If I could teach one thing about leadership, it is the willingness to face the unknown with courage.

MGMT 3000 (Pideret and Patterson)

Personal Best Leadership Experience

    In Spring of 2012, while working for a Real Estate firm focused on providing supported educational materials on how to renegotiate loans due to hardship, I enrolled in an open University Masters Seminar on Warfare and Homeland Security at San Diego State University.  The course would provide an outstanding background on the evolution of American Warfare and Homeland Security through a detailed critical review of the strategies, operations and tactics that either worked or lead to trouble. While there were a few other colleagues with background in Political Science, many of my colleagues were seasoned veterans having already served several tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It could have been very easy to be intimidated, withdrawal from classes and wait for a Political Science class with space. Thankfully, I had recently read The Leader Who Had No Title by Robin Sharma, and knew that just because I did not have military rank did not mean I could not contribute in a valuable way to the seminar and program.  I knew I had to gain information by reading thoroughly, listening carefully and taking the time to contribute meaningfully. Our mission was very simple: to preserve human life by preventing terrorism.  This first homeland Security class at San Diego State University would launch me on a scholarly journey unlike any I ever thought I would embark. I knew that I was not the polished tactician or even operations expert that many of my colleagues were.  I had no authorizations to act beyond what I could do as a citizen: researching, observing and sharing information. So how could I help? I was but a scholar armed with a pen. I had no title, but I had a laptop computer and access to Google’s blogger.  And so, I would research and I would write. From January 2012- December 2014 I found a voice with which I could lead. The middle class was under siege domestically while western values were at war abroad. I intended to fight with the weapons I had on both fronts.  While it is only half of the leadership story, for this project I will focus on the Master of Science in Homeland Security and the blog I created throughout the process of obtaining my degree.

     I guess in a way, I would have to give credit to my wife.  As they say, behind every great man is a great woman. I was discouraged by my experiences since graduating from University of California, Santa Barbara and so going back to school was not on the top of my agenda, but she encouraged me to enroll and give it a try by taking one course.  Getting through the first course, I rediscovered my love of not only military history, but also of writing. By the end of my second course, I felt ready to begin sharing more of work so I started a blog called Citizen’s Empire: Governance, Security and Strategy Considerations for the Polity.  While the idea was my own and work original, it would not have been possible without the reading and instruction provided my professors and instructors from San Diego State’s University’s Homeland Security Department, particularly Dr. Eric Frost and Dr. Jeff Mcilwain, but also Dr. Turner, General Keneally, Michael Wheat, JD.   Over the course of the next two years I would publish 112 essays and reach 41,684 readers while earning a Master of Science in Homeland Security. At the culmination, I authored a Grand Strategy to Defeat the Islamic State.

     After reading the Leader Who Had No Title, I was able to get over the fact that I did not have a formal title of authority.  I learned that I did not need one. In fact, not having one left me unburdened and the freedom to take chances that had I had a more formal title, I may not have been able to take.  I knew what I believed in, and told my readers in “True Liberalism” that my philosophy of government rested upon John Stuart Mill, John Locke and Adam Smith, clearly rejecting socialism.  I also reached out openly about my faith in an open letter to the Anglican Community about the resurgent threat of global socialism. I grew up in an exceptional country, with a very comfortable standard of living, between the threats of terrorism, the great recession and resulting loss of faith in both Capitalism and open liberal internationalizing democracy, I became increasingly aware that we were on the verge of losing our nation to the dueling forces of International Socialism and Shar’ian Supremacy.  

      The vision of our founding fathers and the philosophers who influenced them, in combination with my faith and what I would regard as spiritual guidance provided by the words and recorded actions of Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan inspired me to give every ounce of my fiber and existence to making sure that West would prevail in conflict and preserve the individual liberties essential to our nation’s wealth.  I observed that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the field of Political Science divided into two camps. On the right, the Neoconservatives had rose to power and in my opinion were cursed with a grandiose optimism in US’s ability to use its military to force democratic transitions, open economies and modernize societies. On the left, without the military threat from the Soviet Union, marxists were able to enter into the mainstream and push Marxist critiques of America’s economic system by rebranding their positions as progressive, pushing to bring an end to US sovereignty by empowering transnational institutions such as the United Nations and World Trade Organization which would gradually erode both property and individual rights so that they could redistribute America’s middle class wealth.   I felt that both were wrong and explored ways to challenge the Status Quo that divided the American people into two distinct camps. I sought to find basic beliefs and principles rooted in British and American history that Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, Catholics and Protestants, Muslims and Jews, Whites and Blacks, Natural Born and Immigrants would agree were worth fighting for and defending. I thought national politics had become too distracted, that we had to reset our Federal Government’s priorities to the wealth and physical safety of our citizenry. If the US government regained its focus on these basic responsibilities, employing less complicated policies that tap into the ingenuity of the people when provided autonomy, that our nation would become wealthier and our homeland more secure.  

      In a hazardous and decaying international environment where great power conflict was returning as China and Russia pushed hard, I felt a return to principled realism that reasserted US Sovereignty, prioritizing our nation and its Citizens’ rational self-interest was the only way to preserve our nation’s greatness and improve its stature in the world as a model for the rest of the world.  I realized these things because I did the research and took the time to listen to a very wide range of voices and scholars. In the end, for me, the Hoover Institute prevailed. The approach and policies were balanced and feasible, when tested in implementation successful and effectuating the outcomes that improved the lives of Middle Class Americans.

Asking my wife, what leadership trait she admired most in me, and she said it was the fact I spent so much time getting complete information, devouring books and coming away with better answers and solutions.  So I did this, and used the blog to reach a larger audience and influence the polity. Advocacy, maybe, but I always trusted in the process of liberalism spelled out by John Stuart Mill that through a free social discourse and vigorous national dialogue, the best ideas would percolate to the top.  By publishing my blog, I assisted this process and some of my written works went before National Security Council Consultants who would be influential in forming our strategy to defeat the Islamic State.

           I knew to gain support for my ideas, I had to get people’s attention.  I tried using the latest in online marketing techniques and without a budget was able to use my understanding of Search Engine Optimization and Social Media to get my work in front of more people.  I attempted to gain greater support for my ideas from people who may not typically be as engaged in such issues by producing musical works that touched on some of the underlying themes with lyrics celebrating American more and values, our economic system and military.  It was all a huge risk. I was scared to publish at times, I did not know what shadow government figures I would offend or what they would do to me. I worried I would be tortured or assassinated by foreign intelligence agencies, cartels or terrorist groups. Sometimes I worried I would be tortured or assassinated by one of our own.  With my music, it was such a break from the typical behavior of either corporate America or the Intelligence Community, I basically knew it would be viewed with scepticism but I embraced being an outsider and looked for support from unconventional places because my goal was not to be acceptance by the establishment, but the transformation of the establishment away from a self-serving elite and into a robust and resilient core of citizens committed to the mores and values underpinning our national greatness.  Honestly, I was scared at the beginning when I started writing my blog. I came out on my second blog post forecasting a future war between USA and China so it is understandable that I was somewhat paranoid, particularly as I learned more about the Chinese government's surveillance capabilities and operations within the US homeland to protect the image of the Chinese Communist party. I also understood; however, that if I could not write what I wanted to write than freedom was already lost and so found a rush in using the written word to fight for liberty’s advance.  In this there was an excitement, a rush to see how many people would read my post and question what influence it would have on the world.

      The truth is that as I approached the end of my project I was hopeful that I would be able to either join the Military, the State Department or Homeland Security to work towards the execution of my strategy.  I passed my battery tests but could not get the medical clearance for the army. I did well enough on my foreign service officers test but did not pass the second round as they did not think I had adequate professional experience.  I filled out applications for numerous positions in homeland security, including press and public relations positions, but never was called in for any interviews. After interfacing and working with so many high-level individuals from so many different departments and agencies from across the public sector to private sector, federal government to local government, I was really anticipating that I would work professionally in the field as my recognition as a credentialed expert increased.  Maybe I gave in to early, but as I graduated I needed to get a job and make money. I continued posting on my blog and started recording a podcast but could never get the funding and support I needed to make the leap into a professional position. I hoped to be a leader, and while the idea of being a Leader without a Title gave me the courage to push on and accomplish more than I ever thought possible, I feel that as of now I only really succeeded in being an influencer.

Recognizing these shortfalls and limitations is one of the main reasons I was attracted towards pursuing an MBA at Santa Clara University.  I had taken Public Administration classes but felt they were stuck in the defense of bloated and sluggish bureaucracy, and that Ronald Reagan’s approach as Governor of California in which he enlisted the best business leaders to improve and streamline operations was the surest course to make the improvements to our governance I wanted to participate in.  With strong foreign policy and domestic policy credentials furnished, I wanted to spend a decade or so thriving in business so that I would have my own money and not be dependent on other people’s and also so that I could gain the executive administrative experience to be a capable leader. I am here to learn and so while my first masters was finished over three years ago, with a ceremony and speech on the USS Midway about the importance of bringing the lessons of the past into our future, I am still building on the foundation in place.  While it has been sometime since I published my blog, or recorded a podcast as my focus shifted towards succeeding in my employment and applying for the MBA program, I am hopeful that in time I will return to both my blog and podcast as a forum to share my ideas, influence and be a thought-leader. I may even yet be able to monetize them successfully. As far as slogans, I had a few. There was my blog: Citizen’s Empire: Governance, Security and Strategy Considerations for the Polity. There was my podcast: Inside Line: Your Choice for Insightful Intelligence.  In music I first released, “Truth was the First Victim,” then “The Rise of Theo: One Man, One Life, One Voice” and “King Theo: One Crown, One Throne, One King”  While they may not have had the financial success I hoped for, I find that they do make me a interesting person and valuable team member. It took a lot of energy to create these, but in those moment that I am looking for inspiration I find great satisfaction in being able to return to them.  They remind me simultaneously of both where I came from and where I am trying to go. The work involved the collaboration of so many people, largely scholars and artists, but also technological developers making the tools to produce and share them. While the team maybe somewhat small, the work lays the groundwork for collaboration on a much larger scale.  

      I would like to say that there was some amazing teamwork involved in these projects but it would be a lie.  I spent hours in solitude collaborating with people that have long since past away or people I have never met teaching at campuses on the other side of the country.  It was long hours of deep focus in the library that allowed me to formulate my works. There was scholarly dialectic; however, that often transcended time and space, I would have a thought and open a book to see George Orwell asking a question about my very thought.  I find myself questioning an aspect of US strategy and suddenly see a book title on the shelf calling me forth. In truth, the best collaboration I had was in the marketing of the mission, in the time spent in the studio working my music producer on songs like “The Eighth Wonder”, “Pyramid’s Eye,” “Now and Forever,” and “The Big Bang.”  The group research projects, also provided outstanding opportunities for collaboration. Working on developing an “International Crime Information Database” and on developing a multi-agency Emergency Management response to floods were awesome opportunities to collaborate.

      

          The time spent with professors was always very valuable, even as I had a strong-minded sense of where I was going and what I was doing. At times I feel my decisions were somewhat limited by a lack of resources, time and formal authority. I dreamed about leading a policy decision making team to tackle problems and come back with solutions.  I had to make due with the established think tanks, occasionally corresponding by email or by asking questions at the end of a presentation. The respect was always there but at times I wish I was capable of greater levels of trust. Having been burned so many times in the past I tend to recognize that the only two people I can really trust are God and myself.  Maybe this limits me, or maybe it is the only reason I am still here.

        One thing that I can tell you, my colleagues at SDSU who went through the Homeland Security program earned my respect.  They were put through challenges that bring shame to us civilians’ easy existence. Whether it was night raids in AfPak where they successfully captured Taliban leaders or trying to build a police force in Mosul in the midst of an active Al-Qaeda led insurgency, such tasks can only be completed by the truly brave and great men and women serving in the armed forces.  Sadly, political leadership let them down time and time again with poor decisions and policies that may sound great in the diplomatic halls of European Capitals, but whose implementation was unrealistic in hostile war zones where the ideology of religious fanatics who celebrate suicide bombers massacring girls in schools and families eating ice cream as martyrdom were actively planning their next assault on the infidels desecrating their holy lands.  While there were disagreements with my colleagues over the details of strategy, operations and what technologies and tactics to use, we had respectful discourse and orderly debates that made both sides of the argument better informed and prepared for whatever would come next.

  

           One thing I would like to see more of is a greater collaboration between the civilian population and our National Security Establishment, especially across party lines and disciplinary fields.  It is hard to win wars when most of the civilian population is under-informed and disengaged. In Churchill’s England going up against Nazi Germany or Reagan’s America taking on the Evil Empire in the Soviet Union, there was internal opposition, but there was not the wide scale disengagement with the war or the institutions involved in its oversight and execution that we have seen as the “War on Terror” has changed names and shifted continents, continuing to drag on with open ended engagement and no end in sight.

       Over time, I was able to win over the respect of my colleagues by being prepared for the course work, studying beyond the required readings and bringing a passion to the subject matter that I can hope even the more experienced practitioners respected. I tried to model a mix of grit and caution that would help us win the fights we needed to fight and avoid involving ourselves in problems that were not ours to solve.  I was sincere in exhibiting a commitment to truth intended to exemplify trustworthiness. My commitment to using data-science and rigorous scholarly review of policies and operations for their effectiveness exemplified a level of competence. I hope I did an effective job in portraying my beliefs about what made America exceptional in a way that was inspiring. Finally, I was and continue to be forward looking, anticipating problems and planning to resolve them before they become problems in the territorial United States of America.

       For us, it was a commitment to nation and the defense of her people and institutions from threats internal and abroad that drove me.  In reflection, I always had a deep regret about the mistakes of my early twenties and sought to redeem with acts of heroism. I always felt the first amendment was first for a reason, and so thought using it to inform and encourage social discourse about grave matters of national security was an appropriate modeling of responsible citizenship.  I remained committed to the preservation of America, as an idea, a system, a nation and a model whose exceptionalism rested on its bold experiment in representative democracy, free-enterprise and a constitutional framework designed to balance powers and preserve individual liberty.

      There is not much need for controls in the blog, but in implementing its ideas, in getting the many agencies composing the Homeland Security Department along with numerous law enforcement and defense commands working together requires a vastly complex system of command and control.  It requires a rule of law and recognition that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and the elected executive provided sweeping powers to defense the nation, its constitution and the people from existential threats. Hand-held devices and software driven reporting mechanisms with more advanced means of routing that information present opportunities to more effectively secure the homeland by utilizing the latest computing and information technologies. I did some preliminary research and work towards developing an integrated database, routing system, hardware and both online operating system and also agency operating system that made it to CEO of Qualcomm.  While I have read the US Arm’s manual on command and Control, and certainly appreciate the importance of control as a facet of executive administration, it is an area I am looking to learn more about and gain more experience using as career progression puts me in positions where I have the authority to implement control systems and methodology. At the time of leadership being reviewed; however, there was not much control on my part beyond being sure I did my reading and proofread my essays.  I was all command and somewhat whimsical when it came to control, a matter I was aware of and studying to improve for the event I was put in an official position of executive authority.

   

         As far as dramatic or unusual actions, I used a mix of black hat marketing tactics where I would include lists of trending searches in the body of my blog to garner more readers.  I also used my music to appeal to a broader audience. In a theoretical public administration masters course we even explored the artist as leader model and it fit for the time, but in so reviewing it I also came to the conclusion that it was inadequate.  With so many contemporary British historians studying the administration of kings more than their battlefield successes I was increasingly becoming a structural realist, flipping through different frames to identify places for improvement within the portion of the organization being reviewed.

       As far as getting sidetracked, let’s be honest.  In the parable of the fox and the hedgehog I am most certainly the fox.  I have a long list of projects I dream of pursuing and while I can at least say I completed two feature length studio albums of original music and a screenplay, “William the Conqueror,” there are many other incomplete projects with general outlines and early chapters that are unlikely to be completed until after my retirement.  I always get sidetracked, regularly chasing random intellectual inquiries and experiment with new methodologies and tactics.  I also, have to work with an intense amount focus and put in long hours in my job as a salesman to stay ahead financially. I changed my thesis project three or four times before finally settling on a project as opposed to a thesis dissertation.  I have become more disciplined over time and with experience, learned to prioritize the projects most likely to bring about outcomes or results that will benefit myself and my family with early experimentation providing foundation of experience to learn from.

       In the end, my blog became a means of holding leaders accountable that I had lost faith in.  In the context of my blog, I did not find it appropriate to lash out at people with different values, rather more constructive to showcase the values I thought were appropriate.  I would never simply criticize. I would instead create separation by specifying what I would do differently, avoiding pejoratives and witty insults.

     I felt that graduation was an important milestone.  We had our ceremony on the USS Midway’s flight deck.  It is such a beautiful ship and it was awesome to celebrate the hard work of all my colleagues.  My parents, my wife and the producer I was working with on my musical albums all attended. I posted photos on social media.  The grades helped, but more than anything I was driven by a sense of responsibility and service. I had hoped that my work would lead to a career more directly related to my research, even if it was doing more research, unfortunately I found myself back working in sales.  The sales position was much better as it was in property management for Irvine Company and do think that the degree and knowledge base made me more qualified and valuable candidate as I had the emergency management training and my academic background in international relations helped me to understand and connect with a broadly international client base and be prepared to address more serious security risks should they arise.  

    In reflecting on this experience for this project, I asked my wife what she felt were best traits for leadership.  For her, there was not much hesitation in answering that I am a “‘relentless seeker of knowledge that you eagerly apply.”  I am careful to be sure I had the right answer, especially on matters relating to National Security. I use history as a data-set to see what policies worked when faced with similar situations.  As far as leadership actions taken they are:

Seeking out and listening to the best professors in the field.  Why listen to the press when you can read the works or hear the lectures of the best professors in the field.

Tirelessly researching to make sure I had the best answer.  Why would you take the word of only one source of information at a time when you can access so many polished expert opinions and weigh them against each other.

Understanding the problem

Terrorism is an obvious problem but its causes are remarkably complex. It is important to understand the ideologies that drive terrorism, the context under which they took root and what factors cause people to join terrorist groups and engage in terrorism.  You can understand a lot about radical Islamic terrorism by studying anarchist violence, Marxist insurgency and anti-colonial nationalist movements but you also come to realize the differences. You come to realize that it is not a simple matter of mental health as someone would like to make it, or a matter of wealth inequality.  

Islam is a totalitarian ideology with its own prescribed structures, holy books and doctrines.  Much of what drives Islamic Terrorism comes directly from the Qu’aran and words of Mohammed, the history of the Caliphate and published fatwas by formal clerics.  If you want to advance moderate voices in Islam, you have to understand Islam and come to grips with the reality that as an ideology drawn literally from the scripture and the traditional interpretations presented by its Clerics, it is not very compatible with liberal western democracy as it prescribes those who have submitted to God, the Umma, an eternal war with the non-believers proscribing terror as a method to coerce their submission and correct their path.  Unlike the Bible and Chirstianity, the Qu’aran and Islam are totalitarian in that they not only cover matters of personal faith and the development of a religion in opposition to the Roman Empire as in the Bible, rather instead define proper behavior in nearly all aspects of life, including the structure and form of an Islamic governance. Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are clearly defined groups with clear chains of command and a common vision for the future rooted in the restoration of a Umayyad-style Caliphate.  

They have vast disagreements; however, on strategy, operations and tactics often competing to recruit eager Mujahideen and Jihadists from Indonesia to Mali, every in between and from every continent other than Antartica. Al-Qaeda sought to gradually raise the water slowly but surely by setting up clandestine cells, subtly implementing Sharia law while occasionally emboldening uprisings with meticulously thought out and planned, spectacular and symbolic mass casualty attacks on the centers of Infidel power, ie. the USS Cole, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon- always presenting itself as a Pan-Muslim movement recruiting across sectorial lines despites its founding members adherence to Salafi Sunni religious doctrine.  The Islamic State on the other hand grew out of Zawahiri’s Al-Qaeda in Iraq, an Al-Qaeda offshoot at odds with Al-Qaeda leadership for its willingness to attack Shi’ite Muslims and efforts to provoke sectarian conflict intended to catch Western actors rebuilding Iraq in the crossfire. AQI hoped that sectarian conflict and civil war in Iraq would force international actors to leave the country to their control as kill counts and body counts weakened the resolve of democracies with free press publicizing the horrors. When drone strikes forced succession to Zawahiri’s deputy, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, he rebranded Al-Qaeda in Iraq as The Islamic State, breaking entirely from Al-Qaeda’s chain of command. He built upon Zawahiri’s tactical successes fermenting a terrorist firebrand that operated out in the open meticulously employing wanton violence while vigorously taking control of territory and revenue streams to fund its expansion, recruit jihadists and market its terror.  While Al-Qaeda preferred the closed doors and back rooms of Mosques lead by duplicit clerics, hiding their operations within seemingly legitimate campus organizations and non-profit charities it uses to recruit and exert influence, the Islamic State lived on twitter and Youtube, embracing anyone willing to declare allegiance and engage in violence sufficient to create a headline.  The core of both survive where state institutions have broken down and the toxic mix of anarchy and hopelessness make their alternative of Sharian Order and visions of an afterlife appealing to the down and out, neglected and angry youths. 

In the backdrop of US departure from Iraq, the Arab spring, armed rebellion in Syria and Libya and dissatisfaction in the Sunni Dominated Anbar Province of Iraq where Al-Qaeda in Iraq made an alliance with Saddam’s former Ba’athist government officials barred from state employment to forge a challenge to the heavy-handed tyranny of the Shi’ite lead Iraqi government. The mix of religious fanaticism provided by Al-Qaeda in Iraq and governing experience provided by the former Ba’athist technocrats provided for a vicious competence that presented a threat to the world unlike any we had seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  The Sunni population in Anbar Province put up little fight as ISIL quickly took control of the regions municipalities, garnering recruits by a combination of fierce violence and relatively generous offers of compensation. They had similar successes in the areas of Syria where Sunni Arabs were an aggrieved majority.

Strategizing on a solution

My best work was on the formulation of a grand strategy to combat Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi’s terrorist organization commonly known as the Islamic State and Abu Bakr’s self-declared Caliphate.  I am not going to detail this work here, you can read it for yourself (On the Origin of the Islamic State and US Foreign Policy in the Middle East), but in its creation I listened to people who had been deployed to the middle east from all of the armed forces of our government.  I listened to the most experienced policy makers and also colleagues with high IQs and little experience. I listened to people at all levels of our military, from Generals to Petty Officers. I also listened to people from the countries where these events were happening to get an understanding of the context and perception of what is happening and what needs to be done.  I read a plethora of sources and eventually returned to the Use of Force originally provided to me at UCSB for a National Security course.  I reviewed the militaries own reviews of its operations in the past two invasions of Iraq and set out to develop an actionable strategy.   It took long hours of intense study in a landscape where the situation on the ground was shifting rapidly.

Delineate Recommendations

In the end I produced a document that delineated a number of recommendations that both dealt with more immediate needs to eliminate eminent existential threats and also addressed long-term strategic needs to win the war of ideas and push the region forward in a way that was both cooperative to the current world order and would improve standards of living for the people of the region.

Publish and Share Your Work

After turning my work in I was not sure if I should publish my work.  I did not want to telegraph national security maneuvers to an enemy known for increasingly making use of the internet to read national security policy papers in the formation of their countering strategies or for purposes of recruitment in propaganda.  I redacted some portions, but since it was not an official declaration of US policy rather recommendations I thought it would be of higher value to publish it in an effort to influence discourse and also of course, hopefully increase my visibility and credibility in the field.   

   This process could best be described in the words of George Patton as “no ordinary ordeal.”  Onerous, exhaustive and terrifying are words that come to mind. In retrospect, horrific, may be another. Atrocity and human catastrophe are others. When I stepped into that leadership role; however, I felt poised and determined to defeat the enemy while defending the good things I saw in our country, its people and the way of life it extended to the free world.  I wanted to do this in a way that limited any reductions in liberty for the American Citizenry and Permanent Residents, remaining true to our constitution, the laws passed by the legislature and rulings of our courts. The strength of our values were what ultimately would allow us to win, especially when juxtaposed to such a diabolical foe whose culture revolved around the celebration of death and human repression.   Maybe it was the wisdom instilled from The Leader Who Had No Title, but when it was happening I was confident that I was the right person, in the right place to prepare our strategy and in so doing honorably serve our Nation even if I never was able to suit up and serve in the armed forces.  To a professor in the CIA, whom I clashed with throughout the semester, I turned in my document knowing he would soon be in a DC meeting with the National Security Council. Based on the grade, I know he appreciated the work I did on that paper.  I felt a sense of accomplishment. It felt right standing up to such darkness and standing up for our nation and its people. From the experience I learned how difficult leadership can be. I learned that leadership takes many different forms and you do not need to have a formal title to lead and exert massive amounts of influence that result in a positive impact.

    If I could teach one thing about leadership, it is the willingness to face the unknown with courage. You have to let go of ideals and choose the better realistically achievable outcome with the resources available.  You then have to work to leverage and make best use of those resources in achieving the outcome you sought. For me, finding principles and values rooted in a clear set of philosophers, documents and historical narratives gave the conviction and purpose to continue on in very difficult times.  Scarcity forced innovation and the spartan nature of my existence at the time provided the discipline to put in the time to produce better work. As new leaders step up to work on many of these same problems now and in the future, I hope my works provide them institutional knowledge and frameworks for strategy and understanding that they can build upon.  I just found out one of my collaborators from the air force who developed air strategy will be teaching at West Point. I can hope that maybe someday my paper will be required reading for our future officers and that with their polished intellect they will improve upon and preserve this beautiful country and all it represents into perpetuity.

    For this project, it was really about commitment to patiently conducting the research and putting in the intellectual energy to find solutions.

If I were to be providing quotes for book on leadership, I would go with the following mantra.  

“Honest as FDR, Competent as General Eisenhower, Tough as George Patton, Certain as Winston Churchill and Decisive as Harry Truman.”

  If I could have done one thing differently, I would have sought contributions to my blog by more of my colleagues and set up teams to review and develop policy solutions for specific components of our national security strategy in a way that mirrors the structure and function of the National Security Council with an eye for ways we can refine the structure to improve its functional capacity to develop security policies for scaled up implementation.  

Pulling out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and Reinstalling Sanctions.

While efforts to negotiate with Kahmenei's regime in Iran were appropriate, the United States of America should have walked away and never accepted the terms of the deal Barack Obama and Jon Kerry were so desperate to make. Their negotiating style was laughable as they clumsily applied the Harvard mentor guide to negotiations intended for firm to firm business negotiations which allowed Rouhani and Zarif to walk all over them as if they were tourists shopping in a Bazaar. Sanctions relief helped lead to Assad's victory in Syria, prolonged the conflict in Yemen, undermined the sovereignty of Iraq, further destabilized Lebanon, promoted the terrorist capabilities of both Hamas and Hezbollah while possibly helping to prop up Madura's regime in Venezuela by helping provide illicit cash proceeds from the illegal drug market managed by the Iranian and Hezbollah linked former Vice President and current minster of Industries and National Production, Tareck el Aissami. It is also likely supported North Korea's illicit arms market whose proceeds have gone towards North Korea's Nuclear program and the oppression of the North Korean People. More should be demanded from the public about the sideline deals inked in Geneva, with a particular focus on the surrounding financial transactions and corruption. The money released undoubtedly went towards the sponsorship of terrorism that lead to the death or displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians while helping keep others under the bootstrap of tyranny longer than they otherwise would have been. Pulling out of the Iranian deal was a principled foreign policy decision.
While Kahmenei may not return to the negotiating table in the immediate future, especially with the treachery of John Kerry's council to Zarif that the Iranians wait out the Trump Administration, eventually Kahmenei will either die and new leadership will bring rapprochement or the economic peril and social unrest will either collapse his regime or force him back into negotiations. In the immediate term, it has already destabilized the regime, forcing the Iranian regime to scale back its regional ambitions which almost always take the form of military aggression carried out by terrorist proxies. Reinstalling sanctions on Iran has empowered the people of the region to stand up to Iranian organized repression and malevolent incursions into their lands. The best example of this is the revolt against Iranian influence by the Shi'ites of Basra in Iraq who torched the Iranian consulate.
While we patiently wait and let the sanctions have their affect, we cannot lose sight of the suffering of the people in Iran. Both the Persians and other Iranian born peoples of varying ethnic groups who have come to USA have contributed to our economy and nation in astounding ways so it is not without concern for the impact US policies have on their family members still in Iran. We should find ways to continue helping the Iranian people, but need to balance their needs with the needs of the people in the region who have been placed under duress by Al-Quds and the Khamenei regime's operations.
The Trump Administration has been clear about what they want in a new accord that could be ratified as a treaty; something the Obama Administration never sought to do. President Donald J. Trump wants the treaty to cover not only uranium production and nuclear weapons development, but also their ballistic missile program and sponsorship of terrorism. If sensible, pragmatic negotiations can transpire, both Kanmenei and Trump can have the distinguished honor of bringing about the regional stability and peace conducive to increasing prosperity. Khamenei has to understand that their possession of a nuclear weapon would be followed nearly over night by the Saudi acquisition of a nuclear weapon from Pakistan. This proliferation would be very dangerous and since both sides of the divide would have nuclear weapons neither would benefit. Instead their limited quantity could drive regional nuclear powers like Israel or possibly even Western nations such as the United States of America into a scenario where first strike capabilities and advantage prompt high risk preventive actions. The latter outcome could potentially become a catastrophe unrivaled in human history so it is with all our efforts and diligence we must work towards a comprehensive peace treaty that resolves all three components of the threat emanating from Iran.
In my best open source assessment, I would anticipate that with the European Union trying to keep the deal, Iran also will keep to the terms of JCPOA, at least until the end of Trump's first term. The financial pressure will require Iran to scale back both their naval build up and support for foreign military operations, militias and terrorist groups. The US needs to continue building its 5th generation air capacity to retain the deterrent option to eliminate Iran's nuclear program if necessary while accelerating our Naval build up so that the US can maintain our ability to deny Iranian efforts to close the Strait of Hurmuz even when other geo-strategic challenges require the movement of Carrier Battle Groups. Continued monitoring of Iranian actions and vigilant efforts to improve US regional military capabilities and readiness the reinstalled sanctions on Iran will slow Iranian national ambition and eventually push them back into negotiating a treaty that US Congress would realistically be willing to ratify.

Mistakes become tragedies when you fail to learn from them: Remembering the day after 9/11 and re-strategizing for the future. September 12th, 2001 - September 12th, 2018

        Today is September 12th, 2018.   17 years ago today, we were waking up from the nightmare of the preceding days terror.  Waking from sleep recollections of  seeing video footage of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon seemed unreal, almost as if one was waking from a nightmare that would soon be forgotten.  When the TV was turned on; however, it was clear that it was real.  Facts were emerging there was beginning to be clarity about the attack and what transpired but there were still many questions to be answered and plans for a response were only beginning to be planned. At that point, the United States of America had an overwhelming level of sympathy from around the world and it was clear the nations of the world, including many nations that had traditionally been our enemies, were ready to follow US lead and cooperate with us in our efforts to bring the perpetrators of the crime, a group called Al-Qaeda , to a swift and merciless justice.  I was 18, living in the San Francisco suburb of Foster City, CA, enjoying the last month of my summer vacation before my Freshmen year at University of Santa Barbara, California were about to begin.  At the time, it was abstract event on the news for me, something that allowed me to stay home from work yesterday and in a way, a cause for excitement today.  It had not yet changed my life, I was going about with regular life.  I had went to Tower Records to buy the new Jay-Z album, the BluePrint and listening to the song "Renegades," on repeat while continuing to do the things teenagers do in summer, like go visit the Santa Cruz beach board walk, go the movies and party way more than I should have been.  Its easy to Monday morning quarterback, but also important to review the game tape and understand where you made mistakes.  As a nation, we made many.  What was remarkable about the United States of America; however, in the midst of these attacks is that there widespread agreement that in our response the US should not compromise those values and legal norms that had made the United States of America the most free and prosperous nation on earth, and that instead the best means of fighting radical Islamic jihad was to promote Democracy, Free-Markets and Western Legal norms abroad. This had been successful in our efforts to defeat Communism in the cold war and so it was logical that the same would work in our struggle with the ideology of terror.

        With a light, lethal, CIA lead invasion of Afghanistan that involved Clandestine Units leading the Afghan Northern Alliance, largely Farsi speaking Tajik dissidents to the Pashtun Taliban regime, the US and its Allies were able to quickly and effectively drive the Taliban from Kabul and chase them into the rugged and ungovernable mountains along the Afghanistan and Pakistan border.  The victory appeared swift and overwhelming.  Bush's popularity was at historic highs and the neocons were looking to capitalize by pushing forward their Project for a New American Century.   There are a multitude of reasons, many of them very good reasons, that drove the Bush Administration eventually into a war with Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime in Iraq.  The war in Iraq; however, distracted American resources away from the defeat of core Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and finishing the job in Afghanistan while destabilizing the balance of power in the Middle East and leaving open both a cause for recruitment and near battleground for Islamic jihadist groups such as Al-Qaeda in Iraq to practice a range of guerrilla, terrorist and insurgency tactics primarily focused on driving the US out of the Middle East so that they could establish their fundamentalist Islamic regimes.  The Bush Administration was wildly unrealistic about how the US would be received in Iraq, what outcomes it could effectuate and at what cost, while missing the strategic implications of allowing for a Shi'ite government aligned with Iran to control Iraq's territory and massive oil fields.  The US would completely restructure our domestic security apparatus, including putting 21 agencies under the Department of  Homeland Security, creating new secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance courts and vastly expanding the budgets of the DoD, CIA and NSA with FBI left to lead domestic counter-terrorism efforts.   While new technologies, like Drones came available and funding provided for the Revolution in Military Affairs, efforts to chase and destroy Al-Qaeda everywhere it slithered brought us into operations as far West as Nigeria and as far east as the Philippines.

      While the United States of America lead efforts have undeniably both resulted in the capture or death of  tens of thousands of hardened jihadists and aspiring Islamic terrorists and successfully  prevented any other major 100+ casualty terrorist attacks on the US homeland, the threat continues to loom large with some of the highest global terrorism related casualty counts recorded within the past four years, peaking in 2014 when there were over 32,000 terrorism related deaths, largely perpetrated by the Islamic State.  The Islamic State obviously changed the game, but its emergence as a force capable of seizing control of territory the size of France in the Levant, was facilitated by flawed US policies.  The United States removed Saddam, then removed its forces and handed over control of Iraq to Al-Malaki, then put the full force of its State Department behind the Arab Spring which brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt, then engaged in overt military support that helped topple Qaddafi's regime in Libya before going on to provide both diplomatic and military assistance to Syrian rebels trying to topple Bashar Assad, at least some of whom and many of whom's US provided weapons ended up in the hands of Al-Qaeda linked militias or Islamic State jihadists.  Very few would disagree with the truth that both Qadaffi and Assad were brutal dictators akin to Saddam Hussein.  It is also true however, that these dictators held together rebellious states with vicious extremist groups lurking just below the surface.  It was foreseeable that there removals would bring about chaos and civil war in which terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, or its fire-brand offshoot the Islamic State, would thrive in terms of gaining recruits, controlling territory and gaining battle field practice.  All the while, the Taliban made a comeback and reemerged from the mountains to take back control of significant parts of Afghanistan.  Meanwhile, the so-called refugees from these countries, some recent and other times their adult children radicalized by the internet, Salafi clerics and on trips to their ancestral homelands, waged attacks in most of the major western Capitals from London to Munich, Burbank to Edmonton bringing the terror to Western civilians peaking at a rate of one multi-casualty attack by an Islamic State inspired terrorist every 3 days in the Summer of 2016! Operations intensified in Yemen and Somalia but also expanded into Indonesia and Mali.  Candidates and parties adopting harder lines on immigration found electoral success across the Western nations. While the Trump Administration's change in rules of combat and increased cooperation with Russia clearly helped thump the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Taliban has maintained a steady pace of operations in Afghanistan with Al-Qaeda retaining influence on the ground both in Afghanistan as a part of the Taliban and also in  Idlib Provence in Syria, the Eastern part of Yemen, across Somalia, in parts of Tuareg Mali and the lawless deserts of Southern Libya. While Al-Qaeda has shifted its focus towards near enemies and has not attempted any major attacks on Western Civilian populations, likely a success of US deterrence and infiltration, the future is unknown, particularly as the Islamic State loses its safe havens and its now battle tested and experienced jihadists blend into civilian populations (many of whom have Western nation passports).  Aside from within Afghanistan, there will likely be a lull in attack as networks go into hiding and move from controlling territory to operating underground, but over time these surviving members will start trying to reconnect and plan new attacks. I would anticipate that many switch back their allegiances from the Islamic State to Al-Qaeda which has made the establishment of the Emir of Afghanistan a central part of its long-term strategy to gradually bring about a Global Caliphate and impose their strict interpretation of Sharian Law on all of humanity.

     Afghanistan today, is a fragile young democracy with endemic issues of corruption fighting to survive in the face of a fierce Taliban insurgency that has about 75,000 active fighters going up again against an Afghan National Army of around 200,000 active military members but both casualty and desertion rates high while loyalties mixed and complicated.  Most of the Tajik and various non-Pashtun Afghani's are committed to preventing the Taliban from regaining control of their country and villages.  It is difficult to evaluate, but I would say at least half of the Pashtun population is willing to engage at least some effort to thwart the Taliban's return.  All of them; however, are frustrated by the mix of corruption and ineptitude at the Afghani national level and dismayed by vulnerabilities in their physical security presented by both the Taliban and the Narco-traffickers competing over the poppy trade and its lucrative profits.  The Taliban is not nearly as forgiving as the US military and its NATO allies and when and where it can it targets Afghanis that have cooperated with US-lead force.  In my opinion, light, tight and lethal worked.  There was enough hatred for the Taliban that limited support for the tough and hardy warlords and their tribal fellows was adequate to facilitate the military defeat of the Taliban.  The US efforts to please the UN, NATO partners, EU Capitals and the bureaucratic interests of the Department of Defense pushed us into a massive military build up and state building operation that I believe is doomed to fail simply because the economy of Afghanistan cannot sustain it without massive foreign investment.  Afghanistan has never truly been a nation in the sense Europeans understand nations.  Yes, it had a Capital and an internationally recognized territory, but it has always been a land of ten thousand villages.  In many of the remote parts of Afghanistan the very concept of nation was entirely foreign, as their identity was defined by faith, clan and tribal dynamics with the focus of government on village level structures which usually involved a form village level, elder deference, patriarchal democracy.  While the US should help the Afghani National Army defend Kabul and many of the other large Provencal Capitals it has too move away from Nation building.  The less control in Kabul, the better.  The US should cut the weight of multi-national organizations and their unrealistic, impossible expectations and focus getting investment directly to the villages and providing the village elders the means to eradicate the Taliban in their villages.  In the pre-Soviet era, when Afghanistan was a promising nation with a fast growing economy, the government in Kabul pursued a policy where they sent money to the Tribal elders with very limited strings attached, allowing them to choose what projects to prioritize and administer according to each unique village's customs  (and often ethnic group as the silk road had brought a diverse array of unique cultures into the region) and traditions.  If you study Afghan history, you will learn that repelling foreign occupation is perhaps the one unifying narrative that dominates the Afghani psyche.  While this is bad news for efforts to maintain a large occupying Army as Obama's Afghani surge entailed, it can also be utilized to turn the Afghani people against the foreign elements dominating Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and the Pakistani branch of the Taliban.  The Afghani people will fight these groups if we give them the right type of prompting and the right type of support.  What is the right type of support?  Light, tight and lethal like the original Afghani invasion that sent the Taliban running for the hills.  The bright spot in 17 years of war fighting is the massive number of seasoned veterans who already have inside knowledge of Afghan villages and individual people, with an idea of who they can and cannot trust.  They deserve to get paid.  The current strategy is really working and despite the DoDs best efforts to maintain a straight face as they tell us otherwise, a change of strategy is long past due.  Its time to hand over a larger part of this fight Eric Prince and his mercenary ranks which will allow the reconcilable portions of the Taliban's support to save face since technically their demand the US Military leave will have been met, while bringing hell to the hard line terrorists planning attacks on civilian populations.  Officially, they won't exist, but the pain they inflict on terrorists will be very real.  The US will need to continue providing better logistical support to not only Afghani National Army, but also to the police forces fighting the Taliban.  Too many times Afghani men on the front line have fought fearlessly against the Taliban until their ammo ran out.  These men should have been resupplied and provided air support on-call.  The US needs to retain special operating forces and air assets to help provide logistical support and air cover as needed.   In my view, this is our best means of lowering the cost of US involvement in Afghanistan while increasing our effectiveness in mitigating terrorism and preventing the return of the Taliban and resurgence of Al-Qaeda that would follow.  These actions will help signal to the Afghani people that we are not infidel occupiers, rather the helpers.

     When you look closely, the situation in Iraq is a very different situation than that in Afghanistan.  Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq actually was nation, even if only held together by secular dictator, as powerful ethnic forces at odds with each-other and many international players on the perimeter worked towards opposing geostrategic interests and control of Baghdad.  The Iraq war has certainly had its peaks and pits.  The initial invasion was by all accounts a spectacular operational success.   It may have been the most awesome show of overwhelming military capability in the history of warfare.  What was once the world's fourth largest military was wiped out and overrun with only limited allied losses in a matter of three short weeks.  What happened after, was a series of blunders and grave mistakes that would provide for bloody and expensive protracted insurgency.  After victory, the US never should have disbanded the Iraqi military, this sent Iraqi army home with their guns and no promise of a next paycheck.  Doing this, basically forced some form of insurgency to take place.  The US should have cleaned the military of threats but largely kept its structure and chain of command below the general level in tact.  Instead, the US decided to force anyone who was a Ba'athist party member out of their jobs in government.  The problem is that Iraq only had one political party for decades, so everyone in government, whether it was a teacher, a police officer or a utility company employee was likely to be a Ba'athist.  Now, despite not having any role in the crimes against humanity perpetrated by Saddam Hussein, they were sent home while the US Soldiers were suddenly asked to train novices how to do technocratic jobs that the Soldiers themselves had no experience doing.   With Ba'athist party members, there was nobody to police the streets, manage the jails, run the courts, operate the power plants, educate the children, run waste management programs, facilitate hospital administration or even make sure there was drinkable water and the working sewers. If these poor decisions were not already straining the Iraqi people's patience with our presence, we allowed American Liberators to take pictures of Iraqi prisoners during enhanced interrogations and then leaked them to the public making the US out to be Hippocrates and providing recruitment material for enemy propaganda that clearly helped fuel a growing insurgency lead by Al-Qaeda in Iraq among the Sunni population and al-Sadyr's militias among the Shi'ite population. By creating a parliamentary structure similar to European states (as opposed to creating three states with regional representative democracy like in US) and then holding democratic votes at a time terrorism was suppressing the Sunni vote, the US allowed for Iranian aligned Shi'ite parties to sweep to power, further fueling the insurgency in Sunni dominated Anbar Provence that after US Departure (largely quelled during the US lead surge) would erupt as the Islamic State benefited from an alliance of Al-Qaeda in Iraq religious hardliners and former Ba'athist technocrats (many of whom became acquainted when detained during counter-insurgency operations).  Fortunately, the Islamic State has been overwhelmingly defeated in Iraq as the Iraqi National Army with the help of a large multi-national air support and special operating forces along with support from Iran and Al-Quds lead Shiite militias took back Anbar Provence, city by city, village by village.  Interestingly, Al-Sadyr's political movement, traditionally a Shi'ite movemement aligned with Iran, has moved away from Iran and taken in far left elements to push for a sovereign multi-ethnic Iraq free from sectarian divides (at least in rhetoric) and increasingly even Shi'ite cities such Basra have taken to massive protests again Iran and its proxies in the region, including burning down the Iranian embassy.  While the history of Iraq has been very dark, the future of Iraq is actually much brighter than many other nations in the region.  The US needs to make friends out of old enemies and allow Iraq to enjoy greater sovereignty and freedom. While USA will still have significant role in supporting the Iraqi Military and its counter-terrorism efforts, increasingly US support should come in the form of helping train better teachers and technocrats.  As the security situation improves significant investment opportunities are emerging in Iraq.  Coordinating a framework that matches projects to capitol can go along way to allowing the Iraqi Nation to make a huge leaps in terms of development and integration with global community of nations.  The Kurdish controlled regions particularly, have the potential to model higher standards of living for the rest of the region if they could just get over their radical fanaticism and repressive norms of governance.  Maybe it took the challenge of overcoming the Islamic State to pull Iraq together and show to the world that there was at truth to the connections between the Ba'athist Party and Al-Qaeda. As horrific as the past 15 years since the Iraqi invasion occurred and the insurgency began, I am somewhat optimistic about Iraq's future.  10 years from now the initial invasion of Iraq may not seem like the strategic mistake it appeared to be 10 years ago.

    Looking back, the idea that because the Surge worked in Iraq that it would work in Afghanistan seems so naive, but mistakes are only tragedies if you fail to learn from them.  If there is a positive from the events of 9/11, it was how it united our nation and reminded America of its many allies and friends, who united behind us.  In our retaliation we made many mistakes, but as Middle East and North African Studies have ballooned our understanding of the region and the institutional knowledge of matters relating to the region has grown exponentially.   Today, we can avoid seeing the Middle East a monolith where syndicated one-size fits all approaches to the war on terror are prescribed; instead we have to customize and tailor different strategies for each nation and region (something I intend to do on future blog posts).   At the center of our strategy; however, we must understand that it is ideology driving this conflict and that the only way America can prevail in the war on terror is for our ideas of collective freedom and individual liberty to prevail over the ideology of terror.  Since the collapse of the cold war we have under-invested in the war of ideas, as funding for scholars and outlets like The Voice of America- that promote and advance the ideas of free-enterprise, democracy and the rule of law-, have largely been scaled back and muffled out by the noise of boisterous radical clerics, socialist demagogues and the cliche anti-American attacks that downplay America's sacrifices and contributions to the betterment of humanity, instead scapegoating the United States with anti-Semetic conspiratorial allegations that deflect blame for problems that are the result of internal issues neither the US nor Israeli Governments has anything to do with.  When America projects its values loudly, clearly and confidently, our true allies will rise and stand with us to defend the Free World.  With pressure mounting from state actors, most noticeably China and Russia, but also North Korea and Iran, it would be easy for the War on Terror to be pushed to the back burner as more immediate existential threats emerge.  Turning up the volume on the war of ideas is relatively low-cost, low risk way magnify US influence and advance US interests to our adversaries' detriment.  From the past 17 years, its become clear that a forward approach to counter-terrorism is expensive and unsustainable considering the role it plays in terrorist recruitment and free-riding affect it permits host nations.  This is not to say the US should depart from the Middle East, its to make it clear that it should serve a supporting role, bridging gaps in technological capability that allow the host government to be successful.  The US needs to be careful; however, that US support is used for the right reasons by host Governments and not for inappropriate repression and the mere elimination of political rivals under the guise of counter-terrorism. Allowing for such, feeds terrorist recruitment that depict host governments as apostate puppets of the infidels, Americans and Jews.  The US should not abandon efforts to prod the Middle East towards more free economies and social systems but needs to recognize that successful Democracy has pre-requisites.  Security has to come first, economic development second.  Democracies can quickly become tyrannies without adequate  education levels and institutionalized legal norms conducive to the implementation of Republican Democracy.  Having institutionalized Republican norms or institutional safe-guards such as monarchy, often help young democracies in their nascent stages to stay on track.  There is nothing morally wrong with supporting Emirs and Military Leaders pursuing the prior if doing so improves standards of living for the people and advances the security and economic interests of America.  The US needs to be more restrained in its use of force and weary of getting its self drawn into high risk, low payoff engagements, focusing instead on low risk, high payoff engagements that will generate a sense of momentum as we tally small wins.
     
              The Post World War II norms of charity by trade have continued long past their strategic pertinence.  The US can no longer afford Charity by trade, it has to pursue fair trade and work towards addressing the causes of trade imbalances to sustain its position in the world. The military capability and diplomatic influence of the United States of America is something that can only be sustained with a strong US economy.  Unfair trade practices and sustained massive deficit spending can becomes threats to national security.  The Cold War norms of mutual attack retaliation alliances have also run past their strategic relevance and risk pulling the US into major great power confrontations and wars as occurred in World War I.  Instead of making America safer, the current state of alliances has allowed many of our wealthy allies to free-ride as they have not fairly shared the burden of mutual defense and security.  The United States cannot count on maintaining the current number of foreign military bases it currently has overseas in foreign nations.  To project its power in the future, our nation will need a substantially larger Navy that can either project power, serve rescue operations or launch punishing attacks when necessary.  Getting our Navy back up to 350 naval military vessels will help limit the need for foreign military bases, reducing our needs to make costly compromises with the host governments.  Finally, the most cost effective and intelligent means of lowering costs while improving effectiveness in the war on terror, is by strengthening Homeland Security.  Gaining resolute control of entry into our country by developing the capacity to effectively make sure that no unauthorized entrants can access our homeland without undergoing effective background checks and vetting is the surest means of preventing future terrorist attacks.  We can not only employ veterans to use their ample counter-terrorism experience, but pair them with new technologies, tactical walls and surveillance of the sea, land and air to be certain that what happened on 9/11, never happens again.   Its time to see Homeland Security investments as a means of reducing the need for costly foreign operations that put our service members of the armed forces in harms way, thousands of miles away from the families and communities they are trying to defend.  If there is one thing that I would like my readers from all parties to understand, it is that have resolute control over entry into our country, is the only safe way the US can begin extracting its military from the Middle East and North Africa.