Sunday, September 27, 2015
Audacious, audacious, … always audacious
Is Reincarnation at hand?
Audacious, audacious, … always audacious
By Stephen L. Wilmeth
Although Dr. Ben Carson partially extracted himself from my doghouse with his comments on the matter of never electing a president that marches to extra-constitutional doctrine, he was placed there in part on his comments during his border visit. His observation of how bad it is was particularly patronizing.
“Hey, ya’ll ought to come out here and see how bad this (border situation) really is,” was his paraphrased remark.
Of course he was issuing the call to the ensconced elites of significance, the movers and the shakers of his world of urban ascendancy. Those of us who happen to believe we are American citizens of equal constitutional standing had to stand around and shake our heads.
We have known since at least 1954 what a joke the southern border actually is. In fact, our Texas brethren would suggest the Mexican border has never been secure with its constitutional mandate for protection. It has been marked by a federal void and, as a result, the border has always been and remains a lawless frontier.
As residents of the borderland, Carson wasn’t talking to us or for us. He was communicating over and through our existence to the asphaltites that dominate our regulatory world.
“Hey, this is really bad out here!” he insisted.
When he mentioned that some of the international boundary was actually four strands of barbwire and opined why that was even there, we sure wanted to mention it is to keep our cattle from being lost into that endless void of lawlessness. That would complicate things, however, and asphaltites already have a hard time discerning those things that are real versus … make believe.
“L’audace, l’audace, l’audace … tout jour (sic) l’audace”
George Patton attempted to translate his version of the quotation from Frederick the Great into his notebook while he was at Fort Myer. Mistakes not withstanding, it became the byline for his military career.
It was probably magnified within his being long before that and may have been one of his coequal paths of conquest during his honeymoon in London in 1910. It was there he chased down a copy of Carl von Clausewitz’ Principles of War. There is evidence he spent so much time reading it his bride, Beatrice, was incensed. She let him know it by demanding more of his uninterrupted attention (his colorful response to her is worth a read).
A major hallmark of the Clausewitz principle of warfare was the measure of the means along with the will to fight. It has been described mathematically as a ratio, but, to the astute, it can also be a model of linear regression whereby the stepwise increase in one can impact the other as long as both are present. The means always included troops, weapons, and supplies. The will to fight resided in politicians, leadership, and troop morale. An enemy with vast means superiority could be defeated by an opponent with a stronger will to fight. Wars of the 20th Century can be mapped by the ratios of the variables, but the Civil War was truly the testing ground for the theorem. The North was vastly superior in terms of means, but the will to fight was a menacing anchor. Patton would argue it was the politics and the anemic leadership that nearly cost the great provoker, Lincoln, his war.
Patton, knowingly or unknowingly, modified the Clausewitz teachings and routinely shaped his own battlefields by relentlessly seeking points of weakness and or vulnerabilities as opposed to concentrations of enemy strength. As such, classical Frederick the Great reappeared within Patton’s perpetual intent to keep his enemies, foreign and domestic, in suspense of what he actually had planned.
Audacious, audacious … audacious!
Donald Trump’s stir fried debate on the border remains the hottest potato in the GOP egg toss. If it wasn’t so serious, it is actually humorous to watch the candidates strategize new and novel one liners on the issue. What this exercise of full disclosure has wrought, however, is the press has worked the message back to the premise that sending all trespass violators home to their countrymen is impossible.
Everybody now agrees with that except Trump, and, of course, the likes of Presidents Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower. Hoover made the decision to send illegals packing to create some wiggle room for job availability for American citizens in the Depression era. He collared some two million Mexicans and crossed them into the open arms of their endemically corrupt government. Truman did the same thing in the avalanche of returning veterans who had saved the free world in World War II. The little piano/ poker player from Missouri correctly deemed Americans needed those jobs more than any illegal Latin proxy.
Ike, though, was the he dog on the deportation express. In his Operation Wetback, he signed his name to a legitimate presidential demand and gave the order to send home anybody found to be in the United States without proper authorization. He didn’t mince words. He didn’t suggest it couldn’t be done. He didn’t even wring his hands over the socio-economic impact to the violating trespassers. He recognized that the rights of Americans held sway over all domestic job opportunities, and those of illegal foreigners not only didn’t have any priority… they had no rights.
It is estimated Eisenhower exported a whopping 12M Mexicans home to be with their loved ones or to pack their gunny sacks with essentials and again try to penetrate la Frontera. That represented about 7.5% of the total human occupation of the nation at that time (that happens to compare to as much as 6.3% of the same occupation of illegal trespassers in the nation today).
Can’t make it happen, eh?
What remains extant is that same porous border. Carson called it correctly as does every other visitor who isn’t ruled by a contrived agenda. That, by the way, includes every border state elected representative. Their advocacy for border protection is a stale canard. It should put every one of them in jeopardy of reelection and or recall. Their political presence has done nothing to protect this most vital of all American interests.
Recently, I found several remastered film clips of General Patton speaking. My interest was drawn to listen to his high pitched voice that belied his warrior persona as represented in the role played by George C. Scott. What I saw floored me.
It wasn’t just his voice as much as it was his mannerisms when he spoke. He used aids sparingly and seemingly only for reminders or points of emphasis. It was largely extemporaneous. He spoke in generalities and was demonstrative when he referenced individuals. The latter was no doubt the result of lessons learned from past hardships he had endured by being more direct and blunt. By no means was he remotely a polished speaker. When he stumbled, and, that was often, he attempted and was generally successful in altering the miscue by interjecting humor or subtle patronizing engagement.
His mannerisms and speech patterns were remarkably Trump like.
We now have a good idea why Patton spoke as he did, and the patterns may actually highlight a similar condition within Donald Trump, but the point remains. Patton energized and elevated the Clausewitz effect every time he was given an opportunity. He shortened the war. He derived success from an array of personal qualities but the ability to be unpredictable was his most effective leadership quality.
Trump is no different. In fact, he mentions he is not going to disclose all intentions. He can’t nor should he. His most important issue is the border I view daily from a distance of 30 miles. When Trump claims he can make the Mexicans build a wall, he probably can.
Little is said of Mexican remittances home from illegal brethren in the US. Those remittances now exceed revenues from Mexican oil sales. When Trump needs to trigger a coming to Jesus moment among the generational corrupt Mexican government, all he has to do is to order his agencies to start enforcing the law which includes rounding up cross border intruders and sending them home.
Mexico’s contracting economy is the issue. The reliance on oil revenues and dollar remittances from north of the border have made lawmakers complacent. Failure to raise taxes and reduce dependence on oil revenues that represent 40% of that government’s revenues puts them in jeopardy. The specter of slashing money flowing from the United States along with the social catastrophe of repatriating 20M people would send shockwaves through Mexico.
After a wide eyed moment of silence … the response might well be, “How high, how deep, and how long should we build thees’ wall, Seńor Trump?”
Stephen L. Wilmeth is a rancher from southern New Mexico. “Trump would be crucified for suggesting to follow and enforce the border laws right now … the press would erupt with a holy war.”