateSpace. What was the primary reason for going this route rather than seeking a traditional publisher?
DR) “Basically, my focus was still on the book being for the benefit of my sons. I was not sure how to approach a traditional publisher, nor did I want to be ‘smothered’ by an outside force.
“As I mentioned earlier, I was very reluctant to get involved in the marketing process. CreateSpace offered what was to me, the perfect solution. So called ‘Vanity’ publishers have been around for years and they and those authors they publish have had a certain stigma in some circles.
“I was intrigued at the thought of having a book actually published, but, at the same time, I was not interested in investing large sums of money and having a few thousand copies lying around that I could not get rid of. With their no cost process and their ties to Amazon as an outlet, CreateSpace seemed a perfect fit. They have met and surpassed all my expectations.”
JMK) Did you have any trouble with DoD or the Air Force in publishing this title?
DR) “No, perhaps because I did not involve either DoD or the Air Force in any of this. I have tried to be very careful not to discuss any situations that might still be classified. The things I mention are all now a part of the public record.”
JMK) What has been the reaction to this book of your surviving peers from the war?
DR) “Very positive. On my website (www.vietnam-air-rescues.com), I have reproduced some of the written comments I have received from people in all walks of life.”
JMK) Early on in the book you describe the daily process of being a Jolly Green pilot, including being on “alert status.” This was a condition that would place you “up North” in enemy controlled territory. Even though Laos was not officially part of the conflict you do mention enemy forces sneaking up on you to take potshots at your crew. Can you describe what it was like to sit in a plywood shack, completely exposed to the enemy, waiting only for a distress call on your radio? Did you feel vulnerable at those locations?
DR) “Initially, I was very apprehensive. As time and the number of visits increased, it became quite boring. Sitting and sweating in what amounted to a small box with 7 other men was never my idea of excitement. Listening to the strike missions and wondering when and if we would be called on did, however, provide a measure of anticipation.
“Did I feel vulnerable? Oh, yes, but normally, nothing happened. We had 4 sets of double bunk beds, so some would nap, but that gets old after awhile. Others would play cards or talk. I did a lot of reading. Basically, we just endured.
“I remember one PJ blurting out one day that he wished someone would get shot down, so we would have something to do. He was roundly criticized for that, but he meant no harm; just wished for something, anything, to do.
“We had our one canteen apiece of water, which could be refilled from a canister in the helicopter. Due to the hot weather and high humidity, it was important to drink a lot of water, but drinking tepid, bordering on hot, water is not a pleasant experience.
“Our food consisted of whatever we personally purchased and carried. After some experimentation, my favorite was a box of crackers and a can of cold chili. Since we were not legally ‘there’, we were not authorized to draw rations. When we could, we would trade with anyone else who had them, before we left Thailand, but that did not occur often.
“Bathroom facilities were non-existent. You just carried your M-16 or pistol and walked out in the brush a ways and did your thing.”
JMK) It seems odd to sit in enemy territory with your American made choppers sitting out in plain view and with no ground forces to provide security. Were any Jolly Green crews ambushed at those sites, or were the CIA recruited tribesmen who guarded them actually effective against the enemy forces?
DR) “Yes, in retrospect, it does seem odd, and yes, the tribesmen were effective. We were still in Laos, however, and off the beaten track. There was nothing of any value around us for miles and therefore we were apparently of little interest to the enemy. The unofficial war in Laos appeared to be centered around the PDJ and Vientiane, the capitol. I do not know of any Jolly Green personnel who were ground causalities at the sites. Apparently, the tribesmen were a sufficient deterrent during the daylight hours.”
JMK) It seems that much of the war effort revolved around a careful balance between local friendly forces and local enemy forces. The Muong Tribesmen are a good example of this. Another thing you mention in your book were the “blood chits” that your crews would carry with you. Can you explain what those were? Did you or your crew ever hand any “blood chits” out?
DR) “The ‘Blood Chits’ were remnants of World War II. They were printed on a silk-like cloth about 10 x 18 inches, if memory serves me right. They featured an American flag and a message in various languages stating that the bearer was an American fighting man and the United States Government would offer a reward to anyone who assisted him in his escape efforts.
“Fortunately, I never had the occasion to use one, nor do I know of anyone else who did.”
JMK) A recurring theme in your book is something that you refer to as the “Shekinah glory of God.” This was embodied by the appearance of a white light during most of your missions. You took great comfort in the presence of that light, equating it to the protection of God. In your opinion, was God really with you on your missions during the Vietnam conflict?
DR) “Oh yes, absolutely.”
JMK) Have you considered the possibility that the enemy may have been using some sort of reflecting device in an attempt to blind you, the pilot? I won’t argue with you about the presence of God, but is it conceivable to you in any sense that the source of that light may have been more ephemeral? In my mind I can picture a Vietnamese soldier shining that light in your eyes, thinking that he was making your life difficult when actually he was providing you with comfort and a sense of calm. I smiled to myself at that thought, and so I decided to run the idea by you. What do you think?
DR) “In essence, anything is possible. However, common sense would indicate that an enemy who was close enough to aim a beam of light into my eyes was also close enough to just shoot me. The enemy had, obviously, absolutely no advance notice of when or where an American aircraft would be shot down. Attempting to deploy, or even use on an ad hoc basis, such a device does not seem reasonable. Occam’s Razor seems to apply here-the simplest, most obvious answer is most likely the correct one.”
JMK) Roughly two thirds of the way through your tour you encountered a bit of a professional hurdle. The arrival of a new Operations Officer (in the Navy we called them “Ops Boss” or sometimes just “OPS”) who did not like you very much and, as a result, became a constant frustration for you. This is something that probably most military members have encountered in their careers. I know that I had a very serious problem with my Command Master Chief at JICPAC. I think that advice on how to approach such a hostile superior would be valuable to young service members. Can you describe the problems that he created for you and then explain how you managed to deal with him and avoid trouble at the same time?
DR) “We were a very small, tight knit unit. This man was apparently frustrated because he had to play ‘2nd banana’ as a co-pilot, due to his lack of helicopter experience. I say this, although I have the suspicion he would have acted as he did anyway.
“He was able to inflict himself on the Squadron because, in my opinion, we had a very weak Squadron Commander. If you were willing to ‘kiss up’, he basically would leave you alone, although he liked to have his ‘cheerleaders’.
“I was never openly disrespectful to him, but did adamantly refuse to play along with his games. I found it was best for me to just avoid him where possible, which was not easy to do in such a small unit. Strangely enough, he never openly confronted me, just used others to harass me.
“Since I was unwilling to succumb to his games, I found the best way was to avoid dealing with him directly. That is, I attempted to use others as a go between where possible. No matter how much I tried to avoid him, I was always on his ‘s— list’, so to speak and suffered from that in many ways.”
JMK) In one instance he appointed you to prosecute your own roommate during what basically amounted to a show trial. You mention that this should have been a conflict of interest, and I think that any rational person would see that it is. How did that Operations Officer get away with such blatant violations of policy and selective harassment of his men? Did you ever consider beginning an official complaint against him? Do you think that he would have been found guilty if you had?
DR) “No, I did not attempt any official complaint. Remember, I was a Captain; he was a Lt. Col. My job was to rescue downed American pilots; not challenge senior officers’ policies. Did I have an official case? I doubt it. Someone had to do the investigation. I think he would have been able to invent a reason why it had to be me. The worst that would have happened would be that I was excused from that duty, but now at the mercy of an enraged senior officer. Our headquarters was in Saigon, an eternity away. Any complaint would have to be worked up through channels to people who did not participate in our missions and did not understand what we went through.
“A case in point: The policy was that if you arrived as a co-pilot, you stayed a co-pilot. We were fighting a war and did not have an upgrade program. The Ops Officer, however, insisted that an upgrade program be implemented solely for him, and used alert helos in Thailand to gain flying time. Of course he had to fly with an IP (Instructor Pilot). On one flight he mishandled the controls and caused a crash. No one was injured, but a helicopter was lost. The Ops Officer mounted an aggressive campaign against the IP, who was subsequently sent home in disgrace, even though the fault clearly lay with the Ops Officer. After that, people were reluctant to chance their careers by resisting him. This left me highly visible and basically alone in opposing him.”
JMK) During the course of your stay in Vietnam you managed to earn eleven medals, some of which were awarded multiple times. You rescued nine people on seven separate pick-ups, during the course of flying over 100 missions. In my experience it is fairly common for service members to be passed up for recognition, and indeed in your book you describe several rescues that the Air Force chose not to recognize you for. Did this have any effect on your morale or on your commitment to the mission?
DR) “No. I was not there on a medal hunt, I just wanted to do all I could to save American lives. I felt extremely fortunate to be able to perform a few rescues. There were several other pilots who pulled the same alerts I did, yet never participated in a single rescue during their one year term.”
JMK) One mission that comes to mind would be that of your 5th rescue. Overloaded by Special Forces troops-only three of whom were actually wounded-you nearly died in a crash just trying to take off. You saved 13 American lives that day, but were only credited for 3. Additionally, you were nearly subjected to court martial, thanks once again to your new Operations Officer. Many people don’t realize how actively the military seeks to destroy the careers of their own people. What advice would you give to young American service members who might find themselves in a similar position-that of being prosecuted for a “job well done,” as the military likes to put it?
DR) “Technically, I was in the wrong on that rescue. I had elected to pursue a course of action that, while potentially laudable, was not part of my mission profile.
“My advice? Perform your mission, while following your heart. Don’t leave yourself vulnerable to the ‘Sunday morning quarterbacks’. Although I occasionally ‘stretched’ my orders or operating procedures, I was careful to follow military procedures. I would do all that was in my power to complete the mission, yet I would also refuse to perform morally questionable acts.”
JMK) Because of my intelligence background I was very much drawn to the parts of your book detailing your encounters with the boys from “The Farm.” One event in particular stands out in my mind. During one of your stays “up North” a pair of biplanes attacked your position. Almost out of nowhere came a CIA helicopter, which then made quick work of those biplanes. In a rare opportunity you managed to get a look inside one of the aircraft and you mention the presence of some Russian made equipment. You also describe the crew of those biplanes as not being Asian. It seems that you’re hinting at clandestine Russian intervention in the Vietnam War, but you never quite come out and make the claim. Am I on target with this assessment? If so, can you elaborate at all?
DR) “I am not attempting to hint at anything beyond what I saw. There is not much else to tell. I took my pictures and made my observations. What was portable was quickly whisked away. We did not remain overnight at the forward site. When I returned, the biplane and all traces of the incident were gone. I never heard it mentioned again.”
JMK) You got to fly around with an agent from “The Farm” and see things that many U.S. troops were not privy to. Did any of those experiences change your views on your role in the war?
DR) “No. My role was to rescue downed American pilots. Although it was both fun and exciting to get to see, first hand, some of the other side of the war, it was not really relevant to my mission. I firmly believed we were fighting for the right cause and found it interesting to see how low tech methods were implemented.”
JMK) At one point in your Vietnam tour an unidentified man supplied you with an illegally appropriated AK-47. You mention that you felt that he might have been CIA as well. What do you suppose was the reason for your being so heavily exposed to the spooks and their world of secret-squirrel missions?
DR) “We were using their, then secret, bases. This necessitated a certain level of interaction since we also stayed in their living huts when at the overnight site. I do not have any idea why they chose to deal with me individually, other than the fact I could keep my mouth shut.”
JMK) Are there any other tidbits of CIA related activity that you might feel comfortable sharing with my readers and I but did not include in the book?
DR) “No, I was not really ‘in the loop’ regarding CIA activities. What was going on in Laos was an open secret. Amazingly, correspondents who knew the score, would ask us in jest where we had been when we returned. They know full well what we were doing, but, to my knowledge, never publicized any of the details.”
JMK) On your final two rescues you describe a massive rescue operation for a single downed pilot. While rescuing pilots was your business, this particular operation would cost the U.S. seven fixed wing aircraft and one helicopter, as well as the cost of launching 189 sorties-all for the rescue of that single Navy pilot. At what point does enough become enough? Should we have continued through all 189 sorties? Did we come out ahead on that one, or did we cost ourselves more than we should have, coming out on the bottom?
DR)“That, of course, is the big question. What is a single man’s life worth? Is his life worth the lives of others? Our motto, in rescue, was and is, “That others might live”.
“The United States Government asked the fighter pilots to fly against the worlds’ top air defense system (provided by the Soviets) and operate under ridiculously restrictive rules of engagement. It seemed those pilots sole comfort was that we would, if humanly possible, get them out if things went wrong. Of course, we weren’t always successful. But we always tried.
“We did not measure the cost of any mission by the amount of fuel consumed or the hours flown. We measured each mission by whether we made the rescue. Naturally, common sense had to apply. That is why the RCC (Rescue Crew Commander, the helicopter pilot), had the final say as to whether he felt the risks were worth it, or even attainable.
“I personally know of several helicopter pilots who decided the risk was too great and pulled the plug on a mission. They retain my respect and I do not engage in ‘Monday morning quarterbacking’. At the time they did not feel the rescue was worth the exposure and risk of crew. Would I have performed differently? We will never know. I wasn’t there. They made what they thought was the best decision at the time.
“Now, decades later, one might question whether we were right in continuing that particular mission. My only response is, ask the survivor.”
JMK) Finally, what do you hold as the most valuable lesson taken from your time in country?
DR) “‘To thine own self, be true’.
“I did not attend West Point, but have always admired their motto of ‘Duty, Honor, Country’.”
JMK) Thank you for your time Mr. Richardson! I look forward to publishing the final version of these questions on August 19th. Thank you for including me in this tour, thank you for writing this book, and most importantly-thank you for your service!
DR) “Thank you Justin, for your kind remarks.”
JMK
Buy me coffee!
Sphere: Related Content
Next entries »