It’s About Making Babies!

OK, so Iraq and Iran seem to be using one of the little bits of operational security we learned as a nation some hundreds of years ago. That Presidential Candidates and Congress seems to believe doesn’t apply to them.

Loose Lips Sink Ships. I had a reproduction of a WWII poster proclaiming this. The message was quite clear, let the enemy know where your forces will be, what they are doing, and you paint a target on our people in uniform. You sacrifice soldiers and sailors because of your stupidity, because of our arrogance, because you would rather be thought ‘in the know’ or that your opinion matters ever so much more than you are truly concerned about America or Americans.

So, we are into a season of Congress insisting ‘pull the troops from Iraq’, and we see the Iraqi’s applying the techniques we documented that work in Vietnam and again in Iraq: Put bloodshed on TV, and the US Government will fall all over itself to look like peacemongers.

Recall Jimmy Carter? How he lost us a supportive government in Iran, lost the US Embassy and US Citizens there to street rabble and Islamic militants? How the charade of trying to recover the hostages dragged for 444 days, until the Iranians succeeded in not only overthrowing the Shah of Iran, but the Carter presidency as well? How the Hostages came home the day Reagan was inaugurated?

Present day Iraq and Iran understand successful tactics. They are definitely engaged in overthrowing the US government, by intervening directly in our political process, by the bombings in Iraq and staged incidents world wide.

Reid can declare the war lost. In his private home, to his family. When he acts in public, though, he becomes party to the slaying of more US servicemen and servicewomen in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Congressional measure setting a pullout date is an open invitation to forces shooting at our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters in harm’s way in the Middle East. Some efforts by Homeland Security to identify enemy sympathizers and those providing funds and other material support to enemies abroad — what about people in the government who encourage our enemies, damaging America, by the words they utter in public? Words that simultaneously damage the ability of our armed forces to secure our nation against threat and harm, and that encourage our enemies?

Al Quaeda, I am sure, dates back even further than the Carter administration. But they grew up with a history showing how to beat the US: Embarrass the government. Pay the war protesters (as was proven in the anti-Vietnam protests). Provide the atrocities that idealists abhor and don’t understand, and that the media feed on.

My personal feeling is that President Bush completely missed the discipline of what successes his father enjoyed as President. President Reagan, in my understanding, wasn’t that capable a politician or leader, but he surrounded himself with men of spirit, competence, and dedication. And he used them to better the nation. The senior Pres. Bush continued the concepts that won Reagan control of the economy after the fiasco of the Carter years, that continued the economic growth that ended in Clinton’s last term. Our current present Pres. Bush seems much less skilled at picking people of dedication, of competence, and he is a lot less capable of telling the difference.

But. President Bush isn’t actively and publicly cheering on the enemy. At least Vietnam’s ‘Hanoi Jane’ wasn’t a serving US Senator or Congressman, when she declared North Vietnam a friend to Americans even though enemies of the US government. Reid, though, is in a good position, along with other opposition leaders, to proclaim from within the bowels of US government ‘We surrender! We abandon our troops to whatever you want to do! Just leave us alone here in Washington, DC so we can ignore you!’ As if that ever stopped aggression. It doesn’t work with playground bullies, terrorists, pirates, or fanatics.

As the bombings in Iraq continue, as the death tolls continue to climb, I remain convinced that National Security is more than something the Army does. National Security is everything we do to build and preserve the strength of our nation, our economy, our security against foreign overt and clandestine intrusion, and our will to stand strong against attack.

Our Interstate highway system originated with President Eisenhower. As an Army officer it had taken Eisenhower months to cross from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific with a military convoy. Later, as President, he had his department of defense laid out our system of Interstate highways to provide an ability to grow the economy, to tie the nation into a single region, to deny an enemy the ability to isolate one region from another, as we did in WWII in Europe, where railroad and surface bridges were important strategic and tactical targets. The Interstate highways were instrumental in transforming our national security and our national economy. When an Interstate road fails or is damaged, we repair not only to avoid annoying delays and detours — we can clock the impact on the national economy, we can plot the impact on emergency preparedness.

So how much more do we need to reduce the risk and support the morale of our troops overseas? How much more do we need our national leaders to be aware of aiding the enemy when building their own little sand castle?

NML writes on Baggage Reclaim that you need standards when dating. This seems pretty obvious.

But, what are standards? What NML discusses are courtesy, respect, and discipline, character traits and behaviors that you must demand in a date or partner. A standard is a measuring stick — if she acts thus and so, does that behavior measure up to acceptable? A standard is a way of separating the acceptable from the unacceptable. When you talk of ‘danger signals’, of ‘red flags’, usually you are talking about measuring behavior or appearance or communications against a standard, finding that the action falls in the ‘danger’ zone — and you should protect yourself accordingly.

What I worry about is that we overlook the part of ‘goals’. Why do you accept a date? What do you want to happen? What standards are appropriate for the role you want your partner to play?

I knew a lady. She went out for a regular ‘Friday Night Itch’. She would find some guy to sleep with, that she called Ralph rather than bother learning his name. She made fun of him if he stuck around until the sun came up. I heard her laugh about one such encounter with her friends, she told me of others. Her standards? She wanted a light gloss of non-criminal behavior, an interest in sex. She certainly didn’t offering anything better.

Another lady that I worked with dated rarely. She behaved as a wife and mother at work and socially, looked for dependable rather than exciting, was outgoing and enjoyable to be around and to work with. And the guys I saw her date? Dependable, resourceful. Disciplined. Last I knew she married happily.

Standards and goals should be reciprocal, because behaviors reinforce each others. If you are attentive and respectful (not fawning and slavish!) and disciplined, then your partner is more likely to return the courtesy. Act arrogant and condescending, and your date will respond with anger, disrespect, or withdraw emotionally. If you are looking for a co-parent, a life mate, the people you date with similar goals will be happier meeting and responding to your expectations.

I believe this goes back to ‘Its About Making Babies’. That is, what is the goal of the social encounter? There are different standards of behaviors for different social occasions. The standard of good behavior in Navy Boot Camp is different from the standard for good behavior with your fiance. The standard for acceptable behavior in the boy’s locker room in junior high is different from the standard for good behavior at the Junior/Senior Prom.

Do you date because a dating is a habit, something to do when there isn’t anything on TV and you would rather have someone to rub against than to scratch the itch yourself? Do you date because it is expected after a certain number of drinks? Do you date because friends relate good/bad dating experiences? Is dating one of the types of social encounters you use to look for and evaluate a potential long term partner?

If the goal is a long term partner, then use the standards of a good parent — discipline, respect, a sense of joy, integrity, able to adapt and willing to change. By showing these traits yourself, you meet the standards of those also looking for a mate, and who knows? You might measure up to their standards!