Igni ferroque

Currently, Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign has devolved into internal squabbling, selfserving information leaking, finger pointing, and a general inability to adapt to the Obama campaign's activities. Much of the McCain campaign's flailing on issues, attacks, and negative campaigning are attempts to make an issue "stick" to Obama. Some pundits have called McCain's campaign all tactics and no strategy. Some pundits believe that it is the financial meltdown They are all wrong. What we are seeing is the Musashi 's classic definition of collapse as mentioned in the Go rin no sho's Book of Fire.

Sen Barak Obama will be president because not because of the money, Senator McCain's short commings, President Bush's failings, or the financial meltdown. Senator Barak Obama will be president because the country understands that he is the prospective sovereign that understands "The Way", and that this is what the country needs now.

Senator McCain's precieved flailing is a product of his fighter pilot training. Here is what McCain says about his own decision-making process in the 2002 book "Worth the Fighting For" which he co-wrote with Mark Salter:

"I make them (decisions) as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can," ...furthermore... "Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint."

Why does Senator McCain say this about his decision process and why is it due to his fighter pilot training?

The answer is due to John Boyd's OODA Loop. John Boyd was an airforce fighter pilot who saw combat in the Korean War; he is the U.S.'s Musashi. He is revered not by the USAF where he served and litterally wrote the book on fighter performace methodology ("Energy-Maneuverability_theory"), but in the USMC where his theories are the foundation of maneuver warfare.

"According to Boyd, decision-making occurs in a recurring cycle of observe-orient-decide-act. An entity (either an individual or an organization) that can process this cycle quickly, observing and reacting to unfolding events more rapidly than an opponent, can thereby "get inside" the opponent's decision cycle and gain a military or business advantage....

"In order to win, we should operate at a faster tempo or rhythm than our adversaries--or, better yet, get inside [the] adversary's Observation-Orientation-Decision-Action time cycle or loop. ... Such activity will make us appear ambiguous (unpredictable) thereby generate confusion and disorder among our adversaries--since our adversaries will be unable to generate mental images or pictures that agree with the menacing as well as faster transient rhythm or patterns they are competing against."

wikipedia OODA Loop

Sadly, Senator McCain is misinterpreting John Boyd's OODA Loop. Senator McCain s understanding is based solely on speed in traversing the OODA Loop. This is a very common and very fatal reading of Boyd. What Senator McCain is doing is quickly observering, making decisions and acting but eliminating the orientation process. Further, the OODA Loop is not a simple loop, but "the entire 'loop' (not just the orientation) is an ongoing many-sided implicit cross-referencing process of projection, empathy, correlation and rejection.". Currently, the McCain campaign has become detached from the empathy and correlation part of orientation.

 

Blogger Viviana A. Zelizer recently posted a piece on Huffingtonpost "Pricing a Child's Life". She asks the question of how to put a price on a child's life when determining compensation in civil actions. This is a very good post with a good historical information. I highly recomend it. Professor Zelizer rightly understands what motivates most Claimants: "Claimants ask for public recognition of their losses, fixation of responsibility for those losses, and enough damages to hurt the responsible parties. Payments for the love and a child's lost future seem just compensation". She also, understands that conservatives view this as "money grubbing". What she does not mention is that it is all about crime and punishment, and the justice that it brings.

The conservative View

The opposition to punitive damages is often led by conservatives. Conservatives value punishment when disscussing the law. Conservatives believe that punishment is a "deterrent". The exception being when said punishment may be metted out to one of their own (Scooter Libby ). When individuals, not of the rich elite, attempt to gain justice from a civil action against a large corporation, or member of the consevative elite, then conservatives claim that plantifs are "money grubbing".

Using conservative reasoning, it would seem that punishing (thru punitive damages) the enitiies for negligence with regards to 9/11 would serve as a deterent toward future negligence. Further, punitive damages applied to enitiies (typically corporations or government) would deter them from bad behavior. In general, for our government, this is not the case because the individuals responsible do not personally suffer. For corporations the individuals responsible (in practice), again, rarely suffer any penalties, or the penalties are insignificant with respect to the crime (Enron .,Robert Milken). In fact, for corporations, they routinely calculate any negative payouts when deciding if it is profitable to break the law. So what we have here is a lack of "personal responsiblity" .

Value of a Life? What is just?

What is a life worth? I believe that this is the wrong question to ask. The appropriate question is what is the monetary award that would dissgourge any gains made by the defendents, render defendents financially incapable of any recitivism, and compensate for any lost income and benefits of the plantifs. This is not a random or "money grubbing" concept. This is about the "public good". When corporations and government (and the individual decision makers therein) are not brought to justice then we have no civilization.

Clash of civilizations

The Bush administration often calls GWOT a clash of civilization against barbarisim. Aeschylus in the Orestia tells us that Athena brought civilization to the city of Athens by replacing private vengence with public justice. Punitive damages that help preserve the public good are part of public justice. What conservatives and the Bush administration advocate is a return to a feudal system where the noble does not answer to any but his peers and his betters. Justice for those of lower social standing is nonexistent. It is a world view of might makes right, where personal loyalties and conections are preeminent.

The issue of justice is also prime to the issue of why we are failing and will continue to fail in the middle-east. Aeschylus would have been familiar with the culture of the middle-east. It is tribal, it is about personal loyalties, personal honor, and private vengence. If we do not provide public justice to Iraq and Afghanistan, then we will never be able to bring any kind of civilization to those regions. Why was the Taliban successful? What is the appeal of Sharia law ? The answer is that they bring a form of public justice to a tribal society. We may dissaggree with the form of public justice, but we do not provide an alternative.

Because there is not central authority controling the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, we see it as chaotic. We look to external and internal causes like Al-Qieda, or Iran for the violence, but what we have failed to see is that Abu Gharib, Guantanomo Bay, and contractor malfeasence has shown the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that we will not provide public justice. Therefore, all these people have left is the tribe. All we leave them is private vengence.

What the current 9/11 civil action says to the world is that the conservative ideology does not provide equal protection under the law, nor does it provide public justice. Instead it is a return to public justice for the privileged.

Freemarket is not justice

What the conservatives have never understood and will never understand is that what we see in Iraq and Afghanistan is not unique. At the end of the last "Gilded Age", Marxism arose as an alternative to "freemarket" capitalism. Eventually, what people found was that neither extreme worked well. What did work well was a regulated market system. One that balanced workers rights with employer's bussiness needs. A system that protected public goods like air, water, energy, food, communications. and transport. This system worked because it provided public justice at all levels. It had mechanisms that allowed recourse against those in positions of power that stepped outside the law. It protected those who blew the whistle on those in power when protecting the public good. It was not perfect, but a work in progress. People believed that the system was attempting to protect all of us. Today, we have allowed this system to be gutted at all levels. At some point in time, there will be a backlash.

The genius of the American system is that the Constitution provides for a bloodless change of power in the form of elections. However, the integrity of our elections has come into question. If this system is completely discredited then we may find that people will seek private vengence to fill the vacuum left when there is no public justice.

Nature of Power

Sun Tzu likened power to water. One may hold water in your cupped hands, but even then the water slowly leaks between you fingers. So it is with power. One can never hold absolute power for long. The harder one tries the more power slips from your grasp. If a ruler is not just, then he will not be able to lead the people in a time of conflict.

Conclusion

While the 9/11 civil action will not decisively move us from civilization back to barbarism, the verdict rendered and upheld upon appeals will indicate which way we are traveling. Justice is not only about crime and punishment, but a requisite foundation of our civilization.

The U.S.'s plans to use air strikes against Iranian uranium enrichment facilities and nuclear reactors, is a very bad neocon wet dream. This opinion is based on a cursory analysis of the "unintended" consequences of said air strikes.

Many sites are underground bunkers, which the administration is targeting with B61 mod 11 nuclear weapons. While the yield is around 10k tons (TNT equivalent), the issue is the radioactive fallout. I have worked in the nuclear arms industry, and all underground test are performed within a reinforced concrete structure that is then buried. Notice there is no entrance hole! Any hole would be a path of least resistance that would allow the resulting plasma to escape. The effect would be similar to a filled balloon's gas escaping through the input nipple. Hence a burrowing nuclear weapon like the B61 mod 11 would vent skyward (presuming that this was delivered by air), thus assuring that some radioactive material would reach the upper atmosphere and irradiate the entire planet. The heavier fallout would fall more locally on Iran, Iraq, Europe, China, Afghanistan and Israel the actual levels and pattern would depend heavily on weather patterns, time of day etc..

Jangle Uncle was a subsurface test of a 1.2kt yield device. The purpose was to model the effects of a 23kt ground penetrating weapon. The picture below shows the results. A B61 mod 11 weapon is about eight times the yield of the test. The yeild is about twice that of a GBU-28.

In the case of a successful hit with non nuclear weapon, like the GBU-28, on an underground uranium enrichment plant, depending on angle of entry, size of any secondary detonations, etc. radioactive material may exit through the penetrator entry path. While it is not a certainty that radioactive materials will reach the upper atmosphere, it is likely that radioactive material would be released.

From the very cursory analysis above, it is clear that the use of a B61 mod 11 weapon on Iranian targets holds great risk for those few allied countries we have in Europe and the Middle-East as well as any non-combatants (including Israeli citizen, Iranian citizens, and Russian citizens) to be of any use. However, without the B61 mod 11 the U.S. will not be capable of destroying the underground facilities that we do know of. There is the additional risk that we do not know the locations of all the enrichment facilities, and reactors.

What I find offensive about this subject is that when the Israelis bombed (see Operation Opera) the Osirak light-water nuclear materials testing reactor (MTR), they did so before the fuel had been loaded into the reactor for fear of fallout, but no talking head, blogger, or leader has given even cursory thought to the consequences of attacking a functional uranium enrichment facility, or reactor loaded with fuel. Apparently, It is very easy to advocate air strikes to "safeguard" people, but not so easy to seriously assess the consequences of these air strikes. It is precisely the "unintended consequences" (read lack of appreciation for the effects of one's actions) that will cause harm to the very people we are attempting to "safeguard". While Chernobyl was an accident, using many B61 mod 11 weapons on Iran would be premeditated murder and fratricide.

The only real course of action is to honestly negotiate with Iran. This means negotiations without preconditions. This means sitting down at the table with Iran before they capitulate to the U.S.'s demands to cease and desist uranium enrichment.

Recently, Elaine Pagels wrote in the San Jose Mercury:"The truth at the heart of `The Da Vinci Code'". In response to the barrage of media shows attempting to debunk the 'Da Vinci Code' by Dan Brown as factually inaccurate. Professor Pagels believes that "[t]he real mystery is what Christianity and Western civilization would look like had the 'Gnostic' gospels never been banned. Because of the discovery by that Egyptian farmer in 1945, we now at least have the chance to hear what the ``heretics'' were saying, and imagine what might have been."

Indeed. Around 143 CE, Valeninius was a candidate for bishop of Rome (A.K.A. Pope). He was not elected. He was the great hope of Gnosticism. Shortly afterf his death in 175 CE,

"Irenaeus began his massive work Adversus Haeresis with a highly-colored and negative view of him [Valeninius] and his teachings that occupies most of his first book."

- From wikipedia entry on Valeninius.

While I concur that what might have been is the "appeal" of the 'Da Vinci Code', the real threat of the book and the "heretical" texts found at Nag Hamadi is one of trust.

In a previous post I made the claim that the "coin of the relam" was trust. The suppression of the Gnostic gospels by Archbishop Athanasius (c 367 CE ), and Bishop Irenaeus show a lack of trust in their laity; or shall we say that they trusted the laity to not accept the church's claim that salvation can only come thru the church if the Gnostic gospels were a competing dogma. It is clear that these men suppressed the Gnostics and the Nestorians in an evil and corrupt grab for political and religious power. They were attempting (like today's televenvangelits) to create a population sheep. They knew all to well that Gnostics (mystics) would more likely be independent thinkers. This would be very dangerous to the goals of men like these.

It may have taken hundreds of years to eradicate mystisim from lay Christianity, but it was never completely eradicated.

The thing that the church may have understood is that mystics make outstanding warriors. They, therefore, concentrated the mystics in the military orders. Okay, yes they also tended to take in the second etc. sons of nobles (Primogeniture), but these knights were still indoctrinated in a monsatic life that did encourage reflection and introspection (required for independent thought). These orders were kinda the Spartans of their time (Battle of Montgisard).

While these orders exist today, they do not practice the arts that made them what they were. Instead the are dedicated to charitable works (Knights of Malta).

Understanding what warriors might have been nurtured by a Gnostic church, it is not too hard to understand why Athanasius and Irenaeus persecuted the Gnostics Heresy. The consequence of that persecution is a population that, today, demands to know what other lies have been foisted upon them. If they had not suppressed Gnosticism, they may have had a harder time controlling the masses, but the church would not be attempting to improve its image because it has lost the trust of the public (see Roman_Catholic church sex abuse scandal, and List of scandals of the Roman Catholic Church for things that the church forgot to mention).

Currently, my fiance is taking class on Herodotus. Yes that Herodotus, the one that brought you the The Histories.. I am mainly famililar with Herodotus through reading the descriptions of major battles and campaigns of the Persian war. Examples of which include Thermopylae, Marathon, and Salmis.

In that class a student asserted that the Samians were cowards when they defected at the battle of Lade (494) ,during the Ionina revolt. This is a common misconception. In modern times western society has come to believe that running away from a conflict is effeminate and cowardly. The unfortunate thing is that the Spartan stand at Thermopylae, as described by Herodotus, is one of the sources of this problem. The other is Prussian school system which required "a strict education in ethics, duty, discipline, and obedience.".

Thermopylae is often held up as the example " in military academies around the world to show how a small group of well-trained and well-led soldiers can have an impact out of all proportion to their numbers". In western military dogma (often misquoted and misunderstood) Thermopylae is held up as the ultimate example of why the west has dominated the east for so long. The theory is that the iron dicipline of the western soldier is the difference. Thermopylae is where three hundred Spartans under Leonidas held at bay a force of 2,641,610 men under Xerxes. It is considered one of the most famous last stands in history. " Thermopylae is also regarded as being as much a lesson in the importance of favorable terrain and good strategy as it is in good training and discipline". Dogma has emphasized that dicipline over all other dimensions was critical to the Spartan strategic success at Thermopylae.

A careful reading of Herodotus and other references, will show that the Spartans practiced warfare on all levels: physical, moral, pychological, economic. This is the secret of why Sparta held power for so long against opponents that often had larger armies, and more resources. The Mongols (under most Tarkhans except Kitbuqa whose desire for "death in battle over retreat and shame" cost him the battle of Ain Jalute), Alexander the Great, the Cartheginians under Hanibel, the Romans under a number of generals including Caser, and Napolean prior to the invasion of Russia all achieved similar successes. In Patterns of Conflict, John Boyd presents the modern interpretation of the The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China which shows that humans have known what kind of education is required to be successful in any conflict since circa 450 BCE.

The traditional western emphasis on "a strict education in ethics, duty, discipline, and obedience." does not serve well in an environment of incomplete information, and ambiguity. Flexiblity allows for faster strategic and operational tempos to be achieved by delegating decision making authority to the lowest possible level. Emphasis on obedience slows down the organizational tempo by requiring all decisions to be pushed up the the chain of command not down. As anyone who has "faced death at the point of a sword will tell you, conflict is all about thinking in a hostile environment. Knowledge is ammunition. To paraphrase Sun Tzu if you understand your people (like how much you can ask of them) then you can compensate for any weaknesses and use any strengths, and if you understand your opponents then you can capitalize on his/her weaknesses. Dicipline is important, but it has been over emphasized since Napoleon’s defeat of the Prussian army in 1806. The real coin of the realm is not "strict" dicipline, but trust.

In the west we like to quote Nicola Machiaveli

 

"Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails."

 

However, the difference between love and fear is that people who love you will attempt to take actions on your behalf even when you are not there. People who fear you will not take actions that benefit you when you do not require it thru coercion. In an environment of organizational competition (war). An enviroment of fear will slow the operational tempo and increase the odds of the organization (you and your buddies) to fail (die). An evironment of trust (love), allows people to take actions with the intent of furthering the organization's (you and your buddies) intentions that will, on the whole, increase the odds of success (surviving). The importance of operational tempo has been illustrated in modern times by Col. John Boyd in his work Patterns of Conflict.

To understand the magnitude of the overemphasis on discipline we can look at a map of the Thermopylae choke point where Leonidas choose to meet Xerxes (see fig 1 source file: Battle_thermopylae.png).

The choice of battlefields was a critical factor in the Spartan success. The psychological dimension cannot be overlooked as well. Below is an excerpt from The Histories Volume 2 form the Gutenberg Project. It illustrates the Spartan's use of psychological warfare. Here are men facing death combing their hair! They are more concerned with how they look as a corpse than they are about death. This to the point that they let Xerxes scout go back and report on their activity.

 

208. As they were thus deliberating, Xerxes sent a scout on horseback to see how many they were in number and what they were doing; for he had heard while he was yet in Thessaly that there had been assembled in this place a small force, and that the leaders of it were Lacedemonians together with Leonidas, who was of the race of Heracles. And when the horseman had ridden up towards their camp, he looked upon them and had a view not indeed of the whole of their army, for of those which were posted within the wall, which they had repaired and were keeping a guard, it was not possible to have a view, but he observed those who were outside, whose station was in front of the wall; and it chanced at that time that the Lacedemonians were they who were posted outside. So then he saw some of the men practising athletic exercises and some combing their long hair: and as he looked upon these things he marvelled, and at the same time he observed their number: and when he had observed all exactly, he rode back unmolested, for no one attempted to pursue him and he found himself treated with much indifference. And when he returned he reported to Xerxes all that which he had seen.

209. Hearing this Xerxes was not able to conjecture the truth about the matter, namely that they were preparing themselves to die and to deal death to the enemy so far as they might; but it seemed to him that they were acting in a manner merely ridiculous; and therefore he sent for Demaratos the son of Ariston, who was in his camp, and when he came, Xerxes asked him of these things severally, desiring to discover what this was which the Lacedemonians were doing: and he said: "Thou didst hear from my mouth at a former time, when we were setting forth to go against Hellas, the things concerning these men; and having heard them thou madest me an object of laughter, because I told thee of these things which I perceived would come to pass; for to me it is the greatest of all ends to speak the truth continually before thee, O king. Hear then now also: these men have come to fight with us for the passage, and this is it that they are preparing to do; for they have a custom which is as follows;--whenever they are about to put their lives in peril, then they attend to the arrangement of their hair. Be assured however, that if thou shalt subdue these and the rest of them which remain behind in Sparta, there is no other race of men which will await thy onset, O king, or will raise hands against thee: for now thou art about to fight against the noblest kingdom and city of those which are among the Hellenes, and the best men." To Xerxes that which was said seemed to be utterly incredible, and he asked again a second time in what manner being so few they would fight with his host. He said; "O king, deal with me as with a liar, if thou find not that these things come to pass as I say."

210. Thus saying he did not convince Xerxes, who let four days go by, expecting always that they would take to flight;

 

While it might too subtle for my fiance's classmate, but this is the Spartan version of soft power. They are communicating that they are ready to die. In fact, they want to die, and they would love as much company on the road to Hades as they can find. The message is that you do not want to fight these guys. As can be seen from the passage, Xerxes did not get the message. The real lesson of Spartan power is that power is best maintained by not using power. The corollary is that when power must be used then one must be able to deliver. History shows us that the Spartans did deliver.

On a side note, that I use to illustrate what John Boyd would call orientation, given today's cultural biases, I would not be surprised if this classmate (male) is homophobic. He might believe that homosexuals would degrade military unit cohesion. he might further believe that homosexuals do not have the intestinal fortitude to fight in a "real man's" war. Well surprise, surprise, surprise! The Spartans, like most of Greece at the time, practiced homosexuality. The lesson here is that you need too develop a fact based appreciation for other cultures or you will end up like Xerxes! As for the prejudice that to be an effective war fighter you must be big and macho. I believe that the following example will be illustrative.

Around 600 BCE the Tao Te Ching was written. Its influence on strategy was to emphasize a more rational strategic approach to conflict. When Sun Tzu and his successors wrote on war (The Art of War, Thirty-Six_Strategies) they were often criticized as being soft, effete, and weak. They were criticized for advocating running away. The cry was often victory or death. It should be noted that all Asian martial arts are based on the Tao and Sun Tzu. The most successful schools demonstrate that brute force is will always lose to flexibility. If you have any doubt see Royce Gracie ( Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu) It is understandable that one might want a modern example of the use of the Yin (female) aspect of strategy over the brute force strategy of attrition: Phantom Soldier: The Enemy's Answer to U.S. Firepower , by H. John Poole, Posterity Press; Illustrate edition (August 9, 2001). For those interested in this subject, this would be the best 15USD you will spend.

The late Col. John Boyd in Patterns of Conflict advocated getting inside the opponent's OODA loop. This would then facilitate collapse within the opponent and or his organization. Sun Tzu said that the best is to attack an opponent's strategy. Miyamoto Musashi gives us a more personal view of strategy.

 

Miyamoto Musashi To Hold Down a Pillow:

'In contests of stategy it is bad to be led about by the enemy. You must always be able to lead the enemy about. Obviously the enemy will also be thinking of doing this, but he cannot forestall you if you do not allow him to come out. In strategy, you must stop the enemy as he attempts to cut; you must push down his thrust, and throw off his hold when he tries to grapple. This is the meaning of "to hold down a pillow". When you have grasped this principle, whatever the enemy tries to bring about in the fight you will see in advance and suppress it. The spirit is to check his attack at the syllable "at...", when he jumps check his advance at the syllable "ju...", and check his cut at "cu...".

The important thing in strategy is to suppress the enemy's useful actions but allow his useless actions. However, doing this alone is defensive. First, you must act according to the Way, suppress the enemy's techniques, foiling his plans, and thence command him directly. When you can do this you will be a master of strategy. You must train well and research "holding down a pillow". '

 

While Boyd gives us the modern system level mechanism to create collapse, Miyamoto Musashi gives us a personal view on collapse:

 

"Everything can collapse. Houses, bodies, and enemies collapse when their rhythm becomes deranged.

In large-scale strategy, when the enemy starts to collapse you must persue him without letting the chance go. If you fail to take advantage of your enemies' collapse, they may recover.

In single combat, the enemy sometimes loses timing and collapses. If you let this opportunity pass, he may recover and not be so negligent thereafter. Fix your eye on the enemy's collapse, and chase him, attacking so that you do not let him recover. You must do this. The chasing attack is with a strong spirit. You must utterly cut the enemy down so that he does not recover his position. You must understand utterly how to cut down the enemy. "

Miyamoto Musashi, Gon Rin no Sho

 

War is a very serious business. War costs lives and costs treasure, on both sides. War is the crucible that will burn away all other illusions. War is not something that is about heroes or cowards. The best war is the war not fought. The most successful warrior is the one who has never had to strike a blow. While the uninitiated would think such a person weak, those that truly make war their profession would disagree. Such a warrior while he may look in repose is attacking his opponents strategies. He is fighting without fighting. If such a warrior serves and during his service his nation knows peace, but his opponents know collapse, then he is truly an exceptional warrior. If his nation attracts allies, without violence or intimidation, while his opponents win allies thru subjugation , tyranny, and intimidation then he is a truly an exceptional warrior.

It saddens me that we live in times where exceptional warriors are not recognized as the valuable resource that they are. While we hold illusion of victory or death.

As for my fiance's classmate's assertion of the Samian cowardice at the battle of Lade (494), it shows a lack of appreciation as to the accute level of animosity that existed between Greek states during this period. This act reveals that this person is not a professional warrior and not a serious student of history. This person also lacks the appreciation, flexibility, knowledge, humility, curiosity, perception, and internal strength to survive on the modern battlefield (or any battlefield for that matter except as a matter of luck). This person is the reason we need to institute a more back to basics education system the includes the classics as enumerated above. Some would consider this a liberal education, I consider it a more classical education.

Conclusion

Some of the subjects touched on by this post include appreciation, orientation, mechanisms that induce collapse, collapse, strategy, soft power, maintaince of power, the institutions that promulgate and perpetuate the unhelpful attitudes that keep us from achieving real security, the dimensions of warfare (moral, mental, physical, economic),the warrior and society, love and fear, homophobia and why that prejudice is less than helpful, the qualities and education required to prepare someone for conflict, and the relevance of Thermopylae to modern attitudes and events.

Thank you Herodotus.

Some friends told me that a movie "Freedom to Fascism" they recently saw espoused the below myth:

"All Federal income taxes are used to service the U.S.
government debt, and that the fees and tariffs are used for all other
spending."

Rebuttal:

Not true. Below is a pie chart of the federal budget for 2004. The insert may be difficult to see so there is a link to the gif file as well.



federalbiudget2004.gif

Federal revenues sources are not tagged for any specific spending such as
debt service. Further, the Federal budget is extremely complex made even
more so by the current administration's dubious reputation with respect to the quality and validity of data.

From the www.gpoaccess.gov website, the Federal debt service spending of FY2004 was estimated by the WH to be $319 billion. This is offset by interest from trust funds like Social Security, the Railroad Pension Fund etc. which earns about $163 Billion annually. Tax data is taken from http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/02feb20041242/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbu
dget/fy05/pdf/budget/tables.pdf, pg 22. Oddly, this differs from
http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/02feb20041242/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbu
dget/fy05/pdf/hist.pdf, pg 290. The numbers for 2003 and 2004 differ. For example 2003 actual individual income tax revenues are $793.7 Billion and 2004 are estimated $765.4 Billion on the http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/02feb20041242/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbu
dget/fy05/pdf/budget/tables.pdf document while the http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/02feb20041242/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbu
dget/fy05/pdf/hist.pdf document's 2003 individual income tax revenues are $781.7 Billion (2003 actual) and $721 Billion (2004 estimate).

Total individual income tax revenues
2003 $793.7 Billion
2004 $765.4 Billion

Total corporate income tax revenues
2003 $131.8 Billion
2004 $168.7 Billion

Total for all non income tax revenue (fees, tariffs, excise etc.):

2003 $144 Billion
2004 $172 Billion

Social security revenues (taxes and interest on the trust fund)

2003 $713.0 Billion
2004 $732.4 Billion

While this is not cogent to this analysis, the Social security revenues are on par with the individual income tax revenues. Also, as will be shown below, actual bussiness and corporate tax revenues are about half IRS estimates.

Debt Service:

2003 $318 Billion
2004 $319 Billion

An interesting thing to note is that the 2004 WH budget's table summaries
( http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy04/pdf/budget/tables.... ) estimated
the income tax revenue to be:

Individual income tax estimated revenues WH:

2004 $849.1
2005 $849.9

Corporate income tax estimated revenues WH:

2004 $143.2 Billion
2005 $169.1 Billion


According to the Economic Policy Institute (
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_2... ) 'The latest research from the Internal Revenue Service puts the amount of taxes owed but not paid "voluntarily and timely"--also known as the "tax gap"--at $353 billion, or about 15% of total taxes owed.'

Tax Gap:

2001 $353 Billion

The biggest component is the unreported business income with unpaid taxes of $155 Billion, underreported non-business income $57 Billion, underpayment $32 Billion, corporations $30 Billion. Oh and the "death tax" comes in last at $4 Billion, but it is lumped in with the excise tax.

Conclusion:

My best guess (and I emphasize best and guess) is that the statement should have been:

If the IRS collected on all the taxes owed to the Federal government, then even using the 2001 IRS number of $353 Billion, then there would be no budget deficit.


This has a more truthful ring than the original statement. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the data for the years after 2001. The 2005 budget indicates a $571 Billion deficit, but does not take into account the supplimental expenditures for Katrina, Iraq, or Afghanistan. The 2006 budget is even more opaque. The 2007 budget proposal by the WH is even more opaque and its estimates are even more out of touch than the 2004 budget.