Release of Bin Laden Photos would have Jeopardized American Lives

As the whole world now knows, the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist’s attacks, Osama Bin Laden was killed by U.S. Military operatives at his home in Pakistan. Ten years later and after thousands more American lives were sacrificed, justice has finally been served on behalf of the victims of 9/11 and Americans can sleep a little more peacefully in their beds at night. Credit should be given to our Armed Forces and both President Bush and Obama for demonstrating the leadership and resolve to bring justice to this terrorist ten years later.

However, in light of this monumental American victory, I am taken aback by all the uproar to release pictures of Osama's corpse. While it is understandable that the victims’ families would want closure of his death, what kind of uncivilized country do we live in to revel in such satisfaction at the expense of uniting those of Muslim faith against the Western world and putting American lives at an even greater risk?

While the killing of Bin Laden no doubt brought justice to almost 3000 victims killed in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the ten years of military operations in the Middle East, the lives of thousands of American soldiers, and trillions of taxpayer dollars were expended to keep the American people safe in the future, not necessarily bring justice to one man.

To release photos under the pretense of bringing closure to the American people that justice has been served, would compromise the most important reason why began such a costly endeavor; our national security. No, the terrorist movement will not drop their weapons and surrender because their worshipped leader was killed by the U.S. We can expect another such figure to fill Osama’s void in the near future. Releasing photos of Bin Laden’s mutilated corpse will not prove to our enemies anything. Will that deter them from attacking again? Of course it won’t. These terrorists will commit suicide by blowing up their own bodies to kill at least one “infidel”. The pundits that claim these photos will hamper the terrorist’s efforts and resolve are kidding the American people. The contrary would be the case. If history is a teacher, the uprising in Iraq after the execution of Saddam Hussein is sufficient proof. Did terrorists falter or lose faith in their cause? No, attacks on U.S. forces in areas of Iraq increased by 300% within days Saddam’s death.

Imagine the scenario inside a terrorist training facility. Young boys are taken from their peaceful Muslim families and forced to join the ranks of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. At this age, the boys’ minds are moldable and can be easily influenced. The terrorist leaders use propaganda to incite hate into the hearts of these young men. These are the same boys that strap on suicide vest and commit egregious acts of terror at the expense of their own lives. The pictures of Osama’s slain body are unclassified and released to the Arab world; being used to show these young recruits and galvanizing their hatred against the Western world. There cannot be a more effective instrument used to rally resolve and anger in the hearts and mind of the terrorists and terrorists-in- training than their worshipped leader, Osama Bin Laden.

Thousands of American lives have already been sacrificed in this war. Hundreds of thousands more hang in the balance in the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. There are sleeper cells currently living within our own borders. Regardless of the reason why you think the photos should be released in the light if this information and past history, is it really worth the cost of more lives? At a time when the terrorist threat level in the U.S. is the highest it has been in years, would it really be the responsible thing to do to anger the Muslim world by parading and trumpeting their prophet’s death? Not only are such actions short-sighted, but this would hamper the United States efforts to win the hearts and minds of the next generation of Arabs in these war torn countries. Not all of these people can be responsible for the actions of 18 hijackers. The release of these photos would ruin years of progress in these countries in addition to turning this war into a war of revenge instead of conquest. The last thing the fanatic terrorists need is a martyr. We should not advertise the fact that we have given them one because of our craving to satisfy our yearning for justice. Trust should be place in our Commander in Chief and our Armed Forces that they are handling this delicate situation correctly. They understand the intricacies of this situation and the dynamics of its consequences far better than those of us who aren’t involved in foreign policy and national defense.

Thousands of American lives were sacrificed to bring this man to justice on May1st. Let us be content with this sacrifice and not endanger more lives by perpetuating support for the un-classification of graphical evidence.

Brandon West
Vice-Chair Kansas Federation of College Republicans
Veteran Operation Iraqi Freedom V-VII
1st Army Division Soldier of the Year 2008

NBAF Vital to Quelling Bio and Agro Terrorism Threats

The threat to the United States in regards to bioterrorism is a much graver threat than from weapons of a non-biological nature. The extent to which such an attack can harm such a large portion of the population of this country is unthinkably severe. Biological and chemical weapons are two of the most feared and underused weapons of modern warfare. So dangerous are these two methods, that the Geneva Convention prohibited there use. Therefore, terrorists that do not abide by the rules of war anyway, are more apt to use them.

This country has been very fortunate to have avoided such a biological outbreak in the past. Kansas is an agriculture state that is particularly vulnerable to such an attack. With 6.6 million head of cattle, any biological agent that is released into a Kansas feedlot that causes an outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease could be devastating to the livestock industry. This would immediately impact export abilities after thousands or millions of head of cattle would be lost. This would cause long term economic determent to the U.S. which terrorists know impacts our ability to remain a world superpower. A perfect example of this would be the 2001 outbreak of FMD in the United Kingdom from which their economy is still suffering from.

I believe it is imperative that the National Bio and Agro-defense Facility being constructed in Manhattan continue. We should support any lobbing efforts to secure funding from Congress for this facility. Yes, there are some who are reticent about having such a facility so close to Kansas State University and Manhattan, Kansas because of the potential danger of an accident which could cause an outbreak of biological agents. However, the threat from such an outbreak occurring in the state and nation from bioterrorism is much graver and likely than any possibility that a safeguarded facility such as NBAF could potentially be compromised. Kansas was chosen for the site of NBAF for several reasons. The close proximity to Ft. Riley was a major factor in addition to the protected geographical location. Because Kansas is the geographical center of the U.S., it is least vulnerable from overseas missile attacks that could target the facility from the shores of other continents. No, the fact that NBAF is positioned in the middle of a community surrounded by agriculture research facilities is not a positive aspect. However, the national security risks that it would help mitigate trumps the risks associated with its location.

The Four Traits of Effective Leadership

The past Saturday, I had the honor of being invited to a U.S. Air Force dining out ceremony. The occasion was for the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) Detachment 270 at Kansas State University. As prior military, I had attended several of these formals in the past, so it was very reminiscent of my past years in the service as I was surrounded by cadets and officers in military dress blue uniforms.

The honored guest speaker of the night was Chief Master Sergeant (Retired) Bob Vasquez. CMS Vasquez is currently a Course Director at the USAF Academy in Colorado Springs, CO, and is an accomplished author of three books, musician, speaker, life coach, mentor, and parent. Chief Vasquez is also a professor at the University of Colorado and is a certified Franklin Covey coach.

CMS Vasquez’s speech was catered to preparing the next generation of young lieutenants to accept the responsibilities of leading the greatest military force on earth. However, I found it to apply to leaders in any organization and even in one’s personal life. As a prior military leader, I’ve developed my personal leadership style around the principles emphasized in books such as “Colin Powell’s Principles of Leadership” and the “Challenge of Command”. Chief Vasquez’s speech served as a reminder of what I had learned in my late teens and early twenties as I studied for military board selections and leadership opportunities.

He emphasized four main characteristics of effective leaders. First, your leadership, success, and influence are controlled by how you view yourself. One must have confidence in their ability to perform tasks and attain certain levels of success before it can be done. If one views oneself as worthless and incapable of doing much good to society, then one will always fall short and continually disappoint themselves and others. CMS Vasquez pointed to the sharp rise in suicide rates in the military as an example of such people who have a negative opinion of themselves and don’t believe they are capable of anything worthy. In other words, one must have a strong ego. Notice he didn’t say a big ego, just a strong one. One who has to walk around touting his or her achievements or greatness is one who has a big ego. Those who have strong egos and sub-sequentially make good leaders are those who are quite and humble and show their worth by their actions, not their haughtiness.

Second principle was to be aware of how you view others. Your influence among your subordinates or peers in an organization is going to be seriously determined based on how you view them or how you show your appreciation for them. If you look at someone as a dirt bag, they are inevitably going to behave as such. To have low expectations of somebody and to let that perception of them be known by derisive comments or actions towards them or in public will yield negative results. The same can be said of raising children. A child raised by parents who continually ridicule and treat him or her like they will never amount to anything, will rarely have the confidence in themselves to achieve great things. On the flip side, to have faith in ones subordinates and continually emphasize that you expect the very best because they are the very best in your eyes, will result in maximum effort being applied by those subordinates who do not want to lose your faith and admiration.

The third principle was to be aware of how you are viewed by others. One of the best quotes from the WWII General Patton was that “We are always on parade”. In a business and professional setting, we are careful to watch our words, tempers, and behaviors in public. When a member of the public watches a member of an organization, social class, political party, or race make an impolite, unhelpful, or uncouth gesture, they stereotype the rest of that particular group to be the same way. Not only do such actions not help your good reputation as a person or a leader, but they affect the image of your organization, or in this case the military, as well. The two most powerful words in CMS Vasquez opinions are “thank you”. None of us are entitled to help an elderly lady lift her heavy carryon luggage to the overhead bins in an airplane or to hold open a restaurant door for a complete stranger. However, small selfless gestures such as these are taken note of by more people than we realize and are one of the most vivid representations of our true character.

The final principle that CMS Vasquez elucidated to the audience was to perpetuate a positive view of the world. To advance to accomplish great things in one’s life and in society, one must believe that it is a worthy and worthwhile cause and that such effort and sacrifice on your part is a noble one. A person/leader must believe in their heart that they are making a positive difference for mankind and in turn making the world a better place through their influence in leadership positions. After all, what makes a good leader good? A leader must use his position to better those under him and the organization that he represents. Almost anybody can be a manager. However, a true leader has a burning desire to make a positive influence in the lives of those under him or her, and in turn the world around them. A true leader strives for excellence; excellence most importantly from himself or herself, next from those under him or her, and then desires to help attain that excellence in the world around him or her.

Interview with Trent Loos on Rural Route Radio

This past Tuesday, myself, fellow K-Stater, Barrett Smith, and the Vice President of the U.S. Cattlemen's Association, Jess Peterson were guests on Trent Loos' midwest radio program "Rural Route Radio". We discussed challenges to agriculture and what our generation can do about it. Click on the Tuesday's addition to listen in.

http://www.ruralrouteradio.com/

Is the Political Landscape in Washington a New and Better Place or Business as Usual?

The political divisiveness in Washington DC has been an ever present topic in our newspapers and news channels since the election of President Obama in 2008. With Democrats in control of both the Legislative and Executive branches, there was little the Republican Party could do to advance its agenda, but to voice opposition to any Democrat legislation and hit the campaign trails. Democrats got their way for two years, pushing through bailouts, the health care bill, and refusing to work with House and Senate Republicans on the 2010 budget. Then the elections of 2010 came around and Republicans recaptured control of the U.S. House with the largest majority that they had seen since the 1940’s. President Obama and new House Majority Leader Boehner exhibited a glorious show of pomp and ceremony over their willingness to “work together for the American people”. Many Americans held a semblance of hope that, for once, Congress and the President would forsake the political wrangling and come to a consensus on what was best for the nation instead of their respective political parties. The show of civility was short-lived and by the time President Obama gave his State of the Union Address, politicians from both parties had taken to the trenches once again.

At the forefront of the epic legislation battles, is the present debt crisis and how much to cut the federal budget. The Democrats want to keep all the entitlement programs that keep the base of their electorate happy, while the most outspoken Republicans want cuts across the board on all programs. Meanwhile, President Obama has decided to send American military forces into Libya to aid NATO nations that are attempting to deescalate the oppression of civilians by Col. Muammar Gaddafi. In the midst of all this chaos, the possible Republican presidential contenders are launching their campaigns for 2012, and just this week, President Obama announced his re-election campaign. Suddenly the emphasis has been shifted from righting the nation’s wrongs, to vilifying the opposing party. Many Republicans are not conservative in their withering criticism of President Obama’s military interventionism in Libya. If a correlation can be made between Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Odyssey Dawn, it seems like the Democrat and Republican parties have traded foreign policy doctrines. This hypocrisy can be the most glaring give-away that politics in Washington DC is indeed, back to business as usual. Similarly, the budget cutters are all for abolishing those programs that do not benefit their districts. Senator Coburn (R-OK) wants Defense cuts while Senators Boxer (D-CA) and DeMint (R-SC) want to cut Ethanol subsidies. Any form of federal spending will “bankrupt the country” unless it pays out to that particular Senator’s state or Congressman/woman’s district. Once again, politicians have not failed to show the American people that their legislative priorites will be based on how such decisions influence their re-election chances.

The majority of Americans are Americans first, and party affiliated second. Instead of focusing on the “big picture” politicians are again entrapped with yielding to the special interests that shout the loudest and line the most pockets. The most vocal voices on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum are clamoring for the advancements of their own particular vendetta and forsaking what might be in the best interests of the nation. The politician that can sift through such naïve approaches to policy making is a rare one indeed. These politicians are presently in the minority in Washington DC or are drowned out by those who toe the party line. When times are tough, tough men and women take action. We can only hope that those men and women will wake up one day and re-establish this country’s faith in its elected leaders.

Government Role in Energy Market is Necessary

With current fuel price hikes, instability in Africa due to food shortages, and record prices of food in foreign markets, the ethanol industry has understandably been thrust into the public spotlight. Criticisms of this source of alternative fuel are many and cover the spectrum from its supposed inefficiency compared to fossil fuels to the argument that it takes food out of the mouths of a hungry world population.

The government’s role in the support of the Ethanol market is a vital and necessary one. Many believe that all forms of government involvement in the markets are bad for business and free market principals. However, Ethanol is, first and foremost, a national security issue. Most would be in agreement with me that the protection of our shores is the Federal government’s first and most important priority. The involvement by the government in this market is not meant to appease the demands of activist groups or the Environmental Protection Agency. The necessity for the preservation and development of this type of fuel is strongly encouraged by the Department of Defense; the world’s largest consumer of renewable fuels. The Defense Department uses 300,000 barrels of oil per day and has stated that it desperately needs to reduce its reliance on foreign oil due to inherent instability in pricing and supply. In other words, an attack on the oil pipeline infrastructure in the Middle East could leave the U.S. Military immobile due to lack of fuel and therefore unable to repel an attack on our shores or our assets overseas. The Defense Department is adopting a rigorous plan to achieve an independent renewable fuel supply with the Navy and Marine Corps settings goals to receive 50% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. 

The argument that most fiscal conservatives in the U.S. like to point out is the fact that Ethanol is subsidized with taxpayer dollars at the rate of 45 cents a gallon which adds almost $5 billion dollars to the deficit annually. Indeed, both sides of the political spectrum would agree that Ethanol subsidies should be the first thing to go when making budget cuts. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), both political opposites, are two very staunch advocates for removing all Ethanol incentives. One would think that if both sides oppose it than it is obviously a poor idea, right? However, on closer examination, both of these Senators are from the East and West coasts which are not known for Ethanol or corn production. California produces the least amount of corn of all of the states which have land suitable for grain farming, with only 25 million bushels. Similarly, South Carolina only harvest between 30-35 million bushels of corn yearly. Compared to a 13.4 billion bushel corn crop in the United States in 2009, it is seemingly evident that the corn industry from which 90% of ethanol is produced from, is not an important demographic in Senator Boxer’s and DeMint’s states. Understandably, they would like to see taxpayer’s dollars diverted from this industry and channeled into programs that are more advantageous for their respective constituents.

An often times overlooked incongruity with the subsidies for Ethanol argument is the uncommon knowledge that foreign oil is also subsidized and at much higher rates. When the subsidy for foreign oil is removed, gas would cost approximately $6.10 at the pump if the cost of gas is regularly around three dollar mark. If the subsidy for Ethanol is removed, we could expect the cost per gallon to be less than $3.50 at the pump. While an added $5 billion to the deficit because of Ethanol subsidies is nothing to turn a blind eye to, the $50 billion spent every year for oil subsides is a far greater budget issue. When it comes to the free market and removing incentives, Ethanol would not need an incentive if the U.S. government wasn’t already providing one for foreign oil. As we saw during the recession of 2007, the economic downturn was sparked by the rising cost of oil. Lack of intervention in the fuel markets by the U.S. government would understandably only slow down our recovering economy. The high price of non-subsidized fuel would make the consumer cut back in many areas in his or her consumption of goods and would cause transportation costs to skyrocket. This would in turn dramatically affect the prices of transportable goods leading to, among other things, much higher food prices.

Is the government promoting a source of fuel that is inefficient and requires more energy to produce than it provides? That is an argument than many would espouse, and is one of the most contentious issues surrounding this debate. However, the contrary is true. Three questions must be addressed to estimate the energy inputs and outputs involved in making ethanol.1. How much energy is used to grow the raw material? 2. How much energy is used to manufacture the ethanol? 3. How do we allocate the energy used in steps one and two between ethanol and the other co-products produced from the raw material? A study conducted by the National Research Council and the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Washington D.C. addressed these issues finding that the Corn Ethanol Industries’ national average for energy used in growing corn was about 38% . This means a net energy ratio of 1.38:1 more energy is contained in the ethanol and other products produced in the corn processing facility than is used to grow the corn and make the products. The industry average was the low end of the spectrum. The study found that when corn farmers and ethanol facilities use state-of-the-art facilities and all the best technologies and practices, the net energy ratio would be 2.51:1 or 151%. Ethanol itself contains 84,100 BTUs (British Thermal Units) per gallon. This study concluded that the ethanol industry uses approximately 53,956 BTUs per gallon to manufacture ethanol. The best existing plants use 37,883 BTUs per gallon, and the next generation plants will require only 33,183 BTUs per gallon of ethanol produced.

Motor vehicles manufactured in the United States can be developed to become more efficient users of this fuel as well. While at the Midwestern Governors Convention in Washington D.C. this February, Tom Vilsack, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, stated that for an added cost of $150 per vehicle, car manufactures could make engines run as efficiently on E85 bio-fuel as on gasoline. This is a small price to pay considering doing so would enable our country to less painfully wean ourselves off of a foreign oil supply that we are subsidizing half of the cost of.

Besides catching negative attention from lawmakers wanting to trim federal spending, Ethanol is being blamed on food shortages and riots around the world including the recent uprising in Egypt. Recently, an editorial writer for Forbes’ magazine, made a correlation between the Egyptian crisis and ethanol production in the United States.  He claims that the U.S. government is making the production of corn more profitable for farmers because of the growing market for government backed ethanol. Because Egypt is the world’s largest importer of wheat, and U.S. wheat acres have been scaled back to produce more corn, this editor claims this has caused the shortage of food that sparked the unrest in Egypt.

 Yet, if U.S. farmers are producing more corn because it is more profitable, then a sudden, long term demand for U.S. wheat by foreign markets would cause the profitability of growing wheat to rise thus causing the demand to be met. Currently, these countries weren’t prior importers of U.S. grain. Countries like Egypt currently experiencing these food shortages, imported their grains from countries other than U.S. such as Australia and Brazil; countries that had their crops devastated due to record floods this year. The inelastic nature of crop commodities makes it impossible for the demand to be met immediately. Thus the real reason why there are currently food shortages and the main contributor to the ski-high food prices in these regions.

 The claim that there is a higher percentage of corn being used for ethanol than there was in the past is correct, but that is not a case for saying that people are starving because of it. The yield per acre of corn has dramatically increased to the point where there is more than enough to satisfy the world demand for food. By the year 2030, dry land corn is estimated to produce 337 bushels per acre. It is currently at less than 200 bushels per acre. This figure nullifies any debate that corn cannot feed and fuel the world at the same time.

The fact that there is a consistent demand for corn due to Ethanol encourages the farmer to facilitate maximum productivity from his crop. This makes the increase in crop yields possible and the goal to feed the world’s 9 billion people by the year 2050 feasible.  If corn wasn’t profitable for farmers, the yields and acreage devoted to corn would decrease, the bioscience breakthroughs would not be developed, and the U.S. would not be able to export millions of metric tons of this grain to foreign countries when the increasing world population demands it. 

The ethanol industry has revolutionized the corn market and has ensured that the world will never be wonting for this valuable grain in years to come when the earth has 2.3 billion more mouths to feed. The ethanol market keeps corn profitable in the bad years, is a long term solution to the world’s energy needs which ultimately drive the economies that feed the world, and streamlines advances in bio-science which allows the corn yields per acre to consistently increase. This increase in yield offsets the amount of corn that is used for fuel. The percentage of corn that is used for ethanol might be higher than it was five years ago, but the bushels used for food have increased due to such higher yields. This would not have been achieved without a consistent demand for this grain. The United States is now exporting millions of metric tons of corn to countries such as China. Because of the Ethanol industry, corn has become a trade product that the U.S. has a comparative advantage in producing which has enabled this country to maintain a lower trade deficit and a stronger dollar. Our economic strength in directly related to our ability to trade internationally; the Ethanol industry has been a monumental stride in the right direction in helping establish those strong trade relations with countries such as China, Japan, and Taiwan.

As we can see from these findings, Ethanol is a legitimate and very viable source for fuel and it is in the U.S. government’s best interests to perpetuate the development and consumption of this fuel in order to preserve long term economic stability and national security. The United States government realizes that the dependence on foreign oil will not be conducive to its ability thwart an attack on this country in the future if this supply were to be cut off or run dry. A stable infrastructure, military, and trade relations are all duties incumbent upon our federal government and thus it is absolutely necessary for the government to intervene in this particular market in order to ensure that it does not shirk these responsibilities.

Ethanol Production versus World Hunger and Egypt Crisis

Recently, an editorial writer for Forbes’ magazine, made a correlation between the Egyptian crisis and ethanol production in the United States.  He claims that the U.S. government is making the production of corn more profitable for farmers because of the growing market for government backed ethanol. Because Egypt is the world’s largest importer of wheat, and U.S. wheat acres have been scaled back to produce more corn, Christian Wolan claims this has caused the shortage of food that sparked the unrest in Egypt.

However, if U.S. farmers are producing more corn because it is more profitable, then a sudden, long term demand of for U.S. wheat by foreign markets would cause the profitability of growing wheat to rise thus causing the demand to be met. Farmers respond to market demands and prices very well as has been seen with the demand for corn. Wolan claims that there is a higher percentage of corn being used for ethanol than in the past. What Wolan doesn’t take into account is that the yield per acre of corn has dramatically increased to the point where there is more than enough to satisfy the demand needed for food. As a matter of fact, by the year 2030, dry land corn is estimated to produce 337 bushels per acre. This figure nullifies any debate that corn cannot feed and fuel the world at the same time.

Egypt received most of its grain exports from other countries besides the U.S.. Floods and cyclones in these countries devastated their wheat crops thus placing the onus on U.S. wheat farmers to provide wheat shipments. What Wolan might not understand is that crops are a very inelastic good. Farmers cannot respond to demand at a moment’s notice. It takes a year for a crop to be developed from planting to harvest.  If Egypt was a consistent importer of U.S. wheat, then American farmers would respond and meet that demand.

Millions of people are starving throughout the world every day. That is not the American agriculturist’s fault. Rather it is an issue of the economic and political institutions of these foreign countries which prevent the efficient trading of their good for U.S. goods. Maybe it was Egypt’s government’s failure to allocate resources efficiently that sparked these riots? Consider oppressive governments in the past such as Somalia that starved their people to submission.

The corn used for ethanol was originally taken from surplus corn thus not having any effect on corn prices. The fact that there is a demand for corn encourages the farmer to facilitate maximum productivity from his crop. This makes the increase in crop yields possible and the goal to feed the world’s 9 billion people by the year 2050 feasible.  If corn wasn’t profitable for farmers, the yields and acreage devoted to corn would decrease, the bioscience breakthroughs would not be developed, and the U.S. would not be able to export millions of metric tons of this grain to foreign countries when the increasing world population demands it. 

The ethanol industry has revolutionized the corn market and has ensured that the world will never be wonting for this valuable grain in years to come when the earth has 2.3 billion more mouths to feed. The ethanol market keeps corn profitable in the bad years, is a long term solution to the world’s energy needs which ultimately drive the economies that feed the world, and streamlines advances in bioscience which allows the corn yields per acre to consistently increase. This increase in yield offsets the amount of corn that is used for fuel. The percentage of corn that is used for ethanol might be higher than it was five years ago, but the bushels used for food have increased due to such higher yields. This would not have been achieved without a consistent demand for this grain.

If ethanol is an evil, it is by far the lesser of two evils. Until Wolan, or anybody else can come up with a better solution to effect the justifications that I just described, I find that such criticisms are unwarranted and an impediment on those trying to better the long-term future for mankind.

You can read Christian Wolan's editorial here: http://blogs.forbes.com/christianwolan/2011/02/03/is-ethanol-to-blame-for-egypts-unrest/