TEXAS, TEA, & THE TENTH AMENDMENT

            There are seminal moments in American History that all recognize as the start of a major change in the course of the nation.  The shots fired at Lexington & Concord, the attack on Fort Sumter, the speech by Dr. King at the Lincoln Memorial are primary examples of these paradigm-changing events. Will the unprecedented activities of April, 2009 someday be recognized as a pivotal point in the course of the U.S. government?

            Similar to other epoch-making incidents, there is debate about the scope and nature of the April ’09 activities.  Depending on the source, there were between 800 and 2,000 “Tea Party” demonstrations across the United States, (named in memory of the pre-revolutionary war patriots who dumped British tea in Boston Harbor to fight taxes) held to protest what the participants believed was an unhealthy and unconstitutional increase in federal power, at the expense of both individual citizens as well as state governments.  The gatherings were held in large cities and small towns, in both “red” and “blue” states, and generally drew more participants than expected.  Attendees were both young and old, including a fair number of individuals who, in numerous interviews, stated that they had never previously participated in a demonstration, and never expected to do so.  In New York City, for example, with a population that has for the most part favored an “activist” federal government, an extraordinary turnout of 12,500 surprised even the local organizers. The Tea Parties had no central sponsorship, and although individual Republican politicians in some cases participated, were not the product of either the Democratic or Republican parties.

            Though not closely coordinated, the themes of the numerous Tea Parties were remarkably similar: an extensive unease with the unprecedented increase in federal spending and power, anger at the prospect of increased taxes, and concern with the abrupt alteration in foreign policy.  In a nation that has, at times, not been very historically-minded, the protestors carried Revolutionary War “Betsy Ross” and “Don’t Tread On Me” flags.  Speakers decried the growth of the federal government’s power, and what they perceived to be White House and Congressional policies that ignored the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (the portion of the bill of rights that reads:  “The powers not designated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.”)

            Despite the extraordinary turnout, media coverage was remarkably schizophrenic, an indicator of the increasingly partisan press in the U.S.  Talk radio and Fox News provided extensive coverage;  newspapers and most broadcast media downplayed the event, and, in some cases, even seemed to ridicule it.  In a remarkable turn of events, the Obama Administration refused to comment, responding to inquiries by stating that “The White House takes no note of these events.”

            But not all the protests of April were confined to the streets.  In Texas, for example, Governor Rick Perry announced his support for Texas House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50, introduced by state representatives Brendon Creighton, Leo Berman, Bryan Hughes, Dan Gettis and Ryan Guillen.  The measure notes that the powers granted to the state government under the Tenth Amendment have been violated by recent actions of the federal government.    HCR 50 also proclaims that recent moves by Washington violate Section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution, (“The United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union of States a Republican form of government…”) and the Ninth Amendment (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”)

            Conclusion: It is undeniable that a sizeable and growing portion of the U.S. population is deeply concerned over the unprecedented growth in federal power and the radical change in foreign policy. 

The Department of Homeland Security’s Report

On “Rightwing Extremism”

            On April 7, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic & Political Climate Fuels Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”

            The key findings of the report are summarized in the initial paragraph: 

            “The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.  The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president presents unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.” 

 The report lists no evidence that any “rightwing” organization is considering any unlawful acts, but provides a recital of miscellaneous prior incidents, with no tangible ties to “rightwing” politics. The Report goes on to note that:    

“Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists.  DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.”

In addition to citing returning veterans as a potential terrorist threat, the report also states that the threat may include “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

Again, the Report lists no evidence of any kind to back up this concern.  Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security’s own civil rights division was distressed, perhaps over the apparently unfounded and unsupported allegations raised.  Despite internal concern over the serious shortcomings of the Report, the document was released. 

The report has sparked outrage from, among others, Democratic and Republican elected officials and veterans.  American Legion Commander David Rehbein, in his April 13 response to the Report, called it “Incomplete…and politically-biased.”  The veteran leader noted that under the criteria cited in the document, union workers concerned about the impact of immigration on their jobs would also be considered a terrorist threat.  Pete Hoekstra, the senior Republican serving on the House Intelligence Committee, formally requested the Ombudsman for the Director of National Intelligence to investigate the DHS Report based on its “political bias.”

Perhaps the most telling response came from Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, a Democrat and Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Rep. Thompson wrote directly to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on April 14, stating that “This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans—including war veterans…I am disappointed and surprised that the Department would allow this report to be disseminated to its state, local and tribal partners in its present form…I am dumbfounded that I&A released this report.”

In response to the widespread, bipartisan criticism of the report, Secretary Napolitano issued a vague statement denying that DHS monitors political beliefs, and pledging to meet with the American Legion Commander.

Conclusion: Our review of The Department of Homeland Security Report, as well as Secretary Napolitano’s subsequent statement, did not uncover any evidence for its controversial allegations.  The responses from Democratic, Republican, and veteran leaders, and their concerns over political bias and the questionable process which led to the publication of this document, require serious consideration from the highest levels of the Obama Administration.

PIRACY IN THE 21^ST CENTURY

            The romantic notion of peg-legged buccaneers sailing the Caribbean in tall-masted ships, perhaps under the authority of an English or Spanish monarch, no longer describes the reality of piracy.  Today’s pirates answer to no sovereign, and now menace the Indian Ocean, the Somali and Nigerian coasts, the Strait of Malacca, and the waters off Southeast Asia and Singapore.  They pose an expensive and dangerous threat to international shipping.  Since 90% of the world’s cargo travels across international waters, the threat of piracy is a major problem for almost everyone on the planet.

            The United Nations defines piracy as: (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed (i) on the high seas against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board…(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State; (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a private ship or aircraft; (c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described …

            Modern piracy exploded onto the world scene in the latter part of the twentieth century.  The problem began to accelerate in the 1970s, and became epidemic by the middle of the next decade.  In 1983, Sweden presented a study to the United Nations which termed the increase in piracy “alarming.”  The International Maritime Organization notes that between 1984 and 1999, 1,587 pirate attacks were reported, many with disturbing amounts of violence.

            The law firm of Countryman & McDaniel have cited four reasons for the rise of piracy in the post World War II era. First, technological advances have given the pirates new ways of mounting surprise attacks—and then escaping from them.  Second, in the aftermath of the end of the cold war, the world’s navies have been reduced in size.  Third, decisions by former colonies not to keep up ties with their former mother countries, and their inability to afford their own adequate naval forces;  fourth, a lack of determination to view piracy as a serious issue. 

            According to author John Burnett, a pirate attack survivor who wrote a book entitled “Dangerous Waters” about his experience, the modern pirate may be a guerilla fighter, a member of a rogue military unit, or a former sailor enlisted by an organized crime enterprise.

            The Russian Navy website describes the typical pirate attack: “Technically, the methods used are the same as described in novels.  A fast craft—a launch or small vessel—comes along a merchant or a fishing ship and boards it.  If the ship is small or shallow-drafted, like a tanker, one can simply jump aboard it.  If the ship is large, the pirates use ropes with hooks or anchors.  To prevent the crew from hosing the pirates down with water and to intimidate them, the pirates fire at the vessel using assault rifles and grenade launchers.  An attack takes an average of 10 to 20 minutes. During this time the pirates either seize the vessel, or abandon the attempt.  As soon as the pirates climb aboard the deck, the ship is practically in their hands:  a civilian seaman will not be able to resist an armed attacker.”  The goal may be to seize an entire ship, or its cargo, or the personal belongings of the sailors.  Hostage taking is also a major activity.  According to Russian sources, the Somali town of Eyl is the main base of pirate operations.

            The Somali coast, particularly the Gulf of Aden, has become a major theater of operations for pirates.  Up to 20,000 vessels sail through each year.  Somalia, lacking a functioning government or an organized military, presents an ideal location for pirate activity.  Four or five main gangs in Somalia, with about a thousand members, serve as an ideal breeding ground for pirate recruits. 

            In December, an anti-piracy resolution was unanimously adopted by the United Nations Security Council, allowing international naval forces to patrol the region.  In January of 2009, the Combined Maritime Forces was established as Combined Task Force 151 specifically for counter-piracy operations.  Naval ships and assets from more than twenty nations are involved, and U.S. Rear Admiral McKnight was named Commander.  Operations include the deterrence of piracy, drug smuggling and weapons trafficking. The USS Boxer assumed the role of flagship.  According to US Navy Vice admiral Gortney, the Somali-based pirates come from a clan based on the northern coast of Somalia.  “The problem of piracy started ashore,” the admiral noted during a Pentagon press conference.  “It’s because there is no rule of law.  There isn’t a government.  There isn’t economic stability.  There isn’t a court system that will hold these criminals responsible for their actions.” 

Conclusion: Piracy is a significant threat to international commerce and maritime safety.  Until lawless regions are tamed, this problem will continue to plague shipping. 

How Great is the Military Threat Posed by China?

        To the surprise of most Americans, the world’s largest military belongs to neither the United States nor Russia. That distinction rests with China.  Beijing’s armed might is not restricted strictly to numbers.  Over the past decade, it has made rapid strides in quality, as well. According to the recently released U.S. Department of Defense report on the Chinese military,

“The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) [PLA is the general term for all Chinese armed forces]is pursuing comprehensive transformation from a mass army designed for protracted wars of attrition on its territory to one capable of fighting and winning short-duration, high-intensity conflicts along its periphery against high-tech adversaries – an approach that China refers to as preparing for “local wars under conditions of informatization.” The pace and scope of China’s military transformation have increased in recent years, fueled by acquisition of advanced foreign weapons, continued high rates of investment in its domestic defense and science and technology industries, and far-reaching organizational and doctrinal reforms of the armed forces. China’s ability to sustain military power at a distance remains limited, but its armed forces continue to develop and field disruptive military technologies, including those for anti-access/area-denial, as well as for nuclear, space, and cyber warfare, that are changing regional military balances and that have implications beyond the Asia-Pacific region.”

In fact, Beijing’s military may be behind one of the greatest espionage assaults ever recorded.  The computers of American and other governments have been repeatedly subjected to infiltration.  Further evidence of China’s rapidly developing capabilities can be seen in its successful destruction of a satellite in space, giving the nation a true ASAT (anti satellite) capability.

This rapid construction of a vast and powerful 21^st century military has been financed by an unprecedented leap in funding. According to published reports, Beijing will spend twice as much in 2009 for its armed forces as it did just four years ago, a percentage increase that wasn’t matched by either the USA or the USSR even at the height of the cold war. The escalation of China’s military budget is not a recent development. For two decades, Beijing has had double-digit percentage increases in its military spending, even surpassing its impressive internal economic growth. Even the large sums reported may not be the whole story. Most analysts believe that significant unreported funds have been committed for military spending.

The results of this quantum leap in spending and modernization has seen increased investment in domestic military production and foreign acquisitions.  It  has accelerated modernization in each military service, as evidenced by:

·       New generations of survivable nuclear armed ballistic missiles, both land- and sea-based;

·       Domestic production of advanced short- and medium-range conventionally armed ballistic missiles,  and associated weaponry;

·       Advanced Russian aircraft and precision weaponry for the air and naval air forces;

·       Domestic development of the multi-role F-10 fighter aircraft;

·       Advanced Russian and domestic versions of modern guided-missile destroyers (DDGs), frigates, and amphibious landing craft;

·       Modern, long-range, and mobile air defense systems; and,

·       Programs to increase professionalism and quality of life for military personnel.

China’s geostrategic strength is tempered by the presence of several powerful nations on its periphery.  While currently enjoying warm relations with northern neighbor Russia, the historical antagonism between the two powers is not totally forgotten.  The world’s most populous democracy, India, rests on Beijing’s southern border.  That nation is also developing an advanced military capability and has conflicting interests with China.  Vietnam has had clashes with China. And then there is Japan.  While Japan still has its peace constitution, the island nation has formidable naval forces and could rapidly develop further military power if threatened. Additionally, internal fissures with the autonomous regions of Tibet and Xinjiang Uygur continue to cause headaches to the Beijing leadership.

Conclusion

China clearly has the potential capability to be the most formidable foe the United States has ever faced, and has goals that are diametrically opposed to American interests.   There are worrisome developments in its increasingly cooperative relations with Russia, and its continued emphasis on retaking Taiwan.  The exceptionally belligerent attitude of its naval forces towards American naval vessels is a major concern.  Chinese submarines and missiles have clearly compromised the safety of U.S. Carrier groups and other naval ships in international waters. Should American defense spending decline, Asian nations will be motivated to tilt towards China’s will. However, should U.S. resolve and military capability remain strong, China will have far less motivation to engage in rash or aggressive action.