Our Vietnam: Reflections on Operation Enduring Freedom

One of those questions GWOT (Global War on Terror) vets has never wanted to know the answer to from the previous generation of veterans was what it felt like to lose Vietnam. We have a bit more of an understanding of how that feels today. However, I will never know what it could have felt like for those returning veterans to face the ire and disdain from their fellow Americans for going to Vietnam, voluntarily or not. I was not a soldier in Afghanistan; I was a civilian working side-by-side active-duty Airmen in Kandahar for 14 months. I was a soldier in Iraq, and watching the Taliban take Afghanistan this weekend is more disheartening than it was to see ISIS rise to power. The sadness and frustration I feel are being echoed universally across my veteran-oriented social media groups/pages. We did our duty to our nation and our fellow service members, and we will need to be satisfied with that.

It was common knowledge in Iraq in 2009, once we left, a terrorist group would rise, we did not have a name for them, but we knew their tactics, techniques, and goals. ISIS filled that void in our absence. We were uncertain what our response would be? Luckily we did respond, and we defeated ISIS in 2016. As best as I can tell, Iraq has been a mostly stable nation in the region since 2016. The particularly disheartening factor with Afghanistan now is knowing it will be more challenging to go back in than 2001. I will attempt to describe my understanding of what went wrong in Afghanistan and why we are watching what we are.

The first failure of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), aka the War in Afghanistan, was the lack of clarity about the objective or victory conditions. It was not a war because Congress did not make a declaration of war; instead, like most of our overseas military operations, it was a police action via the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). President Bush repeatedly claimed we would make Afghanistan into a democratic nation. A democratic republic like that of the Western countries was a foolish goal. As we have seen with numerous non-Western nations (to include Russia and China) who have not had an Enlightenment like the European nations, democratic governments have been less stable, to say the least. To think we could create a Western country in the “Graveyard of Empires” was a demonstration of hubris and foolishness. I would point to the American Founders who described the social conditions necessary for a democratic republic to survive. The lack of understanding of what conditions are required to create a democratic nation is one of my significant criticisms of the neoliberal foreign policy model. A model we have been engaging in the post-Cold War and GWOT periods. Yet, President Bush repeatedly claimed this was the goal.

President Obama had less lofty goals. As Iraq withdrawals began in 2009 following my first deployment, President Obama surged US forces to Afghanistan. A month after we killed Osama Bin Laden, President Obama started to withdraw US Forces in 2011. I left Afghanistan in December 2011. President Obama wanted to have a complete withdrawal before the 2016 election but did not. President Trump sought to continue withdrawal and negotiated with the Taliban from 2018-2020, scheduling US Forces to leave by May 2021. This war, this failure, is one of the most bipartisan ventures of my lifetime.

In my view, the failure to have realistic, attainable victory conditions was the critical factor that lost public support. The American people were sold on a false bill of goods. What was attainable? Prevent Afghanistan from becoming a haven for terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. We often forget Al Qaeda and the Taliban were not the same. In 2001, Al Qaeda was about a thousand personnel by our highest intelligence estimates. Following 9/11, the refusal of the Taliban lead government to turn over Al Qaeda is what prompted our action. We took on tens of thousands of those protecting them in the pursuit to go after hundreds of Al Qaeda members. The war itself was to depose the government, which harbored terrorists. The prevention of future attacks should have been the explicit goal. There were no attacks on the homeland planned in Afghanistan from 2002 - Spring 2021.

After the initial victories in northeast Afghanistan with the Northern Alliance, US forces did not engage in major combat until 2005. From 2009-2011 were the peak combat casualties. By 2014, there were fewer combat casualties in Afghanistan than training deaths in the US Military. That is not to say those deaths were any less valuable or costly in any way. It does go to say the job of the military is inherently dangerous. If they are going to do their job, their lives will be at risk. Because of this inherent risk is why many of us recognize the sacrifice in military service, even during peacetime. The primary burden of making policy is accepting the costs which come from it. One cannot responsibly take the “just one life is worth it” position for any policy when limited resources (to include time) are in play. I hold this view on every policy.

Does this mean I support endless wars? No, not at all. At the same time, I do have a strong “you break it, you buy it policy” that we should not leave a situation worse than we started. As of today, Afghanistan is worse off than it was on September 10, 2001. We should seriously consider and deliberate before we get involved in overseas actions. Still, once we are there, we need to maintain support sustainably until they can support themselves. What else could we have done? Between General Petraeus and the Brookings Institute, I think the “Five Thousand for Five” plan was reasonable. It is worth noting that it took more than 20 years to turn South Korea into a democratic republic. Was Afghanistan an example of the sunk cost fallacy? No, because each year we stayed, it got a bit more secure. The initial decision to invest in this was made 20 years ago by our elected representatives. The idea that one can support action and then change one’s mind about it before the action is complete is a unique benefit in American politics. When bombs have dropped, blood shed, there are no redos. It should serve as a sharp reminder to deliberate well over significant decisions. We are witnessing now the cost of not completing the mission; it certainly can look like it was all for nothing.

What were the conditions in Afghanistan before the Taliban’s major offensive? For the last five years, the US forces secured the major bases. They did not go out on the particularly hazardous patrols or raids that marked our operations tempo from 2009-2012. Our bases were secure; US personnel were safely assisting the Afghani military fight the Taliban. Our primary role was supporting the Afghan military via air support and logistical supplies. The air-dependent military force was how the United States fought the war. The terrain in Afghanistan is brutal. In many areas, the elevation of the mountains hinders the effectiveness of our attack helicopters’ ability to provide close air support. If we remember back to Operation Red Wings, which was one of the deadliest operations in Navy SEAL history, altitude was one of the major factors contributing to the destroyed Chinook. The downed Chinook accounted for 16 of the 19 killed. The high altitude prevented the escort helicopters from staying with the ground force team on the twin-rotor cargo helicopter. At the strategic level, the United States operated and trained the Afghan military to rely upon air support and airdrops to supply isolated bases, the same way we did. To expect the Afghan ground forces to keep fighting without air support or resupply was contrary to the methodology of warfare we had taught them for the last 20 years. Thus, when we withdrew our air support and the ability for the Afghan Air Force to operate, this was a done deal. Who should we look to for that decision?

President Trump negotiated with the Taliban for withdrawal by May 2021. The deal has two main parts, what the United States will do and what the Taliban (Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) will do. It does call for the total pull out of “all military forces of the United States, its allies, and Coalition partners, including all non-diplomatic civilian personnel, private security contractors, trainers, advisors, and supporting services personnel.” It is not a ratified treaty. It is an executive agreement in which the new administration can change without needing any legislative action to accept or reject the change. The requirements for the Taliban were to not “use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its allies,” “not to cooperate with groups or individuals threatening the security of the United States and its allies,” among other conditions. As with any agreement, contract, or deal, if one side violates the terms of the agreement, the other is not required to honor it. Thus even if the current administration was merely following the previous administration’s deal, if the terms were violated, they were under no obligation to continue to follow through with our requirements.

Based on the way we designed and trained the Afghan military, to lose their Air Force was to ensure the failure of the Afghani ground forces. The Afghani forces were well equipped and trained to fight the Taliban. They have been doing for the 20 years we have been fighting too. They still relied on foreign support for repairing and maintaining the aircraft they operated. By withdrawing even the contractors from supporting the Afghan military, policymakers should have known the army would fall as soon as aircraft broke down. For those who have not been around aircraft, I spent two years in helicopter units, the ratio of maintenance to flight hours is significant. The AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, for instance, requires about 3.4 Maintenance Man Hours for every one flight hour. The Afghani military did not have sufficient training or qualified personnel to maintain their aircraft. In the last desperate weeks resorted to zoom calls to get assistance with their aircraft. We expected the Afghani Army to fight without support, relief, or hope by cutting off the air support.

We saw this coming. The mobilization of the Taliban has been growing for months. In March, the New York Times reported on the Taliban’s gains. Helmand and Kandahar are the Pashtun strongholds; it should have been entirely predictable to take Southern Afghanistan. As the news kept coming in May and June, it was clear the Taliban had no interest in honoring any part of the deal. There was plenty of time available for the US to reverse course in Spring and early Summer. But we did nothing. According to Google Trends, there were small spikes of interest (28 from 17) in the second weeks of April and July (35) from its present peak at present (100). Unlike ISIS, the Taliban controls the major airports in the nation. The tribal warfare will continue as it has existed for decades, if not centuries before. Whatever allies we had will know we abandoned them twice now. If they manage to survive, they would be foolish to depend upon us again. It is sadly a bit of a hallmark of neo-liberal foreign policy more broadly. For now, the news cycle will be filled with sad emojis and disappointment by those who were not aware of the situation. It is doubtful a recoverable situation like Iraq was. This is my reflection on 20 years, 2222 American lives, almost 21000 wounded Americans, and over 820 billion dollars spent. I think I am going to watch Charlie Wilson’s War now.

A Response to John Piper's Recent Article on the 2020 Election

 

A response to John Piper’s recent article.

I would like to preface this with the disclosure that I have not nor will I vote for President Trump, I have resigned to vote for third-party where possible until there are significant reforms to the two-party system. I also want to make it known I hold a great deal of reverence and respect for John Piper. It was after the reading of Desiring God that a thirst for deeper theology and understanding based in scripture that I mark my faith journey in adulthood. I am forever grateful for the presentation of God’s sovereignty.

The fun part: Yes, this is a criticism, it is one of many, hopefully this can be edifying to my Christian friends and associates who are concerned about how they ought to or not cast their vote. I think Piper’s deliberations over the choice many are likely still facing, is reflective of the broader concerns of the two-party system, but it is a little late for us to look to the remedies for this coming election. To this degree, H.L. Menken frames our present situation appropriately, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” We have made this proverbial bed.

Piper is concerned with the role individual personality traits and characteristics play in leading a nation. His scriptural support is well-founded in a biblical context, albeit not necessarily for a representative system of government. The Books of Kings, Chronicles, and Samuel provide ample examples of flawed leaders leading their nations to ruin or repentance. However, in all those examples, the ruler is a King. This structural difference in the system of governance is significant. Under a King, the people are in the direct path of their leader, and if we are considering most of European history, that right was through a divine authoritative claim. There was no concept of separated powers or representative government, rather the opposite. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 is significantly remembered for among other things establishing the principle of “cuius regio, eius religio” (Whose realm, his religion), wherein the religion of the people was dependent upon that of the sitting monarch. We are far from such systems of government but not without other concerns. I am immensely grateful though that the faith of my chief executive does not have any bearing on my own faith. It is, for this reason, I think it valid to be less concerned with clear, overt character flaws in a chief executive.

The primary argument of Piper is that we ought to weigh more heavily on the individual character of those seeking to lead our nation. Again, this is wholly reasonable if power is held in the hands of a single person, but need we return to School House Rock to remind us of the bicameral legislature as the primary body to represent the People and the States? The bodies who draft legislation and ultimately make the law of the land. The President does not single-handedly dictate policy. When Presidents have done so, they have been checked. Much of President Obama’s legacy is facing such fate, which should be the expected outcome when one leads through a “pen and phone.” I would happily argue we cast an outsized focus on the occupant of the White House in an unhealthy unrepresentative manner which has hurt our ability to communicate with our neighbors about policy.

Our system of government was designed, knowing full well the dangers of human nature. In what is one of the most important essays written by James Madison explaining the uniqueness of the United States as a constitutional republic, he recognizes the challenges of competing interests, particularly when they become primarily motivated by animus against the opposition. In Federalist 10, Madison notes, “It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” The government of the United States of America is bigger than any single person, we ought to remember this. A person does lead an administration, which is far more consequential in any measurable analysis of a chief executive.

Hence, we Christians find ourselves conflicted between our citizenship in heaven as members of the royal priesthood against our earthly citizenship in these United States of America. How we chose to vote should not be a simple binary option, it was not designed in this way. It should not be something we visit only in the weeks prior to an annual election, it was not designed for that either. If the representative government is to work, we need to be aware and engaged throughout the year, in such a way that the government which theoretically operates on the consent of the governed, has informed consent.

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." -Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816

“A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” James Madison to W. T. Barry, 1822

The Failure of Democracy?

As news continually updates us with more impassioned protests, screaming pundits, and overall mass divisiveness across the nation, if we can backup a bit perhaps these thoughts might offer an explanation of what has been happening. Let us see if we can accurately describe the current state of affairs. The “United States had become a nation polarized by specific regional identities… The Democrats... emphasized the right of individual states to create and enforce laws… The divide in the parties can be seen in the state’s political newspapers… Debates about the bill erupted throughout the nation. Despite public opposition, Douglass, “utilizing all his powers of argument, his prestige, and his mastery of parliamentary tactics [forced] the bill through Congress by the narrowest of margins.” Yes, I admit there was a certain level of cherry picking used to make the quotes fit, but I think you get the point. Please do not think I am particularly targeting the Democratic party of today as a parallel of the pro-slavery Democrat party of the 19th century. That discussion would distract from the issue this hopes to address. That is, the level of political division in this nation is not uncharted territory and perhaps if we take a step back there might be some perspective to gain on the causes.

I do not think it is too much to compare the current political climate today to that leading up to the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act. Namely, there are bouts of unrest across the nation over hotly divided issues, which at large might be summarized as Identity Politics which more or less follow clear political partisanship divides. Sentiments were strong and divided about who gets to govern whom, and the federal system at large was in question. Insert the overused quip about those who do not remember history here. The nice thing about remembering history is the prospective we have, especially when there is a plethora of recorded writings and plenty of time to separate us from the passions of the time. We can have a clear understanding of the sentiments at the time while being isolated enough that the issue is less personal in nature.

Conventional lectures on the road to the Civil War highlight the competing powers between the North and the South that started as soon as independence was gained and continued until the most costly war in our history “settled” it. Consider this perspective, if we were to take a proportional comparison of the Civil War to our current population, 6.5 million people would have lost their lives. The typical lecture might highlight the expansion of the territory in the US and the designation of slave or free as the overall cause. In that approach the point of no return might be the Compromise of 1850, the Dredd Scott decision, or Lincoln's House Divided speech. It might highlight the shift in understanding of the institution of slavery itself, from the Peculiar Institution which Thomas Jefferson thought it to be, to the Positive Good by the late 1830’s. This shift in philosophy fomented the institution that made it worth defending to enough people that it eventually lead to war.

Ultimately, I point to the breakdown of the institutions put in place that prevented our nation from being a direct democracy. These institutions are described in detail in the Federalist, those would be; separation of powers, extended republic, bicameral legislature, and the electoral college to name a few. Summed up, the Federalist system as defined by the Founders and illustrated in the Constitution. There are volumes of writings extolling the virtues and understandings of these structures and I am but a pup in the presence of academic giants. Unfortunately, unless one was home-schooled, there is a very good chance the Federalist or a serious consideration of the Founding documents were not considered unless one took a proactive posture to understand the Founding.

The Separation of Powers essential purpose was to ensure each branch of government would conflict with one another, competing for greater power in their respective branch. In doing so, the three way competition would result in each branch being limited to their own respective range of authority. Imagine giving three children a pie to share in which two children get to make the slices and the third gets to choose which piece to take. It would be in the self interest of the two slice makers to attempt the most even division, in order to maximize their self interest. The 20th century saw a shift in jurisprudence which has furiously sought to judge the law not from the bindings of the text of the statutes, but from the greater wisdom of the judges to accomplish a sort of “justice” not found in the text of the laws under question. For these many decades the Legislature, who has the explicit and exclusive right to make law, has seen fit to abdicate that power in the most controversial issues, because the lifetime appointment of the jurists allow it. Why would a congressperson risk upsetting their constituents if a judge will accomplish the same goal? There are many issues with the Legislature not doing their duty, this is one of the grandest abdications.

The Extended Republic was the notion that the nation would be so diverse that no majority faction (party) would be able to successfully quell the minority. This model essentially spoke against the two-party system. While it is true that within a couple years of the Constitution’s ratification, the very authors separated into parties, for the first hundred years of American politics, third parties held a legitimate place of influence at the federal level. It was not until the 20th century that parties made rules in the House and Senate that continued to grow to the point that third parties are realistically a wasted vote in national elections. One of the most caustic aspects how parties fulfil the right definition of “factions” is how they control committee assignments and maintain a hierarchy of representatives. The best suited representatives are not put in committees for their fitness but instead because they have pleased the party powers to be rewarded with the places of greater influence.

The Bicameral Legislature is the most deliberate sign that direct democracy is not a good thing. The balance of power within the legislature itself, between the House and Senate clearly illustrate the Founders concern of the passions of the people (or mob) should not rule. This was the solution to learned men who considered how the best form of government is made through a social contract while simultaneously and deliberately creating space to slow the process of governance. A majority faction can easily stir a group of people to get any law passed regardless of Constitutionality. The bicameral legislature soothed those passions. Keep in mind, in the original form, Senators were selected by state legislatures. I think one of the most grievous amendments to the nation has been the direct election of senators in the 17th Amendment. This has lead to people so focused on what the Federal government does and an inverse attention to what the state does. The legitimate slowing of the deliberative republican process was the best answer to the diverse regions of the nation. As the nation expanded, the diversity of regions also expanded, hence extending the republic further, that might ensure even greater agreement in the federal laws passed. In the same way, the Electoral College accomplished that goal for the presidency. The legitimacy and need of the Electoral College has been in question a handful of times in the recent decades but in reality it only confirmed that we are a federated republic not a pure democracy. We cannot be a nation of coastal urban elites, or rural lords, but a consensus of the regions.

This is far from a complete analysis of the present political climate, but hopefully these suggestions might add context to your considerations of what this nation was founded to be and what it should become. There are numerous scholars who recognize these things but also recognize the social contract made at the Founding was made to an entirely different society, hence we are being constrained by the rules of the dead. That is a consideration that is worthy to be made. I tend to side, that before we replace the rules of the dead, perhaps we should understand what they made, the issues they addressed, and if we could do better.

Re: Viral Video about Millennials in the Workplace

Re: Viral Video about Millennials in the Workplace

In case you happen to read this, thanks for your patience. This semester was a doozy and I had to step back from pretty much anything not work or school. In the same way one might hypothetically see how many drinks they can handle in order to know “how much is too much” this is how I would describe my course load. This was too much, I didn’t puke, but I know my limit now. Knowing is half the battle, right?

So there is this 15 minute clip floating around that has some interesting insights into the dreaded “Millennials.” I’m not familiar with Mr. Sinek, but he has some good insights and descriptions about this odd group of people. His web pages indicate he’s a pretty smart guy and the video only adds to his intellectual repertoire. In case you haven’t seen the video or you haven’t yet decided to watch it, the skinny is this: he diagnoses the problems employers/corporate America is having with the millennial generation. This is not a particularly new topic, from politicians, business leaders, and missiologists, apparently this generation is a difficult one to pin. In the opening he nails it, millennials want purpose in their work.

I am not one to really counter that, my current path in life is in the pursuit to have the most fulfilling career that suits my passions. In some way, the reason I am doing what I am doing is because I could do no other career path. This is in contrast to the vision that our grandparents generation has been stereotyped to have, in which the goal from a job is to have one, then to get by. This is particularly true of the working class vision of Americana. To offer a movie clip which I would describe this view is from the film Rudy, at the bus stop. His father tries to talk him out of his dream to go to Notre Dame. Yes, I know the true story about Mr. Ruettiger is not as pure, but that’s why movies are “based” on true story. Anyways, the past generations used to be satisfied with a good job that paid on time and afforded one to provide for the needs of their family. Today, my peers, who also are having fewer children and getting married later, want their job for more than a paycheck, they want a purpose from it.

Sinek points this out very well but his remedy I have to disagree. In order for his approach to occur the structure of corporate America must change entirely to meet the needs of this generation who “by no fault of their own” were apparent victims of poor parenting. The poor parenting strategy was summed up as: Parents who did not allow their children to fail, but ensured their success was not through their efforts but from their intervention, this has been termed Helicopter parenting. By this point, the term Millennial is much less than those born in 1984 to 1995. His implicit description are those of middle to upper class with a probable two parent household who are college graduates. Not to take away from his message, but I think we need to be careful when grouping people by generic factors like age, it is overly broad. Sinek thinks it is the responsibility of employers to meet the needs of this generation, this calls for a complete overhaul in the purpose of business at large.

I recognize there are some companies who were founded based on something other than money, there are very few large businesses which find this model sustainable. For a test, see how many annual meetings highlight the immaterial purposes of the company above the bottom line. How many investors are more concerned with the accomplishments of the company than the return? This is that brutal reality check that Millennials are being confronted and lack means to cope. I think it is a mistake to look to one’s career for its primary meaning. That is not to say one should not seek to be fulfilled in their career path, but there should be something else that defines who one is beyond their business card. The ancients would call this virtue. I’ll try to describe this in secular terms.

Virtue is formed by our community. Hopefully and primarily by one's family, but those without the blessing of a mostly stable two-parent household are not permanently disadvantaged. Community consists of those in close proximity and influence. If family does not teach virtue, then hopefully it would be through church, volunteer work, intramural, or some other extracurricular voluntary gathering. My bias thinks church is the best format because all the other gatherings are based on an activity over a shared belief, whereas people can similarly enjoy baseball but have very different views on morality, but if people attend a local church together, they are much more likely to have similar views on morality. Dennis Prager, an author and radio show how, frequently challenges that with the decline of religious belief, there is an inevitable decline in public virtue. He further argues that no other organization teaches values better than religious institutions. I will be more charitable and hope there are institutions with virtuous people who overflow on the people they impact with their virtue, regardless of the purpose of the institution. Virtue ultimately comes from one person and is passed to the next. It is no doubt the best transference of this virtue is by watching another more experienced person pass it down from one to another. The interpersonal aspect of virtue is essential lest the virtues be limited to abstract ideals not grounded in reality.

If nothing else I’ve picked up from the election cycle this year talking to people, I have recognized how much Millennials long for heaven. They long for their image of perfection, this is why they can make castigating claims against others’ nation, race, gender, career, ect. because the standard is not history, but their ideal. It gets worse when Millennials, or the next power group fails to see the mistakes of past idealists imprint from history. We must insist, that when “they” did it, they just didn’t do the right way, but when “we” do it, everyone will be happy and full. One cannot create a new society from scratch, they must acknowledge the previous generations not with their idea of righteous indignation, but with an understanding of reasonableness. I see these longings as the groaning of the effects from sin, the only problem is the idea of sin is not compatible with the vision of many Millennials. If we are to address a problem, the first step is recognizing it exists.

15 Years Ago

One of the difficult things about being joyfully busy is the struggle to have some introspective time of reflection. Today marks 15 years ago when, for a good portion of my generation, our experience in the world changed. Ten years ago I reflected upon the new world under the lens of an active duty soldier stationed overseas. In those conditions it was unmistakeable to myself and those around me, that our lives were certainly different. Tonight I reflect upon how that day of infamy has rippled through this life. Much has happened between these two points of reflection. Although it took longer than I expected, I finally did get to go to war as a soldier. Then as life would have it and providence continued, I would go back to war.

I recall the night we received news about the death of Bin Laden. There was buzz on the classified chat channels that something big happened but we had no idea. My spidey senses convinced the cafeteria staff to change the TV channel to news and I got to witness with everyone else that night the President’s address. It meant something different sitting less than two miles from where that fateful day was planned. Killing the instigator of this new reality did not return us to the world we knew before. That has long since past and cannot be recovered, there is only moving forward.

I have been considering what was so uniquely remarkable about that day. It was not the first time we had been attacked by overseas terrorists in New York. It was not the first time a building was attacked on our soil in our memory. It was far from the first time we had been attacked by people of Islamist ideology. It was the largest coordinated attack with the most devastating results in our history. I have not talked to someone who lived through the attack on Pearl Harbor to describe what the effect was. That was a deliberate act of war by a uniformed nation. This was a cowardly hijacking using civilian aircraft to destroy civilian and military targets.

We experienced this. Many of us watched on live television as the second plane struck the North Tower. Even more of us watched as the two towers collapsed. For weeks those images were replayed countless times on television. We rallied around the flag proclaiming in earnest, “We Will Not Forget!” We invaded Afghanistan and on the coattails of “Never Again” we invaded Iraq. We had to be proactive about this threat we mistakenly thought to be malignant. We struck back and exerted the full force of the United States of America on anyone who dared to threaten us again. Such force had not been displayed in the world’s view since we landed on the beaches of Normandy and dropped the world’s most terrible weapons many decades ago.

15 years of war later, the resolve we began that had such a powerful undertaking has been… strained to say the least. We will have to come to terms that Afghanistan will incorporate the Taliban in their government if they are to ever stop fighting. We have been almost idly sat and watched as ISIS has ripped through Iraq and Syria proudly displaying to the world the fruit of their ideology. For many of us we must be cautious where we utter “radical Islamic terror” so as to not offend people who cannot tell the difference between religious ideologies. We have watched domestic turmoil divide us by political party, race, education, economic status, religion, even patriotism. We find ourselves in a nation full of people longing for heaven on earth who lash out at others in numerous fashions because it is not. We cannot even agree on our own identity let alone who we are as a nation. Who should we be? We used to be a nation that sought “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. But those are words from old white men who were unenlightened and guilty of some of the most grievous sins of the 21st century in their antiquated 18th century ways and thoughts. Or at least that is how the Founding documents are often treated if given some mind at all.  

I cannot help but think back to littlun Percival Wemys Madison. At the beginning of the story he knew his name and address. Repeating such were his refuge and comfort in considerably traumatic times, by the conclusion of the book, he forgot everything, even his own name. This is not to say our reactions to the attack were acts of innocence and our disenfranchisement of those ventures has been our maturing. We certainly started those wars with the passionate fervor of justice. The hope was that such acts were to fulfill the duty of our government to protect ourselves. Even this understanding is under considerable scrutiny.  I fear if we do not remember who we were, first as people, then as a nation, what was lost those 15 years ago will only be a shadow of forgotten memories.

Gunpocalypse 2016: Results Are Not Good

We have the final word on “Gunpocalypse” 2016. From the original post the list expanded and contracted. 11 Bills made it through the Assembly and Senate to Governor Brown’s desk. He signed 6 into law and vetoed 5. This will try to address what will happen and how one might comply with these onerous laws. With the passage of these laws California easily jumps to the lead as being the most restrictive state in the nation concerning gun laws. It might say something that the official website of the press release of the list of signed and vetoed bills was crashed for some time. If you want a better explanation of each bill, see the original post.

The New Laws

1. SB 880 Firearms: assault weapons.
1. The bittersweet relationship the California gun owner had with the “bullet button” is coming to a close. The legislature sought to ban semiautomatic sporting rifles and capitalism responded with ingenuity only a few years later. The previous fix was a setup that required one to open the upper receiver to load cartridges into an internal fixed magazine. Much in the same way one would load a bolt-action Remington 700.
2. Fear not, innovators have already forecasted the lack of restraint the leadership in California would exercise and created this feature which complies with the new law’s text.
3. It might be worth noting that universal firearm registration did not go into effect until January 1, 2014. Any home-build long gun and long gun not voluntarily registered prior to 2014, California has no official record of its existence. This law will be difficult to enforce.
   
2. AB-1135 Firearms: assault weapons.
1. This law redefines “assault weapons” from “a semiautomatic centerfire rifle” to “semiautomatic rifle” with the evil features. Semiautomatic rimfire rifles are now included in the list of banned rifles.
   
3. AB-156 Ammunition.
1. Following the reappropriation of taxes and fees gun owners pay for background checks and licenses, there are now new fees which California’s legal gun owners must pay to support the enforcement of illegal firearms.
2. I am less concerned about this law. I am confident like every other law banning interstate ammo sales since 2009, this too will be struck down in federal court because it seeks to control a power explicitly held by the Federal Government, interstate commerce. If such a law were to be permitted that would be a huge power grab away from the federal government, good luck.
   
4. SB 1446  Firearms: magazine capacity.
1. This law prohibits possession of any magazine over 10 round capacity. Because there was already a law that prohibited the sale, manufacture, and importation of such magazines since 2002, this specifically targeted the “pre-ban” standard capacity magazines.
2. This law will be difficult to enforce.
   
5. AB-1511 Firearms: lending.
1. Firearm lending is still legal, but limited to immediate family members who must also have a Firearm Safety Certificate one can acquire after passing a test and paying $25. The certificate is valid for 5 years.
2. Let us hope between this law and the still present 10-day waiting period does not have grave results for people in immediate harm.
   
6. AB 1695 Firearms: notice to purchasers: false reports of stolen firearms.
1. This bill makes false lost or stolen firearm reports a misdemeanor which includes a stripping of gun ownership for 10 years.
   

Where Do Gun Owners Go From Here?
As I mentioned, some of these laws have a legitimate chance to be struck down in the courts. If a judge places an injunction on the measure then it might not be done. 

Help us Eastern and Northern Districts, you are our only hope.

 The biggest question which I think the Attorney General will have to clarify on the FAQs page, will the newly Registered Assault Weapons (RAWs) be classified differently than the original RAWs from the early 1990’s. If so those who comply with the new laws will be able to have semi-automatic centerfire rifles with all the fun accessories. The manner by which I read the text, says yes, I’m not a lawyer. It should be worth noting no RAW is transferable to any person in the state. If an owner of a RAW wishes to pass it on to family, it cannot be owned in California before the owner dies.
This is the less popular part of the message especially to the frustrated gun owners. I understand the frustration. I recognize the sabre rattling. I know the impossible nature of enforcing the most onerous laws. I also recognize the estimates of non-compliance from the first round of registration in 1990, when AR-pattern rifles were not yet mainstream. I also recognize the philosophical factors concerning unjust laws, most especially in American history MLK’s Letter from Birmingham Jail.

Despite these frustrations, if California gun owners want to proclaim that we are indeed law-abiding, then we must comply. I recognize the rough impossibility of enforcement for those who have not featured their firearms on social media. If we wish to abandon that description then we are in a much graver place as a state and nation. Even stirring the masses to “shall not be infringed” fails a history test. Per the 10th Amendment, and due to the present jurisprudence, the State has every right to ban these commonly owned firearms. I deeply disagree with the state of affairs, but I think it a much better solution to move to a less restrictive state than to knowingly violate the law. The Federalist experiment which allows for these many petri dishes known as state governments looks to be failing. I am reminded of this scene from The Patriot.

“And my principals”? I am fearful of any serious talk of rebellion or revolution. I have been to war, twice. One ought not threaten such things lightly. We glorify war in entertainment and speech. I am proud of my honorable service in the recent wars. I am also confident in peaceful resolutions. The way things look, we might be due for a Convention of the States.

Bills Still at the Legislature

7. AB-2510 Firearms: license to carry concealed: uniform license.
8. AB-2459 Firearms dealers: conduct of business.
9. SB-1006 Firearm Violence Research Center
10. SB 1407 Firearms: identifying information.