Distributed Government

We've all seen complaints about how the US State Department seems to have a mind of it's own when it comes to foreign policy. It seems to me that they have developed an internal culture that is risk-averse in the extreme and only responds half-hearedly to the administration's direction. I strongly suspect that the state department has become a haven for East Coast liberals and Rockefeller Republicans. This leads me to speculate about how the State Dept would be different if it were located in another part of the country.

When Pierre L'Enfant planned the Disctrict of Columbia, he intended for it's physical design to facilitate communication and accessibility, not only with the American people, but also with the other branches of government. In those days, obviously, it took considerably longer to travel distances and one couldn't just pick up the telephone if they wanted to speak to someone across the country.

With the advances in communication made possible by the internet, physical proximity no longer carries that same weight of importance. If the State Dept were located in someplace like the Sears-Roebuck campus in Hoffman Estates, IL would it be more conservative and less "international" than it is today? How much does the physical location of our government affect it's operation?

For agencies whose members rotate in and out frequently, the physical location of their workplace has very little effect on their culture. For those "career" diplomats and other members of the government, location has a noticeable effect. My hypothesis is this: The location of DC on the eastern seaboard tends to contribute to policies that reflect a liberal ideology. Of course, physical location isn't the main factor in determining the ideology of a government agency, but I suspect it has a powerful effect nonetheless. Other government agencies like the CIA also seem to have taken a decidedly liberal tilt in the past decade.

There is a further benefit to not having all of the government agencies located in one city. The risk of disruption from a dirty bomb goes down when all of the government agencies aren't located within a relatively small radius.

In the age of quick communications; satellite telephones, video conferencing, and the ubiquitous internet, does physical proximity still matter? Would our government actually be stronger if it wasn't all located in the same area? I don't really know the answers to these questions, but imagining the State Dept in Hoffman Estates leads me to believe that it would make a difference. Maybe it isn't the physical location at all. Maybe, as a nation, we should take a much closer look at career government employees and see if they shouldn't be drawn from a more diverse pool.

Over The Hill

After spending months denying that there was any shortage of troops in Iraq, (see previous TMI article) the Bush Administration is willing to admit that there is, indeed, a shortage. Now that everyone is in agreement on this basic point, what can be done about it?

The problem is further compounded by the fact that the troop shortage isn't just in Iraq, but in the entire US Armed Forces. There has been talk of reducing our current commitments in Bosnia and elsewhere around the world. Unfortunately, any scenario that calls for a reduction in troops elsewhere, would also create additional problems. I have a better idea.

Instead of making the conventional Army bigger or relying on the traditional reserve and guard forces, let's make it easier for regular people to serve in the armed forces for a limited time and in a limited capacity.

As an example, I'm almost 40 years old. When I graduated from high school in 1982, I was under the general perception that the only people who would join the military were those who wouldn't be going to college or those who couldn't find a job. Since that time, joining the military as a career as become much more accepted. As a result, there is a large pool of people in their 30's and 40's who I believe would be willing to consider some type of military service.

Unfortunately, the traditional military views these people as too old. The reality is that a 30 or 40 year old in decent physical shape is capable of serving in the armed forces, despite the fact that they didn't enlist at the tender age of 18. Furthermore, a 30 or 40 year old is likely to be more emotionally mature and stable than an 18 or 20 year old.

Current barriers for a typical 30-40 year old serving in the military are as follows:

• The military won't have them.
  
• They are supporting a family - making payments on a house and can't afford to serve.
  
• They are often at the apex of their careers and are unable to spend great amounts of time away from them.
  
• They don't have the proper training.

  These barriers are not insurmountable.

  Congress could pass a law requiring employers to allow those who serve in the military for a limited term to continue to hold their jobs as well as pay them. A special term of military service could be initiated that would last for a total of 9 months; 1-3 months for training and 6-8 months of active duty. The training for service of this type could be specially suited to whatever assignment they are on; those who come from a management background could be placed in leadership positions, those with engineering degrees could be placed in an engineering assignment, etc. These soldiers would be distinct from "Career Soldiers" and would only serve for a limited duration. They would then re-join their employers and go on with their lives with the knowledge that they had served their country in a time of need.

  Many Americans have a desire to serve their country in a tangible way. The real question is, Does their country really want them to serve and is it willing to make that service a reality?

  Note: It's October 24th, 2003 and I'm surfing around the internet. I find an article from the Atlanta Journal Constitution dated Sept 19, 2003. I wrote my article on the 22nd of September and I didn't get the idea from this guy (really). This article says basically the same thing I said. Apparently, at least one other person thinks this isn't such a goofy idea.

  Posted by jdmays at 09:35 PM | Comments (0)

National Leadership Award!

I received a call today from my good friend Congressman Tom DeLay. You might recall that I had some correspondance with him a while back. Apparently Congressman DeLay is so impressed with me that he's decided to give me a National Leadership Award.

Well, I think I'm a pretty good guy and all that, but I didn't really think I was deserving of an award for leadership. I thought it was a scam right away. However, the person in my office who took the call was very curious. I bet her a dime that it was a fundraising scam. She got on the phone while I jumped onto the internet to do a search for "National Leadership Award".

The most informative page on this phony baloney award is here. There are several sites discussing this award. They can be found by going here. It turns out that in order to get the "award" you are asked to pay some money to cover the cost of publicizing it.

Although I've never officially declared myself as a Republican - I could probably be considered one. I've only voted for one Democrat (it was in a local election and I'm sorry I'll never do it again - I promise!) in my entire life. My political views definitely run at least a little to the right of center. If this makes me angry, what must it do to someone who is uncommitted to a political party or to a Democrat?

Obviously, Congressman DeLay is in league with the Democrats. He's using these sneaky, sleezy fundraising tactics in an effort to make people angry and cause them to vote for Democrats instead! Or... it could be that he and his ilk are monumentally stupid and are engaged in a moronic attempt at fundraising. I'm not sure which option bothers me more. I'm definitely going to write to someone and complain. Either that or someone better cough up a National Leadership Award - gratis.

By the way, I won the bet and received a shiny new dime so I guess something good happened afterall.

Nike Nation

While reading this past Sunday's Chicago Tribune, I noticed something interesting. There was a picture of two iraqi boys displaying a banner of their mullah who had been killed in the recent bombing of a mosque. One of the boys was wearing a shirt with the Nike Swoosh Logo. This gave me an idea.

According to some dubious sources the Iraqi resistance to US occupation in Iraq is growing. While I have no doubt that there are significant numbers of Iraqis that aren't thrilled with the American presence, I suspect most Iraqis are very happy to see the troops. Still, there is a vocal opposition to the continued presence of the US.

It has long mystified me how various countries around the world could hate our guts so much and yet latch onto our cultural icons. The Nike Swoosh is a good example. Perhaps if my idea for new US Army uniforms was used, all of the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms.

An extra benefit of the newly designed uniforms, such as the helmet shown at left, is that we could defray some of the costs of the war. Perhaps, we could get corporations to sponsor our military operations. For example, Operation Enduring Freedom would become Operation Enduring Freedom brought to you by Oil of Olay.

Maybe we're just not taking this Cultural Imperialism thing far enough. Just think how much they would love us if we put someone like Michael Jordan in charge!

Despite my initial enthusiasm for this idea, I'm thinking that it may not work. If we outfitted all of our soldiers with the new Nike uniforms, it would probably turn out that all the Baathists in Iraq are Adidas fans on account of that special - " Buy two missile parts, get a pair of sneakers " sale put on by the French Govt before the war.