David Petraeus with a crucial op-ed: “Fund—don’t cut—U.S. soft power”

“The president’s budget proposal is now on the streets of Washington, D.C.  Currently, it would protect funding for the State Department and the Agency for  International Development and related activities from further cuts. The combined  annual budget for development aid, security aid and diplomacy has averaged close  to $60 billion over the past half decade. That is now slated to decline to about  $50 billion, partly due to reduced war-related costs. But this amount could come  under intense scrutiny. Moreover, if there is no grand bargain between the  president and the Congress, sequestration could force reductions of a further 10  percent.

“Such an outcome would be bad for our nation’s security. As each of us has  testified on Capitol Hill in past years, America’s ability to protect itself and  advance its global interests often depends as much on its ‘softer’ power as it  does on our nation’s armed forces. For example, though Latin American countries  were themselves primarily responsible for their progress, the headway many of  them made in stabilizing their countries in recent years has been a big plus for  American security, too — and American aid had a role in that progress. That is  part of why we have supported a budget deal that would repeal  sequestration and achieve most further deficit reduction through savings in  entitlement spending with similar increases in revenue generation. Implicit in  our approach was the thinking that lawmakers should avoid the temptation to gut  foreign aid just because it generally lacks a strong constituency in the United  States.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/david-petraeus-defense-diplomacy-soft-power-90781.html#ixzz2Sk0xqddc

Announcement on Rob DuBois appearance from Veterans’ Radio

   Live, Saturday May 1, 2013, 0900 hrs EDT  

Webcast: www.veteransradio.net

or

WDEO 990 AM, (Detroit/Ann Arbor)
WMAX- 1440 AM (Saginaw/Flint)

Syria

There isn’t much else to say.  The name says it all.
Conflict, Hizballah, Al Qaida, rebels, Assad,
intervention, military action, quagmire, Iran….
Who or what are we supporting if any of these issues.

 Veterans Radio will focus on the civil war in Syria with guest host
J. Robert DuBois, retired SEAL and author of Powerful Peace.
Don’t miss it.

 While on the air, got a question for our guest,
call us at 877-573-7825.

Our Capitol Hill panel on SOF

Well, we had an enjoyable and productive panel on the Hill today. It was rewarding to have Congressional staffers, representatives of organizations and private citizens in the audience.

The panel were very diverse and accomplished, as well. That helped as we explored the future of special operations forces.

Here’s a photo of the crew from my perspective:

(From near to far)
–Derek Leebaert, Author of “To Dare and to Conquer: Special Operations and the Destiny of Nations from Achilles to Al Qaeda”
–LtColonel Anthony Shaffer, DIA, Army, Director of External Communications, Center for Advanced Defense Studies
–Michael Ostrolenk, co-founder of the American Conservative Defense Alliance, and event facilitator
–Jed Babbin, Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense
–Peter O’Brien, U.S. Naval Intelligence (Ret.)
–Herb London, President of the London Center
and
–Eli Gold, Vice-President of the London Center and event coordinator.
And here’s a more relaxed pic of me with friends Peter, Tony and Michael. Among the highest designations one can receive in the traditional SEAL community is that of “A Good Mug”…these gents qualify.

Rob DuBois will be participating in a Capitol Hill panel on SOF this Tuesday!

You are cordially invited to a Round Table discussion

The Future of Special Operations:
A Look at Capabilities, Needs and Threats

In this round table discussion with experts and former operators, we are going to explore the global threats the U.S. faces and the role(s) that the special operations community will play in addressing those threats. We will discuss the actual capabilities our SOF have and what they will need in the near future as well as their limitations in being an extension of U.S. Foreign Policy.

Join the London Center for Policy Research as we ask our expert panel to dissect these questions and offer their thoughts on this topic of utmost importance. The panel will include:

- Herb London, President of the London Center;
- Lt Col Anthony Shaffer, DIA, Army, Director of External Communications, Center for Advanced Defense Studies;
- Jed Babbin, Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (President George H. W. Bush);
- Arthur Herman, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute;
- J. Robert DuBois, Navy SEAL (Ret.), author of Powerful Peace; A Navy SEAL’s Lessons on Peace from a Lifetime at War
- Peter O’Brien, U.S. Naval Intelligence (Ret.);
- Derek Leebaert, Author, To Dare and to Conquer

Eli. M. Gold, London Center Vice President and Michael Ostrolenk, co-founder of American Conservative Defense Alliance, will moderate the panel.

___________________________________________________

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 at 11:00AM -12:00PM
Cannon House office Building,
Room 122
Washington, DC

RSVP at EliGold28@msn.com or by calling 410.206.3445

The London Center for Policy Research
10 West Street | Suite 20E | New York, NY 10004 | (212) 227.9820

In honoring the victims and heroes of Boston, a Powerful Peace chapter on Resilience

In gratitude and honor to all the fine people who have endured the undeserved, served to the limits of their strength, and prayed with all the strength in their hearts—in other words, to all the good and innocent people involved in the Boston bombing, from victims to distant observers—I decided to lift Chapter 11 of Powerful Peace and share it with the world. I pray this will provide some comfort and hope during the painful minutes and months to come.

11

Resilience

Thank You, Mr. bin Laden

 

While I was still in uniform, I once had what’s called a “bad landing.” That’s what happens when a SEAL gets into an airplane just fine and jumps out of it just fine, but then experiences a less-than-optimal reunion with the planet. The spinal surgery and other consequences of this event offer an excellent segue to discuss the in-validity of the use of terror.

 

You all know that I have been sustained throughout my life by three saving graces—
my family, my friends, and a faith in the power of resilience and hope.
These graces have carried me through difficult times and
they have brought more joy to the good times than I ever could have imagined.
Elizabeth Edwards

With close friend and Teammate Shaun Keilen in the weeks before 9/11/01. In this photo you can just make out the scar below the shadow on my throat that will be explained, below.

Achilles died.

We’ll get back to that in a moment.

As a result of the above parachuting mishap, a surgeon sliced into my throat and shoved my trachea, esophagus and artery out of the way in order to gouge out a damaged disc from my spine. Earlier in the same operation, he had carved bone out of my hip and fashioned a replacement, which he now fit into my spine. He capped this all off by screwing a titanium plate into the vertebrae above and below the replacement, then zipped up my throat.

When the entire production was finally healed, it turned out to be exactly as the surgeon had promised: the neck was not only good as new, but stronger than before. With those two vertebrae fused into one, there is a negligible reduction of flexibility, but a generally reinforced structure. In other words, I could endure the same fall better now, thanks to this invasive and gruesome process, than with my original neck.

Achilles died.

Again, we’ll get back to that in a moment.

Osama bin Laden was no Superman. His image may have become more familiar than those of some legitimate world leaders. No matter. He was a living myth, blown up by the real affection of a handful of admirers and an unreal mystique for millions, awed by the attacks accomplished at his instigation.

OBL must have sometimes gotten diarrhea. He must have had uncomfortable and embarrassing gassy moments, and he must have sometimes gotten a little booger on the outside of his nostril. How do I know this? Because he was human. When I teach students to “think like the terrorist” I urge them to first put the adversary into perspective. To esteem him unrealistically is to self-inflict intimidation. It is to give weight and energy to his cause, to the detriment of our own. They’re only guys, guys.

Bin Laden and AQ acted as a malevolent surgeon on the spine of the free world. With 9/11 they sliced into a global throat in hopes of finding the jugular to kill the patient.

They failed.

Before I “broke my neck a little bit,” my neck was natural and average. After the surgery I was sore for some months of healing. In the end, my spine was technically (but not noticeably) less flexible. It was also greatly reinforced, better able to survive trauma similar to what had caused the original damage.

After the “operation” of 9/11, the patient (the world) was sore for a few months of healing. The patient was understandably anxious about the future and the prognosis for recovery. To the unacknowledged disappointment of the surviving 9/11 attack supporters and their McQaeda franchises worldwide, however, the end result is the same as my own surgery. These attacks did not kill the patient. The operation steeled a spine. Our world is stronger, and better prepared, to meet malevolent actors in the future.

Achilles is remembered as a great Greek warrior who was invulnerable except for a one small spot on his heel. During the news footage filmed as the attacks occurred, we can still hear one commentator’s inaccurate remark spoken in the heat of that desperate moment: terrorists had “found the Achilles’ heel of America.” This was an inaccurate analogy.

Achilles died.

America and our world, however, are stronger than ever before.

Thank you, Mr. bin Laden.

A Powerful Peace youth engagement in Detroit

Walked a block from friend/mentor Kerry’s home (in a rough neighborhood) to the community center and a Powerful Peace talk with youth here in Detroit. I always pray to be “of use” to every audience…but in this rough area, ever so much more.

I’ve been around the world a few times, and I’ve seen almost all of America, but I have never seen a U.S. city with such widespread decay. There are many nice homes over the several miles I’ve explored, but most of those conscientious property owners are besieged by collapsing or burned shells on all sides. It feels as though the recession, the international shift of the auto industry, and despicable corruption by leadership all hurtled in to crash together in a perfect storm over this society.

I eagerly anticipate the day Detroit recovers from today’s painful reality. In the meantime, I am also encouraged by the many good men and women who refuse to back down from ensuring the safety and education of their youth. Every neighborhood has similar ventures, and it was a delight to meet today’s little mob of kids who are the hope for our future. I showed them some photos from my life and SEAL career, and they swarmed ever closer to my iPad…especially for an image of one of Saddam’s many gold-plated toilets!

One SEAL on guns, gun rights, and the good of society

In response to a New York Times piece today, I am finally weighing in on the gun control firefight. As is typical for Powerful Peace, I am not arbitrarily backing one position but begging for accountability in the debate. You can read the Times story in the link at the end. By way of introduction, here’s the gist: some states require that a man under protective order as sought by a partner is forced to hand over his firearms. Most states do not.

When we floated the story at the Powerful Peace Facebook Page, responses included a suggestion that the article’s premise was “make believe” because until a crime is committed, it’s dangerous to deprive a citizen of his right to bear arms. Another responded to that by saying that a single ride-along on a domestic violence call can demonstrate the value of taking at least some steps to actually protect a claimant.

I agree that the denial of rights based on non-crime is a slippery slope. Beyond that, I also agree that a certain amount of common sense (not so common in our polarized debates) is called for in situations like this. A protective order is not given in a willy-nilly fashion; judges award such an order to protect some other person…this clearly implies that the authority considers there to be a legitimate threat. Perhaps if there is a legitimate threat, but no commission of a crime, we can find that common ground I’m crying out for—perhaps in the form of a temporary surrender of the man’s weapons, and surrender only in the case of such legitimate domestic threat, until that threat is resolved, with some federally-guaranteed right to reclaim his licensed property upon resolution?

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say what many people are probably thinking on the subject of gun control: this MUST NOT remain a theoretical playtime of picking apart any question to justify either side’s position “lock, stock and barrel.” (That was a deliberate horrible pun.) Every participant in the question has an obligation to society at large to “man up and humble down” in contributing his or her best, most responsible efforts to improve upon today’s unacceptable status quo.

(Almost) everyone agrees that the Newtown massacre of our babies was an unimaginably painful and unacceptable tragedy, and that we should do everything humanly possible to prevent such in future. (Almost) everyone agrees that private citizens have no reasonable need or right to own shoulder-fired rockets. In between the elimination of all private gun ownership, and the right to own shoulder-fired rockets, there must be some common ground we can find to work toward solution.

And that’s only touching on the issue of gun control as regards Newtown. What if there really is no solution to be found in restricting access to firearms? Then the pro-gun side should bring other, credible preventive options to the table.

My personal beliefs?
– I am Pro on personal firearm ownership for hunting and personal protection, which includes concealed carry.
– I am Con on individuals or organizations stockpiling weapons in preparation for an imagined government “takeover”…we are the government, if we are responsible citizens. We still live in a democracy, and as such we need to focus more on exercising the democratic process than a general hysteria.
– Finally, I am Pro on common sense, humility and responsible maturity in working toward solutions—as one nation.

For God’s sake, someone tell me I’m not the only one disgusted by those at both ends who would fiddle while our Rome burns.
——————–
In Some States, Gun Rights Trump Orders of Protection
New York Times

Early last year, after a series of frightening encounters with her former husband, Stephanie Holten went to court in Spokane, Wash., to obtain a temporary order for protection.

Her former husband, Corey Holten, threatened to put a gun in her mouth and pull the trigger, she wrote in her petition. He also said he would “put a cap” in her if her new boyfriend “gets near my kids.” In neat block letters she wrote, “He owns guns, I am scared.”

The judge’s order prohibited Mr. Holten from going within two blocks of his former wife’s home and imposed a number of other restrictions. What it did not require him to do was surrender his guns.

About 12 hours after he was served with the order, Mr. Holten was lying in wait when his former wife returned home from a date with their two children in tow. Armed with a small semiautomatic rifle bought several months before, he stepped out of his car and thrust the muzzle into her chest. He directed her inside the house, yelling that he was going to kill her….
Read more

Confronting sexual violence within the military

Read to the bottom (or click here) for an Associated Press piece on some rape victims’ experience of injustice within the U.S. military. This is an EXTREMELY important, brand-new story…about a very old problem. Our military is largely populated by young, fit, aggressive men who have been taught to further ratchet up their inherent aggressiveness for the crucial purpose of winning in combat. This is the nature of warfare as has been practiced and perfected over millennia. It is necessary, and it is right…and it has side effects.

Additionally, as discussed in the book Powerful Peace, “today’s military culture remains necessarily rougher than that of the civilian sector.” There is a not-so-subtle machismo affecting the communication, conduct, and willingness to speak up of many men and women in uniform.

My raising this hot issue is not to condemn, or vilify, or rabble-rouse, but to simply place a vital conversation on the table so that we as a society—military and civilian alike—can work toward improvement on a very real problem.

The vast majority of men and women in our Services are decent, honorable, and courageous people who not only reject sexual violation, but will stand against it and even step into harm’s way to stop it. However, the simple dynamic of cohabitation, with all of its surface-level and deeper, instinct-driven influences, is not so simple. In particular, the artificially enhanced pressure cooker of wartime service has led to higher rates of rape and other assault. Our war-focused military system is not yet optimized to either prevent in advance or follow up after an incident…I’ve seen this at home and abroad for nearly thirty years of military experience. It’s time for us to make an evolutionary leap in optimizing.

Just as I don’t vilify, I don’t have any time for man-bashing. In fact, the difficult topic of sexual mistreatment is intimately associated with the very current issue of women in combat roles; if we don’t have the courage and maturity to include that in the dialogue, we’re not even in a real dialogue. Some say unlimited access to every military role is every citizen’s right…others speculate that this abrupt decision was driven more by a politically passionate sense of “fairness,” without a thorough examination of all underlying considerations. Such an assessment should at least consider the incredibly complex universe of social, cultural, psychological, regulatory, physical and mental attribute, existing gender separation policy, and gender relations factors.

Instead, as in the SEAL-bashing film “G.I. Jane” (pitched by Demi Moore and her team at BUD/S while I was enjoying my initial training), shifts like this can sometimes be launched by authorities who “feel” it’s the right time…and the right thing to do.

The floor is open. Who’s ready for a little optimizing?

Military Sexual Assault Victims Detail Humiliation
“WASHINGTON (AP) — In a stinging rebuke of the military’s efforts to curb sexual assault, members of a Senate panel hammered Defense Department officials on Wednesday for making too little progress in combating the crimes and failing to improve a military justice system that victims described as slow and uncaring.

“During a two-part hearing, the panel heard harrowing testimony from several victims, who said military justice is broken and pushed for Congress to take action to stem the rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment that they said are pervasive in all the service branches.”
Read the rest of the article

How to read between the Karzai lines

An amazing example of inflammatory, agenda-driven, counter-productive “messaging”–>

“Afghan President Karzai Claims Taliban, U.S. Colluding”
Read the article

President Karzai uses one example of a Taliban bombing that kills children as “evidence” they are working for America….

Now, for the Powerful Peace Rest Of The Story:

Yes, we must talk with our enemies. Who else would be of any use? Hopefully we’ve been doing external negotiations for some time; the Karzai administration has to carefully balance cooperation with foreign forces against popular political support at home. A similar struggle led to General/President Musharraf’s losing everything when forced to play the same tricky game in Pakistan.

But our dialogue with insurgents, intended to work for resolution, is not “collusion.” It is not indicative of U.S. instructions to murder children. It is an unpleasant fact of life that the Coalition must adapt to, while the “friendly” regime is working back room deals of its own…like indulging some of the dirtiest criminals of all as close friends and relatives of that regime.

Remix on our 2012 Fiscal Cliff/Sequestration speculative post: “Fiscal cliff…or well-disguised economic leadership?”

So here’s what I wrote near the end of last year about what was bumper-stickered as the “Fiscal Cliff.” Today, of course, the bumper sticker says “We Don’t Brake for Sequestration.”

The original posting just seems so apropos today, as the clock ticks inexorably toward midnight and we flip the page to March, 2013. I’m wondering if it isn’t still just as—or more—relevant today:
————————–
Ignorant as I am, it still seems painfully obvious that nobody in Congress or the administration is passionately—viscerally—intent on avoiding the “fiscal cliff.”

If I were driving my wife Cindy and our children, and I saw a literal cliff dead ahead, I would strain every muscle and tendon to control the vehicle and prevent our going over. I would leverage every power of brute force and reflexes and finesse at my disposal.

If environmental conditions were challenging, I would reach outside the car, grasping at the hands of friends, even enemies, to slow our momentum and save my loved ones. If necessary, and my weight alone could mean the difference, I would throw myself out to die in hopes of ensuring their survival.

In short, I would do anything to protect those under my care from plunging to destruction off that literal cliff.

Where is this—ANY of this—effort and sacrifice among our leaders? Meandering back into town from leisurely family Christmases in San Fran, and Houston, and Boston, it all seems like so much last-minute theater to puff up and accuse and make excuses toward the obstinacy of “the other side.”

Here’s my theory: Through the unfortunate twisting and manipulation of a great political system over centuries, the defenders of our realm (even the good ones) find themselves at a place in which political survival depends on distorting and vilifying The Other Side. To look for common ground, meet in the middle, and work on general solutions for all of society is to show weakness…and lose one’s hard-won seat. One Side cannot admit publicly that we as a national family need some belt tightening and at least a modest increase in tax revenue…The Other Side cannot publicly support cutting back on programs that keep this family overextended.

Any member of either Side will lose his or her job for committing the above political crimes.

…But what if many members acknowledged in private that the good of the nation in the current extreme situation depends on both rigorous measures…? What would be an effective way to “game” an imbalanced political system, retain political equity and avoid losing votes/seats, and still allow the essential measures to take effect?

I think it would be to:
1. Design and agree to a “fiscal cliff” of stringent economic corrections;
2. Assure the nation we will work together to avoid its triggering;
3. Meander through a year with no meaningful work on avoiding the cliff;
4. Go on Christmas vacation, and;
5. Return to DC for a few final days of political theater while the agreed-upon corrections take effect on the accepted deadline.

…But that’s just one man’s uneducated opinion.