Every once in a while I read or hear that serious analysts should be able to change their minds on issues.
That's tough because views evolve and it can be hard to say when the view has evolved enough to be a change.
Further, it is easy to forget issues where you've changed your mind.
So I took a stab at the issue for me. It must be incomplete because of the problems above. But here we go.
1. The UN is useless and America should get out of the anti-American body exploited by our enemies.
Given how many times our enemies have used the UN to attack America, it was once easy to want to dump the UN. At one time I thought that the democracies of the world should have their own separate international body. Which would de-legitimize the UN.
But now I think it is better to have a body where everyone--no matter how odious--can talk. Isolating aggressors and rogues just lets them stew in their own anger and hate out of sight and out of mind. But the anger and hate does not go away.
And I think that it is foolish to think democracies will automatically support America. Indeed, opposition from democracies would hurt us more than opposition from a body largely composed of autocrats.
So keep the UN. Kill agencies that are taken over by our enemies. And remember some UN bodies do some good.
Oh, and could we move the UN complex from New York City to Halifax, Nova Scotia? Canadians wouldn't mind, right?
2. America should use mercenary combat units to supplement our regular Army.
That was the rage during the Iraq War when recruiting got difficult. I thought that might be possible to do to meet the demand. It would be temporary.
In the end, I rejected mercenaries. I worried about the price America would pay if we could not get Americans or legal residents to enlist. Better to do whatever we need to do to recruit from here than start going down a path where the military is not part of America because it is not recruited from America.
Of course, I worry our flag officers have grown apart from the military and pose a different threat to American security. But that's a different issue.
3. The Korean War was a draw.
For a long time that seemed obvious. Yes, we initially defended South Korea from invasion. But we did not stop at the 38th parallel. We tried to unite all of Korea. And then China intervened as our troops approached the Chinese border. The Chinese drove the American-led UN forces back across the 38th. We lost Seoul again. But we clawed our way back north to roughly restore the pre-war border at the current DMZ.
Had we stopped at the 38th initially, I'd have called it a win. Because we escalated our objective and failed. It was a draw, despite ultimately preserving South Korea.
And in the years that followed, a South Korea that was an autocracy seemed better than the brutal North Korea. But South Korea was not a democracy. And it was initially more poor than the industrialized north.
But eventually, South Korea evolved into a democracy. And South Korea built up its economy to be modern and efficient. South Korea became a producer rather than a consumer of security. Looking at a free and advanced South Korea that is part of the West makes it clear that the war was a victory. It just took many decades before that victory became apparent.
4. Gay marriage.
In my younger days, I was against gay marriage. I didn't hate or even dislike gay people. I just saw marriage as inherently an institution for men and women. What part of "alternative lifestyle" was unclear? You be you and we'll be us.
But it was never a high priority issue for me. So as society evolved to accept it, I had little interest in fighting it. If gay people want the joys of marriage--and divorce--enjoy. Hey, my history hasn't been a stout defense of the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.
Besides, I figured, if marriage is a foundation of traditionalism, it would be hilarious if gay marriage eventually turned more gay people into conservatives. Welcome to the party, pal.
5. The 2nd Amendment is not an individual right.
Again, in my younger days I didn't think much about the Second Amendment. I valued the right but didn't see the harm in conceding that it didn't limit reasonable restrictions on it.
As I got older and read more about the issue, I changed my mind. And as I saw that the left was unwilling to stop at reasonable restrictions, that base of my amorphous view collapsed. So yeah, it is an individual right. And law-abiding people exercising that right is a foundation of our freedom from both government and criminals, who can't be sure their victims are helpless.
6. Aircraft carriers are vital for the Navy to control the seas.
I loved carriers. Their role in winning the war against Japan in World War II was a thrilling history. And in the Cold War, the carriers were vital for hot wars and for holding back the Soviets. I was glad that Harpoon anti-ship missiles spread our offensive power beyond the carriers. But carriers were queens of the fleet. I had some worries about the Russian ships and subs that trailed our carriers to fire on them the moment war broke out. But I wasn't worried about losing many and figured those that survived would be valuable.
Eventually, a couple decades ago, I began to see the proliferation of cheaper and longer-range anti-ship missiles integrated into a persistent surveillance network as the effective end of expensive carriers for sea control missions.
Sure, the carriers are great against minor powers without the ability to find let alone attack the carriers off their coast. But masses of missiles fired from dispersed enemy assets unified by a surveillance and communications network would signal the dominance of network-centric warfare over the platform-centric warfare in which the super carriers were the pinnacle of massing firepower on a single platform.
So yeah, I want to see our super carriers dwindle in number over many decades, in favor of more ships and subs taking their place.
7. China is our ally.
I was happy to have China as an ally against the Soviet Union. It was a marriage of convenience. But it was useful. Sure, they were Commie bastards. But the more threatening Commie bastards in the USSR were the priority. So bolster their ground forces to inflict damage on the Red Army if it attacked China.
The collapse of the USSR and the rise of China led me to abandon that. China was now the next big threat. Heck, I hoped a post-Soviet Russia would join the West. At best on the latter, I can only say that Russia hasn't decided to join the West yet.
Before the September 11, 2001 jihadi terror attacks on America, I was already working on an article that argued we had to think about how to fight China in a ground war. We were getting used to the concept of preparing for Major Theater Wars (or Major Theater Conflicts) against smaller threats like Saddam's Iraq or North Korea.
The war on terror ended any Army bandwidth that notion might have had. I remember getting my paper essay I mailed to Parameters on the issue returned shortly after 9/11 all brown from whatever they had done to it to neutralize Anthrax. Remember that?
Since then I rewrote the essay from different angles. All were rejected. Until I managed to get it published in Military Review in 2018. My view was finally ready for consideration.
8 & 9. I've changed my mind twice on Donald Trump.
I've had a complicated relationship with Trump. I had a long history of despising him as a New York loud-mouthed Democrat. I didn't trust his claim to be a Republican when he began putting his toe in the political waters. I thought he was a Democrat in Republican clothing, notwithstanding his welcome stance on the side of blue collar workers. That's where I came from.
So when he got traction in the primaries for the 2016 election, he was literally the last candidate I wanted to win. He won anyway. And he faced the equally odious Hillary Clinton whose deep immersion in corruption led me to despair. I could read polls. I did not see how my vote could help defeat Clinton in Michigan. And even if that was true, I didn't see how Michigan could affect the election that would put Hillary! in the White House. So I did not vote for Trump. I voted for whoever the Libertarian candidate was.
When Clinton lost, I was over-joyed. Ecstatic even. I was never worried about him becoming a dictator and assumed his Republican staff would steer him away from what I felt were his left-wing tendencies.
Democrats did two things. They turned the dial of Resistance to 11 and kept it there, with the most ridiculous charges and reactions. All bolstered by the media and--as we've discovered--the permanent bureaucracy, to their eternal shame. The sheer unfairness of the attacks pushed me toward Trump.
The Democrats also rejected working with Trump. I thought Trump would work with Democrats on spending bills both could support. Instead, Democrats forced Trump to be more Republican in policies, which reassured me. And obviously, despite the insane worries of the left, Trump did not become a dictator in any way.
So I enthusiastically voted for him in 2020. His style still grated me at some level. But the overreaction of Democrats got me to appreciate his humor more. And his policies were largely fine from my perspective. And where they were not--like spending too much money--was he that different from past Republican presidents?
But while Trump was deprived of an earned reelection by his mistakes in Covid pandemic over-reaction and from the relentless Democratic media propaganda campaign against him (and yes, the likelihood--but I've seen no proof--is that mail-in voting was designed to welcome voter fraud that could not be detected), his behavior since then has eroded my support for him.
Now, while I thank him for what he did, admire him for enduring the onslaught against him, and regret his defeat in 2020, I'm moving on. I supported Trump because of his policies. The policies he promoted were key--not him personally. He has sniped at Republicans, denying the Republicans control of the Senate--twice!--and oddly violating Reagan's 11th Commandment not to attack fellow Republicans. And Trump is getting old. We can see what having a barely sentient empty suit in the Oval Office looks like. I won't risk that again with my vote.
I understand Republicans who don't like Trump. But I still don't get the Never Trumpers who did not come around to make the best of having Trump in office after he won in 2016. I don't like how their opposition to Trump has morphed into support for Democrats who are pushed left by Twitter activists.
But that's in the past. I have never elevated presidents into a god. They are tools for policy. Despite everything done to Trump, I must look to the future. So thank you for your service, President Trump. I wish you the best in your post-presidential endeavors. But I want your endeavors to be post-presidential.
10. Congress is the only body able to declare a legitimate war.
The power to declare war is a Congressional power and is enshrined in the Constitution. We haven't issued a declaration of war since World War II. That seemed disturbing at some level.
But really, that has not limited our wars. As commander-in-chief, the president can order the military into action. Seemingly in defiance of the Constitutional provision.
Indeed, early on our country waged wars without a declaration of war and without drawing concern from the people who had actually built our country. The Quasi-War with France at sea. And the Tripolitan War, and extended campaign against North African pirate states.
The United Nations system also erased a reason for declaring war. Declaring war once triggered international law powers for states declaring war. That body of law and custom was ended by the UN system. Further, declaring war triggers presidential war powers that nobody wanted triggered for smaller wars. But nobody wanted to end that trigger when a nuclear attack might make it impossible for Congress to grant a president those powers with any speed following an attack on America.
Further, it was once probably much easier to distinguish between Congressional war power and presidential commander-in-chief powers. With no standing army and a small navy (which large oceans and old technology made an easy risk to take as enemies tried to project power across an ocean), the president couldn't start too much of a war on his own--note my examples above were largely naval wars--without Congress voting to raise those armies and build a larger navy.
Now we have a large standing military, removing that Congressional brake on presidential powers. Based on early history and recent practice, it is clear that we can go to war by Congressional declaration of war, authorization to use force resolutions by Congress, or simply by Congress agreeing to fund the war that the president embarks on (with or without UN authorization).
And my former view that a declaration of war ensured that the people would back the wars until victory was naive, really. Congress backed wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, yet public support eroded over time.
So legitimate war under the current situation is spread more widely than one would think by a narrow reading of the Constitution.
11. The central role of main battle tanks in land warfare.
Tanks provide mobile, protected firepower to break a stalemate based on too much firepower on too small of a frontage. I've long defended the central role of armored vehicles in land warfare. Twenty years ago in Military Review I warned against the urge to build a "wonder tank" that tried to create a light and strategically mobile, lethal, and well protected "tank" to solve all the problems we had sending tanks overseas to fight and win.
I'm not quite turning against tanks. I've long figured the sheer numbers and more complicated nature of land warfare slowed down the trends I'd seen affecting carrier survivability.
But I now think that we might be entering an era when alternatives to the large and expensive main battle tank engaged in direct fire combat must be considered. We still need mobile, protected firepower if we want to avoid static wars of attrition.
My guess now is we need a new "Sherman" tank that is adequate and cheap, with a focus on crew survival. And the vehicle should probably be more of an indirect shooter plugged into a persistent surveillance network whether on defense or attack, advancing without emphasizing closing with an enemy for direct fire combat.
How we get there is unclear. And maybe we get a different form of mobile, protected firepower to retain mobility on the battlefield. I just don't think bigger and more expensive tanks is how we will get there.
12. The A-10 as a close support aircraft.
I have affection for the A-10. I remember reading my brother's Army Reserve magazine when I was a lad and it had a story on the new ground support aircraft. I remember during basic training hearing the chain gun fire as the aircraft used our night firing exercise as a way to practice strafing runs forward of troop lines. And in my National Guard unit, my vehicle was A-10, which we nicknamed Warthog in honor of the plane.
The plane was designed to go low and slow while surviving ground fire to support ground troops in action against masses of enemy tanks. It was outstanding.
But technology moves on. Ground defenses are more lethal. Ground support can be provided from a distance with stand-off precision weapons guided by better forward observer technology.
So yes, the Air Force has a point when it says the A-10 can't come in slow and low against peer military enemies.
But. The A-10 is good against insurgents in a slow and low attack profile. And for peer enemies, the A-10 has been modified to use stand-off weapons out of range of ground air defenses. So that isn't an issue.
Ultimately, I defend the A-10 not because of the plane characteristics themselves--it is in fact very old--but because the A-10 exists as a dedicated ground support plane for ground troops. I'd be fine with a new close air support plane for the Air Force.
But the Air Force doesn't want a replacement for the A-10. The Air Force wants the F-35 multi-role plane to take over the role. When it isn't busy with missions that have a higher priority with Air Force planners than responding to Army calls for immediate air support.
For me it is a matter of trust in the Air Force. Despite its outstanding record during the war on terror and in the initial Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, I don't have trust on this issue based on the long history of the Air Force campaign to kill the A-10 by hook or crook.
Perhaps if the Air Force organized and trained some of its F-35 squadrons exclusively for close air support, I'd be more comfortable getting rid of the A-10 before it finally must die from old age without a replacement.
So there you go. Many times I've discovered old posts that show I do not change my views on a basic issue just because a different president is in office. I've occasionally noted those as I found them. But I never looked at the other side of the coin. I explained more than I intended when I started this. I spent 15 minutes pondering changing views over my life. I'm sure I've missed many. But the examples are enough that I think you can see I can change my mind. And that changing my mind is based on changing facts rather than being a pursuit of the trendy or popular--or politically motivated to back "my" team.
Thank you for reading The Dignified Rant. I'll be here in the new year. May it be happy and good for America.
NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
