When 50% + 1 is not 50% + 1; or why Democrats did not actually win the Senate in 2020 

Sorry Democrats, you did not actually win the Senate in 2020. You did win the leadership of the Senate and technically have a majority because of it, but you have to ask yourself “what is the quality of that majority”. That is a much more difficult question. 

America likes to pretend that it is a two party system compared to the 3 to 5 party systems found in Europe. But that is not really true. America’s political parties morph far more often than party loyalists like to admit and each party does have its own wings and fracture lines. Those factions roughly fit together on most issues so they can get along enough to form a more permanent coalition. European countries often do the same thing, just not in as formal a manner. There are plenty of examples of “traditional partners” between parties that also coordinate who runs in which elections and engage in joint fund raising. Are those still small political parties working together or the same party under two different names? Is the US Democratic Party really a single political party or a lot of different interest groups working in tandem with each other? Regardless of where you land on those questions, I would say that the answers are not simply yes or no. 

So let’s say we break the standard red/blue analysis, what are we looking at? Well the obvious swing democrats at Machin, Sinema, and Tester. Machin is both an outspoken swing voter and has a history of pushing back hard against Democratic leadership on policy issues. Sinema and Tester are more mixed. Tester, representing Montana, is quieter on larger issues but does push back on the policy front, specifically on banking and agriculture. He has stated that for democrats in rural areas, the “message is really, really flawed”. Given that Tester has had more success than the rest of the party in rural red states, it is time they start to listen to him. Sinema, representing Arizona, has been very outspoken but that has not fully translated to policy changes or swing votes against major bills. There is a lot of potential for a heavy swing voter here, but only time will tell. 

Republicans carry two of the most reliable swing votes right now: Mitt Romney and Susan Collins. Mitt Romney has the guts, and defendable seat, to stand up to his own party like no one else in the Senate. He is not that moderate of a Republican, but does swing back against his own party on matters of principles with regularity. Susan Collins has a long history as both a swing vote on medical issues and often as a mediator between the right and left that finds red votes and brings them over to blue bills… if those bills are more purple than blue. With Collins, it is not a question of can you get a medical bill passed. It is a question of how much are democrats willing to give up to get that bill passed, because Collins has a record for finding the votes. 

This means instead of a 50-50 Senate we actually need to be talking about a 47-3-2-48 Senate (blue to red). That actually gives you a lot of possibilities, possibilities for both success and failure. 

Why Purple has to be the new Blue; or what happens when your party has to lose strategically because you can’t win

As much as pundits and news channels play up the split between red and blue areas, I think this is largely false except in the case of elections. The hard truth is the core of the Republican Party and the core of the Democratic Party have drifted so deep into their own echo chambers that both now find themselves in a self-sustaining block unable to reach out to members of the other party… and now unable to reach out successfully to that large block of moderate independents that swing elections. This creates an opportunity in the middle for maverick politicians. Purple Democrats can, and have, won in red states (Hello Georgia). Purple Republicans can do the same in blue states (Hi there Virginia). 

The hard truth is that if either party wants to make gains in the other color’s states, they have to recruit purple candidates. The deeper blue or deeper red a state gets, the more the candidate plays to their own party’s core but the less well they do with moderates. This creates an opportunity for the other party to steal the state with a purple candidate. The cost of this dynamic is those purple candidates often run not as a member of their own party, but as an alternative to the leading party in the state. Red states aren’t voting between a “Republican vs. Democrat”, they are in fact voting between a “Republican vs. a Purple Independent with Democratic leanings.”

This only works if the purple candidate actually stays in a pro Independent Moderates position. Fake purple candidates lose reelection fast, and often to deep blue/red opponents. This means you have to consider not just who wins, but what is the quality of that win. You can’t count on that genuine purple candidate once they reach the legislature. That means the Democratic “50” may actually be closer to a reliable 47 with the Republican reliable 48 being a stronger position. As the echo chambers within each party continue to dominate the nomination process in some states, the “winning” party in the Senate may have to get used to acting like a minority party when it comes time to actually write laws.

How to write bills for a purple legislature; or why Build Back Better failed continuously for 6 month before it officially failed

The thing you have to do when dealing with a “majority”, really 47-3-2-48, that requires purple senators is abandon the idea of giant, wide ranging bills. You are not going to get those done. Objections carry more weight than agreement in the minds of people so the larger you make a bill the more objectionable it will become. A focused, single party can work around those objections but a purple party can’t. The Build Back Better bill includes wind turbines, covering the medicaid gap, child tax credit, preschools, and funding post-high school apprenticeship programs, adding new immigration courts, etc. That is not just a lot of stuff, it is a lot of stuff to object to. For purple party members in states dominated by the other party, this is a bill filled with landmines that can sink your next campaign. It is also filled with things that you promised in your own campaign, but remember that objections outweigh agreement. 

Instead of these grand bills, the Democrats need to write small, specific bills. Let’s put these ideas into their own bills and see where we lose the purple votes and if we can make them up with swing voters from the republicans. Breaking those bills out a bit: 

• Wind Turbines: Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas are all red states and are seeing a boom in new wind power projects. While there are still climate change deniers in that group of Senators, they also commonly play both sides. Denying global warming, but talking up power without smog. They will not vote for a “Green Bill to Save the Planet from Pending Doom” but will vote for a “Clean Air Infrastructure Investment” which contains all the same elements. That is an angle that can be leveraged… but not in an omnibus bill packed next to other “green” initiatives and regulations. 

• Covering the Medicaid Gap: There has always been a small number of Republicans willing to switch sides on medical issues. Remember, recently Republicans wanted to overturn Obamacare but were stopped by a fraction of 3 Republican Senators. That faction is still strong and can be leveraged again. 

• Child Tax Credit: Machin has objected strongly to this point… but many Republicans actually haven’t, they have taken no position. Polls show that 41% of Republicans support the tax credits and less taxes is core to the Republican platform. The original version of the tax credit was championed by President Ford (R), then amended on a bipartisan basis in 1997, and in 2017 the Republicans pushed to doubt the credit as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). There are clearly Republican votes that can be won here if disconnected from the rest of the act. 

• Funding Post High School Apprenticeship Programs: southern states have been pushing this line for a while now and with great success. Specifically Alabama which has been quietly building one of the best technical college systems in the country. 

• Adding New Immigration Courts: Florida, Texas, and Arizona senators have all spoken up in favor of additional immigration courts as they are often the states that deal with the influx of immigrants. That is 6 open red votes readied to be swung on this topic. 

While the Build Back Better bill has failed, I believe it is possible for Democrats to get the bulk of it into law by other means. The votes are there, it is just not always the same combination of votes. In all cases, you will need to recruit a Republican or two. There are plenty of options… but you have to actually cut a deal with them and make it happen.

… and this is where I am confused. President Biden was a US Senate for 36 years. He had a long history on both the Judiciary Committee and Foreign Relations Committee working closely with Republicans and finding a mix of both moderate and liberal issues to support. He knows this game better than anyone. How is he missing this? Louisa Terrell is his Director of Legislative Affairs. She has been working in his circle in and out for 20+ years. She is one of the few human beings liked by both Republicans and Democrats on the Hill and in interviews she is blunt about being realistic on legislative issues. I am unsure where this break down on the scope of bills is coming from.

We are in polarized times, emotions are high, and nerves are frayed.

So what am I calling political hate speech? If someone said, “I hate all black people” or “I don’t trust Muslims” both would clearly pass for hate speech across a range of definitions. Both are morally wrong, they would be denounced, and the social push back against them would be justified. But whenever hate speech is brought up, the limits of free speech are also brought up closely behind. Let’s frame that debate. Looking at those previous two statements, I think we can agree that both are clearly highly negative to a specific group and neither adds any real insight to society. While Americans hold freedom of speech as a fundamental right, most are also strongly against hate speech. First, entirely on the moral ground of the content. Secondly, what is gained by it? It is a large negative with no additional insight. When people defend hate speech it is not on the quality of the speech but on the ideals of free speech itself. We see freedom of speech as good for society due to its positive effects for the press, faith, science, arts, and criticism of those in positions of power. 

So once again, what am I calling political hate speech? Same structure as before but since we added an adjective let’s swap out proper nouns. If I say “I hate all Republicans” or “I don’t trust Democrats” would either pass as hate speech? Let’s look at our previous standard: how negative are those statements and how much insight does it provide society? The gut answer is actually different. Today, it is socially ok to hate the other political party. It is not seen as that negative but just part of the political process. Religious and racial identity are held in respect and are treated as a line you do not cross without facing social consequences. Political identity, you side with those crooks? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!!?!? 

… and isn’t that strange? I know plenty of people whose political beliefs are held far closer to their identity than a racial or religious connotation. I know plenty of people who are passionate and closely tied to one specific policy, one among two dozen held by one party or the other, but that one policy is critical to them. They are willing to volunteer their time and money to further that specific cause. They are willing to march, preach, and take a stand for that issue. It is a core part of who they are. 

So let’s view this structurally. Let’s say two people hold mixed views across two dozen policies, some for party A and some for party B. They could completely agree on 24 of 24 polices, 100% political agreement. But the first person feels very strongly about option A of policy 23 while the second person agrees with option A but they are passive about it. Both agree on option B for policy 24 but while the first person finds that a trivial policy, the second person thinks it is the most important question facing this generation. Both people agree on 100% of the issues, but their passions lead one to party A and another the party B. 

And now because of their political alignment it is ok for them to hate each other? If they were elected representatives they would produce identical voting records, and it is still socially acceptable for them to run attack ads against each other? Why? 

Because political hate speech is socially acceptable.

But I have to ask, have you ever read an old book that used the N word? Watched some of the old Disney pieces made for the US government during WWII that featured caricatures of the Japanese? Today those make us cringe. Yet we are 100% comfortable today with political straw men and demonization?  

Political hate speech is a poison and the body being destroyed is not the political parties, but the ability to create policy. The ability to have a minimal level of discourse. The ability for us to consider uncomfortable truths. But this is not the first time we as a nation have faced this poison. 

During the founding of our nation, there was a debate over the role of the church within the state. We have all heard the reasons for why we have separation of church and state… but that story is always told from the perspective of what is good for the state. After those points were made at the constitutional convention, Rev. John Witherspoon stood up. The other founding fathers must have expected him, being the only man of the cloth among the delegates, to provide a counterpoint. He didn’t. He argued in favor of the separation of the church and state for the good of the church. 

Rev. Witherspoon moved from Scotland to the American Colonies at the behest of the Presbyterian Church. The Presbyterian leadership in England had become aware of a schism that had formed between their American congregations but they were unclear of what the causes were or how extensive the schism was. Rev. Witherspoon was a respected theologian so they were sure he could straighten out any details. 

What Rev. Witherspoon found in America was not churches split by theology, but churches split by politics, specifically, the question of loyalty to England. Given the cause of the schism, neither side wanted the nature of the debate to get back to England which is why the Presbyterian leadership was being left in the dark. Despite that, the effects of the poison of politics were so strong they were felt across the Atlantic Ocean.

We live in a multifaceted world made up of many multifaceted communities. Yes, your politics matter, but so does your job, your church, your family, and all the other touch points in your life and community. How does political hate speech filter through those? Are all of those things combined worth the poison of that hate speech?

We can blame politicians, institutions, or specific individuals, but I think we need to stop political hate speech as a society. Chris Rock once noted that as a rule he “talked about what people do, not what they are. If you talk about what they are, that hits harder”. If you want to object to a political action or a bill, do so. You should speak up. But don’t object to who people are. That forces people into camps. And when people get pushed into deep political camps they lose the ability to see the other side. Under this mind set, it is worthwhile to damage yourself once if it causes the other side to be damaged twice. In a zero sum world, that wound is a win. What this actually means is the nation as a whole gets damaged three times so the partisans can score points against that other side. 

We need to move the conversation out of the zero-sum world. A skilled politician and political thinker will be able to see the opportunities for partisan gains as well as when to reach across the aisle to build a bi-partisan bridge. If you can only do one, you are only half a politician. As I looked out at my country today, I see a lot of half politicians driven more by political bigotry than the greater good… or the basic ability to compromise so they can score points in their own districts. Political talking points of both parties are driven more by political caricatures that are closer to the cringe worthy material of the 1940’s then an actual reflection of the world today or the other sides policies. 

I am not saying both sides are equally guilty. The Republicans have been playing with fire more than the Democrats and they got burned on Wednesday. They deserved to get burned on Wednesday… but note that all of Congress got hit by that. We all need to de-escalate the hate and worry more about how to build the bi-partisan bridge then how to score the next round of political points. We are all stuck with each other and the other side is large enough they are not going away.

So I created this blog to talk about policy. Yes, from time to time that also means talking about politics as a necessary evil. For the last four years, we have had only politics and very little actual policy happening. That is also why this blog went silent for a few years. I am publishing this on 10/31, the Saturday before the election.

So let’s talk about 2016. There are two way you can view the outcome in that election: Trump won or Clinton lost with the truth somewhere between those two. That election was more of a Clinton loss then a Trump win. Fundamentally, this is because Clinton was and always has been a weak candidate. First, Clinton has only won a single election which was for the New York Senate Seat in 2000 and while she won that it was by a smaller margin then other Democrats had won a New York Senate Seat. This was with the advantages of coming out of a popular Clinton presidency from her husband, high name recognition, a wealth of support from other liberal groups, and the proven Clinton election team supporting her. On the New York ballot in 2000 she got 55% of the vote for her senate run while Gore got 60% for his presidential run. Second, the Democrats got it right in 2008 in selecting Obama over Clinton. Third, Bernie Sanders was always a strange political outsider but went toe to toe with her in the primaries for fairly deep in the nomination process. When given a chance to vote for Clinton or someone else, people consistently look for someone else.

And this is without taking into account poor campaign management and marketing decisions that were made again and again during her 2016 campaign. They regularly spent time/resources in solid blue states, running up the score in the popular vote, while ignoring battleground states or shoring up the light blue rust belt. When your opponent directly and exclusively targets a specific group in your base, you have to go defend that group. Trump talked immigration, trade, and little else in terms of policy. That hits the union vote head-on and Clinton ignored it. Clinton deserved to lose that election, and god bless Trump he did his best to hand her a win but he was unable to make that many scandals that quickly.

A note on the polls in 2016. First, go listen/read/watch 538 and their various content. The polls where right in 2016, people were not reading them correctly. Clinton never really had the lead because there was a larger than normal amount of undecided voters. Traditionally those voters split evenly, this time they splint massively in favor of Trump. Once again, when given a chance to vote for Clinton or someone else, people consistently look for someone else. The media was taking polls like “Clinton 46%, Trump 40%” and calling that for Clinton without trying to figure out what was happening with the other 14%. On a normal election year undecided voters would have been closer to 4% they would split evenly at the election. Thus pundits would evenly split the 14% of undecided voters evenly and thus the projected results would be “Clinton 53%, Trump 47%” within a specific state. On the actual election those turned into “Clinton 49%, Trump 51%” which is within the projected results. Also note that while Trump’s win was a surprise to a lot of people, it was not a blowout. If Clinton would have done 2% better across the board she would have won.

Here is my view on 2020 in a nutshell. Clinton was awful, Trump is bad, and Biden is meh. My money is on the meh. Both Trump and Biden are known quantities and there are very few undecided voters this year. Biden is at or above the 50% mark in polls in enough states to win. And yes, that 50% is an actual 50% without any assumptions about how undecided voters will turn. There are many paths for a Biden victory if you map out all the possible routes. There are very few, and frankly odd looking, paths for a Trump victory. Things can go bad for Biden on election day and he still wins. Things must go near perfect for Trump for him to pull out a victory.

So that means we have a liberal government again right? Well…

Let’s talk about the Senate. With the presidency and house firmly in democratic hands, it is up to the Senate to slow things down. Senators have a long history of being independent and bucking their party on very specific issues, so expect moderate democrats to act as the brakes on anything too liberal. Most moderate democrats have specific issues with local resonance that they go conservative on. The real question here is how many democrats get senate seats. A 55-45 split is far more likely to push heavily liberal bills through since they can lose a few democrats along a the way while a 51-49 senate will pass the more pragmatic things without an issue but force the democrats to pick their battles on a number of policy fronts. Expect the Supreme Court to act on the most extremely liberal bills… but with a side note. Of course the republicans still have a chance of holding on to the Senate outright, specifically multiple routes to 48-52 favoring republicans, making the Senate an outright blocking body. While the democrats have the edge at the moment, it is a much smaller lead than seen elsewhere and many of these races are legitimately too close to call.

This difference between the 55 senators vs. 51 senators vs. 48 senators does a better job explaining Democratic spending and efforts right now then just Biden trying to run up the score or being extra careful in swing states. Yes, Biden is targeting swing states, but swing states are also where the senate is in play.

Side note on the court, I actually think people have over stated the importance of the new 6-3 conservative court. Roberts believes in voting to preserve the institution and other conservative justices have their own unique pet issues. That creates a quick path from a 6-3 court to a 4-5 court on controversial issues. Much of their conservative legal agenda is specifically pitted against legislating from the bench. While rights issues can and will come into question, broader tax and spend style policy choices seem to be clear of their aims.

So that is where I think we stand heading into the election. Congrats to Biden for the Presidency. Congrats to Pelosi for staying Speaker of the House. Congrats to Mitch McConnell and Republicans for locking down the Supreme Court. Now let’s all watch the Senate races to learn what kind of government we are actually going to get.

Over the past 100+ years our education system has improved. We have increased the standards of our curriculum, improve our teaching methods, implemented a range technological tools, brought in social services and child psychologist to address issues beyond the classroom, and are now trying to track, measure, and even standardized the data we collect so we can make more improvements. While all of this is good the strange thing is in all these years the target our education system as not really changed.

The while this system has many goals, the primary focus within mathematics has been to prepared studies for college level calculus while the goal of the sciences has been to introduce students to the scientific methods then provide them with a survive of current theories. As the years have moved on, the sciences have become a bit more applied which I fully support. Today, the high school curriculum requires four units of math which is a focus on algebra leading to pre-calculus and three to four (depending on state) unit of science. Generally these are taken as one math and one science per year.

But during this time, specifically the last 30 years, the sciences and math have fundamentally changed. Data is everywhere and more importantly the computer power needed to process that data is available. 60 years ago, courses is statistics were a low priority for colleges and a team of mathematicians was need to tackle most projects. Today, the standard high school math classroom has enough scientific calculator to give every student the processing power the only college department heads had back in the 1950’s.

Collegiate Math departments are having to grant degrees in not just mathematics, but specifically statistics. Graduate programs have dropped foreign language requirements and added mandatory statistics courses. In fact, courses like Econometrics or Quantitative Analysis have become foundational courses is many programs. Some colleges are even marketing their SAS or SQL certifications over their athletic departments or small class sizes.

What we have seen is a shift from calculus being the apex of mathematics to statistics being the language of researchers. This is a massive shift on how we research at the college level…. and a change that is completely ignore at the high school level.

So problems and preamble aside, what am I suggesting we change? Well, here it is in a nutshell:
Thing to note:

• I’m replacing the goal of mathematics from preparing for college level calculus to students being able to apply statistics to the sciences.
• All math is getting moved into the first 2 years of high school
• All science is getting move into the last 2 years of high school
• All science is “Applied” because students now have the statistical foundation to bridge data and ideas. This is not a survey of science. It is comparing the predicted outcomes from scientific theory to observed data.

This is a complete rewrite of how both mathematics and science are taught. That said, I would argue that it is not a rewrite in how students learn. Sooner or later every high school math teacher gets asked “why do I need to know this?” This question has plagued math classes for decades and frankly, I think the student is right for asking the question. Much of what we teach they don’t need to know… yet. You need it to do calculus but few professions use calculus day to day. What we have done is the equivalent of asking a shop teacher to talk about carpentry to a group of students who do not know what wood is.

There is an old saying: “use it or lose it”. Like many high schoolers, I learn enough Algebra 2 to take the test and then quickly forgot it all. As an undergraduate, I made due without it and still made Dean’s List repeatedly. During my time in graduate school I had a moment that struck me. It was after an econometrics class. The professor used the Sin and Cos functions to adjust a model, specifically she added a wave like effect on top of yearly data. In other words, she used Algebra 2 to make an equation reflect the natural ebb and flow that we were seeing in the data due to the change of seasons. After class, I grabbed something to eat and then headed to the library to find an Algebra 2 book to remind myself of the details around Sin and Cos. As a graduate student I saw tremendous value in these idea that as a high schooler, and undergraduate, I could not even image a need for.

When I got to the mathematics section of the library, I not only found an algebra book but I found about half my econometrics class there as well. We had all completely discard the knowledge that was given to us in Algebra 2 since we saw no need for. Now, in the context of graduate level statistics, we were learning how useful Algebra 2 was. We were reading a mathematics text book and found it invigorating. This was not “why do I need to know this” this was “oh, I can see how this tool is very useful in these specific statistical situations”.

That last part, “useful in these specific statistical situations”, brings us to science. There is a large gap between using the scientific method to produce data, turning that data into a specific mathematical theory, and then comparing different mathematical theories. High school science is currently doing the first of those tasks, it is not even attempting to do the second and third part. Once again, the technology to do those calculations are already in the classrooms. Although we say we want our students to engage in science, really what we are doing is making them memorize a bunch of scientific trivia.

Real science requires not only an experiment to produce data, but quantifying a theory and then comparing your theory with others. That is actually making science, no just memorizing it for the test only so you can forget it later.

Politicians, educators, and innovators are doing their best to promote the STEM fields right now, but what is the choice we are really presenting our students with based on their experiences. Filtered through the high school experience, what high schoolers transitioning in to colleges are hearing from STEM promoters is “our set of trivia is more important than those other sets of trivia.” What is happening, because our curriculums do not allow it to happen, is that during high school the STEM fields are never about creation, discovery, communication, or innovation. Those elements of science, which require mathematics, are within the reach of high schoolers, but under our current system only the few who enter graduate school ever get to see it.

The Air Force

I’m starting with the Air Force because I think they face the binary choice more clearly that the other forces and have made selections with the clearest bias to one-side. The Air Force is making decisions focused on Great Power War. Their argument is the straight forward. For them peacekeeping is largely about sustained air power for close air support. Any option that increases the number of GPS bombs and rotary cannons available is an improvement.

In 2000, the tactical side of the Air Force was a mix of a small number of F-15Cs (high end air superiority), a very small number of F-15Es (high end strike), large numbers of F-16 (low end dual purpose air superiority and strike), small numbers of B-1s and B-2s (strike, non-close air support), medium numbers of A-10 (anti-armor and close air support), and small numbers of AC-130 (close air support). Note, we actually have used the F-15 models A thru D for air superiority, for simplicity sack I will only be referencing the C model as it is currently the predominate of the 4. Since then most of the F-15c have been replaced with F-22s. The F-35 is set to replace the F-15Es and F-16s, in terms of GPS bombs the F-35 will carry more in these kinds of engagements (not stealth). The B-1B crews begin to train in CAS back in 2002 and in 2008 those aircraft were modified to handle laser guided bombs in addition to the standard GPS bombs for close air support. The newest version of the C-130 can switch from a traditional C-130 to an AC-130 which means instead of a small number of AC-130s the Air Force is able to deploy large numbers of AC-130s. On top of this we also have the addition of the predator drones with Hellfire missiles.

The end results is a massive increase in the number of available of GPS bombs. In this context, the USAF has decided to retire the much loved A-10 to maintain other forces. The hope is that although it is a loss, it will be the minimal possible loss with the additional GPS bombs and the AC-130s and predators filling the rotary cannon gap.

In the A2/AD context it is believed that the AC-130, A-10, Predator, F-16, F-15, and B-1s are vulnerable. Replacing the F-15 and F-16 with F-22 and F-35 addresses those problems with the F-35 providing the bulk of the strike capacity until the A2/AD threat has been removed. This school of thought continues with the argument that in enough numbers, complex, expensive, but highly versatile aircraft like the F-35 with a minimal of more specialized aircraft like the F-22, B-2, and a mix of autonomous options Predators Drones and Cruise Missiles; we will perform both Great Power War and Peacekeeping with the same high-end force.

However there are those who disagree with the Air Forces stances. Although it is accepted that the F-22 is superior to the F-15C and brings tremendous capabilities to battlefield, it is also worth noting that the F-15C has over 100 air to air kills and has yet to be shot down. Those kills are spread across not only the US in Desert Storm (30+ kills) but also earlier versions of the F-15 used by Israel (50+ kills from 79 to 82). Given the great expense of the F-22 and the resulting limitations from Congress on purchases, this means we are transitioning from a fleet of 800 F-15Cs to one of 186 F-22. In fact of the 20 air superiority squadrons we run today, only 12 squadrons were transitioned to the new F-22 while 8 squadrons remain flight the venerable F-15C. There is a similar story in terms of trading quantity for quality with the transition to F-35. The 1,700 new F-35 will be replacing 2,500 F-16, 120 F-15E, and 300 A-10.

Those who hold that peacekeeping is a critical mission set for the US Military truly hate and greatly disagree with the retirement of the A-10. It is a low cost, high-powered aircraft that can provide a unique, high-powered rotary cannon for close air support possible for the troops on the ground. Many of these critics point to the Gulf War where we grounded the A-10 for the opening weeks due to the anti-air threat but after those Iraqi A2/AD elements were targeted and destroyed the A-10s took to the air and wreaked havoc on Iraqi armor.

It is worth noting that our Air Force has been very busy in the last 3 decades. They have had two air wars in Iraq, steady operations in Afghanistan, and NATO operations in Kosovo and Libya. We have a number of aircraft that are veterans of five wars. Aircraft do wear out have do have to be replaced. New stocks of F-15C, F-16, and A-10 would be needed even if we were not upgrading to F-22s and F-35s.

What should the force structure of the US Military be?

This has always been a difficult topic for a number of reasons, primary it centers on an unanswerable question: what will the next war look like? There are generally two approaches to answering this question. The first is to look back at history and try to derive out a pattern. The second is to look to possible near-term adversaries and ask what it will take to overcome them.

In the case of the US military these approaches have led to two very different camps in term of military force structure. The first group talks about a military that can perform “operations other than war.” This is counter-terrorism, counter-insurgency AKA COIN, and traditional peace keeping. Politicians and military leaders hate the terms “peacekeeping” and “nation building.” But take a hard look at the day-to-day patrols during the Vietnam War, US anti-drug operations in Guatemala and Columbia, Somalia in 1993, the NATO air-wars in Kosovo and Libya, our decade plus in Afghanistan, and Iraq the 2^nd time around post “mission accomplished.” Our reconstruction plans post-WWII in both Germany and Japan required lots of funding and US Army bases on site.

Politicians say they don’t want to do peacekeeping, military commanders say they don’t want to do peacekeeping, but time and time again politicians find themselves asking military commander to go do peacekeeping in one form or another. No one likes it but no one has liked it for the past 68 years. This is not going anywhere. It will happen again. We owe it to our soldiers and other service members to accept the unhappy truth and make sure they are prepared to do it and do it well.

The second group looks to near competitors and is all about what is known as Great Power War. In the current environment that means a focus on A2AD (Anti-Access, Area Denial). These experts are looking at the anti-air and anti-ship missiles of nations like Russia and China. They are seeing the addition of sea mines and cyber-attacks. They are also seeing Iran training with swarms of smaller ships, a more quantity over quality approach to naval warfare.

America has dominance in the ability to project power and strike targets. The goal of A2AD is 2 fold:

• Cause high casualties to striking forces. In many cases A2AD assets are not enough to outright win in an open war, however they are enough to ensure a significant cost if there is an engagement
• Strike assets will need to function at a longer range and with greater limitations. The effect of this means some strike assets will be outside their range thus sidelined while others will have to take on significant additional risks while deployed.

Part of the A2AD conversation is to make sure policy makers understand that the strike power seen both times in Iraq cannot be replicated against certain nations due to their A2AD capabilities. It is also critical to understand different military assets have different levels of exposure to A2AD capabilities.

The optimal force for peacekeeping and the optimal force for great power war can be diametrically opposed in many ways. Peacekeeping thrives on low tech solutions, requires stay power over the long runs, and having both international and political partners are not only critical but may be more critical than the military force being deployed. Great Power War requires multiple specialized high tech solutions, a burst of forces in large numbers but only for the short term, and although international and political partners are helpful, it is the military force that determines what is happening on the ground.

People on the peacekeeping side tend argue that their mission is the most likely, which is historically true. Those on the Great Power War side argue that their mission is the deadliest/hardest, which is also historically true, and thus the standard we should prepare against. Given these two differing viewpoints, each of the service find themselves being pulled in two-different direction at once in a time when resources are sequestered, older equipment is worn out due to extended campaigns, and all services are in a “reset” phase.

—

Next week I will be applying these two viewpoints to specific military branches.

Welcome back, this time for the third and final installment on this topic. If you missed the first two they are here and here.

I don’t have anything new to say in regards to US economic power in the Pacific. We are highly interdependent with Asia and everyone reading this has heard that at least a dozen times a year for a decade or more. If you don’t believe it then just look at the items around you. For myself, I’m writing this on a Samsung laptop, while drinking imported green tea, having driven here in my Kia. As I stated at the start of these posts, the economic aspect of the rebalance to Asia is less about the future and more about catching up to our past. So once again: is the US making a rebalance to Asia? No, we are not rebalancing because we are already there and have been there for some time.

If it sound like I’m being harsh toward this rebalance or playing down its importance I assure you I am not. Let’s talk about the third arm of US power: diplomatic. At the start of the Cold War we formed NATO to address the threat from the USSR. It was a tight diplomatic/military alliance with strict responses from all members if any members were attacked by the USSR. The Washington response to a problem is the NATO response. The London response to a problem is the NATO response. The Brussels response to problem is the NATO response.

Is the Tokyo response to China the same as the Seoul response to China?

Maybe?  Probably? Not necessarily? Regardless of which of the previous answers you choose, how sure are you of that answer?

The politics of the Pacific are far more complex than those in Europe of the 1950’s. As an ally, Europe has proven to be highly skilled at developing institutions, forums, and international bodies. These can be very useful in addressing issues or at a minimum make a joint statement about what a solution should look like.

The Pacific is highly disjointed. While Europe might have spats between its regional bodies, the Pacific lacks many of those kinds of bodies to begin with. Organizations like ASEAN have proven to be the exception instead of the rule. In the case of ASEAN, in has a large membership but mostly of the smaller players. The large powers like South Korea, Japan, and Australia lack memberships in regional bodies that allow for the kinds of cooperation, dispute resolution, and joint statements that are sorely needed for soft power to work.

Many of the divisions and security issues in the Pacific are solvable and we have seen these kinds of issues turned into minor technical details or settlements between European nations participating in larger institutions while all their other neighbor were looking on.

Of course there are additional complications and ambiguities in East Asia today when compared to a post WWII Europe. Is the rise of China a threat to East Asia equal to what the USSR was to Europe? For many nations China is both a military concern and an economic opportunity. China’s sea claims have cause even Vietnam to request American military help. If these concerns are true do we need a PATO (Pacific Alliance Treaty Organization) much like we have NATO?

Due to governance issues and demographics, many see China as a rising power but only in the medium term with India following soon behind it but is a sustainable manner. These analysts see India passing China in dominance starting around 2030. If this is the case, should our rebalance in Asia be built around an Indian Ocean nation instead of a Pacific nation?

What about Taiwan? There are significant pros and cons to both including them in any process as well as leaving them out of any process.

This is where I completely agree with President Obama and the rebalance to Asia. In terms of military and economic power this rebalance is not a rebalance, it is a classification change at best and misleading statement on resource distribution at worse. In terms of diplomatic institutions and the State Department’s priorities it is a long overdue call to action. We need a massive push for institution creation and clarity in the Pacific and later across Asia as a whole. I have to contritely call this a “diplomatic surge” simply because of the abuses the word “surge” has received in the current lexicon but it is also an accurate phrase and this diplomatic surge would prevent many fixable problems if it could be achieved.

What makes this surge odd is that it can’t have an objective in mind, at least not in the early stages. The fact of the matter is this situation is murky enough that a clear and present danger is not fully agreed upon by all and there is still great mistrust between necessary players. We can’t walk in and demand a PATO or expanded ASEAN or India/Japan centric alliance with lesser partners attached or any other predetermined structure.

The best approach will most likely to be multifaceted, creating and supporting a mix of organizations; however at some point a lead organization will need to be determined. If a lead organization can be determined, even if imperfect, it forces others to play along within that framework or proactively seek a bilateral agreements outside of that framework.

The rebalance to Asia is a diplomatic necessity. We do not need to see more soldiers in fatigues but more diplomats in suits. We can measure its success not by increasing the N strength of destroyers or fighter jets but by counting the number of regional organizations and the number of times we see nations using the same language to describe specific issues. If we only see a few more troops then this shift is no more than a classification change to describe actions that have been happening for decades.

Well, a classification change and a missed opportunity for America to do some good.

I hope to see you all at the beginning of next month for a completely different topic.