Trump To Withdraw A Third Of US Troops From Germany

Defense Secretary Mark Esper has announced that the US will redeploy 11,900 US soldiers from Germany. The move, which Resurgent reported was initially announced last month, will cut American forces in Germany by about a third.

CNN reports that Esper made the formal announcement about the redeployments in a Pentagon briefing on Wednesday. The reduction will meet a Trump-mandated cap of 25,000 US troops in the country and is slightly larger than the original estimate of 9,500 troops.

“The current EUCOM plan will reposition approximately 11,900 military personnel from Germany, from roughly 36,000 down to 24,000, in a manner that will strengthen NATO, enhance the deterrence of Russia, and meet the other principles I set forth,” Esper told reporters.

Of the 11,900 troops being redeployed, a US official said that 5,400 would be “staying in Europe.” The remainder, 6,400 soldiers and their families, will be sent back to the US but will ultimately be redeployed again to new bases in Europe. The movements will take years and cost billions of dollars in new construction of military bases outside Germany.

The troops being relocated include both US Army and Air Force units. Gen. Tod Wolters, the commander of US European Command and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said that the US European Command headquarters would be relocated nearer to NATO headquarters in Belgium. The US Africa Command headquarters, currently located in Stuttgart, is also being moved, but AFRICOM’s new location has not been determined.

“We also intend to reposition three brigade-size headquarters, an air defense artillery battalion, and an engineering battalion to Belgium from Germany, and two smaller support and contracting organizations to Italy,” Wolters said. A USAF F-16 fighter squadron and two army battalions are also slated to move from Germany to Italy.

President Trump has previously indicated that he ordered the redeployments because he believes that Germany spends too little on defense. In June, Trump said, “One of the only countries that hasn’t agreed to pay what they’re supposed to pay (on NATO) is Germany. So, I said until they pay, we’re removing our soldiers, a number of our soldiers, by about half. Then when we get down to about 25,000, we’ll see where we’re going.”

However, CNN notes that Belgium and Italy spend a smaller share of GDP on defense than Germany. Germany spends about 1.38 percent of its GDP on defense while Belgium’s military spending is at 0.93 percent and Italy is at 1.22 percent.

More importantly, even a cursory glance at the European map shows that the redeployments would put American soldiers at a disadvantage in their primary mission of defending Europe against a Russian invasion. Forces stationed in Italy would have to move hundreds of miles north toward the presumed invasion corridor across the Baltic states, Poland, and Germany while Belgium-based forces would have to travel east to meet the aggressors. American forces based across the Atlantic at home might arrive too late to be of any help at all.

After the Cold War, the possibility of a Russian invasion of Europe was considered to have diminished. That changed in 2014 when Vladimir Putin’s forces invaded portions of Ukraine. The conflict there continues to this day and Ukrainian leaders fret that Russia may attempt to take the rest of their country.

For at least a decade, Putin’s goal to reconstitute the Russian empire of the czars has been known in the West. Many parts of the old empire are in central and eastern Europe. Several countries that are historical targets of Russia are now part of NATO. These include Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Ukraine, while not a member of NATO, has a mutual defense treaty with the US.

When the Trump Adminstration announced the troop withdrawals last month, the move drew widespread opposition from both parties. Twenty-two Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee signed a letter to Trump that asked him to reconsider the drawdown.

“We strongly believe that NATO allies, such as Germany, should do more to contribute to our joint defense efforts. At the same time, we also know that the forward stationing of American troops since the end of World War II has helped to prevent another world war and, most importantly, has helped make America safer,” the letter said.

The Republican letter noted that the Russian threat has not diminished and stated their concern that projecting weakness would encourage further Russian aggression. The congressmen also noted that Germany is a transhipment point for US troops and supplies moving all around the world and that the drawdown would cause logistical problems.

Defense officials noted that the timeline of the drawdown will take “months to plan and years to execute” as well as cost billions of dollars. The redeployment will not be completed before the November election and could become a political issue.

Given Russian aggression both in Europe, cyber attacks in the US, and reported bounties offered to the Taliban for killing American soldiers, it is likely that, if Joe Biden ever emerges from self-isolation to mount a campaign, Trump’s Russia policy will be a point of criticism. To date, the president has not criticized or raised the issue of the bounties with Vladimir Putin. President Trump’s determination to withdraw soldiers from Germany gives Biden an opportunity to assume the mantle of national security hawk over a president whose inclination is to have America retreat from the world stage.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump To Reduce US Forces In Germany By A Third

Often in Washington, DC politics, when something is embarrassing or controversial, the news is announced on late Friday afternoon. The theory is that most of the country has checked out for the weekend and the story will get less attention. Friday news drops during nationwide riots get even less attention. That was the case last Friday when the Trump Administration unveiled a plan to reduce the number of US troops in Germany by about a third.

The Wall Street Journal first reported on Friday that President Trump has already signed off on the plan, which would permanently reduce the number of American soldiers in Germany from 34,500 to 25,000. The plan was reportedly pushed by Richard Grenell, now the acting director of national intelligence and formerly the ambassador to Germany.

When the story broke, Germany had not yet been informed of the plan and it was unclear whether Congress had been told. The plan had been referred to the Defense Department for implementation.

The United States has maintained forces in Germany since WWII. The mission was originally to occupy Germany but soon shifted to defending Western Europe from a Soviet invasion. Over the past few decades, American bases in Germany have been important transshipment points for the War on Terror.

There are currently 19 US military bases in Germany per MilitaryBases.com. Two are airbases while the remainder are army installations. Among the most famous of these are Ramstein Airbase and Landstuhl Medical Center, which was the first stop on the way home for many American soldiers wounded in the Middle East.

It is not clear what forces would be withdrawn from Germany, but it is likely that they would be frontline troops deployed to fend off the Russians while airbases and support facilities would remain. Even at the height of the Cold War, the US did not maintain a large enough force to fight off an invasion. The defense of Europe would have hinged on the ability to reinforce the prepositioned units with soldiers based in the US.

An annual military exercise, REFORGER, practiced the REturn of FORces to GERmany and was conducted between 1969 and 1993. A similar exercise, DefenderEurope, is scheduled to be conducted this year.

Trump’s move to draw down American forces in Germany comes amid Russian aggression in Europe. Vladimir Putin’s proxy army has been waging war in Ukraine since 2014.

President Trump has long been critical of US military deployments around the world but has waffled when it comes to actually bringing troops home. In 2016, then-candidate Trump said that the US should “rethink” its commitment to NATO because “it’s costing us too much money.” After becoming president, Trump scolded NATO members for not spending enough on defense and only reluctantly affirmed his commitment to NATO’s mutual defense clause. The only time that the clause has been invoked was when the US was attacked on September 11, 2001.

The German government appeared to be surprised by the announcement that the US troops would be leaving. Peter Beyer, the coordinator of transatlantic cooperation for Chancellor Angela Merkel, told Reuters, “This is completely unacceptable, especially since nobody in Washington thought about informing its NATO ally Germany in advance.”

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas called relations between the US and Germany “complicated.”

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee was less circumspect, saying in a statement quoted by the Washington Post, “It’s another favor to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and another leadership failure by this Administration that further strains relations with our allies.”

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee did not comment on the decision. No Republicans seem to have commented publicly on the move.

Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that he would “be working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see what can be done to reverse the decision.”

President Trump may be persuaded to reverse the decision. In the past, he has announced the withdrawal of Americans from Syria twice but then changed his mind. The most recent reversal came after a bloody offensive against America’s Kurdish allies by Turkish forces.

President Trump’s abrupt decision to draw down the US forces in Germany gives America’s allies yet another reason not to trust our commitment to their defense. With only 34,500 American soldiers in Germany, the cost is negligible for the US, but the American presence is an important deterrent to Vladimir Putin. The cost of maintaining a force in Germany could well be a case of pay-me-now-or-pay-me-later.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump To Ask Allies To Pay ‘Cost Plus Fifty’ To Host US Troops

Friday afternoon is often the time to drop unpopular and controversial news. As the denizens of Foggy Bottom hurry to leave the District of Columbia for the weekend, it can be a convenient time to unveil news that will reflect poorly on the elites who control the government. That was the case today as the Trump Administration dropped a figurative bomb whose effects will be felt around the world.

As the president toured tornado-ravaged areas of Alabama, Bloomberg reported that Mr. Trump is demanding Germany, Japan, and any other country hosting American troops pay the full cost plus an additional 50 percent. Per Bloomberg, the plan would apply first to Germany and Japan and eventually be applied to every other nation where American troops are based. Under the plan, some countries would pay five or six times their current share of defense costs.

President Trump has reportedly pushed the idea for months and his insistence on the requirement reportedly derailed talks with South Korea about the status of the 28,000 US troops stationed on the Korean Peninsula. Trump allegedly overruled negotiators with a note to National Security Advisor John Bolton that read, “We want cost plus 50.”

The proposal seems tailor-made as an excuse for President Trump to unilaterally withdraw American forces from abroad and bring the troops home. During the 2016 campaign, Trump questioned the need for mutual defense pacts such as NATO and railed against the cost of basing troops abroad. While in office, Trump’s relationship with America’s allies has been rocky and the president has reportedly considered withdrawing the US from NATO. The demand for more money from allies may be intended to resolve the issue by having host countries kick American forces out.

It is possible that the demand is simply a negotiating ploy by the president, who has pushed NATO and other allies to pay a larger share of the cost of their defense in the past. The president may also be swayed by advisors to accept a less harsh deal. This week Mr. Trump reversed himself on a decision last year to withdraw American troops from Syria.

The basing of American soldiers around the world benefits both the host country and the United States. In the War on Terror, the US used bases in Germany as a transshipment point to and from the Middle East. Ramstein Airbase was a vital link in the logistical chain to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Likewise, the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center is the largest overseas military hospital in the world. Many American soldiers injured in Iraq and Afghanistan were sent to Landstuhl for stabilizing treatment before returning home.

It is not clear whether the US is close to making a formal demand of its allies or whether Friday’s announcement is a trial balloon, but the proposal comes at an awkward time. Vladimir Putin’s Russia has been waging an offensive war on the borders of NATO against Ukraine, another US ally, since 2014. In Asia, Trump’s attempted détente with North Korea has yielded little in the way of results while China continues to solidify its hold on the South China Sea.

While basing American soldiers abroad has not been free for the United States, it has been beneficial. The seventy years that American troops have occupied parts of Europe and Asia has been known as the Pax Americana, the American peace. The period allowed the US to become the world’s preeminent trading power and the leader of the community of nations.

It is a virtual certainty that the forward deployment of American soldiers prevented numerous wars including a Soviet invasion of Europe. If President Trump gives in to his isolationist tendencies, it is likely that the world may find that the cost in both blood and treasure of bringing American soldiers home is much greater than the cost of basing them abroad.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Vehicle Attacks Show The Problem Is Human Nature, Not Guns

It has long been a curious detail that gun control proponents spend their time attacking “gun violence” rather than violence in general. Today's attack in Muenster, Germany gives lie to the claim that “gun violence” is the problem and that killing sprees are fueled by gun ownership and will end if we can only rid society of AR-15s or guns in general.

The Telegraph reports that an unknown driver killed three people and injured 26 people in a crowd of pedestrians in the German city. Early reports indicate that the driver was a 46-year-old German national with a history of mental illness. At this point, there are no known links to terrorist groups.

Using a vehicle as a weapon is not new. With strict gun control laws in place throughout Europe, there have been a number of ramming attacks in recent years. CNN reports that in 2010 Al Qaeda called trucks “the ultimate mowing machine” and encouraged recruits to use them “not to mow grass, but mow down the enemies of Allah.” In 2014, ISIS encouraged lone wolf attacks with alternative methods such as running people over with cars.

In 2016 and 2017, there were at least 10 vehicle attacks on civilians in Europe, Canada and the United States. The worst was the July 14, 2016 Bastille Day attack in Nice, France in which 86 people were killed.

The wave of truck attacks is evidence that violence is not driven by the presence of guns, but by the evil present in the human heart. Solutions to the problem of violence that do not address this core truth will be doomed to failure. If guns are eliminated, evil people who wish to kill others will find other means of inflicting pain and death on their fellow humans.

But guns are uniquely capable of killing large numbers of people in a short time, gun control proponents argue. Mass killings by rogue vehicle drivers argue otherwise. So do mass killings by other means. Two men with “cleavers” killed 29 and injured 130 at a Chinese train station in 2014. A 2016 stabbing spree in Japan left 19 dead and 26 injured. Nigerian rioters killed more than 500 Christian villagers with machetes in 2010. In 1995, terrorists released the nerve agent, sarin, into the Tokyo subway, killing 12 people and injuring 5,500. In Britain, stabbings have become so prevalent in the wake of gun control that knife control measures have been implemented.

The worst mass killing in a US school was not committed with guns and makes most mass shootings pale in comparison. In 1927, a school electrician blew up the school in Bath Township, Mich.. killing 44 people including 38 children.

So, why do activists single out “gun violence” in their protests? There are several likely reasons. The most obvious is that demonizing guns and trying to make them go away is the simple solution. But, as H.L. Mencken wrote, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

A second reason is that it easier to attack guns than to address the underlying societal problems that drive people to commit murder. Murder has been with us since the earliest days of human history. The desire to kill is an innate part of human nature. Civilization and technology have not removed the desire to kill as much as they have made it easier to carry out murder efficiently and on a grander scale.

If activists want to stamp out violence and murder, they must override human nature. One way of doing this is by creating penalties to those who give in to violent urges. Society punishes these people with jail time or execution. For sociopaths who are compulsively driven to hurt and kill, the only solution may be to either kill them or keep them locked away for the rest of their lives.

Much of today's mass violence comes from people with who are willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill and injure others. In the majority of killing sprees, the attacker is among the dead, either by his own hand or by police bullets. The two primary motives for current mass killings seem to be Islamic radicalism or mental illness, both of which are characterized by perpetrators who have little or no regard for their own lives.

The problem of how to defend against such predators is a difficult one. One possibility is to attempt to change human nature. The one thing that can successfully change people, God, is being driven from the public square. Church attendance is down as religious believers are ridiculed and forced to leave their beliefs at home. As a result, many children receive no training in ethics and morality at all. Neither are they warned that a life of sin and violence could result in everlasting punishment beyond this world.

Instruction in ethics and morality that teaches the basic lesson that killing is wrong could be useful, but in today's world black-and-white morality has been replaced by shades of gray. Murder of unborn babies is socially acceptable, even encouraged by some. The right-to-die and euthanasia movements also cheapen life. In any case, such instruction may not overcome mental illness or contrary teachings that murder is a religious duty.

Where human nature cannot be changed, the best solution is to improve security. There is no single answer, but increased police presence, metal detectors and vehicle barriers around pedestrian areas are all partial answers. So is close monitoring of mentally ill people who are potentially violent. Involuntary commitment laws need to be revisited along with privacy laws. Allowing citizens the right to use guns for self-protection is also a piece to the puzzle.

The problem of Muslim extremism is even more difficult to address, particularly in a country that guarantees religious freedom. At the very least, security forces should monitor mosques for signs of extremist activity and track visits to known terrorist websites. Prospective immigrants should be closely screened to prevent extremists from entering the country.

With or without access to guns, human nature is unlikely to change for the positive without a religious awakening. Since our desire to murder is unlikely to go away, the best remaining alternatives are to increase security and self-defense measures. Where perpetrators of killing sprees can't be prevented from launching their attacks, they can at least be stopped with minimal loss of life.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Are the lessons of Pearl Harbor forgotten?

As America remembers the attack on Pearl Harbor that occurred 75 years ago today, I have to wonder how well we remember the lessons of that day of infamy. Everyone remembers the Japanese sneak attack that Sunday morning, but not everyone remembers the events that led to war.

Two of the factors that resulted in the destruction of the American Pacific fleet are rearing their heads in modern American policy. First was American military weakness that was not widely recognized at the time. Second was an attitude of isolationism that was brought on by the economic malaise of the Great Depression. There are parallels to both in 2016.

After WWI, the “war to end all wars,” the American military was placed on the back burner. Particularly after the onset of the Great Depression, the US military was placed behind FDR’s public works projects in importance. While the federal government built national parks and post offices, the army and navy languished.

As Japan and Germany built up their armed forces in the 1930s, the New Deal gave them a head start of almost a decade. At the beginning of WWII, the US Army was smaller than the army of Portugal at about 180,000 men. The air force, which was then part of the army, had only a few hundred planes, many of which were already obsolescent. In 1941, the US Navy had only six aircraft carriers to split between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. They faced a fleet of 10 new Japanese carriers.

The situation is analogous to today’s American military. The Heritage Foundation recently found that the US armed forces were understrength and weak after years of protracted wars and budget cuts. Modernization has been sacrificed to maintain current strength while potential adversaries like Russia and China have both expanded and modernized their forces.

Isolationism grew from the Great Depression as well, but had roots that ran deeper. After WWI, Congress rejected American membership in the League of Nations, a precursor to the United Nations. While the US actively intervened in Central America, Americans did not want to involve themselves in European or Asian politics. Protectionist policies like the Smoot-Hawley tariff served to both further isolate America from the world while at the same time preventing economic recovery.

“America first,” a slogan heard on both sides of the political aisle this year, was also a popular phrase in the 1930s. When President Roosevelt felt it necessary to intervene against Japanese aggression in China and Nazi aggression in Europe, he could not do so openly due to opposition at home. Father Charles Coughlin and aviator Charles Lindbergh were among the celebrities who whipped up isolationist sentiment against American involvement overseas.

Today, political figures on both sides of the aisle have argued against American involvement against aggressive and expansionist governments. It was Republican opposition that derailed President Obama’s plan to intervene against Assad in Syria, a failure that led to the protracted civil war and more instability in the region. Donald Trump removed the plank from the Republican platform that called for lethal aid for Ukraine in its fight against insurgents backed by Vladimir Putin. China is building islands in the South China Sea that will become military bases while the United States does nothing.

Pearl Harbor was the result of a perfect storm of military weakness and inward-looking policies that allowed dictatorships to flourish. When tyrants like Hitler thought that no one dared oppose them, they decided to expand their borders. The desire to avoid war at all costs while failing to maintain military readiness eventually led to a war that cost millions of lives. Tragically, these lessons of Pearl Harbor appear to have been forgotten.  

Originally published on The Resurgent

Venezuelan Hyperinflation Means Money No Longer Fits Wallets

David Holt/Wikimedia

The crashing Venezuelan economy has put consumers between a rock and a hard place. Shortages have caused prices to increase dramatically while, at the same time, the value of the Venezuelan currency has plummeted. The result is that wallets are no longer large enough to contain the wad of banknotes that are necessary to buy even small, everyday items.

According to the Washington Post, the exchange rate is so bad that the largest Venezuelan banknote, a 100 bolivar bill, is worth only about 5 US cents on the black market, far less than the official exchange rate of 10 bolivars to the dollar. That means that common items are increasingly out of reach for Venezuelans. A pack of cigarettes currently sells for about 2,000 bolivars, the current equivalent of $1 US.  This transaction alone would require the exchange of 20 of the 100 bolivar bills.

The large number of banknotes required for a typical shopping trip makes it difficult to carry enough money in a wallet or purse. Many Venezuelans are increasingly turning to electronic transactions to avoid carrying large amounts of cash. For others, the large quantity of paper money means using larger plastic bags or backpacks to transport their bankroll.

  

Shortages have caused the price of food to skyrocket even as the money lost its value. As food riots rocked the country in August, CNN reported that staples such as flour, milk and pasta can cost a month’s pay… if you can find them at all.

In Venezuela, there are three ways to buy products. First, there are official government stores where the price is subsidized and kept low. Economic law dictates that artificially low prices cause abnormally high demand. The result is that people flock to the government stores and rapidly clear their shelves. Products disappear quickly even with rationing. Customers at government stores can only shop on certain days of the week. There are long lines and, when you get to the front, there are no guarantees that there will be anything left to buy.

Venezuela also has private stores. Since these stores are not subsidized by the government, prices are higher. Private stores still have to contend with the shortages as well.

“I've been waiting in line since 3 a.m. and have only managed to get two tubes of toothpaste, so, I guess I'm going to have to eat toothpaste tonight,” Monica Savaleta, a 19-year-old dancer, told CNN.

There is a third option, the black market. Buying and selling on the black market is illegal and can be dangerous. It is also very expensive compared to the legal stores.

“I make between 12,000 and 15,000 bolivars a month,” Savaleta said. “If I buy from the [black market] bachaqueros, my whole salary is blown on three kilos [6.6 pounds] of rice.”

Business Insider listed several black market prices for common grocery items. Fresh milk is impossible to find, so many used powdered milk which costs $700 US for a 2.2-pound box. A dozen eggs fetch $150 US. A box of pasta costs more than $300 US. Watermelons are $40 US each. A one-pound bag of coffee is $200 US. To put this in perspective, the Venezuelan minimum wage is about 15,000 bolivars per month, about $1,500 US. More than three-quarters of Venezuelans live in poverty according to the Wall Street Journal.

Venezuela’s situation is known as “hyperinflation,” a condition typically defined by economists as monthly inflation of greater than 50 percent. At that level, an item that costs $1 on January 1 would cost $130 a year later. The Venezuelan inflation rate has been estimated at between 720 percent and 2,200 percent.

There have been 55 other cases of hyperinflation, all of them since the onset of the 20^th century. The most famous was in the German Weimar Republic in the 1920s that eventually led to the rise of Adolf Hitler. As with many cases of hyperinflation, war and financial mismanagement led to the onset of the Weimar crisis. Germany had financed its war effort with debt, which was compounded after the war with reparations payments to the Allies. The Reichsbank began monetizing the debt, a process by which the central bank issued bonds to cover its debt which were then purchased by the same central bank. Using this process, the government could borrow money without having to repay it. The German government also began printing more marks to finance domestic spending.

In Venezuela, the economic crisis is primarily due to government policy and the oil slump. Former president, Hugo Chavez, a protégé of Fidel Castro, nationalized large swaths of Venezuela’s economy and funded much of the country’s consumption with foreign debt according to The Guardian. When the price of oil crashed, so did Venezuela’s revenues. As a result, Nicolas Maduro, Chavez’s successor, was forced to use the country’s gold reserves to service the national debt.

The Maduro government also printed more money, which contributed to the devaluation of the currency. Another basic economic law says that when there is more of something, it is valued less. More bolivars on the market made each individual bolivar less valuable.

Also contributing to the problem is corruption. Transparency International rates Venezuela as the ninth most corrupt country in the world. While ordinary Venezuelans suffer, Maduro and his cronies are doing well. The NY Post noted last spring that an estimated $2 billion has been exported from the country to private banks. The Maduro government is accused of bribery, money laundering, siphoning funds from the state-owned oil company and even drug smuggling.

In 1923, the Weimar hyperinflation ended when the German Reichsbank stopped monetizing the national debt and stopped printing new money. The Reichsbank pegged the value of the Papermark at 4.2 trillion to $1 US according to the Mises Institute. A new currency, the Rentenmark, was introduced with a value of 1 trillion Papermarks to 1 Rentenmark.

At this point, there is no end in sight to the Venezuelan crisis. A resolution will require a change in government policy and may require a change in the government itself. Dissatisfaction and food riots may eventually turn into a revolution or coup against the country’s ruling class. Until reforms are made, the best the government can do to deal with the crisis is to print money in ever larger denominations. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Pilot suicides

Yesterday’s revelation that the recent crash of Germanwings Flight 9525 was caused by an apparent pilot suicide shocked the world. First Officer Andreus Lubitz reportedly locked the captain out of the cockpit and calmly flew the airplane with its 150 passengers into the side of a French mountain, killing everyone on board.

The act of suicide by an airline pilot while flying is not common, but has happened more than most people think. The most well-known suicide pilots, the Japanese kamikazes of World War II, carried no passengers, although the September 11 suicide hijackers did. The Aviation Safety Network lists nine crashes dating back to 1976 that were confirmed to be suicides. Additionally, ABC News notes that a Japan Air Lines pilot crashed his DC-8 in 1982, killing 24 people, but surviving the crash himself. Last year’s disappearance of Malaysia Flight 370 is widely believed to have been due to a pilot suicide as well.

Airline suicide crashes are usually not well known because they have primarily occurred in the third world. The sole suicide crash before Germanwings that affected a Western country was EgyptAir 990, which crashed off the island of Nantucket, Mass. in 1999. The American NTSB determined that a relief first officer crashed the plane into the ocean, killing all 217 people on board, but Egypt disputed the conclusion.

For most people, there are strong psychological barriers against killing oneself or others. A pilot who intentionally crashes his plane has obviously overcome these strong taboos against killing and suicide. While pilots are normal people with normal problems, few people who commit suicide do so while taking hundreds of other lives at the same time. Nevertheless, one study cited by Air & Space Magazine found that suicide was suspected in .33 percent of fatal crashes over 20 years. This is slightly more than one crash per year, mostly involving small airplanes.

Flying is a high stress occupation. Being an airline pilot involves long periods of time away from home and family, which leads to a high divorce rate. The airline industry is often unstable and furloughs (layoffs) or demotions can come suddenly and last years, leading to financial problems. Add to that a grueling schedule with irregular work hours, regular flight tests and medical exams that can quickly end a career, and the knowledge that a momentary lapse can kill or lead to a violation by regulatory authorities and it is easy to understand how a pilot could suffer from depression or substance abuse. In spite of the stress, suicide is not demonstrably higher for pilots according to most studies.

“It's a special job. You are working at irregular times; if you have a family, you are often not there [or] may be at home when everyone is at work,” said Dr. Andre Droog, president of the European Association for Aviation Psychology on Voice of America. “If you are flying intercontinental flights, you may build up jet lag and fatigue and of course you have to manage your life very well.”

In spite of policies at many airlines that encourage pilots to self-report addiction or mental health issues, many pilots are fearful that doing so will cost them their jobs. In 2010, the FAA changed its policy to allow pilots to take antidepressants for mild to moderate depression, but the current policy stipulates that approval is on a case-by-case basis and requires successful treatment for six months, during which time they would not be legal to fly. This effectively means that pilots have to either forgo treatment, fly illegally, or take a six month leave of absence.

In Asia, where several suicide crashes have taken place, many airlines now subject their pilots to psychological testing. “They ask about your mental health, about events that could affect you psychologically,” one captain from an Asian airline told CNBC. “But who willingly admits to anything that could lead to a suspension of their license? I won't. I need my job.”

Since airline crewmembers know each other best, flight crews are encouraged to report any potential problems that they observe. In the United States, many pilot unions have professional standards committees to help resolve interpersonal conflicts. Concerned crewmembers can talk to representatives on these committees without involving company representatives and threatening jobs.

“Never leave a person alone - that's probably the most effective suicide prevention technique there is," said Tony Catanese, a clinical psychologist at Glen Iris Psychology in Melbourne on CNBC.

Federal aviation regulations already require that both pilots remain in the cockpit, but contains an exception for “physiological needs.” For flights lasting from six to eight hours, it is unrealistic to assume that neither pilot would ever have to visit the lavatory. On most flights, there are no relief crews to fill the empty seat for a few minutes. Cockpit doors have been strengthened since the September 11 attacks to resist forcible entry, making it difficult for the second pilot to break back in.

One solution might be for a flight attendant enter the cockpit when one pilot leaves. The Flight Attendant would probably not be able to wrestle the controls from a suicidal pilot, but might be able to at least prevent him from locking the other pilot out.

Ultimately, there is no way to effectively prevent any possibility of future airline pilot suicides. At present, even though the shock of the Germanwings crash is still fresh, the problem of suicides by pilots is a tiny statistical blip. The vast majority of airline pilots around the world are professionals who have learned to cope with life’s problems and keep them out of the cockpit.

 

Read the full article on Aviation Examiner

The end of America? Tell us what you think

A famous poem written by T.S. Eliot includes the line, “This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with a whimper.” Years later, this may have inspired Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev (or whoever wrote the quote that is often attributed to him) when he said, “We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, b

ut we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism.” Whether Khrushchev said it or not, the sentiment is proving accurate.

At dinner recently with a coworker, the discussion turned to the upcoming election. My friend stated his belief that President Obama would be re-elected and that the second Obama term would seal the fate of the United States, not with the bang of a nuclear holocaust, but with the whimper of an economy that is doomed to collapse under the weight of a bloated federal debt that can no longer be financed or paid off without painful and draconian cuts that are not politically possible. In short, my friend believes that the United States is about to experience a Greek economic crisis.

He justifies his belief by noting that almost half of all Americans pay no income taxes. Many of these people who pay no taxes get large tax “refunds” nonetheless. Further, the percentage of Americans who are receiving government benefits is at an all-time high. He believes that the vast majority of these people will vote to return President Obama to the White House in order to keep the gravy train rolling.

My own opinion differs slightly. I agree that the current economic situation is dire. However, I believe that many of the Americans who are not paying taxes and who are getting government checks are doing so because they are unemployed and unable to find a job. Many of these people might be persuaded to vote for a Republican challenger with a pro-growth platform that will help the economy recover. I believe that my opinion is backed up by the Republican landslide of 2010 and early indications that the Republicans may well take control of the senate in 2012. Polls also show that Americans want competition and free markets rather than more federal regulation.

Getting the Democrats out of Washington is only half the battle. The other half of the battle is more difficult. Once the free-spending Democrats have been shown the door, the Republicans have to maintain discipline and avoid a return to their own free-spending ways. In this, recent events offer some encouragement.

Most importantly, Republicans in the House of Representatives have held the line on spending and taxes since the election of 2010. In 2011, the GOP house members held spending almost level in spite of the vocal objections of President Obama and the Democrat-led senate. This was the first time in decades that federal spending had not increased sharply, but instead remained almost level.

Republican successes at the state level are also encouraging. Republican governors in Wisconsin and Indiana have rolled back the power of unions. Wisconsin governor Scott Walker was vilified for breaking the teacher’s union’s power of collective bargaining, but the legislation arguably put Wisconsin on the road to economic recovery. In Indiana, Governor Mitch Daniels passed right-to-work legislation that gives employees the freedom to choose whether to become a union member or not. In contrast, deep blue states like Michigan, California, and New York are basket cases.

According to the Washington Post, at 85 percent, the United States has the world’s seventh highest debt-to-GDP ratio. Under Barack Obama’s borrow-and-spend policies, this ratio is increasing. This puts the U.S. close behind such nations as Portugal (101 percent), Italy (120 percent), and Greece (168 percent). The number one debtor nation with respect to GDP is Japan at 233 percent. Where the U.S. has some advantages over the European countries, such as the ability to manipulate its currency and the size of its economy, there are also disadvantages as well: There is no country big enough to bail out the U.S. President Obama pays lip service to deficit reduction, but his 2012 budget adds $8 billion to the deficit according to MSNBC.

My friend was under the impression that no nation has ever recovered from debt-to-GDP ratio of 100 percent, but this appears not to be true. According to Global Financial Data, several nations including Australia and Canada have paid down extremely high levels of government debt in the past. The process of paying down these high debt levels is long and politically difficult, often taking decades. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the consequences of not paying the debt down could mean be continued economic stagnation, high unemployment, and slow economic growth, especially as the ratio goes above 90 percent.

It could also be as bad as the hyperinflation as experienced by Germany in the 1920s when the Weimar Republic used their version of “quantitative easing” to print money to pay reparations from WWI. PBS tells how the price of coffee could almost double at a restaurant between ordering and getting the bill. In 1923, one dollar was equal to a trillion marks. Even a milder inflation such as the U.S. experienced in the 1970s led to a dismal and stagnant decade.

Holding the line on federal spending is not enough. Since the federal government borrows almost 40 cents of every dollar it spends, heavy cuts are needed in order to actually reduce the federal deficit and debt. With Occupiers already rioting in some cities and Democrats using scare tactics over Social Security and Medicare reform, cutting entitlement spending is sure to be difficult. A large and looming question is whether Republicans in Washington and Americans in voting booths around the country have the intestinal fortitude to make the needed cuts and stand by them.

If not, then it is only a matter of time until the collapse of our economy. American will end, not with a bang at the hands of the likes of Osama bin Laden or the Soviet Union, but with a whimper of government paralysis, inflation, and economic stagnation. The United States of America may continue to exist as a country, but it will bear little resemblance to the America that we know.

My belief is that the Republicans will win big this November, but on the long-term question, I rate their chances at about 50-50.

What do you think? Let me know by leaving a comment below.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/the-end-of-america-tell-us-what-you-think