Universal suffrage = Universal incompetence?

The election in 2008 was anticipated to have record turnout due to the historic nature of a certain candidate having a shot at he Presidency (SPOILER: It's cause he's Hawaiian). Like any responsible citizen I took some time to research both the candidates and determine which one would be a better leader for our nation.  Naturally, being a politics junkie, this consisted of many long hours and elastic bands.

Just one more hit, man, just to take the edge off.

If I had just cut to the chase, the research necessary to be informed would have taken me less time than to watch a sitcom. 

On a chilly Tuesday I went out to my polling place and was greeted with a line longer than a Star Wars premier. As I waited in line I overheard some conversations, and engaged in a few. The insanity that spewed from my fellow citizens was horrifying. There were precious few who spoke of voting for their man because of his tax policy, or his stance on the scope of the federal government, or economics, or any number of valid reasons. “He’s a democrat/republican” was a common reason and is disappointing, but by far the most terrifying reason was “Because he’s black! Black President, WOOOOO!!!!” I could hardly believe my ears: Were my fellow citizens really ready to cast their vote for the candidate whose skin color happened to be darker? Since when did such a blatantly racist position become a substitute for being informed? I was indignant; why should the inane and irrational opinions of these people be counted equally with my own? Why do we continue to tolerate an incompetent electorate?

            Since the 15^th Amendment in 1870 and the 19^th Amendment in 1920 granted all races and sexes, respectively, the right to vote America has followed a policy of more or less “universal” suffrage. It sounds like a very fair and reasonable idea. After all, if government truly flows from the consent of the governed it makes sense that all the governed should have the right to influence those who rule them. Yet, the ability to vote is simply granted to anyone who happens to successfully make it to eighteen years of age without dying or committing a felony. As Thomas Paine once said, “That which we obtain too easily, we esteem to lightly”. Is it fair or just that citizens, who are not themselves competent or informed, should wield such power over those that are? Who needs this universal suffrage junk anyhow?

            Jason Brennan argues that such a practice is intrinsically unjust. He writes that “many of [his] fellow citizens are incompetent, ignorant, irrational, and morally unreasonable about politics. Despite that, they hold political power over [him]”. Just as it would be wrong to force someone to be operated on by an untrained surgeon, or be driven in a bus with someone who wasn’t qualified to do so, it is wrong to force someone to submit to the will of a voting populace which is grossly incompetent to make decisions. Brennan proposes that a form of restricted suffrage, or epistocracy, may be unjust but it is less unjust than universal suffrage. One of the principle arguments he makes is that of the jury. We expect our juries to be filled with competent citizens. In fact, if a lawyer can show that a potential juror is not competent he is dismissed. If, in a court case, the jury is obviously ignorant (having paid no attention during the trial and admitting to having done so), irrational (finding the defendant guilty/innocent based on bizarre conspiracy theories), or morally unreasonable (a Christian jury convicting a Muslim of drunk driving simply due to his chosen faith) they would not be considered legitimate and there would be good grounds for appeal (Brennan, 2011). The fact that most juries are legitimate would not change the fact that this particular jury was not (Brennan, 2011). Further, even if this same jury acted in a rational manner in 99 previous cases, if they acted in an ignorant or irrational manner in case 100 it would be no less unjust simply because they usually act in a competent manner. 

Just as citizens have a right to expect a rational and reasonable jury, whose decisions they are forced to abide by threat of violence, to arrive at decisions in a rational and reasonable manner, so too do they have a right to expect the same of their government. The government may not make good on this obligation, but that does not change the fact that it exists.

            There can be no doubt that past attempts at restricted suffrage would unquestionably unjust. Restrictions based on race or religion completely disregard the individual abilities of those excluded. To this, Brennan says "A law that made it illegal for atheists to drive would be unjust; however, that does not mean that any law that restricts driving is unjust." Even if we allow that there are some people who may be wrongly excluded, the same could be said for many other restrictions we currently accept at reasonable. For instance, there is nothing magical about the age of 18. Many people below that age are mature, informed, and responsible, while many older than that age are not. While some people being unable to vote may be an injustice, is it any less of an injustice that I should have to live with the decisions of those who arrive at the polls and do not even know the candidate’s names? Is it reasonable for me to be compelled to follow the decisions of those put in power by citizens whose decision went no further than the (R) or (D) next to the name they did not recognize?

            This is not to say that restricted suffrage is without its own flaws. Chief among them is the burning question “Who gets to decide who’s competent?” After all, if there is a test that can control who can vote based on what they know it is not a stretch to imagine such a test being perverted to restrict the vote based on what one believes. For this and other reasons it may be impractical to implement such a system. It is unreasonable to expect that each citizen would be an expert in every subject that could be influenced by the government. Still, if a system could hypothetically be designed that ensured those who went to the polls had at least a rudimentary knowledge of the issues and where they stand, would it not be better than being subjected to the capricious will of the politically blind?

          As it stands we truly live in the land of the blind. Perhaps it is time that we allow the one eyed citizens to be king.

            

Brennan, J. (2011, October). The right to a competent electorate. Philosophical Quarterly. Volume 61, issue 245, pages 700-724. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from the Academic Search Complete database.

Gay Marriage: Right or wrong, it should be legal

            The discussion over the possibility of gay marriage is one fraught with miscommunication. On the one side, opponents see themselves as championing one of the pillars of society, defending it from the endless erosion that eats away at the moral fiber of our nation. Proponents see themselves as the oppressed minority, with heterosexual opponents as uncaring and willing to pull out any sort of argument to avoid recognizing same-sex love. The truth, as it often is, is concealed in the nuance of the two arguments. I myself grew up opposed to same-sex marriage. I personally believed that homosexuality was wrong, due only to my religious convictions (I had no personal quarrel with the practice), but that was not why I opposed gay marriage. I opposed it because marriage being between one man and one woman was an evolved social mechanism that had been around for a very long time. It worked for the majority of cultures quite well, and I was concerned for the possible unintended consequences that could arise from tinkering with the fabric of our society. I longed to have a rational discussion, but unfortunately one side of the argument would point to a religiously fueled morals which have no place in legislation, while the other side would dismiss my concerns as hateful. It was not until I stumbled upon the incredibly thoughtful Jonathan Rauch that I finally got the discussion I had wished for. It was that honest exchange of ideas that changed my mind for good.

            Jonathan has written a book which summarizes many of his positions on gay marriage. Himself being gay, his positions are fairly predictable, but how he expresses them are not. What causes him stand out are his acknowledgements of the dangers.  He admits that those who oppose same-sex marriage, by and large, do so out of nobility rather than spite. He says that “Honest advocacy requires acknowledging that same-sex marriage is a significant social change and, as such, is not risk-free.” His acknowledgement of the validity of his opposition sets the tone for the ensuing argument where he addresses these concerns one by one, saying that these risks are “modest, manageable, and likely to be outweighed by the benefits”. He asks those who disagree with him to remember what marriage is: a social contract between a couple and their community. It is a situation which has a calming and stabilizing influence on young men and women, tying them down and encouraging them to set roots (Rauch, 2004).

            Imagine that there was no marriage for anyone. Imagine a society that does not acknowledge that there is a situation where two people could become more than close friends or lovers. Such a society sets to expectation that relationships should endure. It has no safety nets or security for the families that try. Likewise, the community itself has no social contract with couples. There is an anchoring effect to marriage, caused in no small part by society's expectations of the couple which are taught as they grow up.

            This anchoring effect of marriage holds true regardless of whether the couples involved are of the same or differing sexes.  By opposing gay marriage we are making the statement to a segment of the population that their love is no good here and that the relationships they have will never be sanctioned or acceptable in the eyes of the community. We give them few external incentives to settle down, to raise a family, to be the same productive contributing members of society that straight couples are. Should we not be encouraging strong, stable relationships no matter who is involved?

            Further, by saying that marriage is for some, but not others, we run the risk of enforcing in our youth the idea that marriage is not necessarily the desirable end state for their relationships. In order to avoid changing the definition of marriage, we erode the very idea of marriage as the ultimate & community sanctioned goal of any long term relationship.

            I personally do not see why it is a big deal who Billy chooses to give his heart to. If you do think that it is wrong for Billy to kiss another boy, consider this: Is it better to at least expect that they do it in a stable, loving home which can be an asset to the community and therefore acknowledge that marriage is a good thing that should be preserved? Or is it better to force them to do it on the social outskirts, which tacitly encourages others (who may themselves be straight) to abandon marriage as well?

            What message do we send?

Rauch, Jonathan (2004, April). Gay marriage: Why it is good for gays, good for straights, and good for America. Booklist. Volume 100, issue 13, page 1099. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from MasterFILE Premier database.

Abortion in the US: When choice doesn’t matter.

“I’m pregnant.” The words of his fiancé hit him in the stomach with more force than a sucker punch. He did not speak, but his mind raced. How can he possibly handle this? “I’m barely 18 and I’m a freshman in college. I don’t have a job, I don’t have a house, I don’t have…” The litany continued. What options does someone faced with this choice have? For many people, when faced with this decision, the answer is one word: Abortion. The pregnancy is terminated and their life can continue until they are ready for the responsibility. For me, that was not an option. I was left with two words: Step up. Many people would say that my actions, while admirable, were only right for me. After all, how can I dictate to a woman what she does with her own body? What if the mother’s life is in danger, or she is raped? These and other arguments have a few things in common. They are passionate. They play on the deep seated desire for liberty and equality that lives in most Americans. They challenge the one who would dare interfere in the private life of another. Unfortunately, they also have another thing in common: They are completely irrelevant.

             Before we delve into the logical argument it can help to know what the frame of mind is for women who actually choose to have an abortion. As would be expected for such a complicated issue, most women have multiple reasons for seeking to end their pregnancy (Biggs,et. al., 2013). The most common theme was financial in nature, coming in at 40% of respondents. This only narrowly beat out “bad timing”. One respondent stated that she was “so busy with school and work I felt [that having an abortion] would be the right thing to do until I really have time to have [a child]” (Biggs, et. al., 2013). About 31% of women cited reasons relating to their partner. The list goes on, but there are two things that are interesting to note. First, many of the reasons given had to do with wanting what was best for this child (or future children) (Biggs, et. al., 2013). These aren’t the responses of selfish, evil people, but of normal people who are not sure they are up to a great task.

Second, and most shockingly, only 6% of women were concerned for their own health (Biggs, et. al., 2013). While it was not covered in this study, it seems reasonable to believe that cases of rape or incest would also be small numbers. Having a discussion that focuses exclusively on these items ignores 96% of abortions! Yet every debate about abortion invariably focuses a great amount of attention on these cases. This is like having a discussion about airline safety but only considering single engine Cessna!

In an issue as emotionally charged as this one our best friend is dispassionate logic. For those not familiar with framing a logical argument, it goes like this: You start first with the assumptions or underlying principles. Then statement(s) are made. Finally, you have a conclusion which must be the only possible conclusion from the assumptions and statement(s). If any of these pieces are incorrect (the underlying assumption is wrong, for example, or the conclusion does not follow from the assumptions) the argument may or may not be true, but it is certainly logically flawed.

Let us assume for the moment that the extreme extenuating circumstances of rape, incest, & mother’s health make abortion permissible in those instances. Neglecting those, then, we have consider this:

1.  It is wrong to intentionally end the life of an innocent, non-consenting human. (Assumption)
2. The unborn fetus is an innocent, non-consenting human, and is alive. (Statement)
3. Therefore, it is wrong to the end the life of the unborn fetus. (Conclusion)

4.      

Very few people would argue with #1. Though the existence of a person may be a burden or make us uncomfortable it is not considered acceptable to kill that person unless they somehow threaten your own existence. Society calls such an act murder. If #2 is correct then the conclusion, #3, is inescapable. The only item that is questionable, therefore, is #2. Breaking the argument down even further, I think most people can agree that an unborn fetus is innocent and non-consenting (one struggles to imagine a just law that made criminals out of the unborn, or allowed them to enter into contracts).  The fact that it is human is an incontrovertible fact of genetic material; when was the last time a human mother gave birth to piglets?

 We are left, then, with the very last part of the statement: Is the fetus alive? When does life begin? That is the discussion we should be having. In fact, I would argue, it is the only discussion worth having, because conclusions about everything else follows neatly once the answer is found for this one question. After all, if #2 is not correct and the fetus is not alive, then conceivably is it permissible to do whatever is wished to it. If #2 is correct and the fetus is alive, then presumably it has all the rights of any other living human, including the right to life. All the other questions are laid to rest if we can answer just this one.

Unfortunately, the uncomfortable and honest answer to the question “When does life begin?” is “We don’t know”. We have several definitions at our disposal, but most fall short. Birth itself could be used, but that begs the question of what is so different in a fetus the moment prior to birth versus the moment after that imbues it with the spark of life. Many laws use the “viability” metric, saying that a fetus is considered alive when it is viable outside the womb. This may work well in deciding law but is quite silly in practice. Viability depends on many factors, chief among them the state of medical technology available to the mother. Imagine a woman in her second trimester in the back woods of Tennessee. Without access to a hospital her fetus is not viable and therefore not alive. If she takes a trip to New York and suddenly has access to the best medicine, her infant is viable. Does it then become alive? If so, what if she returns to Tennessee? Does the infant cease to be alive again? Going from death to life and back to death must be awfully confusing for the child!

I readily admit I do not know the answer to this question. I doubt anyone alive can honestly say they do. I humbly submit, however, that the standards we ought to measure any definition for the beginning of life are clearly identifiable. The definition should be consistent. It should be something that does not change based on geography or personal lifestyle. If there be any gray area, as civilized members of the human race, we should err on the side of preserving, rather than destroying, life. The only definition that satisfies all of the above is conception. It always happens. It’s easy to say when it has occurred. There is definitely no living human prior to that moment, so it certainly errs on the side of saving life.

Of course, it may be that the actual moment that life begins is some time after. Maybe science will one day progress to the point where we can say life begins at 3 months, 4 days, and 11 minutes. When that day comes and the future human race looks to the present, what will they say? Will they shrug and say “Well, we guessed too early and could have aborted a ton more fetuses. Oh well.” Or will they recoil in horror as they realize that we guessed too late, and inadvertently cut millions of lives short?

The choice is ours.

Biggs, A. et. al. (2013). Understanding why women seek abortions in the US. BMC Women’s Health. Volume 13, Issue 1, pages 1-13. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from Academic Search Complete database.

"Did you kill anybody?" The real story about what Iraq was like

"Did you kill anybody?" The Real Story About What Iraq Was Like

You are a soldier of the United States deployed to Iraq. On another typical day, you are standing beside a wall (not crouching, because everyone knows that speed and reaction times usually matter more than cover). For the moment, silence reigns. The enemy is out there, somewhere, but you aren’t sure exactly where. Suddenly, the telltale “clink – clink” of a grenade resounds into your ear. Heedless of the danger, you boldly locate the explosive and throw it back the way it came. You barely get back into cover in time to shield yourself from the fragments. As if that were the signal, tracer rounds begin flying from all sides. Coldly staring down your sights, you acquire and eliminate target after target. Occasionally, should a terrorist make the mistake of coming too close, you take out your combat knife and mercilessly slay your foe with a single stab (with your left hand, of course) without missing a beat. “Just another typical day at the office”, you think, as the glow of the television screen fades and the scores for the last round list you, yet again, at the top of the standings. Your buddies complain that you cheated, but you know the truth: You just get a lot of practice. Eventually, you go to sleep. Tomorrow you have to strap on your body armor and go to work, doing the actual job of a soldier in a war zone, which will probably consist of hours upon hours of uninterrupted boredom. You know this because you have seen the time between the action scenes in the movies, the time between the load screens of Call of Duty. You have actually been to war.

I had always planned on serving in the military. When I joined the Army National Guard in 2004, though, I intended it to be just a way to pay for college while I got my degree and became an Officer.  I picked the job of a Rifleman because it was the closest unit to where I was living at the time and it sounded cool. Three years later, during another uneventful training exercise during the summer, the unstoppable rumor mill finally spit out a tale of truth: We were going to Iraq.

My first deployment was in 2007-2008, during what is known as the “Surge”. I was a gunner whose convoys ran supplies, everything from bullets to ice cream, from al Taqaddum airbase to all the places you heard about on the news. We ran to Fallujah, Ramadi, Baghdad, and occasionally the Syrian border. The war was in full swing, and the intel briefings I received prior to every mission reflected that. “Since the last time you ran this route three days ago, there were IED’s here, here, and here. That one over there was an EFP, likely from Iran, killing two. The Chechnyan sniper in Fallujah took another shot at a passing convoy. This time it hit the vehicle, but missed the gunner. Oh, and somebody managed to toss a grenade into the hatch of a vehicle waiting on the bridge to Fallujah.” IED’s (Improvised Explosive Devices) come in many shapes, but by far the most dangerous were EFP’s (Explosively Formed Projectiles). At the time they were practically guaranteed to kill someone in the truck if they scored a hit.

As my buddies and I left the briefing, we joked about the basketball future that particular grenade throwing Hajji likely had, immediately began complaining about the lack of stir fry at the chow hall that night, and promptly forgot everything we had just heard. It was just another day in the life. We had been running convoys for months and had never been hit by anything we considered serious. A farmer shooting at an armored vehicle isn’t exactly threatening.  And at the end of the day, if something did happen, we were all far too pretty to die.

Returning home, one of the most awkward situations was when people asked about my war experience. I think they usually meant well, and were genuinely curious, but the things they asked about made no sense.

Them: “Was it hot?”

Me: “It was a desert, so during the day, yes. During the night, it was cold.” (What am I, the weather man?)

Them: “Did you kill anyone?”
            Me: “….” (What do you want to hear? Yeah, I killed people? No, I didn’t?)

Even worse were the few times I decided to be completely honest about the level of violence I had encountered and tried to explain how little action actually happens, even during a war. The reactions I got varied, but by far the worst was disappointed. It seemed that, because I wasn’t constantly raining bullets on my enemies, my deployment didn’t count, or wasn’t up to their standards. How could I explain to them the nuance, of the balance between boredom and terror?

Much of this difficulty stems from the weariness of civilians when it comes to the war they didn’t have to fight. This sense of pointlessness can be felt in Mehdi Hasan. Writing for the New Statesman, he says that the war in Afghanistan is lost. Drawing parallels between Afghanistan and Vietnam, Mehdi says that our “ill-preparation” and lack of focus has doomed the war to failure. Written from a British perspective, Mehdi holds the body counts of this war as compared to others, such as the Falklands, and then asks the question “Why did they die?”

Another reason for the difficulty in communication comes from the soldiers themselves. A massive change in context, both socially and in terms of relationships, has been endured by soldiers both when they leave their home and when they return to it. Soldiers have trouble relating to friends and family because they feel their family has no perspective on what they’ve experienced (Wands, 2013). Internally, soldiers struggle with having to turn off the learned aggressive behavior that has helped them survive. They struggle with the sense of pride and self-reliance that sees getting help as a weakness. They also can be embittered, believing that those they fought for do not value their sacrifices (Wands, 2013).

Contrary to popular belief, not every soldier is riddled with PTSD upon returning home. Soldiers have been receiving more treatment than ever before, during, and after the deployment for combat related stress (Mulligan, 2010). Only 3.4% of those studied during the deployment showed signs of probable PTSD, which was similar to those who had not been deployed. Soldiers on deployment had better overall physical and mental health than police officers and doctors in emergency treatment areas (Mulligan, 2010).

Yet another misconception is that the stress that a soldier experiences arises solely from actively engaging in combat. A study was conducted that attempted to measure the activity in the amygdala, which plays a large part in fear responses in the body, and find out if combat stress caused the amygdala to be overactive even post-deployment. It was determined that actual exposure to “combat” was not a good indicator for PTSD. The constant perception of danger, however, was a good indicator. It was also important to note that this was true whether or not this fear was ever realized (Wingen, 2011).

The vast majority of experience in a combat zone is that of the mundane. You wake up, you eat breakfast. You go to work and do whatever job it is you are assigned. You wait. You wait for orders. You wait in line for chow. You wait for Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) to blow up an IED. You roll down the highway for miles and miles and miles in the dead of night, with nothing more interesting to look at than the featureless desert stretching as far as the eye can see.

Yet, during all of it, you are waiting for something else. You wait for that fateful bullet. You wait for the IED you didn’t see, the one man in a crowd of civilians who has a grenade in his pocket. You wait for the ambulance you are allowing to pass to suddenly turn into your truck and detonate, killing everyone within 100 meters. You wait and wait and wait for these things. Sometimes they never happen. Sometimes they do. Either way, you wait.

This is the fundamental misunderstanding between those who have been there, who have seen and tasted and smelled warfare. The uneducated believe that all of war is one scene of carnage after the next, always dodging bullets and performing thrilling heroics. They think that it is the constant din of explosions which make every returning soldier a bundle of unstable nerves, just waiting for the right moment to explode into violence. Yet, if this is not true, what is it about the experience of war that affects soldiers so strongly?

The common thread that one should find through the various researched papers is that it is not only the actuality of danger, but the threat of danger or the possibility of killing that affects the psyche of a soldier (Wingen, 2011). Sometimes, what changes you is the constant knowing that the next day, the next hour, the next minute could be your last. Sometimes it is the reality that around the next bend there could be a target that you will have to be ready to destroy, utterly and completely. These possibilities may never realize, but whether or not they do, their reality is not lessened at all.

If we as a nation take all of this knowledge to heart, we can change how we approach our veterans. They are not any more dangerous or unstable, on the whole, than any other group of public servants (Mulligan, 2010). The war they fought was not one from the movies, and we should not expect each one who returns to regale us with tales of thrilling heroics. Even so, the experience of being torn from everything they know and tossed into a situation where death is very real and apparent can affect them deeply. If we take this lesson to heart, we can finally understand and truly believe that these facts should not be a source of shame, that they are perfectly normal, and that they are likely not broken beyond repair.

Only when we really and truly believe these things that can we start treating our veterans the way they deserve to be treated: Not as mythical heroes disconnected from reality or as fragile dolls who will break at the slightest provocation, but as normal people who have seen and done extraordinary things.

As I finished this essay I realized that it included many sources from well respected, peer reviewed journals on psychology, but through all this research there was one thing that was lacking: Anecdotal evidence collected by an untrained Engineering student in an informal setting. I vowed that his oversight could not be allowed to continue and therefore conducted research of my own to confirm others’ findings. I tracked down a former Specialist in the US Army, whose name I have redacted but whom I shall refer to as “Sexy Beast”, who was a two deployment veteran of Iraq.

During the interview, I primarily focused on his first deployment to Iraq in 2007, because he stated that deployment was more dangerous in his estimation and affected him more deeply. I began by asking him what the most common questions were upon his return, and which ones he found the most annoying or offensive. “For both the most common and the most annoying,” Sexy Beast said, “it would be a tie between ‘Was it hot?’ and “Did you kill anybody?’” (Sexy Beast, 2013)

This was in line with my own experiences, as well as that of most other veterans I had talked to previously. I was curious, though, in how he responded to the question about killing. Most movies would have us believe the brooding veteran would regale the civilian with a dark tale, but the answer was far less dramatic: Make it a joke (Sexy Beast, 2013). When asked how civilians responded to that answer, he said it varied. “It varied from laughing with me, to simply not understanding. The worst reaction was being disgusted that I could joke about something like that.” Just as expected, it seemed that civilians had a very difficult time relating to those who had been to war. What was it about the experience that made the veteran so different?

“Having to be constantly on guard, always on alert…It made me angry, it made me bitter. I felt like I could never let my guard down, even when I came home.” The environment, the reality of danger that was always just a bit of bad luck away, stayed with him. Despite this, he said the moment that stood out the most was the time he sandbagged a Sergeant Major (blocking his door with a barricade of sandbags so it cannot be opened from the inside) while the SGM was inside, asleep.

I never get tired of sharing this picture.

In my own research of this topic I found confirmation of my own experiences and responses by those who had experienced similar things. Sexy Beast, as well as many others I have talked to, had been affected by their tours but none of them were particularly unstable or dangerous. They were simply different. 

Annotated Webliography: The real story of the war in Iraq.

After both of my tours in Iraq I was struck by just how little the average citizen understood about the conflict there. Despite being at war for over ten years, there appears to be next to no true understanding beyond what is seen on the television screen. My goal in writing this paper is to provide some insight on how deployments actually work and how they actually affect soldiers, in contrast to what the reader may have seen on the 6 o’clock news.

Hasan, M. (2011, July 4). If I die in a combat zone: the war in Afghanistan was lost long ago, says Mehdi Hasan, but we carry on fighting. New Statesman. Page 28. Retrieved September 10, 2013 from the JSRCC Library database.

This article provides a critical commentary of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from a British point of view. The author ties in casualty counts and a lack of objectives as reasons why the war is lost.

Sexy Beast, B. (2013, October 3). Interview about experiences during and after Iraq deployments. Conducted via Skype on October 3, 2013.

Mulligan, K, et. al. (2010, July 22). Mental health of UK military personnel while on deployment in Iraq. British Journal of Psychiatry. Volume 197, pages 405-410. Retrieved September 11, 2013 from the JSRCC Library database.

This article takes data gathered from self-reported questionnaires of deployed and non-deployed soldiers to find patterns of mental health issues. It also identifies conditions that tend to cause greater instances of PTSD.

Wands, L. (2013, July). “No one gets through it OK”: The health challenge of coming home from war. Advances in Nursing Science. Volume 36, pages 186-199. Retrieved September 10, 2013 from the JSRCC Library database.

This article explores the difficulty veterans have in reintegrating with civilian society. It discusses common issues that have been raised by combat veterans and how their experience on deployment affects them after they return home.

Wingen, GA, et. al. (2011, January). Perceived threat predicts the neural sequelae of combat stress. Molecular Psychiatry. Volume 16, pages 664-671. Retrieved September 10, 2013 from the JSRCC Library database.

This article identifies the perception of threat as a major cause of combat stress. It determines the distinction between the perception of threats and the actuality of threats as it relates to PTSD.

American Manufacturing: Totally not dead, and even mostly alive.

I had to write a research paper for my Macroeconomics class. The topic was "What is the future of American Manufacturing, and is it key to economic stability?" It was supposed to be a group paper, but naturally I would rather stab myself in the eye than trust my grade to them, so I only allowed them to make the Powerpoint presentation of my work (which I then heavily edited).

My group, hard at work

Anyhow, I figured "Why not put this up on my blog and get double credit for the same work?"

Capitalism, baby!

So, here it is. "The Future of American Manufacturing". Spoiler: It's pretty good, but not for the reasons you think.

The Future of American Manufacturing

Jordan Karim

(Edited by my girlfriend and my really good writer friend. You know who you are)

(Not contributed in any way, shape, or form by my worthless group mates. You also know who you are)

“There exists limitless opportunities in every industry. Where there is an open mind, there will always be a frontier.”  - Charles F. Kettering (American Engineer, inventor of the electric starter, 1876-1958)

            What would someone see if they pictured American Industry? They would see the thousands of workers in sepia-toned overalls, diligently hammering, pounding, and pulling the levers of the economy. The phrase “American manufacturing” has an almost nostalgic feel to it, like something left over from time gone by. Indeed, a quick Google search of the phrase “Fall of American manufacturing” returns 1.67 million results. This comes as no surprise, of course; everyone knows that American manufacturing is dying, with politicians frantically searching for the defibrillator.  This “common knowledge” is based in the faulty assumption that the product the manufacturing sector is supposed to yield is “jobs”. The truth of the matter, however, is that manufacturing exists to produce things. In that endeavor, American Industry has never been stronger. This fact is often overlooked as manufacturing becomes a smaller portion of the overall GDP. It has and will continue to be a vital piece of the economy; it just won’t be the piece most Americans think it should be.

            From the time of America’s founding until the early 19^th century, our economy was primarily founded upon agriculture. Prior to the Revolution, this was because restrictions were placed on the Colonies by the King of England, prohibiting trade with foreign powers (and, indeed, with each other). After it won its independence, the fledgling United States had difficulty competing against more developed “old world” countries, particularly mother England due to their more developed industrial complex. This continued through the War of 1812. Once the second war with Britain was concluded, however, a wave of tariffs combined with new technologies allowed for a massive revolution in American production. It is true that some of this technology was “borrowed”, such as the cotton mill (Cliffnotes, 2013). The steam powered engine, invented in Wales in 1804, also did not take long to make its way across the Atlantic (Bellis).    

Not all new technology was imported, however. Vulcanization, invented by Charles Goodyear in 1839, allowed natural rubber to be strengthened. The sewing machine, invented by Elias Howe in 1846 and improved by the more well known Isaac Singer, freed the American housewife from the toils of sewing and darning. As revolutionary as these inventions were, they were quickly overshadowed by that of Samuel Morse. His electric telegraph allowed for instantaneous communication starting in 1844 and continuing to fruition in the 1860’s, just in time for the Civil War.

While telegraph lines were racing overhead, so too were rails racing along the ground. Acquisitions of large tracts of land, the product of Manifest Destiny, were followed by a massive expansion of the rail system between 1830 and 1860. This pattern was copied elsewhere in the industrialized world, allowing for rapid travel and communication across the globe.

            Amid this background of technological development America built her first factories. From the Cliffnotes summary:

In 1813, the first factory in which spinning and weaving were performed by power machinery all under one roof was established in Waltham, Massachusetts. In Lowell, which was planned and built as a model factory town in 1822, young women made up the majority of the workforce at the mills. (Cliffnotes, 2013)

            The impact of the 19^th century industrial revolution on the landscape of the American economy cannot be understated. In 1840, the percentage of workers employed in agriculture was “roughly 70 percent of the labor force” (Johnston, 2012), compared to approximately 20% in services and 10% in manufacturing. By 1901 the gap had closed dramatically, with only 40% of Americans working in agriculture, compared to approximately 28% in manufacturing. Manufacturing finally surpassed agriculture in the 1910’s and never looked back. See the chart below.

            By 1939, near the end of the Great Depression, employment in manufacturing surpassed 9 million workers (BLS, 2013). This number grew steadily in the following decades, through a massive peak in World War II, then to its maximum number of 16.35 million in 1953. From then on, however, manufacturing job numbers have continued to fall. Most recently, in the first quarter of 2013, the job count stood at 11.9 million workers, or just over 20% of all workers in America. This sounds disheartening, but the underlying causes behind the fall reveal this is not as troubling as it may at first appear.

            Prior to World War II, shifts between service and manufacturing labor were mainly the results of shifting demand. According to Johnston, the service sector grew prior to the Great Depression due to the rising incomes of Americans. It is well documented that wealthier people tend to demand more grooming, financial, and food services.

            After World War II, however, increased efficiency “pushed” workers out of manufacturing. Somewhat paradoxically, the increase in efficiency meant that fewer workers were needed to keep up with demand. Productivity in the service industries did not benefit as greatly from the Second Industrial Revolution, meaning more workers were needed to keep up with demand. While the service sectors have increased their share of labor to match demand, manufacturing has increased its efficiency.

According to the Federal Reserve, the dollar value of U.S. manufacturing output in November was $2.72 trillion (in 2000 dollars), which translates to $234,220 of manufacturing output for each of that sector’s 11.648 million workers, setting an all-time record high for U.S. manufacturing output per worker.

Workers today produce twice as much manufacturing output as their counterparts did in the early 1990s, and three times as much as in the early 1980s, thanks to innovation and advances in technology that have made today’s workers the most productive in history. (Perry, 2009)

            Paul Markillie, writing for the Economist, called what is happening in manufacturing today a “Third Industrial Revolution.” To illustrate, he examines two emerging methods in manufacturing processing. The first is what is known as “Additive Manufacturing”, or more commonly, “Three Dimensional Printing”.

Instead of bashing, bending and cutting material the way it always has been, 3D printers build things by depositing material, layer by layer. That is why the process is more properly described as additive manufacturing. An American firm, 3D Systems, used one of its 3D printers to print a hammer for your correspondent, complete with a natty wood-effect handle and a metallised head.

This is what manufacturing will be like in the future. Ask a factory today to make you a single hammer to your own design and you will be presented with a bill for thousands of dollars…For a 3D printer, though, economies of scale matter much less. Its software can be endlessly tweaked and it can make just about anything. (Markillie, 2012)

            In a sense, additive manufacturing combines the advantages we once had when our manufacturing relied on armies of artisans with the advantages of mass production. The artisan could hand craft a tool or product specifically to the precise needs of the customer. Into it went the sum total of decades of experience. Mass production made it possible to create good products cheaply and efficiently, raising the standard of living and the productive capabilities of industrialized nations by orders of magnitude.

            With additive manufacturing, anything that can be modeled on a computer screen can be printed out, allowing for the right tool to be perfectly crafted for the right job at a much lower cost than before. As Markillie says, “It might be a pair of shoes, printed in solid form as a design prototype before being produced in bulk. It could be a hearing aid, individually tailored to the shape of the user's ear. Or it could be a piece of jewellery.”

The implications are not only limited to the formal factory. Because the size of the machines are small and the set up costs are low (compared to buying an entire factory) it lowers the barriers of entry for new firms and individuals. Increased competition naturally breeds greater innovation and creativity. Firms are punished for producing shoddy or more expensive products as customers switch to products made by rival firms. Therefore, increased competition is generally desirable in a market system (McConnell, Brue, Flynn, 2012).

            The trend in almost every sort of manufacturing has been to lower labor costs by removing as many man-hours from the process as possible. Nothing embodies the idea of removing labor while increasing production more than the philosophy of “lights out” manufacturing. This methodology was thought dead by many after it was originally attempted by the Detroit car companies in the 1980s (Markillie, 2012). The technology of the time was unable to keep pace, and the tendency for poorly calibrated machines to simply produce excessive amounts of scrap caused it to be untenable. Now, thanks to advances in robotics and computer calibrations, this may once again be a path forward.

            The term “lights out” comes from the idea that the factory could essentially run itself without human supervision or interference. Since machines do not need light to see, you could turn the lights out. Machines do not demand as many sick days, nor do they drink as much coffee as their mammalian counterparts, making a nearly human-free work environment extremely desirable for business owners. Naturally, the reality does not exactly live up to its name.

“Of course, it’s not entirely human-free. Machines require programming and maintenance, while materials must be loaded and retrieved. But the streamlining of production through automation can greatly improve product quality and quantity, as well as lower expenses.” (Lane, 2012)

            Many companies, such as FANUC out of Japan, use lights out manufacturing to essentially create an additional shift of production, during which the machines can run unsupervised. Of course, the more advanced the machine, the more skilled the worker who programs it and maintains it must be. Therefore, it is unlikely that the labor component of manufacturing will ever reach zero. As Rodney Brooks stated for the Economist, “The PC didn’t get rid of office workers, it changed the tasks they did.”

Greater production power is not the only reason that manufacturing in America is still relevant. Manufacturing contributes to economic growth in ways that service related industries do not. For example, despite its relatively small share of the American GDP (11%, approximately), manufacturing represents 68% of spending on research and development (Markillie, 2012). Moreover, an increase in manufacturing production that is accomplished without the addition of labor can still be a boon for the job market as a whole. According to the Manufacturing Institute (2009) “every dollar in final sales of manufactured products supports $1.40 in output from other sectors of the economy. Manufacturing has the largest multiplier of all sectors…” Increases in production power for manufacturing can mean more jobs elsewhere to replace those lost in manufacturing itself.

The value of a robust manufacturing sector goes beyond the GDP. The ability to manufacture products domestically for use in war is also an important strategic capability. One of the many things that World War II demonstrated was the tremendous role industrial capacity can play in warfare (Overy, 2011). In this respect we still outperform out leading competition from potentially unfriendly states. Our production matches that of roughly dollar for dollar, yet we accomplish that with only 10% of the workforce that the Chinese require, according to Susan Hockfield from MIT. Our production tends to focus on things that require more technology and expertise to produce, such as aircraft and semiconductors. Meanwhile China focuses on things that can be made with masses of low-paid workers. As Schuman put it, “That’s why the U.S. sells Boeing aircraft to China, and the Chinese sell blue jeans to America”.

            The idea that a bustling factory floor is the true symbol of a productive society has been durable, but is no longer accurate. There once was a time when the ringing of a blacksmith’s hammer on an anvil signaled production and industry. It may have been unthinkable at the time, but now it seems obvious that the blacksmith had to adapt in order for the economy to flourish. Just as the master blacksmith before him, so too will the sepia-toned factory worker become a thing of the past. Many in the media and on Main Street worry about the change, but that is due to a failure to think economically. Economics is the study of scarcity, which means that, all other things being equal, a process which produces more while using fewer of our limited resources is an economic success. Changes always mean that some people will lose work or will find their skills no longer in demand. While unfortunate, it is a sign of greater things to come. The factory worker is not leaving America; he is simply putting away his hammer and picking up a laptop. 

References

CliffsNotes.com (2013) Growth of Manufacturing. Retrieved from
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/topicArticleId-25073,articleId-25037.html

Mary Bellis. The History of Railroad Innovations. About.com. Retrieved from http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blrailroad.htm

Louis D. Johnston (2012). History Lessons: Understanding the Decline in Manufacturing. Minnesota Post. Retrieved from http://www.minnpost.com/macro-micro-minnesota/2012/02/history-lessons-understanding-decline-manufacturing

U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013) All Employees: Manufacturing, Employment Situation by Thousands of Persons. Retrieved from http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/MANEMP.txt

Mark. J. Perry (2009). Manufacturing: Employment Falls to Record Lows, But Productivity Soars. Seeking Alpha. Retrieved from http://seekingalpha.com/article/179648-manufacturing-employment-falls-to-record-lows-but-productivity-soars

Jon Bruner (2011). U.S. Manufacturing Surges Ahead – But Don’t Look for a Factory Job. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/08/22/u-s-manufacturing-surges-ahead-but-dont-look-for-a-factory-job-infographic/

Brian lane (2012). Lights Out Production: The New Late-Night Shift. Thomas News. Retrieved from http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2012/11/06/lights-out-production-the-new-late-night-shift/

Paul Markillie (2012). A Third Industrial Revolution. The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/21552901

Michael Schuman (2011). Can China Compete with American Manufacturing? Time. Retrieved from http://business.time.com/2011/03/10/can-china-compete-with-american-manufacturing/

McConnell, Brue, Flynn (2012). Macroeconomics: Principles, Problems, and Policies. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin

Richard Overy (2011). World War Two: How the Allies Won. BBC. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/how_the_allies_won_01.shtml

The Manufacturing Institute (2009). The Facts About Modern Manufacturing. Retrieved from http://www.nist.gov/mep/upload/FINAL_NAM_REPORT_PAGES.pdf

Your Mom (Last Night). Retrieved from: In between the sheets.

Boom.

Inevitable: Oregon proposes confiscation of guns

Whenever an advocate of gun rights expresses his concerns about harsher gun control laws it is only a matter of time before he is called paranoid. After all, we live in America. The government doesn't want to take your guns, silly! I mean, that sort of thing only happens in far off, exotic lands like England, China, and Oregon.

Hotair raised the flag a few days ago on the insane proposal known as Oregon HB 3200 (text here). In case there is any sort of confusion as to the goal of the law, the executive summary makes it pretty plain:

"Creates crime of unlawful possession or transfer of assault weapon or large capacity magazine.
Punishes by maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, $250,000 fine, or both.
Requires current owners to dispose of or register assault weapons and large capacity magazines."

Of course, only some very select, highly specific things qualify a weapon as an assault weapon. These include such terrifying features as:

1. Collapsible stock
2. Pistol grip
3. Heat shields on the barrel
4. The ability to accept a detachable magazine.

In other words, weapons that include "common sense safety/utility features that look scary because I saw them in Call of Duty once" are hereby prohibited. Even the magazines are now contraband. You know, in case you load them up with rocks and throw them or something.

The law also goes into effect immediately. presumably because they figure if they're going to make criminals out of thousands of citizens there's no time like the present. Carpe Diem!

If you find yourself in possession of a contraband magazine/weapon, you have 120 days to do the following, and I swear I am not making this up (emphasis mine):

"Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall, within 120 days after the effective date of this 2013 Act, without being subject to prosecution:
(a) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state;
(b) Sell the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to a firearms dealer licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 for lawful sale or transfer under subsection (2) of this section;
(c) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to a law enforcementagency for destruction;
(d) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable;

If you happen to be reading this while driving, I recommend you pull over immediately, because I haven't even gotten to the best part yet. How can it get worse than 10 years of jail time for possessing a previously legal weapon if you refuse to give it to the government, you ask?"

The government, in their benevolence, has deemed that the serfs may own one "assault" weapon and three high capacity magazines, because apparently 90 rounds is the threshold between "law abiding citizen" and "crazed mass murderer". Of course, there are conditions.

"(3) The department shall create and maintain a registry for owners of assault weapons
and large capacity magazines who qualify for registration under section 4 of this 2013 Act.
The department may adopt rules concerning the administration of the registry, including but
not limited to renewal and revocation procedures and storage requirements for assault
weapons and large capacity magazines.
(4) The department may conduct inspections of registered owners of assault weapons and
large capacity magazines to ensure compliance with the storage requirements of section 4
of this 2013 Act."

If you want to own an assault weapon and those damned dirty magazines, not only must you register it with the government; not only must you store it in an unspecified manner TBD; you must be willing to submit to random searches and inspections by the government, at the whim of the government at any time.

Note the complete absence of regulations restricting the frequency of such searches, or the scope, or anything that could possibly be construed as Oregon giving a passing nod to the Fourth Amendment on its way to Screw-The-Citizenry-ville.

There is a silver lining to all this: Lever action rifles are excluded. So if your defensive weapon of choice uses no technology developed after 1860, you're in the clear.

Keep your hands off my Civil-War era guns and racism, Washington!

It was only a matter of time: Women in the Combat Arms

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on Tuesday when Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced the immediate rescinding of the long-standing military policy of restricting Combat Arms jobs to men. You can read the entire memo here. The decision was endorsed by the Joint Chiefs, and comes at the twilight of Panetta's term as Secretary of Defense.

While the restriction is lifted immediately, the Armed Forces have some time to implement the new policy. Each branch must submit their plan of action by May 15, 2013. Integration "will occur as expeditiously as possible...but must be completed no later than January 1, 2016."

The decision is not final, of course, as all actions of this sort must be reviewed by Congress. Should any branch find that a specific job not be suitable for women, they can submit their recommendation that that job remain closed, and Congress will have the final say.

So, what to make of this shockingly fast turn of events? Will this be the end of the military as we know it? Will the infantry descend into sex-fueled chaos, leaving us weak and defenseless before our enemies? Will freedom be destroyed because there's nobody left at home to make the sammiches?!

Probably not. Other armed forces have employed women in combat roles, and history hasn't imploded yet (I'm looking at you, Israel and the Celts...which would actually be a really cool name for a band). There are obstacles, however, that should be taken seriously when the branches make their plans.

Problem 1: Physical standards

For those of you who are not familiar, the military employs a double standard currently between men and women. A man of my age group must run the 2 mile in 17:00 in order to barely pass. A woman has 20:30. She only has to do 17 pushups, compared to my 39. Neither of those standards are high, but the standard held for women is woefully inadequate when it comes to the demands of combat.

If women are to do the same job as a man, then they must be able to maintain the same standard. Here at least the military seems to already be on the ball. The defense official who announced the policy change said that "it's likely the Army will establish a set of physical requirements for infantry soldiers. The candidate, man or woman, will have to lift a certain amount of weight in order to qualify. The standards will be gender neutral."


My biggest concern here is that these "gender neutral" standards will be a compromise, rather than an absolute assessment. I can already see the lax standards being relaxed further, under the rallying cry of "Fairness!" (more on that later). More than that, they will likely not be comprehensive. After all, it is no good if a 130 lb. woman can do the same number of pushups as me if she can't also carry an ammo can, or throw me on her back and run 50 meters if I get shot. What happens if we have to march a few miles before we make an attack? Will she be able to carry all her water, food, armor, ammo, mortar shells, extra ammo for the machine guns, etc., etc., etc? Or will some of that weight be shifted to me?

How you overcome it: The same standard for every applicant who applies to a job. A standard specific to that job. A true, accurate standard, that does not care who can make it. The standard only cares about what is necessary to do the job well.

Problem 2: Mental training

If you've ever asked yourself "I wonder if being an infantry soldier is like Call of Duty?"

The answer is: "Absolutely, except add in the part where Leonidas kicks that dude down the well. It's just like that."

My point is, I'm not talking about what women are capable of doing. It's established fact that the weaker sex is all weak and stuff and can't possibly perform the death defying stunts that I must do on a regular basis. I'm actually talking about the menfolk here.

Specifically, the mental instincts of protection that are present in a large portion of the male population. Many men react differently to seeing women in danger than they do with men. Whether this response is biological, conditioned socially, or both is irrelevant. The fact is, it is there. Look to LCOL Grossman's book On Killing:

In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis). The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression.

It is true that not every man may have this sort of reaction. It is also true that the military deals in the aggregate, and if a significant percentage of men react this way then it is worth addressing.

Unfortunately, it isn't considered politically correct to suggest this sort of reaction might exist, or if it does, that it's not really a bad thing. "Shouldn't you want to protect your fellow soldiers?", goes the refrain of the civilian.

The answer is no, at least, not always. For example, if I am in the middle of an assault on an objective and my best friend gets shot in the face right next to me, I'm going to be understandably shook up. I am going to want to help him, drag him to safety, do whatever I can do save him. These are all normal, healthy reactions, and they are what I absolutely must not do if I want my friend to live. In this situation, the best thing I can do for him is to ruthlessly murder the enemy as quickly as possible so I can have time to save his life later. If I stop the forward momentum of the attack and turn the battle into a casualty evacuation, more people will die.

How you overcome it: One word: Training. The military trains soldiers to turn off instinct all the time. Most notably, the instinct against killing. Despite the fact that humans are extremely aggressive we also have a built in block against actually killing our fellow man. The military has, through decades of practice, learned how to teach soldiers to turn this switch off and allow them to kill, but only under very specific stimuli. The instinct is not gone; soldiers who return home are no more likely to kill than anyone else. But when exposed to the situation they were trained to deal with, they are able to overcome it upwards of 90% of the time.

If this protective instinct does in fact exist there is reason to believe it can be similarly dealt with in a way that leaves the instinct intact back home. After all, we don't want to raise a generation of soldiers who are even more likely to beat their wives than they already are, because that would mean I'd have to sit through even more powerpoint presentation on that subject, and I swear to the almighty raptor Jesus if I have to sit through one more powerpoint presentation I will literally punch a baby.

But we should be able to make it so that soldiers are able to deal with it if they see a woman injured, at least enough so that they can accomplish the mission.

Problem 3: Logistics

"An Army marches on its stomach."

One of the realities of warfare is that you are only as good as your logistical framework allows you to be. The toughest Spartan warrior won't be much of a threat if he hasn't eaten in three weeks and has the plague. In the field, logistics get tougher. Every drop of water, every scrap of food, every needed bullet must be carefully planned, and then carefully delivered to the wrong FOB because they read the map upside down.

Women are more difficult to supply in the field for long periods of time due to their biological needs. They are more prone to infection due to certain...areas...on their...you know...Anyway. Sanitation is more important there, and more sanitation requires more water. It also requires something to deal with that special time of the month, because as Science has told us, their menstruations attract bears.

How you overcome it: By not being obstinate and actually admitting this is a problem. It means that the supplying of ground soldiers just became more difficult to achieve. Not impossible, just a bit more complicated.

The bear thing is pretty much insurmountable though.

Problem 4: Order & Discipline 


Leading soldiers is kind of like parenting children. Really big, obnoxious, stupid children with bad potty mouths and poor grammar.

Sometimes your soldiers do well. You need to praise them, let them know they're succeeding. Sometimes, they need some help, and then you need to patiently instruct them, usually by cursing as much as possible.

And sometimes they just need to have the hell beat out of them. At those times you pull them aside, away from their peers, and perform corrective action until they get it straight. Most times you do it privately so as not to embarrass them in front of others.

What happens when I pull a woman aside, alone, for a time to do corrective action? What happens if I'm accused of impropriety? Hell, even typing "corrective action" like that sounds like a really dirty euphemism. I can tell you what would happen in the current military: SGT Karim would become PVT Karim faster than you can say "wrongful accusation". So I bring a witness. What if we're both accused of being in on it together? So I bring a third? A fourth? Accusations aside, will I be accused of being "insensitive" if I yell and curse at her the same as I do for my other soldiers (which actually has a combat related purpose, believe it or not)?

I won't even go into the fact that there's going to be banging going on of gigantic proportions. You put that many young, irresponsible men and women in close quarters together than there is going to be an all-out boner fest of epic proportions. If you think I'm wrong, allow me to kindly direct your attention to Olympic Village, or to every college campus ever.

How you overcome it: By realizing that equal treatment means equal treatment, as in the same. By making it so the accusation of impropriety does not absolutely mean guilt. By walking that fine line between taking those sorts of things seriously (because they do happen), while also not letting them be used as a blackmail tool to undermine good order.

I firmly believe that the vast majority female soldiers are professionals like any other. It isn't the majority of professionals I'm worried about, it is the minority that always screws it up for everyone else.

Not sure what to do about the boners. Cold showers?

Problem 5: "Fairness"

We must understand one thing above all others. One thing needs to be absolutely clear in every person's mind as we go through this process. That thing is this: When it comes to the military, what is "fair" ranks a distant second to what is effective. This flies in the face of what many of us are taught as kids (and, indeed, what I teach my own kids). We at least try to make things as fair as possible, because it is the right thing to do.

Unfortunately, we have to realize that the military exists for one purpose. That purpose is to win wars. To kill people. To break stuff. To just generally be an asshole and make a mess in someone else's yard. And when it comes to that sort of job, being a fair fighter is a pit stop along the way to being a dead one.

I am not saying fairness should be disregarded. By all means, if we have two options available to us that are equally effective and one is more fair than the other, let's be fair about it. But if it's a choice between fairness and effectiveness, effectiveness needs to win. Every time.

With that in mind, let's project into the future. The first few women who join the Infantry are going to start where everyone else did: as privates. That means that they will be in subservient positions, surrounded by men who outrank them, who have more experience than them, and are just plain better at their jobs than they are. Not one of their superiors will be female.

And that needs to be okay.

It takes time for a soldier to develop the skills necessary to lead other soldiers in battle. That means that, for a while, there won't be any women who are qualified to lead. Not because they're women, not because they are stupid or incompetent. They won't be leaders for the same reason we don't let male graduates of basic training instantly become leaders (unless those graduates also happen to have taken a series of useless classes in college too, in which case we will instantly put them in charge of entire platoons, cuz you know, America). In time, they will gain the experience to earn promotions, and at that time those promotions should absolutely be given.

The danger is that we will rush the integration, that we will decide that women need to be in leadership positions right away, and so we promote those who aren't ready, or move a Staff Sergeant used to managing a team of cooks into an Infantry Squad Leader position and expect them to succeed. Some will, but most won't, and it will lead to a weaker force. Bad leaders train bad soldiers who become bad leaders.

How we overcome this: By managing our expectations and not expecting wholesale change overnight. The all-male military is a tradition that goes back centuries. Changing it will take time, if we want to do it right.

In closing, I actually part from many of my compatriots in my beliefs. I think that this has the potential to be a very good move, one that could strengthen the military as a whole by making sure everyone who really wants to be a soldier, can be. The problems I've put forward, and those that I didn't think of, are real, but they aren't insurmountable. With careful consideration and thoughtful planning, they can be dealt with.

See, my beef with this thing whole thing isn't even about women being in the infantry. It's not about me doubting that they can succeed there, because I have the utmost confidence they can.

I just also have the utmost confidence that the Army will screw it up in the most extravagant way imaginable.