John McCain

John McCain would be a loss to our country in any era, but particularly at this time of fractious partisanship.  He berated, cajoled, pleaded with his colleagues to restore regular order, to work across the aisle and, with the vivid scar above his eye, scolded them - "my friends, we are not getting anything done!"

Unlike many of his party he did not hop on the Trumpster's running boards.  Keeping his position in the Senate was not as important as doing right by his country.  So he called them as he saw them; his Constitution Center speech was a clear call to action that we had better make changes - and soon.

The press called him a maverick, an unfortunate (lazy) epithet that I will bet McCain himself did not like.  Rather than conform to his party platform, or conventional wisdom, or expedience he exhibited a sense of public virtue.  He did the right thing for his beloved America, even if his party wogs didn't approve.  He understood that political courage is all that stands between us and a slippery slope to despair.

Rather than conformity (the keystone of totalitarian regimes) he stood up and raised hell when he needed to.  The tributes are striking for many reasons, but especially for the strong friendships he made and sustained, and that sense of humor that is so rare, but so much a part of the character of a confident, grounded man.  We will miss him.

No parade Mr Trump

Our tradition is civilian control of the military.  Our founders didn't even like the idea of a standing army.  Times change.

Our republic doesn't need to display its power in our national capital.  We are confident of our power, and our principles.  Mr. Trump's desire for a big show - like Putin and Kim deploy - is another sign of his admiration for authoritarian figures, and tone deaf in our country.

Let's first account for the money that disappeared from the inauguration fund before we ask our fine military to march around for the pleasure of a clueless president.

Blackwater proposal way off the mark

The proposal to privatize the Afghan war is a bad idea for many reasons.  As presented, it would install a private military force into Afghanistan reporting to a special envoy who reports directly to the president. 

Such a plan would leave Congress out of the loop and give the president dictatorial powers.  One of our longest traditions is civilian control over war making, with the Congress holding primary authority.

Making war on another nation - even within a nation to fight insurgents - must be carried out by a nation-state, not a bunch of mercenaries.  The soldiers of our nation, who take an oath to the Constitution, can be held accountable by the people, and Congress can control funding.

Such a move would encourage the use of "private armies" throughout the world and insert a major disrupting influence on international relations.  Imagine a wealthy nation hiring a highly capable commander who then proceeds to act according their own views of strategy and tactics?  Who would have to clean up the spillover skirmishes - perhaps across the boundary of another nation - that the mercenaries might cause.

War making is part and parcel of a nation's overall international strategy.  The best way to maintain a cohesive approach, combining hot war and diplomacy.

War making does create profits for companies who supply equipment and weapons (etc) but it is antithetical to our system that a private company make war on our behalf with a primary profit motive. 

A very bad idea from the scalawag, Erik Prince.