Politics, not Reality, Drives U.S. Foreign Policy vis a v. the Islamic Republic

The Collapse of 38 Studios and the Likely Fallout for Rhode Island Raise Serious Constitutional Questions

WISHFUL THINKING

In terms of the value of public funds squandered, and the political fall-out from a succession of poor decisions, the 38 Studios bond issuance debacle which was proposed, approved, and funded by both the State of Rhode Island and the quasi-public Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation (hereafter, RIEDC), is a miraculous case study in public mismanagement. Within two years -- a relatively short amount of time in the equity market -- former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Shilling's gaming software enterprise failed in spectacular fashion. Unable to convince a single venture capital firm from the Boston area to invest in his company, out of roughly 200 firms, Shilling looked to the red-headed step-child of New England, Rhode Island, for support. In quick succession, a series of decisions were made at the highest levels of the Rhode Island executive and legislative branches, and allowed by omission by the judicial branch, that culminated in an unprecedented bond issuance to fund a loan package equal in value to $75 million to a singular project: 38 Studios' proposal to develop and release two video games, predicted by Shilling to generate a stream of profits equal to the success Bill Gates achieved with Microsoft. 

Two years after that process began in 2010, 38 Studios filed for bankruptcy. Governor Lincoln Chafee is arguing today that the State of Rhode Island, while not legally obligated to do so, should nonetheless guarantee the outstanding debt owed to private bondholders by the RIEDC. This in spite of the fact that the RIEDC is an entity, "legally distinct" from the state of Rhode Island the latter of which granted the RIEDC its authority.

CREDIT RISK

Current debate is centered around the competing camps of pragmatism and idealism, two motivating ideologies that offer mutually exclusive scenarios both likely to punish Rhode Island taxpayers. Chafee, an emphatic critic of 38's plan from the beginning, is convinced that Rhode Island's borrowing costs would soar if RIEDC's outstanding debt owed is not paid to investors. And he's right to be worried, but his argument in favor of guaranteeing RIEDC's debt has failed to address a glaring constitutional dilemma: Rhode Island's constitution, specifically Article VI, Section 16, clearly prohibits the state from, "[pledging] the faith of the state for the payment of the obligations of others," in this case RIEDC. Moreover, the very creation of the RIEDC, and the legal authority given to that entity to fund capital programs through the issuance of bonds to private investors is unconstitutional.

The threat of a credit downgrade and the ensuing difficulty the state will experience when trying to access credit markets should have both been judged as unacceptable risks. The state is required to receive public support via a popular referendum if bonds are to be issued to raise capital. Why wouldn't the RIEDC need to garner public support for its bond issuance? If the investment package for 38 Studios' proposal could not be guaranteed to succeed -- which was impossible -- then the State of Rhode Island was saddled with a de facto liability all along. Because the state and RIEDC were considered separate legal entities, as per authorizing legislation, then the RIEDC would have to prove that the state was never in danger of a credit downgrade if 38 Studios filed for bankruptcy. Anything short of that proof would mean that the state would have to either pay for the debt obligations of the RIEDC in order to maintain credit worthiness, or, refusing to pay those obligations, would be subject to higher interest rates in the capital markets. Both of these scenarios violate the Rhode Island constitution.

A SHADOWY ORGANIZATION      

The existence of the RIEDC and its structure, while not necessarily unconstitutional, is undemocratic. The RIEDC's executive body, the Board of Directors, is composed of only 13 members. The ex officio chairman of the board is, surprisingly, also the current Rhode Island Governor, and he requests 11 more appointments for the board's membership to be evaluated and approved by the R.I. General Assembly. The entire process of staffing the RIEDC is overseen by public officials. This structure is troublesome because of the influence current public officials have over the corporation's powers. Even though the chairman can not vote, I would argue that to allow the state's chief executive to also serve as the chairman of a legal entity created by the state is unethical.

The U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits Congressional members from serving in other offices of the U.S. upon entry into the legislature. "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time [sic] for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States... and no Person holding Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office" (Article I, Section 6.) This is not to suggest that state constitutions should mirror the U.S. Constitution. Rather, the Framers recognized the inherent danger of allowing public officials to occupy multiple offices. One officer enjoying the authority of multiple offices is contradicts the importance of a separation of powers between and among the separate branches of government, and the efficacy of a system of checks and balances.

"LET THEM EAT CAKE!"

The very creation of the RIEDC as a separate legal entity from the state was not only unnecessary, but, it could be argued, was an effort to bypass the referendum process required whenever the state sought to issue bonds or notes in excess of $50,000. The Department of Economic Development was already in existence when the RIEDC was created. Why create a second entity to fulfill the same purposes as an established state department? The answer can be found in R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-64-7.5., "Transfer of functions from the Department of Economic Development." Subsection (a) reads, "All functions formerly administered by the department of economic development are hereby transferred to the Rhode Island economic development corporation." 

In addition to the functions transferred from the state department to RIEDC, the new entity was granted an exemption from seeking public approval for raising debt through referendums. The bonds and notes the RIEDC issues do not require approval from the public, whereas those of the Department of Economic Development had to satisfy that requirement. So, strictly stating the facts: in one move, the state eliminated the need to consult the public when seeking to risk their tax dollars, and vested that authority to issue debt instruments with a new entity answerable only to the 12 voting members of the Board of Directors.

Moreover, only five members of the Board of Directors are needed for a quorum. And only a simple majority of the Directors present at the consideration of business is sufficient to approve loans and the issuance of bonds to fund those loans. In other words, while the State of Rhode Island can not issue debt without the consent of the public via popular referendum, the RIEDC is so constructed that three people can issue debt to private investors with no need to consult the public. This would be of little concern to us if the State of Rhode Island had no fiduciary responsibilities to the RIEDC. But as is abundantly clear from recent developments, the health of Rhode Island finances is inextricably linked to the RIEDC.

A PIPELINE FOR REALLOCATIONS 

The RIEDC could not operate without direct support from the Rhode Island General Assembly. Specifically, the Rhode Island General Assembly provides annual appropriations to the RIEDC. These appropriations are used by the RIEDC to fund, inter alia, debt obligations. How is that constitutional? The money Rhode Island gives to the RIEDC is spent on RIEDC's obligations. Article VI, Section 16 of the Rhode Island Constitution prohibits this type of support: "The General Assembly shall have no powers, without the express consent of the people, to incur state debts to an amount exceeding fifty thousand dollars, except in time of war [sic]... nor shall it in any case, without such consent, pledge the faith of the state for the payment of the obligations of others."

However, R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-64-8.1., "Appropriation and expenses," simply disregards this constitutional prohibition. It says, "The general assembly shall annually appropriate any sums that it may deem necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter; and the state controller is authorized and directed to draw his or her orders upon the general treasurer for the payment of that sum, or so much as may be required from time to time, upon receipt by the controller of proper vouchers authenticated." The constitution and this law contradict one another, but things get more weird.

Article VI, Section 17 of the constitution allows the state to borrow money when it anticipates fund receipts to be forthcoming from multiple sources. This would seem to invalidate my argument because this section seems to allow the state to borrow money, and transfer it to separate entities -- in this case the RIEDC -- so long as future receipts are expected. I'm simplifying the text, but that's the gist of the clause. There's a major flaw in that clause, however: receipts will always be expected from debtors up until the moment when they file for bankruptcy. 38 Studios was scheduled to repay the RIEDC directly, and the State of Rhode Island indirectly, up until May of 2012 when the company filed for bankruptcy. Both the RIEDC and the state had credited their accounts with the expected receipts from 38 Studios as if these were guaranteed. When 38 Studios defaulted, those receipts vanished and the RIEDC and state were in an awkward position where debt obligations owed by the RIEDC to private investors was no longer supported by future expected funds. In one fell swoop, Section 17 was invalidated, and Section 16 then dominated all constitutional considerations, if it wasn't supreme before.

A FAIT ACCOMPLI 

The support provided to the RIEDC by the State of Rhode Island, while not legally obligatory, can be considered a de facto obligation for the state. This fact is exposed in detail within R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-62, The Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation Act:

"[Let it be] Resolved, that in order [to] assure any payments due on guarantees or bond obligations issued by the corporation in connection with the program pursuant to this authorization are made, to assure the continued operation and solvency of the corporation for the carrying out of its corporate purposes, and except as otherwise set forth in these authorizing resolutions in accordance with the provisions of chapter 64, title 42 of the [R.I.] general laws: (i) The cooperation shall create a reserve fund from which shall be charged any and all expenses of the corporation with respect to guarantee or bond obligations of the corporation pursuant to these resolutions resulting from a program borrower's default; and (ii) The corporation shall credit to the reserve funds no less than fifty percent (50%) of all program receipts of the corporation including guaranty fees, premiums and any other receipts or recoveries from collections received pursuant to the corporation's rights to recover payments as a guarantor; and (iii) To the extent the corporation's obligations as a guarantor or pursuant to its program bond obligations are not satisfied by amounts in its guaranty reserve fund, the executive director of the corporation shall annually, on or before December 1st, make a delivery to the [R.I.] governor a certificate stating the minimum amount, if any, required for the corporation to make payments due on such guarantees. During each January session of the general assembly, the governor shall submit to the general assembly, as part of the governor's budget, the total such sums, if any, required to pay any and all obligations of the corporation under such guarantees or bond obligations pursuant to the terms of this authorization. All sums appropriated by the general assembly for that purpose, and paid to the corporation, if any, shall be utilized by the corporation to make payments due on such guarantees or bond obligations."

So if the RIEDC is not able to maintain a balance in its reserve fund equal to 

or greater than 50% of its total outstanding obligations, then there are only a 

few funding options available to the corporation to boost its capital 

requirements. Annual financial audits of the RIEDC's balance sheets reveal its 

consistent reliance upon appropriations from the R.I. General Assembly to meet 

its reserve fund requirements. The law is explicit: "All sums appropriated by the 

general assembly for that purpose [to pay any and all obligations of the 

corporation required by bond issuance agreements between RIEDC and bond program 

borrowers], and paid to the corporation, if any, shall be utilized by the 

corporation to make payments due on such guarantees or bond obligations." That is 

a mind-blowing stipulation. Consider, again, this specific clause of Article VI, 

Section 16 from the Rhode Island Constitution: "The General Assembly shall have 

no powers, without the express consent of the people... [to] pledge the faith of 

the state for the payment of the obligations of others." Constitutions always 

supersede legislation and if the latter violates the former, then it is the job 

of the judicial branch to invalidate that legislation.

THE STATE CONSTITUTION

Even if one were to argue that the State of Rhode Island is only required to honor its "moral authority" to guarantee the debt of a quasi-public entity like the RIEDC, Section 16 still prohibits "The General Assembly [from incurring] state debts... exceeding fifty thousand dollars," without the express consent of the people through a popular referendum. No, appropriations are not legally defined as debts; they are voluntary transfers of public funds. But that is a moot point, and here's the crucial insight that explains why that is the case: The purpose of these appropriations, as mentioned above, is to directly assist the RIEDC's efforts to maintain a reserve fund balance equal to, or in excess of, 50% of its outstanding bond receivables, or amount owed to the RIEDC. In other words, R.I. General Assembly appropriations given to the RIEDC are used for obligations that should have been subject to a public referendum before any appropriations were considered.

That requirement was bypassed recently during the Studios 38 fiasco, but many times before that incident as well. In fact, RIEDC's combined statement of net assets as of June 30, 2012 lists the total "Bonds payable" and "Loans payable" sub-categories as equal to $360,982,523. Again, the State is likely to exercise its "moral authority" to guarantee the bond payments are made to bondholders from the Studios 38 deal in order to protect Rhode Island's access to affordable credit. This guarantee is called a "Conduit Debt Transaction," and these transactions are the lifeblood of the RIEDC. To wit, "The total aggregate principal amount outstanding under all conduit debt obligations at June 30, 2012 was approximately $1,063,000,000" ("Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation: Financial Statements and Supplementary Information Year Ended June 30, 2012," (22 October 2012,) 37, Braver PC Accountants & Advisors.) Yes, that number is correct: billions. 

When officials, like Governor Chafee, claim that the State of Rhode Island is not technically liable for RIEDC's obligations, they are only correct in an abstract, legalistic sense. The consequences Rhode Island will experience if it doesn't guarantee RIEDC's debts would be devastating. The very threat of this occurring is the catalyst for the emergence of our constitutional dilemma. Access to capital in the private equity market would immediately vanish, or rather, would only be offered to the State at exorbitantly high interest rates. But why is that the case? After all, the authorizing law which created the RIEDC made it explicitly clear that the RIEDC was henceforth considered a "legal entity separate from the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations." That clause is a hollow one, however.

There is a slim chance that taxpayers will avoid either directly or indirectly paying for the RIEDC's obligations. If the legislature approves Chafee's idea to guarantee the corporation's liabilities, then the taxpayers will be asked to directly pay. If the state refuses to honor the bondholder's rights, and the equity and financial investment markets restrict the state's access to, or increase the cost of, financing, then a few negative effects could happen: higher interest rates would demand that a larger portion of the state's budget be set aside to pay those costs, thereby forcing the state to either cut services or raise taxes. The only other way to offset higher borrowing costs without cutting services or demanding higher taxes is to magically generate new economic growth with some concoction of "voodoo economics." The first two possibilities are unsavory and highly probable; the latter, an unlikelihood approaching wishful thinking.

HISTORICAL LESSONS & CHAFEE'S CHOICE OF THE LESSER EVIL

The propensity of capital markets to punish bond issuers has repeatedly occurred in recent history. A global example will illustrate this point. 

As was painfully shown during the 1980's throughout the Latin American community of emerging markets -- notably Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico -- equity and debt markets are just as likely, if not more likely, to be guided by psychological factors than they are by logical ones. In essence, as these states individually enjoyed access to affordable capital, provided by private investment firms, they progressively exposed themselves to more risk that slowly built up within their group. Seeking to feed their industrialization policies, these states quickly expanded the amount of debt on their balance sheets. Loans were denominated primarily in dollars but then lent to domestic borrowers in the national currencies. For a while this wasn't a problem because Latin America enjoyed a favorable exchange-rate balance between the national currencies of its member states and the U.S. dollar. However, that quickly changed following a cascading sequence of events that made it nearly impossible for these states to maintain fiscal credibility in the debt markets.

When the U.S. supported Israel in its struggle against the Arab world during the Yom Kippur War, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) responded in turn by simultaneously restricting the supply of oil to the global market and raising prices. This triggered immediate inflation in the developed world, most notably in the United States. Paul Volker, the chairman of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors, acted to combat this inflation in the early 1980's by raising the federal funds rate to 20.1%, while the Treasury Department sold bonds and notes to soak up cash in the economy. These efforts induced a recession, but popped the inflationary bubble. 

Unfortunately, these medicines crippled Latin America's ability to finance its debt. Faced with a dramatically unfavorable exchange-rate, these states struggled to collect enough of their national currencies to exchange for dollars which were now more expensive. They exhausted their capital reserves and soon exposed their financial weaknesses to the world. Mexico defaulted first, but in so doing doomed the other emerging economies as well because, as the markets reasoned, individual circumstances of each state were overshadowed by the group's collective risk. And so access to capital vanished, defaults ensued, and economic and social pain gripped these societies. 

Similarly, the market won't distinguish between the State of Rhode Island and the RIEDC. The creditworthiness of each is seen as an inseparable whole. Moreover, at the institutional level the RIEDC is composed of R.I. public officials from the highest levels of government. The Governor sits on the corporation's Board of Governors and recommends eleven candidates for approval by the Rhode Island General Assembly to sit on the Board as well. What has happened since the RIEDC's creation is the selection of prominent business leaders within Rhode Island who almost invariably support the same policies that the State of Rhode Island currently supports. This duplicitous support is by nature both political and financial, wherein lies the danger.

Public officials do not have the luxury to hedge their bets as financial investors do, for to do so would be interpreted by the public as a public violation of ethical standards. The result is the expectation of financial institutions that poor mismanagement of either the state's finances, or those of the RIEDC, guarantees that the other is more than likely being mismanaged as well. Taken to an extreme conclusion, some analysts within the credit market would see the close relations between the state and RIEDC as indicative of corruption and, therefore, a highly risky credit option. 

The State of Rhode Island tried to create a quasi-public authority, providing it with the benefits available to these entities, while naively suggesting that the new corporation, and the State, were insulated from one another's risk. The legislators didn't realize that markets are rarely controlled by legal nuances. Credit rating analysts see the cross-over between the members of these two political bodies, and the murky, commingled flow of operating funds, and rightly conclude that, in spite of legislation, no de facto legal separation exists between the state and the corporation.

That is why Governor Chaffee is making the case that, while he doesn't agree with the state's options implied by reality, he must nonetheless ask the Rhode Island taxpayers to guarantee the obligations of the RIEDC. The public enjoyed neither the opportunity to evaluate the 38 Studios bond issuance nor the constitutional right to vote using that evaluation to inform their decision. But nonetheless, market realities will leave this 'dead-cat' on the door-steps of each and every taxpayer, whether they like it or not.         

U.S. Increases Aid to Syrian Rebels

U.S. doubles 'non-lethal'(Al Jazeera) aid to Syrian rebels in the form of 'battle-field support equipment.' Disregarding the semantic nonsense, this policy suffers from indecisiveness. Secretary of State John Kerry said, "Our first choice as a resolution to this crisis is a political one." Silly Kerry! Did you not read von Calusewitz? "War is merely the continuation of politics by other means." Either we want Bashar gone, or we don't.

The Historical Phenomenon of Decisive Battles Part I: Themistocles and the Battle of Salamis

Students of history will agree that the study of ancient warfare is arguably the most intriguing era for consideration. Whether one looks at the citizen armies of the Greek city-states like Athens and Sparta; the conscripted masses of the Persian empire; or a blend of the two, characteristic of both Republican and Imperial Rome, one can not help but marvel at the sheer magnitude and force of these armies and the resources they demanded. The historians of old -- Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, Polybius, and Tactitus, to name a few -- wrote entire chapters on the efforts required to raise, equip, train, and supply these juggernauts. A full Roman legion from the Imperial era numbered roughly 5,500 men at arms, for instance, with a mix of infantry and cavalry, the former making up the lion's share of combatants. A full Consular Roman army was massive: numbering roughly 20,000 men.

These bodies of troop were incredibly expensive, cumbersome, and required a massive supply of food and equipment for the entirety of their campaigns which often lasted years. Hannibal's invasion of the Italian peninsula in 218 B.C. lasted fifteen years. To command an army of either ancient Greece, Rome, or Persia was the highest honor for an individual. To succeed in battle was to guarantee one's place in the annals of heroes and legends to be cherished for generations. To lose, on the other hand, could mean death in the worst case scenario, or a lifetime of shame for the losing general and his progeny at best. Confronted with these two extremes, it is no wonder that planned, pitched battles between two fully deployed armies were rare. It is against this tendency that we must consider the choices of generals to gamble everything upon major, decisive battles aimed at the complete annihilation of their enemy's forces.

Bust of Themistocles

We begin with the decisive battle at Salamis between the Greek city-state alliance, led by Athens and Sparta, more or less commanded by the half-Athenian statesman, Themistocles, and the Persian empire, commanded by Xerxes. 

The Persian emperor Darius crushed the Ionian Revolt in 493 B.C., and then swore an oath to punish the Athenians who had supported the revolt. Herodotus tells us that one of Darius' slaves had the peculiar task of  whispering into the emperor's ear, "Sire, remember the Athenians," every single night at dinner. The Lord of Persia is said to have fumed each and every time he heard these words. The hatred Darius felt for the intransigent Athenians was to shake the foundations of the Greek and Aegean civilizations for generations to come.

One man in particular, Themistocles, himself only half Athenian, was to shepherd his fellow citizens during their darkest hours and achieve one of the greatest military victories in history. His brilliant long-term strategy secured for Athens a fighting chance when their hour of doom was upon them, but it was his insistence for, and command of, the Battle of Salamis in 480 B.C. that would be the pinnacle of his remarkable career.

First, we must travel back to 490 B.C. Darius invaded Greece with roughly 35,000 infantry, 1,000 cavalry, and a fleet of transport and supply ships. The Persian army landed at the Bay of Marathon where the 10,000 Athenians and 1,000 Plataens, under the generalship of the Athenian, Miltiades, were waiting for them. The battle that ensued began as a clear mismatch in favor of the more numerous Persian army, but ended with a stunning Greek victory thanks the the decisive battle plan that Miltiades was able to perform.

With the Persians defeated and gone, the Greeks reveled in their victory, knowing full well that they had snatched their freedom from the jaws of a tyrannical host. In Athens, most of the citizens considered the Persian menace to no longer pose a threat. One man, Themistocles, knew instinctively however that the Persians would be back in the near future seeking retribution. Any emperor would seek revenge for the loss suffered at Marathon for both practical and symbolic reasons. For Darius, revenge would not prove attainable, as he died before he could invade again. The imperial mantle fell to his son, Xerxes, instead.

Prior to the Persian invasion of Greece in 481/0 B.C., the Athenians struck an unusually large vein of silver at their colonial mining city of Laurium in 483 B.C. This instance of good fortune provided Themistocles with a rare opportunity to apply his skill as a statesman. Like a joint-stock venture, the Athenian assembly was on the verge of voting to share the new silver wealth proportionally between all of the city-state's citizens. Themistocles, on the other hand, knew that however honorable such a plan might be, it would be a missed opportunity for Athens to protect herself from the future Persian menace. To seize such an opportunity, and to protect his city, Themistocles wanted to build a massive Athenian navy of combat triremes. Keep in mind, again, that most Athenians did not think another Persian invasion of mainland Greece to be an imminent threat, so Themistocles needed to find a more persuasive image to support his argument. The answer? Aegina. This island city-state was located south-west of the Athenian port of Piraeus and the two cities were perpetual enemies. In fact, at the time of this debate concerning the silver wealth, Athens and Aegina were locked in a simmering feud. So Themistocles linked together his goal of building a massive navy with the threat of Aegina's likely harassment of Athenian trade and blockade of merchant shipping lanes.

The Athenian Assembly agreed and within two years' time, Themistocles' navy of roughly 200 triremes was built. The timing of his achievement could not have been better. As of spring 480 B.C. Xerxes has amassed a land invasion force of roughly 250,000-300,000 men and 1,200 ships, the bulk of which were offensive, naval warfare ships. This entire invasion force -- the largest in history until the allied invasion of Nazi occupied Normandy on 6 June 1944 -- was bent on the destruction of Greek civilization, and subjugation of its people. 

Xerxes crossed the Hellespont, swept down through Thessaly, defeated and conquered the ancient, religious city-state of Thebes, and brought the defeated remnants of that proud city over to the Persian cause. After Thessaly and the Theban defeat, Xerxes won two major battles, one on land and one at sea, at the simultaneous battles of Thermopylae and Artemesium. With no military answer to this invasion force capable of meeting Xerxes in battle, the Greek world north of the Peloponnese no longer existed. Themistocles had convinced the Athenians to desert their city at this time or face the wrath of the Persians. Xerxes marched into Attica (the countryside of Athens), devastated the crops and farmland, and finally marched through the gates of the now uninhabited city-state of Athens. The Persians killed anyone who remained and burnt the Acropolis to the ground. 

Persian land and naval invasion routes 481-0 B.C.

Preceding this event, Themistocles had convinced his countrymen to evacuate the city, noting to the distraught Athenians that a city can -- and in this case, must -- live on in the people, not the physical walls or buildings that they once called Athens. Some people said, "Why don't we march out and meet the Persians on the battlefield? We won a decade ago at Marathon." Themistocles answered that they would be facing a quarter of a million Persians, not the 35,000 from a decade ago, and the Greeks would be wiped out. "Why don't we barricade ourselves within the city walls of Athens?" some asked. Themistocles answered that they would be cut off from re-supply from the sea and land as a land force of 250,000 men and 1,200 triremes could easily encircle Athens and her port of Piraeus. The other Greek leaders wanted to build a defensive wall across the Corinthian isthmus and fortify the Peloponnese with what remaining land and naval forces they had. Themistocles warned them that the Persians would simply sail around the Peloponnese and push through the Saronic gulf, thus bypassing the defensive wall and overwhelming any naval presence the Greeks could muster. Most importantly, Themistocles stressed that the last plan was impractical because there were no ports sufficiently protected enough to allow for such a passive strategy to succeed. Themistocles reasoned that only a purely offensive, naval battle would free the Greeks from their present danger. And this is how Themistocles convinced the Hellenes to fight a decisive battle at the island of Salamis, within the narrow straits between the rocky shores. 










(Left) Battle dispositions and maneuvers of Greeks and Persians at Salamis; (Above) Satellite image of Salamis and narrow straits where battle was fought. 



After convincing the Greeks to fight this battle, Themistocles used a bit of disinformation to likewise bring Xerxes to battle as well. He sent a messenger up to the great Persian king, the messenger obviously posing as a traitor seeking safety and reward. Keep in mind that Xerxes had won at Thermopylae in large part due to the traitorous Greek counsel of Ephialtes who had shown a secret goat path to the Persians which wound behind the Spartan and Greek force blocking the pass. It is no wonder that Xerxes, when presented with another tip for defeating the Greeks, this time absolutely, he jumped at the opportunity without question. The double-agent of Themistocles told Xerxes that the time to strike the Greek navy was at hand and that the Persian king must act decisively before the Greeks sail away to Sicily or some other colonial outpost. 

Facing a Persian fleet of roughly 1,100-1,200 triremes, Themistocles arrayed the combined Greek naval forces in a short, compact line of triremes perpendicular to the incoming Persian fleet. Xerxes pushed his main body of ships into the strait while swinging a smaller detachment of Egyptian ships around the island to block any retreat by the Greeks. The Corinthian section of the Greek navy was to hold off this back-door menace while the main body, commanded by Themistocles, was to spring its trap upon the cumbersome and numerous Persian body. The Greek ships were larger and more unwieldy than the fast Persian ships, but it was the large brass rams on the front of the Greek ships that gave Themistocles a definitive advantage in the narrow straits. As soon as Xerxes fleet entered the narrow body of water, they were struck from the flank by the Greek triremes. Unable to maneuver, the Persian fleet was decimated. As the front line of Persian ships was caught off guard, they tried to back water and retreat but instead fouled their oars with those ships of the second and third lines. To make matters worse, a wedge of Greek ships split the entire Persian fleet in two as it cleaved its way through the now immobile Persian force. 

Numbers are sketchy, but most historians agree that around 250-300 Persian ships sank that day and no less than 70,000-80,000 Persian sailors and marines lost their lives. This was to be the worst naval defeat in European and Mediterranean affairs, even more devastating than the Ottoman defeat at the battle of Lepanto in 1571.  

The defeat at Salamis crippled Xerxes' invasion force. No longer able to guarantee his supply train for his army, Xerxes took the main portion of the invasion force and returned to Persia with the remainder of his fleet. He left a large force of infantry behind under the command of Mardonius to fight the Greeks, and the following summer in 479 B.C., such a battle took place on the plains of Platea. A large force of Greek city-states marched together out of the Peloponnese and met the Persian army which had been cut off from its lines of supply and communication, and had grown tired of conquest. The Greek hoplites won a decisive victory and, for all intents and purposes, the Persian menace would not threaten the Greek world for another sixty years. Even then, the Persians were invited by the Spartans and the Peloponnesian League to help defeat the Athenian empire at the tail end of the devastating Great Peloponnesian War. 

For our consideration, we must look to Themistocles as a statesman of singular vision and decisiveness. His ability to convince his countrymen to evacuate their city in exchange for the open seas and an uncertain future, and his successful persuasion of the Hellenic alliance to fight one decisive battle at Salamis, against all odds, were two of history's more remarkable diplomatic achievements. His cool-headed plan of attack within the narrow straits at Salamis, and his subsequent command of the ensuing battle, were a testament to his superb generalship. More than any other consideration, his confident choice to fight a decisive battle at Salamis is most impressive. There is no doubt that to lose at Salamis would have meant certain death and subjugation for the entire Greek civilization from that day forth. Judging a decisive battle to be a reasonable alternative to flight is the most remarkable achievement Themistocles has on his record of stunning accolades. And that is why he serves as our first of three installments of history's most noteworthy victories at decisive battles.

Next time, we look at the three successive victories of the Carthaginian General, Hannibal Barca:the River Ticinus, Lake Trasimene, and the glorious battle of Cannae. These victories took place during the early years of Hannibal's fifteen-year invasion of the Roman republic. 

Please Wait for the Facts to Emerge

Kingston, RI, 11:30 PM: Boston Police Commissioner, Ed Davis, has said there are no suspects in custody at this time, contary to rumors that a Saudi naitonal has been apprehended. And while the White House has labeled this incident an 'act of terror', FBI investigator Richard DesLauriers used more measured language saying, "it [the attack] is a criminal investigations that is a potential terrorist investigation." 

Please wait for the facts to emerge before hysteria informas your anti-Islamic anger. Information shared with the public thus far is not consistent with an 'act of terror', as the U.S. public understands that phrase. A 13-second delay between the two explosions, located hundreds of feed down the road from one another, indicates a time-triggered device, neither a suicide attack nor a remotely controlled explosion. Two unexploded devices were found farther up Boylston stree, and were subsequently disarmed. That's a 50% success rate. 

The explosions erupted three hours after the Marathon's winner had crossed the finished line; the winner's crossing of the finish line being the window of highest televised publicity. No group has claimed responsibility for the attack, contrary to the usual practice of foreign terrorist organizations, except for the Iranians. The devices were pipe bombs and used a small number of ball-bearing objects as shrapnel, again, an inconsistentcy with past terrorist attacks. 

Next press conference is tomorrow morning at 9:30 AM 

How the Dallas Cowboys and Greenbay Packers Explain the Middle East Peace Process

     Cairo, Alexandria, Baghdad, Damascus, Aleppo, Mosul, Beirut. Among others, these are the major cities of the Middle East. Before colonialism took root in this region, many citizens of a myriad of different ethnicities and confessions professed allegiance to the cities they lived in and the surrounding neighborhoods. Can we not wipe the map of today's Middle East clean, leaving only the cities as focal points for a new state system?

Would you not agree that Dallas Cowboy fans and "cheese-headed" Packers fans at times are more loyal to their cities than the state or country they live in? You wouldn't be wrong to ask: Why should it even matter? or, Are being a Packer fan and owing allegiance to the U.S. mutually exclusive options? That's because you have little reason to reject the pride that accompanies living as a citizen of the United States. But what does it mean to be Lebanese or Iraqi? For many inhabitants of these countries today, the answers to the questions I have just asked can be puzzling and ambiguous, if not downright inappropriate.

     Before World War I, it really meant little to be Iraqi or Lebanese in the sense that these national definitions were equated with territorial limits that were irrespective of the populations within them. Instead, most of the people that lived around major urban centers derived their pride and loyalty, to a significant degree, from the bazaars and main streets that ran through the major cities. Sunnis, Shi'a, Maronites, Arabs, Kurds, and company, were not constrained by arbitrary lines on a map or fictitious governments that were created by Great Britain and France. These newly formed governments wrangled together urban dwellers and hinterland nomads into defined but awkward units.

After World War II, colonialism retreated and the United Nations celebrated as new kingdoms and republics sprang up throughout the region. And since that time, tensions between confessions and sectarian struggles have continued unabated. It is no wonder why there is so much violence in the Middle East today. What would happen if one day fans of the Dallas Cowboys and Green Bay Packers were moved to Chicago and the citizens of all three of those cities were called upon to root for a newly created team? It would be pandemonium! None of these people would agree to the terms and violent infighting would surely ensue. The relationships between and among the different religious sects and confessions of the colonial Middle East were changed in the like manner. Although, in order not to compare religion and ethnicity with professional football teams, I have to say the tensions that arose between colonial subjects were a matter of life and death. The change was dramatic, the damage was irrevocable, and the long path leading to today's civil wars was laid with blind precision.

     A city mayor or governor of the pre-colonial Middle East exercised remarkably different responsibilities as governing entities than state/nationwide legislators do today. The former entity was charged with preserving the peace and the facilitation of trade between merchants and consumers who often valued commerce over confessional loyalty. On the streets of Constantinople during the Byzantine Era, coinage was accepted as faithful currency, not religion. A Shi'a's hand did no evil to silver or gold such that a Sunni would refuse it as payment.

     If we worry today about the best ways to strengthen fragile states in the Middle East, or prop up loyal dictators in that region, we do so only because we lack the mental capacity to remember a time when cities were the lowest common denominator of governing entities. To wit, Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and Corinth were only a few city-states amidst thousands throughout classical Greece. City-states were the loci around which a menagerie of different ethnicities gathered to trade goods and blend cultures. These city-states of old commanded unquestionable loyalty and the benefits that one would accrue from being an Athenian or Spartan was far more tangible than the treatment some Lebanese or Iraqi citizens are subject today.

     Can we not wipe the map of today's Middle East clean, leaving only the cities as focal points for building a new state-system? Can we not think of an institution of government that is representative, but founded upon a city's population? It would seem to me that a city is a more tangible entity to owe allegiance to than a country with more or less meaningless boundaries.

     Cities command not only more loyalty than some of today's countries but, in some cases, also have more output. Take a look at this Wall Street Journal article by Conor Dougherty from July, 2012 and the accompanying chart. I'll delve into that insight more fully later, but does it not pique your interest to know that cities, and the commerce that is made possible through their networks, provide the most tangible benefit for citizens of different faiths? Those benefits are jobs, income, and the ability to feed your family. The classical Greek city-states of old crumbled under the weight of Alexander the Great's Macedon and then the Roman Republic. If we were to affect the change I speak of only to witness Middle Eastern city-states falling prey to the same conventional aggression typical of the ancient world then we face a set of problems that need to be discussed in some other forum.

     It's not that the "state system" is broken. In fact, however imperfect the global state system is, it still is better than all alternatives. And keep in mind: "state" is just a word that can easily be extended by, and replaced with, "city-state." The lines were simply drawn in the wrong place because the colonial powers started in the wrong place. Great Britain and France just carved up areas that were more or less equal in size and wealth. 

Why You Should Blame Yourself For the Failings of Government We See Today

A recent article by Sarah Kliff, the WONKBLOG contributor to the Washington Post, identified what at first seemed to be a quirky and amusing result of a recent Public Policy Polling ... poll. Nearly 40% of the poll's respondents had an opinion of the Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction plan and25% of respondents had an opinion of thePanetta-Burns deficit-reduction plan. The former plan is real, the latter ... not so much.

The "Panetta-Burns" debt plan was a ruse; the pollsters were seeking to determine if respondents would express an opinion in favor or disapproval of an imaginary debt-reduction plan. The pollsters and Sarah Kliff did not offer any conclusions for this insight. This article is my attempt to offer a conclusion: The American public,not Congress, deserves more blame for the country's current and projected fiscal and political woes. 

Why would someone express an opinion on an imaginary solution? They didn't know it was fake. So why would someone express an opinion in favor or disapproval of an issue which they had no knowledge of? Most oftentimes, people like to hear themselves speak and seek to impress their friends and family. This is what laymen refer to as "bull-shitting." But the poll didn't allow respondents to impress anyone. Far from it. If we assume that the 25% of respondents who expressed an opinion of the Panetta-Burns debt plan did so honestly, then the conclusion wemust recognize is troubling: political debates trigger automatic, unquestionable, illogical responses from the public ... at least 25% of the public. Does that trigger mechanism sound familiar? 

For all intents an purposes, politics in the United States is characterized by undertones of faith. Public policy in the U.S. is treated more as a religious discipline than a political one and "We The People" are to blame for the mess we find ourselves in. 

Critical thinking has been absent from public discourse for some time now, but until recently this tendency towards a herd-mentality has only affected our responses to events outside of the United States. A quick, simplified narrative will explain.

The presidential elections of 1854 and 1860 laid the foundations for the competition between two, broadly popular political parties: the Republicans and Democrats. While the Democrats had been more or less a cohesive unit since 1824, the Republican Party, or GOP, was a collection of Conscious Whigs, Free Soilers, and abolitionists, cobbled together in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Missouri Compromise. From 1860 onwards, these two parties would compete with one another for congressional seats and presidential elections, albeit both had fluid ideological platforms. 

Skip ahead to the end of World War II. Imperialist Japan and Fascist Germany were both defeated by August of 1945 and an international conflict had ended, the proportions and dynamics of which could be comprehended by Americans. But as Stalin's "Iron Curtain" fell over Eastern Europe, threatening war in central Europe between the U.S. and Soviet Union, a steady eruption of events took place from 1950-91 that would baffle the American public. This is a crucial point: each and every conflict, the Cuban Missile Crises notwithstanding, was far away enough, and abstract enough, to force ordinary Americans to defer their judgement and opinions to politicians. This worked insofar that both the Democrats and Republicans shared the same, over-arching strategy for defeating the Communists, albeit with periodic changes to strategy which both parties accepted.

We can broadly group together these conflicts into military, economic, and diplomatic categories. The Korean and Vietnam wars first called for direct military efforts to roll-back communist threats along the periphery of Eurasia. Both wars enjoyed initial support from the U.S. public if for no other reason than the simplified logic of halting Communists gains. The Korean conflict was lost to history, and the Vietnam War generated substantial opposition at home because the U.S. public miraculously began to question the importance of fighting a war in South East Asia which cost the country tens of thousands of lives. However, both conflicts were supported through public deference to "The Best and the Brightest" of the Washington, D.C., elite. 

The next international development was militaristic, but the U.S. public was effected in a serious, economical way. The 1973 Arab-Israeli Yom Kippur War saw initial success for the Egyptians and Syrians against Israel. However, direct assistance to the Israelis from the U.S. government prompted the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to freeze oil shipments, causing a panic in the crude oil market sending prices sky-high. I wasn't alive at the time, but have seen YouTube videos of the long lines at U.S. gas stations. Again, the U.S. public, unable to critically think about international conflict, led to deference to politicians to fix the issue. 

Next to shake the international Richter scale were the explosive events emanating from Iran and its proxies from 1979-86. The '79 Islamic clerical revolution overthrew a U.S. puppet in Iran. This was the culmination of a long history of relations between the U.S., Great Britain, and Iran, too complex and confusing to explain here, but Earth-shattering nonetheless. The revolution, '79-'81 hostage crisis, Beirut U.S. and French military barracks attacks, and the '85-'86 Iran-Contra Affair, took place one after another and converged into a maelstrom so violent and complex that the U.S. public nearly combusted.  The conflicts were so foreign and abstract to the public that it was difficult for ordinary Americans to offer even a simplified opinion of the issues, especially theContra Affair. 

Finally, after the Berlin Wall fell in 1990 the U.S. stood pre-eminent on the world stage. A quick war with Saddam was launched and wrapped up in seven months and the U.S. public stood awestruck, marveling at its position at the top of the international food-chain and yet completely clueless as to how it had gotten there as a result of fifty years of unquestionable, illogical deference to Congress and the President. For fifty 50 years the U.S. public had looked to the U.S. government as the Messiah; a prophet claiming to deliver the political Gospel. What the public failed to recognize — and indeed still fails to recognize — is that the politicians and Presidents have carefully defined and framed issues in order to incite the public into action. Before you blame the politicians, however, carefully consider the sage words of Ice-T: "Don't hate the player, hate the game." For years and counting, the U.S. public has relied on blind faith to inform its opinions; politics is religion in the U.S.  

The recent public policy poll and Sarah Kraff's article are only a recognition of public apathy in the U.S. Most voters are a paradox: Libertarians when it comes to government intervention, butsocialistically addicted to the benefits a large, active government delivers to them. The only dividing line between Democrats and Republicans is a broken, two-party electoral system which offers a dazzling array of platforms to voters who are oftentimes only concerned with one or two major issues. And yet, the American public feeds into this system by, again paradoxically, failing to educate itself in politics. Politics is such a dirty word.

The public refuses to ask itself: How do I define my relationship with my government? What are the facts of this or that issue? Where in the world is Afghanistan on this map? 

Face it America: the politicians misbehave because we let them.

[Originally published by PolicyMic at http://www.policymic.com/articles/21044/why-you-should-blame-yourself-for-the-failings-of-government-we-see-today]