Clarity in Warfare: A Luxury We Rarely Get

I watched this video the other day from General Mattis USMC before he became Secretary of Defense. In it he waxes poetic on the nature of war and conflict. The phrase that sticks out for me is about “clearly defined and achievable” goals. He is right that many of the conflicts since World War II lost sight of the goal and muddled through without a clear plan losing the support of the American public. What generals never say though is that war, by its nature, is organic and plans change direction like a vine running up a fence post. The public either accepts it or loses patience.

Secretary Mattis believes the first gulf war met the ‘clear and achievable’ standard, protect Kuwait from an encroaching dictator and support the United Nations’ sanction of Saddam’s regime. Despite the coalition effort (a NATO led effort) the bombing campaign took on a more offensive role once ground troops invaded from Saudi Arabia and finished the war in about a month.Who doesn’t love a quick decisive war? Rarely are the lines that straight or the timelines so short. By limiting the goals however, Saddam was left in power to wreak havoc on his northern neighbors the Kurds. 

  

I should be clear here. Wars/conflicts/overseas operations should be limited and approached with extreme caution and clarity. Beyond that, be prepared for objectives to change, people to die and mistakes (often in bunches) to be a regular part of ongoing efforts. Most wars are this way. The assault on Omaha beach in 1944 was technically ‘successful’ because it gave the Allied forces a much needed foothold into occupied Europe. But the Allies lost over 4000 men in that one invasion and the event changed forever the appetite for attacks on the beach. The Market Garden campaign was mostly disastrous as Allied troops racked up huge losses to minor advances.

The war in Europe was constantly messy as Allies gained and lost territory; the Pacific theater was even bloodier, victory meant attacking tiny islands and losing incredible numbers.

I know I know Germany and Japan presented the world with an existential crisis. Victory meant survival. Resisting an invader is hardly a choice.

World War II had clear objectives from the start but imagine how many times Eisenhower and Marshall adjusted tactics, changed plans? One looming problem throughout the war for the US and Britain was how to keep the development of the A bomb a secret from Russia. Although technically an ally, Stalin was a potential threat to move west across a destroyed Eastern Europe. "How much should we tell them?" was a hotly debated point among F.D.R and Churchill. Decisions about the Russians changed as their success against the Germans changed in the Eastern Theater.

Insisting on adherence to ‘clearly defined and achievable’ goals isn’t practical and looks like excuse making when anything changes. Americans had to force down huge spoonfulls of ‘clear and achievable’ medicine during the Iraq war every day that Saddam’s chemical weapons went undiscovered. If there was ever a limited war with specific goals Iraq was it. Find the weapons. Arrest Saddam. Let Iraqis choose their government. In less than a year all 3 objectives changed. What looked like a ‘clear objective’ for war got turned upside down quicker than a salt shaker. It happens because war is rarely clear. It is a genuine luxury to tune in and out of foreign wars like we’re changing the channel on a military show that has suddenly become boring. “Oh not this again…see what else is on.”

Lest you think Iraq (second gulf war) was an outlier remember how Vietnam went. This is partly what Mattis is talking about. A stalled war without an endgame is disastrous for troops and potentially drags on. It isn’t that people lose focus on war because objectives are not clear. But that a lack of clear objectives becomes an excuse for a public to lose interest. “Stay the course” becomes “What is the point?” The Bush administration’s hard sell of Weapons of Mass Destruction created some additional hand wringing when none were discovered. That was their fault but other reasons existed for capturing Saddam. Both Iraq and Afghanistan had some flawed planning and unrealistic notions on insurgency and trustworthy partners but the wholesale rejection of the effort is dishonest.

I am not against limiting goals for conflicts. It should be the standard for every foreign affair whether military action or diplomatic mission. Clearly defined objectives though have taken a sound idea and fetishized it. It serves for many as an excuse for why something didn’t work out, an easy line for detractors to spout.

 “Well they didn’t have clear objectives and lost their focus you know. The American public lost interest when the war started going bad.” It’s a generic statement heard too often in recent history. Public support is a real thing and wars shouldn’t drag on but we don’t fight wars the way we used to. We could bomb Kabul and Kandahar like Dresden and build a new city on the rubble but somehow I don’t think the public would like it either.

Having a modern fighting force requires taking the good with the bad and understanding our importance in a global setting. I don’t think General Mattis is wrong about the need for clarity, few understand how planning changes in the course of a conflict better than him.

We don’t apply the same standards in life however because situations are by nature complicated many of them are due to decisions by previous leaders. Imagine a son taking over a business due to the sudden death of his father. After going over the details of the company he begins to realize the high levels of debt taken on by his father. The company is barely solvent and requires major restructuring. Now imagine the son saying “I’m sorry I need a clear set of objectives that doesn’t muddle the picture. This thing needs to be over in a few months or the family is going to lose interest.”

 It isn’t a perfect example of conflict, but does show the thread of commonality from one event to another.

.

Don't 'Beggar Thy Neighbor'

The agitation on his face was clear. This youth football coach had seen and heard enough in his years. This day he was in a bit of huff. A lose word from some ‘do-gooder’ stuck in his craw.

 “Tired of them church groups collecting soccer balls to donate to whoever; we got a lot of problems right here in America, don’t need to be sending stuff all over the globe.” 

This was someone I knew pretty well and respected. He was generous with his time, occasionally surly, but as a youth coach imparted wisdom and fair play to kids. I understood his frustration but didn’t agree. Americans are generous but some have a tendency to overlook problems at home, assuming our wealthy status insulates our people from “real” hardships. Also it is easier to send money and help to a distant place; the lack of personal contact provides a buffer to suffering and immediacy of war-torn countries like Syria. Too many of us find is easier to fund large, global causes while our neighbors suffer.

But as a wealthy country we don’t have to ignore distant causes at the expense of our own. Just because we don’t always see the donations and fundraisers we assume the needy get overlooked. They do sometimes but money and aid are always needed for less fortunate kids, just like water for exhausted players in July.  Want to see a stark picture of haves and have-nots? Look no further than youth sports fields, weathered goal posts and broken down bleachers surrounded by twisted rusty fences. Wealthy South Tulsa leagues sport high end fabrics and new gear while poorer North and East organizations make due on overused jerseys and last year’s cleats.  A cursory glance unveils a Grand Canyon sized gap between rich and poor.

This supposed wealth disparity is anything but however.

Look closer and you’ll see genuine help from donated goods and private citizens tasked with sponsoring kids who can’t afford jerseys and pads. Private companies donate equipment and items like older uniforms that didn’t sell, raise money through golf tournaments or sponsor new scoreboards. Booster clubs frequently cover registration fees and donate cleats, helmets and practice gear. The gap is still big but most schools and youth organizations have outside funding that closes much of it providing kids with opportunities to play.

 It is also a misnomer to say that the middle income areas are doing well. Some are but many do serious belt tightening just stay in the ‘great’ districts and give their kids a boost. Many work two jobs and forgo extras like vacations to pay for sports and school events.  There is a huge gulf from top to bottom that most of us understand but in between the extremes a lot of help goes unnoticed. If not for grandparents a lot of kids would never see the field. Without the Salvation Army a lot more couldn’t cover officials’ fees and maintenance costs. Without local churches many wouldn't have cleats.

   

So like my complaining buddy who understands well the local problems but overlooks the global picture, people see disparity and assume unfairness. This zero sum thinking characterizes charity in the minds of many. In economic terms when a country favors its own economy at the expense of others it is called a ‘beggar thy neighbor’ policy. Put simply countries treat each other like opponents on a…well, football field. Only one side can win if the other loses. This is great for sports but bad for growth and terrible for productivity, especially since modern economies can benefit themselves and others simultaneously. Charity works the same way. Needs are all around us like. Whether wells in South Sudan or water bottles for the little league baseball team, citizens regularly step up.

Like the unseen help and support of local groups, international groups get aid from the same place. The idea that we have to choose one or the other is a form of charitable ‘beggar thy neighbor’ attitude.. Large charities often have local branches or public affiliates like Salvation Army and the YMCA that funnel federal dollars to local sports. Big churches often support both international missions and local youth football teams because they can do both. We should never present the idea as either/or. We can and do take care of neighbors and foreigners alike.

So find a charity or youth organization and pitch in with money or help.  

Memorial Day: the Big Picture

I noticed this piece on the CATO institute website by David Boaz. I think the author is sincere in his sentiments toward the fallen on Memorial Day but clearly thinks certain conflicts don't count. He wonders if "...all wars are necessary to American freedom?" He uses World War I to highlight poor decisions (I suspect because it is less controversial than Iraq or Afghanistan).

       World War I was the worst mistake of the 20th century, the mistake that set in motion all the tragedies of the century.           The deaths of those who fell at the Marne are all the more tragic when we reflect that they did not in fact serve to                   protect our lives and all that we value.

I won't argue the merits of Word War I  but the reason we acknowledge those who have fallen is because of what the military represents to a free society, and by extension their sacrifice. It doesn’t matter that in certain cases (World War I for instance) we can't draw a straight line between a particular battle and our freedoms. We recognize that having a military or defense or national guard is essential to our way of life. It is a huge mistake to examine specific conflicts as not necessary or not critical to American peace and security.

Try using this logic on tax policy. It would be easy to point to wasteful programs and declare that taxes were theft in a particular case and therefore immoral. Not only wasteful spending but spending one just didn’t like. I could certainly come up with a quick list. Collected taxes go to a variety of necessary and unnecessary civil projects and we collectively change it on the margins. Poor policy means big changes are in store, possible radical ones. The voting public understands the connection between taxes and roads, bridges, unemployment…etc. No serious person rejects taxes as a practical matter.

We have a tax policy. It is messy and frequently wasteful. Cities, states and the federal government still need a plan for collecting and redistributing. 

Wars that aren’t popular with the public because they stray too far from our principles or suggest imperial overreach are just part of a larger philosophical debate. The larger debate we can have since our military makes it possible.  We debate the merits but never question the foundational importance of a having a military (some do). Those with freedoms like speech and voting rights only have it in areas where national defense is formidable. Countries in Europe without standing armies benefit from an umbrella policy like NATO (Lichtenstein, Monaco)  that obligate members to support one another.

Mr. Boaz doesn't say the military isn't important, but by connecting specific conflicts to our way of life he asks the wrong question about the nature of defense. Instead of 'Was this necessary for our way of life?' he should say 'Is our national defense any less important because of this?'

Don’t get sidetracked on what is and isn’t a necessary battle or war. Free people show thanks for those lives given in support of the larger cause of liberty and not the specific conflict.

Chris Cornell: The Days He Tried to Live

The easiest way to cover artists/writers/musicians who die too soon is autobiographically-or ‘how I remember it’ style. I could rehash current arguments about drug abuse and depression or whether or not artistic types are more prone than others but I won’t.

Anytime someone commits suicide we feel a little sick that they didn’t confide in anyone close to them, if they even have anyone close. His death wasn't a total surprise to a long -time fans of Cornell and his music (I even liked his first solo album despite the lack of even one catchy tune). Chris didn’t do catchy tunes, the exception might be “Spoonman” the tone and lyrics were mostly ominous. For me it was the voice, that amazing voice. I never saw him live so my opinion is based mostly on videos and CDs I grew up with. Most reviews of Soundgarden acknowledge his superb range even when criticizing the overall albums. His music was dark and internal where others like Pearl Jam are dark and external. Cornell’s idea for lyrics came from an internal struggle of depression either created by substance abuse or pushed along by it. Pearl Jam from a sense of injustice in the world.

Most believe the biggest turn in his life was the death of his friend Andrew Wood of Mother Love Bone (early grunge pioneers) It set the direction in his melancholic singing/writing career but it is tough for me to believe it caused his later problems with alcohol and drugs. I didn’t discover the essential Seattle band until after Superunknown hit the stores. Back then you could get a cassette but if you were a tech head only the CD would do, all the rage you see. My knowledge of that piece is pretty good despite not having listened to it in years. I don’t remember even one sort of fun jam piece on the whole record. Much of it seemed dark to an outsized degree. Here are just a couple of the popular tracks: “Fell On Black Days” “Black Hole Sun” “The Day I Tried to Live”. To be fair they had a few songs that sounded fluffier, “Fresh Tendrills” and “4^th of July” I assure you they aren’t.

 That voice though. He could bounce on a single note like a trampoline. He also did his share of obsessing about the end of the world. I’m sure other rock stars have gone down that ‘how-does-it-end’ road but to me it was new. Eighties metal was mostly a gratuitous sex and booze fest in both the song writing and lifestyle until this ‘grunge’ thing. Grunge was ONLY different in that its bands took themselves seriously, hence the weightier topics, suicide, depression, apostasy.  Cornell had a power ballad voice and rode his high “Aaaaahhhhh”s like a wave, a remnant of sunnier vocalists Steven Tyler and Steve Perry. His talent was obvious, but when did this ‘inner-pain’ and focus on ecological catastrophe get going? What did twenty eight year olds have to be so sad about?

Could I still like the music and think the writing is overwrought?

I didn’t listen to much Audioslave (Cornell’s other group) or even catch his second solo album. Truthfully I didn’t pay much attention to music in any genre much after the early 2000’s. For some, scavenging old CD stores and anticipating new releases stops being a thing. Can’t explain why but like collecting baseball cards it just doesn’t hold interest after a while. It wasn’t the music, as much I complained about the overtly political direction of countless bands, especially Pearl Jam. But “The music is inseparable from the politics” supporters say. Fair enough, but so is self-importance and I don’t have to like it when I hear it.

 Chris Cornell remains the saddest, loneliest and most likely to have never climbed out of his ‘hole’. Maybe he tried but never found success. From his track “When I’m down” on the Euphoria Morning album:

I know you hold precious little hope for me
And in your happiness
I'm always drowning in my grief
And I only love you when I'm down
And I'm only near you when I'm gone
But one thing for you to keep in mind, you know
I'm down all the time

 I think this is the picture of Chris most of us who liked the music have of him, super talented but down all the time.

 I am sad for his fans but mostly for his family.

Manchester United?

Enough with the silly arm in arm marches against ‘terrorism’. Enough with the hashtag grief signaling and kitschy Facebook memes that cover profile pics. If the West loves liberal democracy it needs to figure out how to defend it without apologizing. 

We don’t need grief and woe we need a serious campaign of intimidation and coercion. No more ‘no-go zones’ in large cities for Muslim populations. It should never be said of terror suspects that they were “known to police”. Taking these bombings in stride is NOT a good thing. It leads to a sense that this is normal, that these attacks happen seasonally like bad weather. “Sure it’s there but what can you do?” The worst part is by not going after kicking in doors and threatening violence against the neighborhoods and mosques protecting these animals, we favor the extremists. They thrive in interconnected communities because they offer protection like Chicago gangsters in the twenties.

 This is not the time for stiff upper lips and shrugs about the nature of living in an international city. The notion that citizens of a nation have to put up with regular terror is “Stuff and nonsense” as the Brits say. None of this acquiesce to fear need happen whether Paris or London or New York. It does take leadership though and clear thinking about the nature of the enemy. Sadly I haven’t seen or heard much of it from our cosmopolitan mayors. I understand a mayor’s role is commerce and attracting new business in the city but at some point law enforcement needs a freer hand.

 I am assuming a lot about what the police know and what they don’t but a couple of things are clear about the Manchester bombing. He is a Libyan (Muslim?) who grew up in Britain. He was likely known to law enforcement at some point. He was likely protected by a network of people who have families and bank accounts. More to come, no doubt. 

The lack of anger and outrage has been washed out of us.

 We are now a society afraid to accuse the wrong man or use the wrong pronoun when talking about the barbaric killer. You can hear it in the interviews with those who witnessed the explosion and ran with the stampeding mob toward safety. Even people who weren’t there, when asked about the incident, focus on crowd danger and avoiding large events. My local radio station had a former police officer on who gave tips on how to avoid the danger spots at large events, “Wait for the main crowd to pass and then head for the exists.” He added unhelpfully. 

Well thanks officer but what if the bastards try to blast their way into a movie theater and shoot up the place like in Aurora. Or unless they drive by that hip café and spray 9 millimeter rounds into the patrons drinking espressos like in Paris. Or the not so crowded airport in Belgium that only took a suitcase packed with metal bits to wreck everyone’s day, ditto for the airport in Istanbul. What advice do we get when just minding our own business. The anger from citizens against the perpetrator is cloudy and rushed like a blurry photo that didn’t develop. Almost as if the attacked don't know how to be upset.

“Where are those SOB’s that did this?!” said with intent becomes “We will not let these criminals tear us apart” spoken softly and carefully. The first response is urgent and active. The second is safe and useless.

Those who are quick to anger over being attacked will make some mistakes in the cause of justice. Call him Elliot (as in Ness). He may break a few eggs but will get justice and settle scores in the cause of law and order. He understand the importance of protecting freedom, the value of secular laws and the true nastiness of an attack against those principles. Elliot understand that an attack on a concert is pure hatred against liberal values and demands a full-throated response. Elliot is often reckless but always sure. Most importantly, He will put measures in place to prevent future atrocities while understanding that every city faces different challenges. He understands that the battle is long and arduous but necessary for survival. 

  

Those quick to passive words and useless phrases about ‘support’ or ‘unity’ can’t be trusted to defend true values. Call him Cosmo (Cosmopolitan). He understands trendy philosophies on the’ roots of terror’; he sees innocents everywhere but won’t name criminals. Cosmo loves slogans and marches. He gets inspired by vague anti-campaigns that encourage togetherness like ‘racism’ ‘violence against women’ ‘poverty’. He thinks the largest problem with Islamic terrorism is the Islamophobia that follows it after a devastating suicide bomb. Cosmo man can’t be trusted to take the fight to enemy or protect the innocent. He understands grief but doesn’t know how to fight against a world where everyone is a victim. He enjoys freedom but doesn’t know what it costs.

With every terrorist bombing, shooting, knifing or threatening act the West slides a little closer on the scale to Cosmo and away from Elliot. These terrorists are not part of a civilized society and should be treated like cancer, an unwelcome invader that demands surgery. Until Western cities get serious about who they let in this will continue to metastasize until the threat owns entire sections of your city.

We need more Elliots; we have enough Cosmos. 

  

  

"Greatest Show on Earth"

Institutions that surrender control over part of their industry give up direction for all of it.

 The University of Illinois in Champagne underwent a sustained attack against their Native American mascot more than a decade ago. The result was total capitulation from the school. The mascot was retired and the school’s branding no longer includes Indian images, just a big goofy capital “I”. A supposedly socially conscious minority of students assumed (or imagined) the school’s chief mascot was offensive to Indian tribes and must be stopped. As a public university their ability to fight the charge was limited, their funds rely heavily on state and federal grants. Students who sympathized with the mascot, seeing no problem with the Native American mascot and taking no offence were poorly organized.

This situation plays out too often in life and reasonable people don’t take simple stands against it. In most cases a vigorous push back is the last thing needed. A straightforward easily articulated message is the most effective response to campaign of attack. The Chick-fil-A model is textbook for opposing an assault from organized protesters. A few years ago the CEO of the restaurant gave an interview to a magazine where he stated his support for marriage between one man and one woman. The Cathy family support pro-family groups that belief in the biblical definition of marriage. Large cities like Boston and Chicago (in 2012) refused to give the chain approval for zoning because of pressure from outside groups. The outrage against Chick-fil-A was not proportional to the statements made by Cathy and Christians seemed to understand what was happening in the culture. Mike Huckabee started Chick-fil-A appreciation day on August 1 2012 allowing supporters to line up for sandwiches all over the country. The response worked because of the simplicity of the message: a Christian group is under attack for supporting a biblical version of marriage, now go support them with your dollars.

Cities backed down and the restaurant received zoning approval.

Enter Ringling bros. and the attempt by animal groups (not public attitudes) to shut down the elephant portion of the circus, a key draw. The circus without elephants is like a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert without “Freebird”; people still go but the event is a lot less fun. More than a year ago Ringling Bros did away with the elephants. Constant attacks from activists disguised as animal welfare groups started to pay dividends. Excuses like ‘shifting public opinion’ are cited in news stories about Ringling’s decision to eliminate the elephant shows. What determines public opinion better than ticket sales? Polls are rarely cited as evidence of the so-called public disinterest.

When the elephants went away so did the spectators. Ringling Bros and Barnum and Bailey made a rational decision  based on cities like Oakland passing ordinances that restricted live animal shows, a measure meant specifically for circus acts. Once a few cities essentially outlaw your business the only option is to get out of the business. The main attraction was the elephant show.

“The Greatest Show on Earth” didn’t realize it until it was too late.

Would it have mattered anyway? The sharp instruments used to control the animals (called bullhooks) became the symbol of everything wrong with elephant training methods. Never mind that Asian elephants can weigh as much as 6 tons and stand 8 feet at the shoulders. How do critics propose to handle the great behemoths, with conflict resolution? How about positive reinforcement? Opposition to a part becomes hatred of the whole. So it is with groups like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) that occasionally stumble into a legitimate animal cruelty story.  The entire circus became an object of scorn and ridicule, the training methods supposedly barbaric. But acquiescing to the mob only pushed away the customers, those who came for elephants. The message from the offended parties is clear, change your ways or expect a PR assault.

Cities got pressured into passing laws against using bullhooks. Governor Brown signed SB 1062 restricting traveling shows from using those instruments and effectively putting the elephant performances out of business. The iconic circus owners issued a statement citing ‘changing public opinion’ in the decision to get rid of elephants but no popular vote was taken on the issue. The Rhode Island ban against bullhooks only applied to the traveling shows and circuses. If the device was cruel and unnecessary why only restrict the circuses? Shouldn’t the local zoos also find another way? Ringling Bros, Shriners and others stopped using elephants because of the impossibility of controlling the animals with kind words only. Even for the iconic circuses the future of live animal shows looked murky despite all the ‘shifting public opinion’ nonsense they churned out for press releases.

When institutions and businesses give up control of their livelihood everyone loses. The circuses didn’t stand much chance in the long run; their industry was increasingly controlled by petty outside interests and malcontents. I am no great lover of the circus but I hate the idea that historic and cultural treasures are subjected to a public inquisition by activists claiming to speak for them. The circus may have disappeared as a milestone for kids growing up in America anyway. Going out like this, neutered and shamed, is an unfitting end for the “Greatest Show on Earth”.  Like the University of Illinois it let a small group determine its culture and drive its future. A shorter future than anyone realized.

Tough Times in OK

When the usual means of funding run short local churches become the lifeline with food, medicine and shelter. Oklahoma is in such a state now with its schools. Funding is dangerously short for repairs and maintenance that are normally covered under the yearly budget.

I remember an anecdote from author Mark Steyn about a woman at a political rally who asked the president if he was going to fix their school. It was an old school after all and hadn’t had repairs in years. The windows rattled when the train went by, the paint was peeling off the walls and the computers were out of date. The student desks broke down practically every day and the plumbing needed attention.  The woman demonstrated perfect exasperation and hopelessness at the situation. The president promised to do what he could and used the occasion to bloviate about ‘kids’ and ‘destiny’, the usual boilerplate politician stuff. The whole notion that the president should concern himself with one schoolhouse in one rural district of one state is truly a measure of how far from citizen/state relations we are. When did residents of a town, a district, a parish forget how to paint walls and fix plumbing on their own?

 States and districts and counties and townships should see to their own welfare and not expect taxpayers to repair schoolhouses across the country. It doesn’t matter how genuine the question was. It reflects ignorance about the relationship of citizens and state. This ignorance is tough to undue. The woman at the rally could have been a plant designed to make the president seem caring, good hearted. It may have likely been someone who thought by getting the ear of the 'organizer in chief', by calling attention to the plight of this school it might force the community to pay attention. Who knows, maybe the president arranged for some contractors to clean up the place but I doubt it.
  

That Americans thought the question to the President was acceptable tells me we aren’t helping our communities in need. These are opportunities for churches to raise money and volunteers to begin rebuilding and renewing schools. I wonder how much of these state budget problems can be fixed by taking some of the burden of retrofits and upkeep off the sagging shoulders of local governments. Americans are used to civil society being run like a business with invoices and payrolls, credits and debits. Money from sales and property taxes funds schools and libraries; when revenues are low for long stretches we scarcely know what to do short of blaming the Republicans (or is it the Democrats). Both parties end up managing a sinking ship but using different bailing techniques. The problem is simple. When revenues are down projects get cut, so do employees like teachers. That kind of math is something both parties hate and voters have to deal with.

Churches help by feeding the poor and arranging for counseling and drug rehab programs for the destitute. Some of the larger churches have ‘in-house’ programs for single mothers, ex-cons and scholarship funding for talented kids. Here in Oklahoma the problem of funding for schools is acute. Districts have cut funding for teacher pay and custodial work and even sports programs and office supplies. A lot of Tulsa area schools need more than just regular levels of spending; they need to rebuild large chunks of the infrastructure. We have trouble just keeping the lights on right now.  Oklahoma needs a drive for school renewal projects. Americans have a long history of pitching in and helping with building projects through churches and community led volunteer efforts.

I don’t mean to pick on the woman who asked the President for help. Too many crumbling buildings get ignored budget after budget since the money isn’t available; how frustrating it must be. Churches have the people and can raise the resources to cover the gaps for schools when funds are short. Local church volunteer projects are the collective response by citizens to tough times. Taking care of school buildings doesn’t have to mean a federal role for a federal purse, it just takes local citizens and local volunteers.

Maybe than we can get back to a reasonable understanding of federal roles and local responsibility.