Where Does The Right of Self Defense End?

By my moral compass, self-defense is not an unlimited right since a higher directive tells me to love my neighbor as myself and a guiding inspiration tells me that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I would be completely unjustified in claiming that I was merely defending myself if I began shooting at a mugger in a crowd, knowing full well that the bullets could end up hitting people who had nothing at all to do with the mugging. It would be particularly reprehensible for me to drop a bomb on a neighborhood simply because someone in that neighborhood was defiantly shooting fireworks at my home because of some kind of long term feud.

Just in case you do not understand my allusions; I am officially declaring that I do not support my government's declared policy with regard to Israel. It is morally unsustainable, stupid in both the short and long terms, and something that must be changed as soon as possible. This is, of course, not an easy thing to do. It is not easy for me as a serving military officer to state a position that is opposition to the elected government's position. Here I take my oath of office seriously and remind people that commissioned officers in the Navy agree to adhere to the Universal Code of Military Justice which requires us to obey orders, but we also swear an oath to the Constitution of the United States of America that requires us to defend that Constitution against all enemies "foreign and domestic". That oath is silent on obeying orders.

In my interpretation of that responsibility, it means that commissioned officers swear an individual loyalty to the founding principles of the country, to the established checks and balances and to the limited powers of the executive office holder. I would never organize or participate in any kind of coup, but I feel it is my moral obligation to speak up and to attempt to bring my country's official policies back in line with our historical justification for our own existence.

Our policy of preventive attack is illegal under the way that I understand international law - aggression against another nation was the first real crime that gained the status of international law. Bombing civilians, even with "precision" weapons cannot be justified, even if we used that technique during WWII. Israel, by following the Bush doctrine's lead, has attempted to elevate its right of self-defense to a level higher than is justified by morality of law.

Armies and navies are required to take all possible actions to avoid harming non-combatants; claiming, as some do, that entire civilian populations represent supporters for the combatants is tantamount to using the same justifications used by the 911 attackers on the World Trade Center. I do not buy it for either side.

Please think deeply about why the US government continues to tacitly support and enable Israel to use carefully engineered explosive devices to destroy lives and property for innocent residents of Gaza who have no possible way to escape their destructive force. Here is another thing to ponder - why do some think that Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) are somehow less moral as weapons than those developed at enormous expense? Why are roadside bombs considered to be an asymmetric threat when F-16 dropped bombs are not? Both kill without discrimination.

Here are a couple of quotes from a recent report by the Congressional Research Service regarding military aid to Israel:

Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. From 1976-2004, Israel was the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, having recently been supplanted by Iraq. Since 1985, the United States has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel.
...

Strong congressional support for Israel has resulted in Israel’s receiving benefits that may not be available to other countries. For example, Israel can use U.S. military assistance both for research and development in the United States and for military purchases from Israeli manufacturers. In addition, all U.S. foreign assistance earmarked for Israel is delivered in the first 30 days of the fiscal year. Most other recipients normally receive their aid in installments. Congress also appropriates funds for joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense programs.

In August 2007, the Bush Administration announced that it would increase U.S. military assistance to Israel by $6 billion over the next decade. The agreement calls for incremental annual increases in FMF to Israel, reaching $3.1 billion a year in the near future. The Administration has requested $2.4 billion in military assistance and no economic aid for Israel in FY2008. H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 provides the full Administration request.

Did you know just how much of your tax money was going into building up Israel's military might? Do you like the way it is being used? Does it frustrate you to know that Israel already has all of its US military assistance money for fiscal year 2009 (which started on 1 October 2008) and to realize that even now, there is little we can do to cut it off until next year?

If There is an Oversupply of Houses, Why is the Government Building Walls and Driving Down the Supply of Potential Homeowners?

The American Dream of home ownership has been a driver in our economy for at least six decades. Our large, beautiful country with its abundant lakes, open spaces, hills, mountains, rivers, and freedom has always been a major magnet for foreign capital in the form of individuals and families with active minds, creative hands, strong work ethics, and personal savings. Like most people in the US, I can point to several ancestors who were born elsewhere but came to America to build a life that was not achievable in their original home.

As I look around at the growing number of "For Sale" signs, and read about entire neighborhoods where there are beautiful new homes that are empty for lack of buyers, I wonder why the US government has shifted its policies to so actively discourage the flow of immigrants that could be helping to alleviate the situation? We even seem to have some people in government who believe that it is smart to interrupt functioning businesses to capture and send potential homeowners away.

That seems dumb to me. We really should be pressing our government to stop hurting its own efforts to turn around the economy. After all, there are two ways to solve a supply-demand imbalance. You can choke off the production lines that have been providing the supply or you can work to find new demand that can buy the excess supply.

The later is often far more profitable for all concerned, though it seems that B school graduates educated in the past couple of decades have learned more about the former method. For the people at the very top, and over a short time horizon, it is easier and potentially more profitable (again, with a short time horizon) to stop producing than to increase sales efforts.

In America, we are really good at building homes and we have always depended on a mobile and growing population - some from other countries - to fill those homes to build productive communities. We have benefitted by the natural selection process - people who have the gumption and drive to leave everything that they know generally have what it takes to succeed in a new location.

It seems to me that part of the problem is a jaundiced view of humanity, a view that people who currently do not have very much are a cost, not a resource. That is the wrong way to view human beings who were all endowed by their creator with rather incredible productive capabilities.

Another part of the problem might be a sense of entitlement by people who believe that they should be handed something simply as a result of where they were born or who their parents are. People who feel that way often look down at people whose initial luck of the draw at birth put them in a place with fewer opportunities or gave them parents with less money and education.

I would rather bring in capital to sustain our way of life in many small chunks from people that become Americans themselves than to beg for indulgence from sovereign wealth funds for large chunks of capital that can then be used as a club to influence our international policies.

Bottom line - rational immigration rules with welcoming actions are good for business. They allow America to market one of its major "exports" without sending jobs and capital somewhere else. When we market the American dream and allow people to come here - with their cash, talent or simple drive and determination to work hard, we all profit.

Introduction to Questioning Attitude

For those who are stumbling on Questioning Attitude without coming from one of my other publications, allow me to introduce myself. I have been a commissioned officer in the United States Navy or US Naval Reserves since May 1981. Like most people who have served in a large organization for many years, I have held a variety of positions, but within the Navy my career has been rather unusual. There are not many officers who served through their post department head shore tour, left active duty for six years for entrepreneurial endeavors and returned to active duty to eventually return to being a "regular Navy" vice a US Naval Reserve.

There are also not many who have spent 7 years (and counting) in a row in three very different Washington DC based Navy headquarters assignments at essentially the same level. I have been in an IT job, an analysis job associated with manpower and training, and now in a financial analysis job associated with maintenance. I have been a Commander (O-5) for more than 12 years. This has given me a rather unusual perspective.

As part of my navy nuclear power training, I learned a lesson that has been an important part of my outlook on life ever since - the importance of a questioning attitude. As I move though life and get blessed with the opportunity to observe important events, participate in wide ranging discussions, meet interesting people, and hold different jobs, I often think about why certain things are the way they are, whether or not those things match expectations or potential, and whether or not they can be changed.

It is often prudent to keep some questions out of the immediate conversation, but it can be useful to use the situation for deeper reflection or for starting a conversation with a new group of people who might be interested in learning or helping implement a change. In large organizations, sharing such thoughts and observations may be a way to initiate a change in policy, attitudes or priorities.

My intention with this blog may be a bit grandiose and even a bit hazardous to my current career, but I think that the effort will be worth while. I am using my given name and will maintain a professional level of conversation that respects the need for discretion and security. Comments will be allowed and encouraged, but they will be moderated. I reserve the right to delete any that are objectionable, threatening or obscene.