A quick thought about US military structure

I'm sure someone smarter and/or more knowledgable than I has already thought of this, but it's been floating in my head the last couple days, and I thought I should at least put it out there so someone can tell me why I'm wrong and why it wouldn't work. There has been a lot of "post-war" budget wrangling for the military, and I think I have a way of streamlining things that makes sense in the current environment and plays to the strengths and needs of our nation. 

First, close all US bases on foreign soil. Admittedly, this is probably the most contentious part of the plan. Assets could be redistributed to facilities in the US, or eliminated if unnecessarily redundant.  Where treaties oblige us to keep a foreign military presence, develop infrastructure sharing plans with the host countries to minimize our footprint. 

Next, invest in the Navy and Marine Corps. The Navy is in the best position to provide power projection regardless of geopolitical boundary shifts, and can most easily globally redeploy assets based on the intensity of the conflict. Similarly, the Marine Corps has a tradition of and indeed the unique capability to be instantly deployable and effective in wide range of scenarios. The Navy/Marine Corps team is a complete combined arms package that can be utilized to intervene quickly in crisis situations or open a theatre for long term combat operations. 

This would leave the Air Force free to take up the "strategic" mission they seem to want to focus on. Let them build long-range bombers and air superiority fighters, and take the lead in "cyber" operations. 

Similarly, this frees the Army up to focus on defense of our nation and preparing for protracted combat operations. 

In my mind, this streamlining of mission focus would reduce overall operational budget, allow for more targeted and effective procurement spending, and in the long term, create jobs inside the US. 

Admittedly this is not very developed, and it's from my own very uninformed point of view, but I feel like the idea should at least be explored. Please feel free to educate me if I'm wrong. 

Ms. Mumaugh

I lost a friend this week. Shirley Mumaugh was an amazing woman. She was more than just a teacher to so many people, and she changed many, many lives. Ms. Mumaugh never had any biological children, but she always referred to her students as “her babies”. She looked after them and cared for them as if they were her own, even after they no longer attended her classes.

Ms. Mumaugh loved teaching. More than that, she loved being an educator. She believed in helping young people fulfill their potential, and encouraged them to be the best they possibly could be. She had amazing insight into hearts and minds of high school students and would often advocate for the best interests of those in need, even if she didn’t have them in her class.

Shirley was unfailingly generous. If she perceived a need, she would do what should could to fill it without question, and with the greatest humility. She loved her community, and she supported and encouraged any effort to make the world a better place to live in.

I think it’s impossible to have known Shirley and not have been changed for the better by knowing her. I learned so much from her. She taught me to appreciate art, even if it wasn’t really my taste. She taught me that it’s ok to be a little different, because everybody is anyway. She helped me to express myself in meaningful ways and to make my point clearly (though I admit I’m still working on that). She encouraged me to dream big and chase big dreams.

Goodbye SAM, you will be missed here by so many.  You will not be forgotten  by any who’ve met you, and all of us are better people for having you in our lives. 

Some Thoughts About Libertarian Philosophy

If you know me, you know that my political views lean toward the libertarian. I've been doing some reading and thinking lately. I still believe in the principles of personal liberty, but as I've thinking about it, I've run into a couple of practical snags. I'm open to others' thoughts, but please remember that I am not a political scientist, so if I say something dumb, please be gentle in your correction.

The first problem I've run into deals with the idea of the free market. As I understand it, in a truly free market, goods and services are traded based on consumer demand and availability. There is no government intervention. A product succeeds or fails based solely on its popularity.

The problem I have is that this system expects all participants in a transaction to be inherently "good" or at least honest. Say a for example an individual has a new food product, soylent green (I know, but let me run with it). Every body loves soylent green and demand far out paces supply. Under the free market system, there is no obligation for the company to reveal to the public the secret ingredient that makes soylent green so tasty and nutritious. Unless there is an independent investigation into soylent green, no one will ever know that it's people, a fact that would certainly curtail demand once publicized. Under this system, those of dubious ethical standing are almost enabled to profit at the expense of the well being of others. How do we get around this without some form of regulation?

Another issue I have stems from the idea that as long as an act is nonviolent and mutually consensual to all involved parties there should be no prohibition against it. As long as the parties are"competent" adults I have no problem with this. Let people make their own choices and deal with the consequences of those choices. For me this starts to get sticky when we deal with children and the mentally ill or mentally challenged.

On the face of it, the child question seems easy. Children cannot legally enter into contracts, so they cannot consent and a parent must do this for them. But as above, we have to assume altruism. Unfortunately, there are several examples of parents doing horrible things to their children. Digging deeper, we have to question the age of majority. In the US we seem to have implemented a strange arbitrary graduated scale. At 16 you can drive, at 18 you can smoke, vote, and die for your country, but you have to be 21 to drink alcohol, and your auto insurance company thinks you become a safer driver at 25. Other nations have other standards. How do we determine who is old enough to be considered an adult for our purposes?

Those who are not mentally capable have a similar problem. Who speaks for them? How do we determine competency to begin with? Do we place restrictions on the mentally challenged? If so, does that create an inequality? Are we not then violating a principle of personal liberty?

I don't have what I feel are good answers to these questions. I just needed to get them out there so that I can stop mulling them over all day. I'm open to others' thoughts if anyone cares to share.