The Pope! How many divisions has he
Leave it to a brutal realist like
Stalin to lay everything out in the most stark terms. A Pope with no
military was not something worth paying attention to. The same
applies to the United Nations.
In the recent Common Sense show we did
(“Arming the Independents”) we waxed nostalgically for a
UN that existed only in the minds of the dreamers who created it (and
maybe not even there). A UN that could actually do what it was
designed to do. A UN, for example, that could prevent genocide.
It was Winston Churchill who first
suggested early in its development that the UN “should forthwith
be equipped with an international armed force”. In fact, the
UN charter signed by all member states obligates them to provide both
armed forces, and the facilities to maintain them for UN use in
maintaining peace and security around the world.
The lack of such a real force was one
of the “defects” Churchill felt might make the fledgling UN as
unequipped to handle reality as had been the UN's idealistic
predecessor The League of Nations. And so it has. The UN faces two
huge obstacles to its ability to prevent things like genocide. The
first is a force capable of resisting force, the other is the
willingness to use it.
The time of the Rwandan genocide is the
best example I can think of when an even basic, vanilla version of
Churchill's UN idea should have been able to justify its existence.
During the three months of genocidal killings there, between half a
million and 1.5 million Rwandans lost their lives in a conflict that
could have been halted with a few thousand first-rate troops. Former
U.S. President Bill Clinton said he believed that with 5,000 U.S.
soldiers he could have saved 500,000 lives. American casualties in
Rwanda would almost certainly have been negligible. A lightly
equipped French force of just over 2,000 was in Rwanda near the time
of the genocide, and was virtually unassailable by any indigenous
armed forces. So why weren't such forces deployed?
The reasons are complex and varied. The
self-interest of individual nations often comes into play. This is
precisely why if we want to have any ability to mitigate future
Rwandas, we need to think of a force that is an international force,
not a bunch of elements drawn from member nations simply fighting
under a U.N. Flag (see Korea, 1950). The organization also needs
structural reform to address the pervasive problems in its design
that hamstring its ability (and willingness) to take action when the
need arises. What the U.N. needs is their own equivalent of the
fabled French Foreign Legion.
The Foreign Legion is a famous French
elite force that takes recruits from all over the world into its
ranks and turns them into superior soldiers. Historically, the
Foreign Legion was often used in the past to uphold France's control
of colonial areas. The UN version of such an outfit would instead be
tasked with aiding desperate people who need help in situations where
guns are required. There is an obvious need for this in the world.
The United Nations currently employees
the troops of member nations in so-called “peacekeeper” roles.
But the familiar blue-helmeted soldiers are deployed by the UN only
to maintain an already existing agreement between hostile parties.
The UN has no force that can be put into situations where the lives
of hundreds of thousands of civilians (or even millions in some
cases) could be saved by the employment of a few thousand actual
soldiers. In other words, UN peacekeepers are there to prevent a
currently peaceful situation from turning violent, not to protect
innocents in situations that currently are violent. What this
means is that the UN can maintain a peace agreed to after a genocide
has occurred, but they have no force that can do anything about it
while it is going on. This undercuts one of the primary missions of
So, how much would be needed by the UN
to carry out such a role? Well, the obvious counter-question is to
ask what such a force would be asked to do. A modern military land
division usually has in the neighborhood of 15,000 to 20,000 or so
troops. It is considered to be the smallest sized force that contains
all that's needed within it for basic operations. A division usually
has units attached to it to provide for other needs (a contingent of
aircraft or armor might be a good example) and includes supporting
logistical forces. The UN with even one operational division of its
own capable of offensive operations is an immensely different
organization than the one we have now. In answer to Stalin's
question, the UN would then have one more division than the Pope.
Now, one division does not count for
much in a real war. It has limited uses. In any sustained contact
with hostile forces it will get worn down quickly (which is why the
UN should have one reserve division as well). But in a sense, that
limits its usefulness to those situations of immediate humanitarian
need. It simply isn't good for much else besides going into
destabilized areas and helping to protect large numbers of threatened
civilians from extermination. But in Rwanda, it would have saved a
million or so people from being hacked to death by a rival ethnic
Now, building such a force would be
ludicrously easy. An advertisement on Craigslist will probably get
you enough applicants to fill out the ranks (and these days they
would be veteran applicants. There's so many ex-soldiers out
there capable of serving in an international force that we might as
well be living in the post-Peloponnesian war era or during the wars
of Alexander the Great's successors). The cost for equipment and
support elements would also be ridiculously low by the average
standards of military expenditures. Cost is really no factor. Will
As originally conceived the UN was a
far more robust group than it actually turned out to be. What good
would providing a military force to a UN suffering from the current
(and long-standing) pox of inertia be? Could it ever agree to use it?
And if it did, might it decide to use it in a situation where the USA
(or another major nation) didn't want it to? Could one actually
envision such a disagreement leading to war between the UN and a
Well, let us not forget that the
1950-1951 war in Korea was fought under the UN flag. Eventually China
would fight on the side of the North Koreans in that conflict (and
the USSR had been very involved from the start of it, even flying air
missions for the North Korean side), so that's already an example
where the UN found itself at odds with another major power (or two).
But in the 1950s, as now, the UN had
no true independent military force of its own. It required others to
pledge to fight for it. If they would not, the UN had no power at
all. Even when the troops could be rounded up, the nations providing
the military forces also had total veto power over operations. Had
the U.S. not wanted to fight in Korea, there would have been no
Korean War, regardless of what the UN wanted. Even if the UN been in
possession of an army division or two of their own, they still
wouldn't have been able to intervene in Korea. That's too small a
force for an endeavor like that (The Chinese alone were said to be
using a million men in the fighting).
But that's what should keep anyone from
becoming too worried about a UN with troops being a danger to the
vast majority of sovereign states. A division or two of top-flight,
1stclass troops (on the French Foreign Legion model) is a
great tool to have to deal with minor-sized problems that could kill
large numbers of people (Rwanda for example). It won't be useful in
wars of any consequential size between nation states. It would
instead be the equivalent of an armed international police force.
Unlike the blue-helmeted peacekeepers the UN uses now though, they
would truly be UN troops, and they wouldn't be at all squeamish about
using force if the shooting started...or to get it to stop if it is
directed at large numbers of helpless civilians.
It would be intriguing to see how the
major world powers reacted to the idea of an independent UN military
force capable of offensive action. It seems logical to assume that if
they had favored something like that, it would already be a reality.
An independent UN military force hints at the idea of a more
independent UN in general, which also likely wouldn't be favored by
the major powers. Many countries would have to show their true
cards when it comes to whether they really favor the idea of a UN, or
if they only favor it when they get to be part of a special class of
nations within it (such as members of the UN Security Council) that
can thwart, all by themselves, whatever the world body decides to do.
Let's not pretend that's not a thorny
issue for other reasons as well. National sovereignty is the direct
opposite of what the UN offers the world if the idea behind it is
taken to its natural limits. “World Government” is a pervasive
fear in the USA, and I confess to having that fear myself sometimes.
But the answer is not to say that sovereignty mandates that
governments be allowed to exterminate their own people if they want
to (uninterrupted by foreign military meddling), but that a UN that
is going to be acceptable to major nations is going to be one with
finely drawn mandates. Preventing genocide is a nice narrow mandate
and I would trade everything the UN does now (UNICEF included) in
exchange for the organization having the willingness and ability to
stop an immanent or currently occurring genocide. In fact, I think
such a move gets you closer to the original mission of the
organization as it was conceived.
But what if one Security Council member
vetoes the UN resolution authorizing the use of force in a genocidal
situation? What about the will necessary to make such troops
effective? Isn't this an institutional problem the UN has? Yes, it
is institutional. But I think it is institutional because it
is structural. The Security Council has always been the rigged part
of the UN. Everyone knows this. Even while hoping through idealistic
eyes that the UN would halt things like genocide, the Great Powers
were not willing to lower themselves to the status of just one among
many nations. Hence any of the permanent members of the UN Security
Council can veto anything passed by the UN that they don't like.
Those nations also, not coincidentally, happen to be the victorious
major nations from the Second World War. They are “Grandfathered”
in to positions of special power. Every other country is limited to a
temporary turn on the Security Council in revolving fashion. Because
the structure of the organization is rigged, the vetoes from Security
Council members usually act to stop the UN from moving decisively in
any direction on the big issues of the day. If we want a UN that
works, this needs to be reformed. Imagine if today, in the interest
of fairness, the veto power of permanent members of the UN Security
Council nations were removed. How do you think the U.S. or Russia or
China would react to that? Again, it sure would force the large
nations to show their real feelings about the idea behind the UN.
Abolishing the permanent Security
Council membership would pose some issues. Churchill made a comment
once defending the idea of the unfair Security Council design by
saying something to the effect that the UN should not become a body
where the weak nations dictate to the strong. Though he was trying to
defend the UK's self-interest in that case, in fact he does have a
broad point. Should two tiny nations really be able to outvote a very
large one? It seems to me that if this is about representation, that
this could be done proportionally by population as it is in many
parliaments (including the U.S. Congress). Perhaps you get one vote
per a certain number of citizens. To allay fears of an
intervention-happy UN it could be mandated that a 2/3 vote be needed
to use UN troops (or some such safeguard). The Security Council would
either have to be done away with, or all positions on it would need
to be on a rotational basis. There's just no good moral justification
in the 21stcentury for the special treatment the nations
that dominated the world in 1945 get in the world body.
Few will defend the UN today in terms
of their ability to get their core mission accomplished. Yet I
hear few people talking about helping that flawed organization evolve
into something that CAN do what it was formed to do. There's no
question that the need is there. Genocide hasn't vanished from the
face of the Earth. Many in the U.S. are also leery of more foreign
involvement. I heard from many of them after the last Common Sense
show (I am one of them myself). A functioning UN with a modern
division or two of independently raised and operated troops would go
a long way towards doing these sorts of humanitarian dirty jobs so
that the major nations of the world don't have to.
After all, you certainly can't count on
the Pope to fix things. I mean, how many division has he got?
How much is OTHER PEOPLE'S freedom
worth to us (in dollars and cents at the gas pump)? That's a question
that popped into my head after a news story I heard the other day on
I had the radio on to a sports station
that I listen to, and they have a FOX News update every hour. Earlier
this week they had a reporter talking to people filling up their cars
with gasoline, and the reporter was subtly trying to tie
dissatisfaction with gas prices at the pump to the anti-dictatorship
unrest in the Arab world. I kept wanting the reporter to take the
next logical step in the questioning. Instead of INFERRING a
connection to the radio listener, how about asking the gas station
customers themselves the question that was being hinted at? Ask that
guy at the gas pump “How high would gas have to go per gallon for
you to decide that an Arab world ruled by dictators was preferable to
one ruled by the Arab people themselves?”
At that point we have put the American
people in the position of many of our leaders for the last 60 years.
How much is the freedom of others worth if it comes out of our
paychecks? How much is tyranny worth if it saves us money? I wonder
how they answer.
Okay, we haven't released the latest
Common Sense episode yet, but I have caught some errors during
playback. They aren't anything that affects the conclusions drawn, or
the points we made, but we like to make corrections when we find the
First, during my fast-talking
discussion about the U.S. Defense budget, I said that some of the
expenditures of the nuclear weapons program are part of the
Agricultural department. It is, of course, the Energy department.
Second, In our rundown of global
military expenditures the placement of nations is not correct by
today's numbers. We said we were quoting 2009, but it might be more
like 2008. The latest numbers (which change, it seems, depending on
the source) is the USA at #1, China at #2, the UK at #3 and France at
#4 (followed by the Russian Federation at #5). As I said, it doesn't
alter the point we made, but I wish I had gotten it right while I was
I have a great rejection letter from
the absolutely terrific L.A. broadcasting legend John Babcock in my
John had taken the time to write a long
and wonderful note about how I should "never give up" and
all that stuff as he penned this note explaining that there were no
openings for me at KABC-TV in Los Angeles after I had applied there
for a job. I was working at another TV station in town, but really
wanted to work for a better outfit, and John would have been my boss.
He made the rejection sound so fatherly that it was almost as if he
knew me. Of course, since he continually called me "David"
in the letter, I was continually reminded that he didn't. (My
favorite part was his line: "Always remember, you are David
But I would eventually get that job,
and get to work side-by-side with a guy that still defies my ability
to describe him. Here's a snippet from a website where his
achievements are recounted:
John: KDAY, 1955-57; KFWB, 1957-59; KMPC, 1959-61; KLAC, 1961-63;
KABC, 1963-73. In 1970 Don Page of the LA
newscaster of the year saying: "John Babcock is one of radio's
premier commentators and a leading documentarian." John was born
the day of the 1933 earthquake and started life as an orphan. He was
shuffled between foster homes until he was adopted by the Babcock
family. While he was in his delinquent teen years, John was sentenced
to two years in the Boys Republic of Chino. Many years later, he
became the president of Chino's Board of Directors. "I am the
first ex-student to be elected president of this risk school."
After graduating from the University of Texas, John started out in
the newspaper business and WOAI-San Antonio. He came to the Southland
and started with KDAY. For part of his stay with KABC news he hosted
a morning talk show. John was the California press director for Vice
President Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and 1972. In 1973 John joined KABC
television as a writer/producer and eventually went into news
management. "When I was at Channel 7's news assignment desk I
could get the reporters to do four stories a day. Then it was 3, then
2 and now they think they're doing a favor by covering one story."
John retired in 1995 and was active writing and running the Boys
school. His wife of 17 years is principal of the Dubonoff School for
"kids at risk." Their daughter attends the Peabody Music
Conservatory in Baltimore. John died February 1, 1997, at the age of
63. Former KFWB newsman Al Wiman said unequivocally that John "was
the best news person EVER!"
Well, he was the best news person that
I ever worked closely with, to be sure. And yes, he has passed away
now. He sprang to my mind after I just posted an old picture of
myself on our facebook site. It's from me back in my days of working
with John, and a bunch of memories came flooding back. And also, with
them, a bit of anger that people like John are not as remembered as
their achievements warrant. What's so sad about that is that so many
really talented people (who would have been remembered forever had
their work been cast in the "digital stone" that is the
Internet) are getting swallowed up by anonymity. This is, of course,
the fate of more than 99% of all the people who have ever lived, so
it isn't abnormal. But it seems a shame that such good talents are as
unknown now as they have become (and people who couldn't carry their
jockstraps will be remembered forever because of the historical good
luck of being born in the current era).
When I knew John, he was a dinosaur in
the business. KABC "Eyewitness News" was on top of the
ratings in the late 1980s/early 1990s and John was decidedly "Old
School" for such a hip (and yes, Hollywood) operation. They
really didn't know what to do with him. He was a leftover legend
The station still let him produce his
multi-part "mini-docs" and being his right hand man at
doing that became my job. The subjects chosen for these documentary
pieces were usually history-related (and you can see the stuff I
learned doing this...or hear it rather...in every HH podcast we do.
Thanks again John...). In addition, John taught me journalism (so did
a bunch of other people that I have never gone back and properly
thanked, but who deserve my everlasting gratitude. Paul Dandridge,
Linda Breakstone, Mark Brown, Jim Hattendorf, Becky Martinez, Mike
Merle, Jeff Michaels, Art Rascon, and Dan Spice to name but a few. Oh
how much we all owe to people who never get thanked for the help...).
John learned the journalistic trade the old fashioned way, and his
experience dripped like honey on anyone who was willing to absorb it.
As he got older he seemed more and more to WANT to pass along stuff
to we young 20-somethings.
Famous John stories: He was in
the motorcade in Dallas (last car, if I remember) when Kennedy was
shot. He didn't see anything because the view from his location was
terrible. He was one of the first ones to Parkland hospital since he
used to work in that local media and knew the area well. He also
spoke to Jack Ruby a couple of minutes before Ruby shot Oswald, and
watched the whole thing go down. ("What are you doing here
Jack?" was what John said to him when he saw him a few
minutes before the shooting). He covered the Manson trials and Manson
fell in love with the guy. John had letters from Manson framed on his
wall (yeah...we news people are kooks...). He had GREAT Manson
Even his youth was full of great
stories. After getting caught stealing a car, John was put in a youth
facility. His bunkmate was Steve McQueen (the two stayed friends, and
both helped to give back to that facility after reaching adulthood).
Just watching the way John processed
the info about a current situation was like a lesson in reporting.
The questions that came to his mind that he wanted answered (I use
the same sort of questions in many a CS episode), the way he quickly
determined what was important, and who was involved is like a lost
art these days in news reporting. It was like watching a detective.
We lovingly called him "Babo" but he was more like a pit
bull muckraker with a crusading mentality and a strong sense of
justice. I just can't think of anyone even remotely like him in the
current American mainstream media.
But at the end it was sad. Sad and
wrong. John was slowly eased out of his position and encouraged to
retire (poor health made that decision easier). What was so sad and
wrong wasn't this fact, but the fact that the reason he wasn't a
valuable asset to the news station anymore was that there was no
place in the modern TV news business for a real, old-fashioned
newsman (sorry ladies...but that's what they were called back in his
I keep thinking of what would happen if
you could cosmically resurrect the great journalists of old, give
them an Internet station where they could work together as a news
team, and see what they could crank out. If they did this, John
wouldn't have been one of their "lead anchors". A Murrow,
or Cronkite or Mencken would likely field that spot. But John Babcock
would be on that elite staff. And given the way he was even as an old
man, he would be kicking some ass. The reporters of old were much
more enterprising and investigative people than those who have today
inherited that mantle. This devaluation in the quality of the Fourth
Estate (both the individual journalist and the news outlets that
employ them) could go a long way explaining how we got to our current
state of affairs both in the USA and globally.
We all miss John Babcock now (whether
you knew him or not).
Since I must be the last person in the
country to express an opinion about the tragic killing of a ton of
people in Arizona this week (including a federal Judge and the
grievous wounding of the presumed main target, U.S. Congresswoman
Gabrielle Giffords ) I suppose I should point out the advantages of
being last; it is nice to wait and see how a little time to absorb
the event affects my thoughts about it.
I was on the radio the morning that the
event many have compared this latest tragedy to occurred. When the
Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building was badly damaged by a
truck bomb on April 19, 1995. 168 people were killed in the attack.
It was, at the time, the worst incident of terrorism on U.S. soil. I
was on the air all day taking calls from traumatized listeners.
People and pundits were saying many of the same things about that
event when it happened, as they are saying now in the wake of this
latest outrage. There was a ton of discussion about the "tone of
the national debate", about the vitriol of conservative talk
radio and of domestic right-wing extremists. Some predicted that the
attack would be but the first of many more future assaults.
Talk radio didn't change. The national
debate didn't get any less heated (in fact, it would soon escalate
with impeachment proceedings against the very polarizing president
Bill Clinton). The right-wing militia types didn't fade away. And
nothing bad happened. The attack by Timothy McVeigh was an isolated
attack by a small group of extremists. It didn't represent some
larger trend nor was it a foretaste of similar dire things to come.
But many couldn't resist seeing it that way at the time, in the heat
of the moment.
My wife was a reporter for a CBS News
affiliate the day the Thurston High school shootings happened (May
21, 1998- 4 dead, 22 wounded ). She arrived on the scene within 30
minutes of the shots being fired, and was there for the next 16 hours
reporting for CBS stations around the country. She saw it all close
up. It was simple insanity. Everybody spent days seeking to find a
way to explain it (it seems to be almost a human need to make sense
of these sorts of things), yet in the end we were all just left with
a feeling that probably would have been the same as if the
intentional shooting of classmates by a troubled student had been a
sort of natural disaster, rather than a human directed mass murder. A
random lighting strike or tornado touch-down that just happened to
hit here in Oregon this time, rather than someplace else.
Obviously it goes without saying that
this latest killing spree in Arizona is a terrible tragedy. The
actual number of dead and wounded is quite shocking. This gunman
managed to do a lot of damage in his short, deadly attack. I am
always stunned when I meditate for a while on the ripples of pain and
anguish this gunman's lone act (which took seconds) will inflict on
the families of the victims. That lone murderous moment will torture
and haunt the loved ones of the victims (and some of the surviving
victims themselves) for the many decades they have left to live. When
you add up all the people affected, by the cumulative length of time
they will be affected, it adds up to pain and suffering on a massive
That having been said...is it normal? I
know that's a strange question to ask about something that seems so
obviously ABnormal, but I think it would help us put this event into
perspective if we had some sort of a baseline with which to measure
this recent attack. I mean, many have called this attack an
"assassination attempt". It seems to me that based on what
we know at this point, that's a fair assumption. If that's the case,
how many assassination attempts (of prominent figures) are normal for
the USA in any given decade? For example: we averaged a U.S.
president assassinated every 20 or so years between Lincoln and
McKinley. The "baseline" on that score has improved
dramatically since then. Where are we now, numbers-wise, compared to
the 1990s or the 1980s? Or how about for the 1960s?
Without having any idea what we should
expect in terms of such tragedies, it is hard to know if this latest
attack is an negative omen for the future or just what we might
expect based on statistical data from past decades. If this is akin
to a lighting strike, have we had more or less lightning than normal?
It seems to me that this is a crucial question before we can
determine if we are faced with a unique situation that signals the
beginning of a trend that bodes ill for the future, or just the
normal amount of hideous violence that seems to be a constant in our
Everyone on our discussion board at least, seems aware of the most
likely outcome of all of this bad stuff happening: it is just going
to be another excuse or rationale for our leaders to crack down in
some way on us even more. And to be honest, I am not sure they could
stop themselves if they tried. We put pressure on them to "do
something about these tragedies!" and they try. But how
effective can you be at stopping lighting strikes? (Or our latest
version of Mark David Chapman, John Hinckley or Leon Czolgosz?). We
live in a time where our elected officials seem to wield nothing but
hammers, and every problem like this just looks like another nail to
them. They will deal with it the way they have dealt with the other
nails they have run into. Everyone blamed the Obama Administration
advisors for the supposed line they uttered to "Never waste a
good crisis". Well, that's not a philosophy that's confined to
the advisors around the president. That's pretty much standard
operating procedure for all our political class these days (with a
few notable exceptions). I doubt they will waste this crisis either.
That having been said, please don't
hurt any of them. It's a crime, a sin, it's evil and won't make
anything better. One would have to be insane, I think, to believe