Posts by ChadPillai:
- First, request the private sector to fill a large order (demand) such as installing solar panels on every military building and family home.
- Second, put a specific timeline that makes it hard for the current private sector to meet with its current production capability of domestic manufacturing and installation of the required products in less than two years.
- Third, incentivize future contract upgrades by requesting that the private sector meet a goal that exceeds their current technological capacity such as requesting all new non-tactical vehicles exceed current mileage capabilities by 20%, thereby enticing greater research and development.
- And finally, offer bonuses for companies that meet demands to standard that are under-budget and faster than the contract specifies. This means that the government doesn’t need to offer tax credits or subsidies.
- Divest the low earth orbit business model by allowing private ventures such as SpaceX to service ISS, repair satellites, and conduct research on behalf the Government, Corporations, and etc.
- Gain authorization to establish regulatory guidelines for commercial space flight along the lines of the FAA. This will allow corporations to compete for this lucrative market for the likes of Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic as it did for the likes of Howard Hughes in the Commercial Airline industry.
- Return to the Moon and establish a permanent station for further research, potential future moon mining, and as a launch pad for deep space exploration.
- Focus the majority of NASA’s budget on deep space exploration (Human and Robotic) for a future Mars Mission and beyond. Once a particular program becomes routine like the Shuttle Program, find ways to divest it to the commercial sector. This is how true Public-Private Partnership should work!
- Invest in domestic rocket engine production. This should be considered a national security asset for civilian and military application.
Make America Greater: Our Mars Mission
October 21st, 2016
By Chad Pillai.
In 1962, a young ambitious President inspired our Nation to do the impossible: “Put a man on the moon and return him safely to earth.” Our Nation accepted the challenge and achieved the impossible. Along the way, our Nation benefited from the challenge as technologies developed to achieve the goal was spun off for civilian use.
Recently, President Obama made a similar challenge when he called for the United States to send people to Mars by 2030. While it is beneficial for the President to call for such a goal, it came almost eight years too late into his presidency. Despite President Obama’s late challenge, there are those who have already accepted the challenge to make our Mars Landing a reality.
The Moon Mission was a competition between nations. It pitted the U.S. civilian space agency, NASA, to compete with the Soviet space agency. Today, the U.S. finds itself in both competition and cooperation with Russia, but is in competition with a new space power: China. China has announced plans for both lunar and Mars missions. Other plays include India who has successfully launched its own Mars Orbiter.
To achieve its Mars Quest, the U.S. is taking a different approach: the private sector. The best known privateer seeking to reach Mars is Elon Musk and his company SpaceX with the goal of establishing a million-person colony. What makes this so exciting is that others are choosing to compete against SpaceX. In fact, Boeing CEO, Deni Muilenburg, at a press conference said “I’m convinced that the first person to set foot on mars will arrive their riding a Boeing rocket.” This is the kind of competition our Nation needs to spur innovation. In order to land and colonize Mars, new technologies will have to be invented, creating the creative environment to transform the U.S. economy. The fact that private sector companies will be competing with each other, they will be competing against Russian, Chinese, and Indian state run programs. It is the opportunity for the U.S. to once again demonstrate its greatness when faced with competition.
This is an element missing from today’s election year discussions. We are looking towards the past in the hopes that we will regain jobs that shipped overseas to China. Instead, we need to look forward to the manufacturing jobs that will propel us into the final frontier. Let the Chinese and others make low-end manufacturing goods while American workers forge the spaceships of the future, and create the new technologies that American ingenuity is known for. Let us aspire to harness our competitive nature to be first to Mars and let others aspire to dream like us again. This is how we will continue to make America Greater!
Comments Off on Make America Greater: Our Mars Mission
Regaining our Space Mojo
January 21st, 2016
By Chad Pillai.
Two years ago, I wrote that our Space Program has taken a Giant Leap Backwards because it seemed ill defined and lost the pioneering spirit we had in the 1960s. However, the past 90 days represents both a rebirth of the U.S. Space Program and a passing of the guard between the old and new pioneers. The recent passing of the Starman, British rocker, David Bowie, whose song “Space Oddity” was released as a single 5 days prior to the Apollo 11 Moon mission, a mission that captivated the world and promised even greater exploration, represents the old guard. Unfortunately, as I’ve stated, our moon program didn’t go any further and NASA returned its focus towards low earth orbit utilizing the now retired Space Shuttle and now requiring Russian launch support to the International Space Station (ISS). While it has been 37 years since the U.S. landed astronauts on moon, the U.S. Space Program is entering a new phase driven by competition from the likes of Russia, China, and India to return to the moon and beyond, and also as a result of pioneering efforts by commercial space entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk (SpaceX) and Jeff Bezos (Blue Origin). The Commercial Space Program
The last few years has seen the growth of the commercial space program with the rise of companies such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, Orbital Sciences, Virgin Galactic, and Sierra Nevada Corporation competing for NASA contracts to resupply the ISS and provide the means to launch U.S. astronauts into orbit without the assistance of the Russians. The crown jewel for the commercial long-term viability of the program was established by SpaceX when it sought to achieve what NASA failed to do since its inception: develop cheap and reliable reusable rockets. On December 21, 2015, SpaceX successfully launched its payload and recovered its Falcon 9 rocket. However, while Blue Origin’s New Shepard successfully demonstrated this feat first on November 23, 2015, it must be noted that the specifications of the two types of rockets and launch parameters were different. However, what is important is that both companies have demonstrated the feasibility of reusable rockets which will further reduce the costs of future missions. The addition of the reusable space plane (Dream Chaser) will provide additional benefits to the sector as well. Virgin Galactic is taking a different approach by focusing on developing commercial sub-orbital space flight for space tourists, and could be a game changer in future global travel that will either force today’s commercial airlines to go out of business or force them to adapt. To make commercial development of space, Congress passed and the President signed into law the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (H.R. 2262) on November 25, 2015. This will provide an incentive for commercial enterprises to invest and permanently settle the Moon and asteroids. Mars and Beyond 
The commercial program allows NASA to focus on its core mission of deep space exploration. NASA’s next major goal is a manned mission to Mars. In fact, Congress recently authorized NASA to spend $55 million to build a Mars Habitat to support such a mission. NASA has advertised its Mars One program looking for applicants to not only make the journey, but for some, to remain permanently. The mission to mars will be made using NASA’s new Space Launch System (SLS) propelling its Orion Capsule. To achieve this feat, NASA has laid out a three phase plan that will seek to land humans on the surface of Mars in the 2030s. If successful, my generation and my children’s generation will be alive to witness the same scientific accomplishment and wonderment my parents and grandparents felt when they watched Neil Armstrong set foot on the surface of the moon. NASA is not limiting itself to getting a manned mission to Mars, but is focusing on extending its knowledge of deep space. Its New Horizons program is intended to explore the Pluto System and the Kuiper Belt. As it reaches deeper into space, it will open new possibilities for human exploration and tap into unknown economic opportunities. Conclusion The Intertwining of the Commercial Space Program and NASA’s refocus on deep space exploration allows the U.S. to tap back into its pioneering spirit. Competition and cooperation with other Space Powers such as Russia, China, Japan, India, and the European Space Agency will further our knowledge of the universe and usher in a new period of discovery not seen since the “Age of Sail” in the 1400s. This new pioneering spirit is being led by the Starman, Major Tom, transcending time and space as he passes from our galaxy to one far beyond. http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/congress-spending-bill-urges-nasa-to-develop-deep-space-habitat/ (Picture of Habitat)
Comments Off on Regaining our Space Mojo
Fixing our Veterans Crisis with Economic Revitalization
September 18th, 2014
By Chad Pillai.
The song “Wrong Side of Heaven” by the Band Five Finger Death Punch is a great piece that highlights our ongoing crisis regarding our care for veterans after over a decade of combat – combat that will continue for the foreseeable future as we begin our campaign against ISIS. The statistics used in the video are nothing but heartbreaking: Over 300,000 veterans are sleeping on the streets with another 1.4 million at risk of being homeless, and 67% of those homeless veterans have served at least 3 years; divorce rates in the military have increased 42%; and there are approximately 460,000 veterans suffering from PTSD with about 5,000 of them taking their lives each year, which is about 1 veteran every 2 hours.
Compounding the problem is an underfunded Veterans Administration rocked by scandal for inadequate medical care resulting in at least 19 reported deaths. Finally, as a Defense One article from May 2014 reports, “there remains a growing pool of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans whose unemployment rate still outpaces both their civilian counterparts and veterans of previous conflicts.” While some can argue with specific statistics, no one can argue with the fact that our veterans face a crisis that requires the nation to unite in order to provide real solutions.
Today’s veterans face a very different environment than those of the Greatest Generation. After WWII, our veterans came home to the most industrialized economy in the world with no real competition from Europe and Asia whose economies were decimated. Demand for US goods both domestically and internationally, as a result of US redevelopment programs like the Marshall Plan, created the conditions for full employment – and created a strong position for U.S. labor to negotiate higher wages and benefits.
Additionally, programs like the G.I. Bill provided veterans the opportunities to improve themselves and their families. These conditions allowed the expansion of the middle class and decades of prosperity. As Western Europe and Japan recovered, the competitive advantage U.S. labor enjoyed began to fade. Then, as China transformed its economy and as U.S. manufacturers shifted overseas to cheaper labor markets, industrialize manufacturing jobs previously available to veterans, and our middle class, began to evaporate. While the U.S. economy has structurally changed in the face of global competition, there are opportunities. Today, there are over 600,000 skilled manufacturing jobs unfilled and employers are seeking veterans to fill those positions. While this is good, more should and can be done!
The biggest obstacle to resolving our crisis has been our political partisanship and the associated rigid ideologies. We recognize the homeless issues with veterans, the rise in food stamp use among military families, and the need to provide greater funding to the veteran administration; however, Congress, especially the House of Representatives, have cut vital social safety net programs like food assistance to appease those who view people who utilize such programs as social parasites stealing from the working class without acknowledging that a large population of those social parasites are indeed veterans who gave their all on behalf of their nation. While these social safety net programs are important along with efforts by profit and nonprofit organizations, these are merely short-term band aids compared to what could be achieved.
Unlike my Conservative and Libertarian friends, and someone who has read Adam Smith, I believe that the Government can lead private-public partnership programs that can help veterans rely less on the social safety net and more on future productive employment – not threatened by China’s low wage labor market. In the globalized economy, our government is as much a player in the system as are private enterprise since we are competing with more mercantile nations such as China. As a result, the government needs to focus on its competitive advantages vis-à-vis our global competitors. I believe the three areas the U.S. can gain a competitive economic advantage: energy independence, space exploration, and critical infrastructure.
In October 2013 in my article “Challenge the Free Market” I highlighted how the U.S. can use its massive purchasing power to ignite competition to ensure U.S. energy independence. My thesis was that the Department of Defense, through its Green Energy Initiative, could create greater demand for innovation and production by the private sector as a result of compressing timelines and increasing qualitative demands.
The next area where the U.S. can regain its advantage is from low-earth and deep space exploration. My two previous articles on how to repair our space program for exploration while encouraging greater commercialization are my proposed solutions for creating a new and profitable economic sector. NASA’s recent contract announcement with Boeing and Space X is a step in the right direction.
The third and last element of our national economic revival is focusing on our critical infrastructure: road, rail, port, and urban renewal. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates our infrastructure will need $3.6 trillion to fully repair. This situation creates potential opportunities for investors, and this past year, Douglas L. Peterson made that recommendation in his CNBC article “That pile of cash? Invest it in US infrastructure” Based on my own experiences in Iraq, I also recommended a program to rebuild American cities utilizing the experiences of veterans who did stabilization and reconstruction work.
I am not naïve to believe these efforts will be cheap but if done correctly, they will be far cheaper in the long run by using free market principles and creating less demand for the social safety net. My four recommended principles are:
It doesn’t distort the free market – it challenges it to perform. The Government doesn’t pick winners; the free market does by whichever private enterprise(s) meets the standard(s). It also means the government shouldn’t create large bureaucracies to manage these programs. In fact, there is the potentiality for overall spending reduction and greater efficiency by enforcing contract management and oversight within existing federal entities, to include DoD.
So, how will these proposals address the crisis our veterans are facing? By creating the economic conditions that will demand the specific skill set veterans possess not only in technical areas, but in non-tangibles such as teamwork and leadership. In addition, it will provide the means for veterans, especially those that are homeless and unemployed, to regain their sense of honor and purpose in life. This will require the nation to unite behind a common cause: rebuilding America and taking care of our Veterans. Too often, many speak of their support for the troops when they return home; however, when it comes to providing the resources necessary to provide real opportunities for productive employment, such resources are lacking due to political partisanship and rigid ideologies. This has to change because the only time our veterans should be on the wrong side of heaven is when they are fighting in battles far away for our freedoms, not when they come home.
Comments Off on Fixing our Veterans Crisis with Economic Revitalization
One Giant Leap Backwards
July 17th, 2014
By Chad Pillai.
This Sunday represents the 45th Anniversary of Astronaut Neil Armstrong setting foot on the moon and uttering his famous line: “One Small Step for Man, One Giant Leap for Mankind.” Since that monumental achievement, the U.S. Human Spaceflight Program has taken a giant leap backwards. Not only have we not achieved anything on the scale of the Apollo program since, but our human spaceflight program has regressed to a stage prior to “The Magnificent Seven” of the Mercury Program that first sent Astronaut Alan B. Shepard, Jr. into orbit with the retirement of the Shuttle Program. How did we find ourselves here? The answer is a lack of vision and funding.
NASA’s cut the Apollo program after Apollo 17 due to budgetary constraints and a growing lack of interests by the public to justify the program’s cost. Additionally, NASA needed to make funds available for the Space Shuttle Program. This is the point where NASA began to lose its ability to offer a vision for future human space exploration. The lesson NASA should have learned from the Apollo and the subsequent Space Shuttle Program is when the public and Congress lose interests due to the perceived “predictable routine” of the programs, it should have divested them into the commercial sector while it set its sights on deeper exploration. This would have allowed two things to occur: (1) allowed NASA to concentrate on riskier deep space exploration ventures only the government could fund; and (2) create the conditions for the commercial market to expand into space to reduce the cost of space exploration and travel.
NASA’s decisions to prematurely cancel the Space Shuttle Program before its new Orion Program was ready and lack of investment in heavy rocket motors since the Saturn V F-1 Engines have left the U.S. reliant on Russia to ferry our astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) and lift critical national security assets into orbit with Russian supplied heavy rocket engines. Today, the U.S. Space Program is inadvertently vulnerable to U.S.-Russian Geo-Politics.
There is hope for our human space program. Recent competition by SpaceX and other startups such as Sierra Nevada to resupply the ISS is paving the way for commercialization. Other ventures such as Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic along with key investors such as Google’s Jeff Bezos for commercial space flight will help break NASA’s stranglehold on low earth orbit flights for private and corporate consumers. If SpaceX is successful developing low cost reusable rockets, it will help reduce the stranglehold United Launch Alliance has on the market and create opportunities for future exploration and innovation. Finally, Congress’s recent approval to allow SpaceX to compete for Air Force space contracts will help reduce cost and create new opportunities.
Looking ahead, NASA needs to do the following to regain its prestige and help the Human Space Program take the next leap forward.
Our current human space program has been on the decline since Apollo 11 landed on the moon 45 years ago. Congress will not provide more funding for NASA in today’s hyper-partisan political atmosphere along with economic constraints; however, it can help NASA by providing flexibility to change its business model. NASA itself needs to develop a new vision for the human space program which recreates the enthusiasm of our Space Program of the 1960s while creating the incentives for the commercial market to be actively involved by appealing to their profit-driven self interests. Unless NASA, and to some degree the U.S. Air Force, doesn’t change their current business model, our Human Space Flight Program will continue to take a huge step backwards while future competitors such as Russia, China, India and others will leap ahead. Do we want to see other flags beside ours on the moon? If we don’t, we need change.
Comments Off on One Giant Leap Backwards
Regaining our Inspiration to Explore
April 4th, 2014
As an unapologetic space geek, I am excited to see the remake of COSMOS on Fox/National Geographic and its mission to re-ignite excitement for space exploration and science in general. As someone who wanted to be a pilot and astronaut, I have always hoped to see our space program flourish and exceed the accomplishments of the Apollo Program. Unfortunately, since the Apollo Program, the only major accomplishments in the human spaceflight program have been low-earth orbital missions by the Space Shuttle and recently by private companies such as Space X.
It has been 42 years since we last landed on the moon. Since then, our human space exploration efforts have stagnated. According to NASA’s Strategic Plan, its core mission is “Expand the frontiers of knowledge, capability, and opportunity in space” with emphasis to “Expand human presence into the solar system and to the surface of Mars to advance exploration, science, innovation, benefits to humanity, and international collaboration.” However, had we remained committed in 1972, we could have established a moon colony that would have allowed us to continue exploring further among the other planets of our solar system. Instead, our efforts shifted to the Space Shuttle, despite proving itself valuable and generally reliable, kept us within the same bounds of exploration of Project Mercury, our first human spaceflight program. What should have occurred with the Shuttle Program after the first 10-15 launches, when the procedures and risk mitigations were in place, was to shift it to the private sector while NASA shifted back to manned deep space missions. It would have had the potential to revolutionize global travel as the private sector competed for the missions, and created additional spin-off potentials for the private sector. This means that instead of waiting for Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic to provide the means for commercial space flight in the near future, it could have already been a reality.
Compounding the problem associated with NASA’s single focus on the Space Shuttle was the decision to retire the program before the Orion Spacecraft was developed as a viable replacement. This decision was criticized by Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon, in his testimony to Congress when he informed them he worried “NASA would lose its edge in spaceflight, if it went years without its own flying astronauts.” Since Shuttle’s retirement, the U.S. has been hitching rides on Russian Soyuz Rockets to the International Space Station. Recent events in Crimea exposed our vulnerability to access space as tensions rose between the U.S. and Russia. As a result of Russia’s annexation of Crimea, NASA announced it was suspending joint U.S.-Russian Space activities, limiting our means to send our astronauts into space.
The tensions with Russia, China and India’s quest for space exploration should now re-awaken our competitive spirit. In fact, actor Neal McDonough’s recent Cadillac Commercial stuck me and made a point when he said that our work ethic led us to the moon landing; however, we got bored, left the keys in our space car and left, and that we are the only ones going back. Despite our work ethic, what we need is another leader to inspire us to continue our quest for the unknown, to bring out the best in us, and to provide the incentive for continued innovation in science and technology that will reshape our economy and way of life. Niel deGrasse, host of COSMOS, recently spoke to students at North Carolina State University on how revitalizing NASA could revitalize the U.S. He elaborated his position on NASA’s ability o revitalize the economy when he stated:
“I would double or triple NASA’s budget. That’s all you need to do. That solves everything. Then NASA can have a budget to go somewhere, a budget to advance the space frontier. And any time you advance a frontier, you have to patent new machines, tools, and methods, and these discoveries then make headlines…I derive this from the fact that when Sputnik was launched it put a flame under our rear ends in 1957, and people were climbing over each other to take science and engineering classes…There was a challenge in front of us that was making headlines. Once you do that, by my read of history and of human conduct and the impact of the space program on the American economy, I know of no more effective force to be brought to bear on that problem than a fully-funded NASA.”
In order to make that happen, in an age of austerity, we need a cause that will unify our nation beyond our divisive and polarizing politics. We need a challenge that will require us to innovate in order to solve complex challenges such as deep space exploration; something that forces us to accomplish a goal in a short timeline and require dedication, commitment, and collaboration by government and industry. What we need is a leader to continue President Kennedy’s challenge to the American people to accomplish what was perceived as when impossible when he said “We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard!” It is such challenges and fear of failure that drives us to excel. In the current age of austerity, it will be a tough, but necessary, sell to the American public. We must be reminded that even the Apollo program was not universally supported because of its cost, but the effort paid off. We are a nation of immigrant pioneers – a people driven by what is possible more than what holds us back. We are a nation that rewards those that make the impossible possible, and those who learn from failure in order to succeed. I hope that my fellow Americans, hoping for a better future for our nation, will regain our spirit for exploration by keeping President Kennedy’s challenge alive and dream like Robert Kennedy who said “I dream the things that never were and say why not?”
My hope, after 13 years of war, after years of polarization, that we can find something that will inspire us again to greatness. My hope is that we regain our inspiration to explore because I hope others like me who not only dreams things that never were and say why not, but want to make it a reality.
Comments Off on Regaining our Inspiration to Explore
Along the Path of Alexander the Great
February 19th, 2014
By Chad Pillai.
I just completed an audio book on “Alexander the Great” by Jacob Abbott during my daily commute to work and it provided me time for reflection on his career and mine and how I have traveled along his path. The audio book was not the first time I read a biography on Alexander nor will it be the last as newer ones come to light. In fact, prior to my deployment to Iraq, I read another biography on Alexander to gain insights into the area of northern Iraq. What fascinated me about Alexander beyond his military exploits was his ability to redefine the known world and spread Hellenism as the connective tissue throughout his empire. As I look back at my travels since 1993, I realized that I have walked along Alexander’s path from Greece to India, and in some respects, attempted to redefine a small portion of his empire in Tal’Afar, Iraq in America’s image. It also reminded me that despite being similar in age to Alexander during my deployment, I did not possess his power to make the changes I wished.
Athens, Greece
My first stop along Alexander’s Empire was in Athens, Greece in 2005. At the time, it was the closest that I was going to come to Alexander’s birthplace of Macedon. My adventure in Greece began with the unfortunate episode of accidently leaving my passport in the taxi as I exited to enter my hotel only to recover it later after paying a €50 return fee to the taxi driver. As I traveled around the city (more accurately allowed myself to get deliberately lost) viewing all the key cites to include the Acropolis, I came to appreciate the splendor of Ancient Greece and its contributions to world history, along with realization of its modern economic decline. Alexander’s education in the arts and philosophy by Aristotle shaped his views and his desire to spread Greek influences throughout the known world. Once he consolidated his power in Greece, Alexander would spread Hellenism to the heart of the Persian Empire and as far as the footsteps of India. His quest for empire would connect east and west into the world’s first globalized market union that would later influence future civilizations, religions, and empires.
Tal’Afar, Iraq
I arrived in Tal’Afar, Iraq in February 2006 and realized that once you strip away the power lines, the city would be as recognizable to Alexander as it did to me. The city lies 50 kilo meters from the city of Mosul within Nineveh Province, an area of importance in the Old Testament. It later became a region controlled by the Ottoman Empire as they struggled for dominance against the Persians (Safavid Empire) in the region. The citadel that sits atop of the city was a reconstructed castle the Ottomans built on top of an older, possibly Roman, citadel to defend the area from Persian incursions.
Immediately upon arrival, my greatest desire was to rebuild the castle as a historic monument to the city’s past and to serve as the government center (inspired by my previous travels to Prague, Czech Republic and the Prague Castle which serves as the as the official residence of the nation’s president). After a few months working with then Mayor Najim Aljbourry, several key sheikhs, and my Iraqi engineers, my inner Alexander devised a plan to rebuild the castle as part of a larger “Urban Renewal” and peace initiative (get agreement from Sunni and Shiites to agree to a formal ceasefire). The initial cost estimate for the project was roughly $15 million (rough estimate since I was doing my best developing cost estimate with Iraqis from the city and as well as Kurds from Dohuk (inhabited by Kurds and Assyrians)). While I, as a 27-year old Army Captain, was able to convince my Corps Commander, General (Retired) Peter Chiarelli, to approve the plan, the money never materialized.
Like a young Alexander, I remained undeterred in my quest to remake Tal’Afar, perhaps foolishly, along my vision of a small American city. I undertook two initiatives: establish a city operating budget and seek investors for the newly established business center. The government of Iraq was a centralized and inefficient system for allocating resources. Mirror imaging how the system works at home where each level of government (city, county, state, and federal government) have various responsibilities and manage their own budgets, I sought to do the same in Tal’Afar. After a few months of coaching and mentoring with the various municipal (district) managers, city council, and mayor, a city operating budget of approximately $22 million wad developed. A signing ceremony, akin to the President of the United States signing a new piece of legislation, was conducted. The mayor then took the proposed budget and proposed it to the Provincial Governor for action. Unfortunately, the Iraqi system was not prepared to deal with a bottoms-up approach to budgetary request and once again a good idea died a bureaucratic death.
My last attempt to change Tal’Afar was to seek funding for the newly established business center. This initiative allowed me to travel west to Irbil where I flew over the ancient Gaugamela battlefield where Alexander had defeated Darius III and his Persian Army. Going to Irbil, like Dohuk, was like being in a different country compared to Tal’Afar, Baghdad, and even Ramadi (where I spent the 2nd half of my tour). It was a relatively peaceful city where they even sold beer and liquor at the corner convenience stores. At the time, I was seeking $500,000 in USAID seed money for the business center to provide micro-loans to encourage private entrepreneurship.
Once again, I came away empty handed (0-3) due to perceptions of continued insecurity. However, there were some key lessons I learned. First, my power as a wannabe Alexander was limited to persuasion (despite my O-3 record on the big items, I am proud that my record on smaller initiatives was much better). Second, I wish I had utilized the Turkish Liaison Officer to see if Turkey would offer more support due to the Turkmen (population of Tal’Afar) connection to fund the castle renovation. Finally, understanding the history and geography of the land was the key element to negotiating and convincing the local Iraqis of the merits of the projects. While I would usually avoided religious discussions about Islam and Christianity, conversations about the ancient empires of Babylon or Assyria or kings like Sargon were great discussions. As for Babylon, I never had the chance to visit the city, but I did manage to see the Ishtar Gate built by Nebuchadnezzar II at the Pergamon Museum in Berlin.
Kabul, Afghanistan
The next stage along my travels of Alexander’s Empire was in Kabul, Afghanistan. Due to our current political difficulties with the Iranians (Persians), I could only settle for air travel instead of traveling along the ground to observe Alexander’s route to Afghanistan. Around 331 BC, Alexander defeated the Achaemenids (Darius III and his Persian Army) and took control of the area now known as Afghanistan. Though Kabul existed as a small town back then and played no major role during Alexander’s time, spending a year there did allow me to learn more about his influence on the region and major religions in the area to include Buddhism. At the same time, the closest I got to Alexander’s army in Kabul was interacting with the Macedonian Soldiers (Soldiers from the Former Republic of Macedon – Macedon not recognized by Greece) protecting our facility. Observing their men and women in the gym and dining facility (every time I watched them pile food on their plates, I could hear the Spartan King Leonidas of 300 Spartans say “Ready your breakfast and eat hearty…For Tonight, we dine in hell!”), I came to respect the fact that they would have served well in Alexander’s phalanx.
The city Alexander had the most influence on is Kandahar, initially named Alexandria, the spiritual home of the Taliban. From this area of Afghanistan, Alexander would lead his armies eastward towards India (Hindustan). During his campaign in India (in the area of modern day Pakistan), Alexander defeated his rival, King Porus, in the region of the Punjab; however, further conquest of India was terminated when his army refused to fight.
India also plays an important contribution to the legacy of Alexander through exportation of its religions, primarily Hinduism and Buddhism. While studying the history of the “Buddhas of Bamiyan” and the “Bactrian Gold”, I came to realize the connection between the early iconography of Buddha and Alexander. What is known as Greco-Buddhist Art (also known as Gandhara Art) contributed to the imagery of the Buddha in the region and extended as far east as China and Japan. The initial image of Buddha was developed by Afghan artisans who were influenced by Greek art and therefore the image we see of Buddha is actually believed to be that of Alexander.
The main lesson I learned from my time in Afghanistan utilizing the historical lens of Alexander is that the application of soft power (cultural and artistic) will have far longer effects and benefits than hard power (military). Alexander is remembered more for what he left behind by the people than what he did to conquer them.
India (Hindustan)
My first international trip in 1993 was to India, Alexander’s objective. My travels took me from the east (Chennai – formerly Madras) in Tamil Nadu to the state of Kerala along the Malabar Coast to visit my father’s family. Far from the area Alexander operated in, the coast line and its relationship to the Monsoon winds would have allowed him to move his ships from the Persian Gulf and link up with his Army to consolidate his gains had he went further south. My second trip in 1998, during the nuclear testing by India and Pakistan, took me back to Kerala and then north to New Dehli and Agra, the site of the Taj Mahal.
My family and I were warned from going to Kashmir where hostilities between India and Pakistan were tense. It reminded me of the power of geography and the artificiality of the borders that separated these two nations. The 1947 partition that created Pakistan from lands that belong to Pashtu tribes (majority population in Afghanistan who are artificially separated from Pakistani Pashtu tribes) and Punjab (two separate parts now in Pakistan and India) were areas that Alexander fought to control and his attempted subjugation of the subcontinent.
India’s role as the birthplace of Buddhism served as the connective tissue to Alexander’s legacy (as mentioned above). It also served as a lesson of imperial overstretch. India’s size and its population (second only to China) provided a large pool of manpower for its armies, along with its elephants, deterred Alexander’s army from continuing his campaign. While Alexander’s army may have been tactically and operationally superior to the initial wave of Indian armies they faced, they learned, along with future nations like the U.S. fighting the Chinese in North Korea, that mass has a quality of its own, and overtime, they would attrite themselves into extinction.
I also came to appreciate India’s cultural and culinary influence on Afghanistan, Iran, and the Middle East. As the major spice producer along the Silk (China) and Spice (India) road to Europe, India’s spices were in high demand. It influenced culinary cooking throughout the region. In Afghanistan, I came to appreciate the similarities in food which allowed me to adapt quickly to the environment and people. In Tal’Afar, it provided me with numerous jokes regarding the poor quality food I ate. I used to ask the Iraqis their ancestors didn’t steal spices from the caravans were moving from east to west like pepper to flavor their food. More importantly, it demonstrated the influence Alexander had on the region that opened the area for greater intergration (through intermarriage and trade) and would influence how future Empires (Roman, British, and etc) operated in the region seeking to create greater market integration.
Connecting the West and Eastern Parts of the Empire
My first trip to India required that I be open and learn about a culture far different than my own. India was where I first learned about Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, and the influence of Christianity and Judaism. Learning about the histories, geographies, and an appreciation for the various languages allowed me to effectively operate in the regions and converse with the local populations (through translators…not fluent in any local language). As I read more about the histories of Iraq, Afghanistan, and India, the more I saw the connective influence the West, as a result of Alexander, had on them, and their influence on the West. As we struggle for greater integration as part of today’s version of globalization, the continued necessity for knowledge in history, culture, and geography will be of greater importance. If we, the U.S., are to remain the world’s premier power, we need to take the time to learn about the rest of the world and look beyond our differences to observe what we have in common. Alexander’s quest to unite the known world is a good start and it served me well these past 14 years in the Army.
Finally, I learned that unless our laws change or a future President elects a 27-year old Captain to lead vast armies, I or a future version of me will never have the same power to force change like Alexander the Great. However, if given the chance, we can act as Mini-Alexander’s to transform the small pieces of geography we may have responsibility for by being better informed of the history and geography.
Comments Off on Along the Path of Alexander the Great
My take on “Lone Survivor”
January 13th, 2014By Chad Pillai.
This weekend, my family and I watched “Lone Survivor” and found the story both compelling and reassuring. Immediately after watching it, I read some of the various Facebook and Twitter comments on the movie with some disparaging it for not being 100% historically accurate and some worse to include a former Marine blasting Marcus Luttrell as a coward who left his buddies behind – sentiment I couldn’t disagree with more. I shared my thoughts of these comments with my wife, who as always, was correct to point out that what was important for folks like her is that the story was being told for the American people to develop a greater appreciation for what our military has been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 12 years.
As I think back, my wife’s comments make me recall a conservation I had with the barber my father and I would visit when I was growing up. He was a Coast Guard veteran of World War II who never spoke much about the war and during Desert Shield/Desert Storm expressed dismay that the country was entering another war. When I was home from Airborne School before returning to College, I asked him if he had seen the newly released “Saving Private Ryan” and he indicated no, and that he most likely wouldn’t. When I returned from Christmas Break for another haircut, he quietly told me he got around to seeing the movie and the opening 20 minutes of the Normandy Invasion were portrayed exactly how he remembered. I didn’t know it at the time, but as a Coast Guardsmen, he was tasked with driving the landing boats to the beaches and he clearly remembers the carnage of that battle. What I took away from that experience with my barber was that while the movie “Saving Private Ryan” was fictional, the portrayal of the horrors of war and the camaraderie displayed were important lessons for myself as an officer in the U.S. Army.
As a young Lieutenant stationed in Korea, the entire Division was directed to watch the newly released “Black Hawk Down” movie based off the popular book that recounted the events in Mogadishu, Somalia. The producers of the movie went to great lengths, working with the military, to portray the Rangers, Nightstalkers, and Delta Force in the most realistic manner possible. Despite this, there were inaccuracies in the movie such as the fusion of several real life warriors portrayed by one or two characters such as Hoot. Despite this, the book and the movie provided valuable lessons such as operational planning, combat inspections, and etc for military leaders. Additionally, it provided the American people a glimpse of the unpredictability of war and that even the best trained, best equipped warriors can be caught by surprise by a tenacious enemy.
“Lone Survivor” is the memoir of Marcus Luttrell, the lone surviving SEAL from Operation Red Wings. The movie took some license to change some elements from the book. However, it must be noted that Marcus and the families of the fallen SEALS were intimately involved in the movie’s production. In addition, the movie honored the 16 dead SEALS and Nighstalkers who were killed in the Chinook. The movie was gritty and the sense of violence and danger real. The brotherhood displayed was heart wrenching and reassuring. Watching those brave men die brought tears to my eyes as I recalled the lives and deaths of friends and a family member who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Did the portrayal have to be 100% accurate to illicit this response? My answer would be no. Did the message regarding the heroism of our warriors come across? Yes it did. Did some people gain appreciation that no all Afghans are bad and that they would risk their lives to fight the Taliban? The answer again was yes. As a Soldier, did the lesson that the training we endure and the bond we develop is our greatest weapon when outnumbered and technology has failed us? Again, my answer would be yes.
My recommendation for all is to remember that the movie is meant to be entertainment. However, remember that Marcus’s mission was to inform a larger section of our population of the sacrifices his buddies made that day. As he says, he accomplished his mission, even if the movie is not a documentary that needs to be 100%. These stories, including countless others such as “Killer Angels”, Thucydides “The Peloponnesian War”, and Homer’s tales of Troy are stories derived from the memories of people who lived through the events, but whose accuracy of each individual detail can’t be confirmed. However, the countless lessons derived from such tales can’t be discounted for it allows us to peer into the soul of war through the lens of the human heart and spirit. We can honor our fallen though books and Hollywood films without losing sight that the most important aspect is that their stories are being passed to future generations. Decades from now, the story of 4 SEALS fighting and dying for each other, and many others fighting to save them, no matter how inaccurate the specific details, will be part of our military lore, and rightfully so.
Rebuilding America’s Cities
January 2nd, 2014
By Chad Pillai.
My deployment and experiences in Iraq from 2006-2007 focusing on reconstruction and development have shaped my opinions and thoughts how to apply those lessons back home. I published an article: Tal’Afar and Ar Ramadi: Grassroots Reconstruction highlighting some of the lessons learned in building enduring projects and programs to resurrect a local economy as the means to starving the fuel, unemployed and uneducated citizens, needed by ideological fanatics leading the insurgency against us.
Since then, I have thought long and hard on how if given a chance, I would apply those lessons back home to help rebuild America. This became my campaign issue as I competed for the White House Fellowship in 2011 on the need to focus inward. This is something many veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan would agree that they would have preferred to see their energies and tax dollars spent on rebuilding America rather than foreign lands.
When I returned home from Iraq, I took the time to visit family in Reading, Pennsylvania and Camden, New Jersey. In 2011, Reading was listed as the poorest city in America. In 2013, NBC News aired a special on Camden as the deadliest city in America per capita to its population size. For these two cities, and many others, to include Detroit, the changing economic landscape has left these cities behind. To fill the vacuum left behind by well paying manufacturing-industrial jobs, low paying service jobs and a deadly illicit economy centered on narcotics took hold.
Driving through Camden made me feel more insecure than driving through insurgent plagued cities in Iraq because I wasn’t in large armored vehicles or had my personal arsenal with me as I had in Iraq. In a way, it felt wrong to be more afraid of being in an American city than in a foreign country where you know the bad guys are trying to kill you. Taking my direct observations from cities like Reading and Camden, how would I apply some of the lessons learned in Iraq to rebuild these cities?
Investment in Base Industries
If I were the Mayor of one of these cities, my overall strategy would focus on how to attract investment, both domestic and foreign, to create jobs and a sense of ownership of the future. I would focus on what I refer to as my base industry concept identifying employers who employ a sizable portion of my city, excluding local city government, in order to help them expand. In Tal’Afar, my focus was rebuilding the granary which would have served not only local farmers bring their harvest to market, but also supported the 2nd and 3rd order effected small businesses ranging from bakers to machinist.
Camden’s largest employers are L-3 Communications, Campbell Soup, and the various medical centers while Reading’s largest employers are East Penn Manufacturing, Carpenter Technology, and the Reading Hospital and Medical Center. These employers indirectly support the rest of the city’s economy by providing the base population of citizens with sufficient and stable discretionary income to support smaller businesses and retailers in the area. My goal would be to help these manufacturers, and attract new ones, to stay and eventually expand their operations through a mix of incentives and targeted investments to indirectly help small businesses grow.
Focused Infrastructure Development
At the national level, there have been discussions regarding the need for greater infrastructure investment and the need to create a national infrastructure bank. I would take these ideas and localize them. Instead of taxing local businesses to support this initiative, I would create a tax incentive vehicle that would incentivize them to invest in a local infrastructure bank in return for lowering their property and business taxes. The local infrastructure bank would be composed primarily of local business leaders who would determine the most appropriate use of the funds to rebuild critical road, electric, and water infrastructure networks that encourage economic growth. This would encourage businesses to invest in infrastructure that better suits their needs while limiting the ability of the local government to support the rebuilding of schools. This will help ensure infrastructure funds are not misappropriated for non-infrastructure projects or programs.
Selective use of Eminent Domain
In the 1960s and 70s, the “Broken Windows Theory” emerged on how to reduce crime and generate economic growth in urban areas. This theory was put to practice in New York City where it appeared to work on the surface; however, it remains inconclusive whether it would have worked elsewhere without the economic foundation that New York City enjoyed. The theory focused on active policing of broken neighbors rather than rebuilding them.
My approach would be the selective use of Eminent Domain to clear neighborhoods of abandoned homes, warehouses, and etc that serve as potential breading grounds for crime. According to the Legal Information Institute, Eminent Domain is “the power of the government to take private property and convert it into public use. The Fifth Amendment provides that the government may only exercise this power if they provide just compensation to the property owners.” In cities like Camden, there are stretches of neighborhoods with abandoned homes, businesses, and warehouses that blight the landscape and depressed the value of private and commercial properties. Many of these locations serve as the breeding grounds for illegal activities which further depress property values and scare off potential investors.
I would utilize the court system to enact Eminent Domain to acquire abandoned properties for auctioning to investors. Then, I would offer tax incentives for the demolishing of properties deemed unusable. Doing so would help clear vast stretches of land for redevelopment and eventually increase property values.
Devolution of City Services
To the greatest degree possible, I would limit the involvement of the city government in providing direct services to the citizens beyond police, fire, and emergency services. Services like waste removal would be commercialized where businesses and residents would have to pay for such services either through direct business fees or built into their rental costs.
Focused Educational Programs and Workfare
There are two complaints about today’s economy. First, many businesses complain of an insufficient pool of qualified workers for the jobs that are available. Second, there is a pool of “moochers” who live off the work of others while they collect welfare benefits. Admittedly, both are valid complaints. As the “Great Recession” has exposed, many college graduates lack the educational skill sets needed by many of today’s industries and there has been a general disregard for technical degrees granted by community colleges. While many manufacturing jobs have been globalized and moved to China, there are technically related jobs that cannot be sent overseas due to the technical nature and the localized need for those services.
As a city leader, I would gather businesses and educational leaders to devise an educational investment strategy that aligns more of the educational curriculum to the needs of the business and industrial community. It is recognition that the business and industrial communities are the primary consumers of the educational system and therefore needs to have confidence in the final product they are employing. Additionally, various tax incentives can be applied to both businesses and individuals who spend time mentoring students in schools, equipment donations, or through internship programs.
One of the methods applied in Iraq was to pay local workers to clean streets of debris. This was more of a threat reduction method to reduce areas where explosives could be hidden, but also as a means to provide a wage for people to care for their families. For everyone, except the disabled, this model needs to be applied to those receiving Welfare support. Recipients would either have to enroll in a technical educational program or provide community service to receive benefits. This serves two purposes: first, the pride of working while developing skills while building their resume; and secondly, the acknowledgement by those who are funding with their tax dollars the program that their money is actively being used to better the community.
Veterans
The single greatest resource many of these cities have is the large pool of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who have experienced with reconstruction work. Local Governments and the business community could utilize these mission driven individuals to design and implement many of these ideas. They have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly overseas and can help steer the projects in the right direction if given the opportunity.
Conclusion
I will concede that what I have laid out is more of a conceptual framework than a full fledge strategy, but one worth examining for the redevelopment of American cities. Utilizing the experience of veterans who have done reconstruction work overseas in partnership with business leaders and investors can help foster a positive atmosphere for change that lessens the burden of government and creates a greater sense of ownership for all.
Freedom is Not Free – Implications of the Ryan-Murray Budget Deal
December 16th, 2013
By Chad Pillai.
The recent Ryan-Murray budget agreement which the House passed and the Senate is likely to follow suit has opened Pandora’s Box with a proposal that will cut 1% from current and future veterans’ retirement packages. While the number may seem insignificant, it opens the door for future changes to promises made to veterans and current service members for services rendered to the nation. Veterans and service members are now being punished as a result of the failures of politicians in Congress for their inability to address the real cause of our fiscal challenges: skyrocketing healthcare costs, interest payments on the national debt, and necessary acquisition and institutional reforms needed within the Department of Defense.
When the nation chose to adopt the All-Volunteer Force as a replacement of the Draft Force, it made a conscious decision to make a contract with the young men and women to care for them and their families. In return for those benefits, those very same young people agreed to pay the nation back with a check equal to or greater than the value of their life. Now the nation is debating whether that contract needs to be renewed. As a result, veterans and current service members’ faith in their national leaders and fellow citizens for whom they sacrificed so much to uphold their end of the bargain is being questioned.
The unfortunate truth about this proposal is the continued disconnect between the nation and its military and public safety professionals. Too often, the discussion regarding their pensions is viewed from an economic efficiency perspective and equating their service to any other profession. This is far from the truth. National defense and public safety are not elements that are freely traded on the free market since they are inherent functions for a state to perform. National Defense and public safety guarantees the reality of the free market and the cost associated with such service cannot be calculated the same way. In fact, the free market cannot provide this kind of service to the inherent nature of the risk to the nation and no nation that has attempted to outsource its security has survived for long.
The single biggest discriminator between security and safety professions (military, law enforcement, firefighters, EMS, and intelligence operatives) and all other professions in the free market is the level of physical danger implied with the job. These professionals willfully accept the demands of the job, to include sacrificing one’s life, for the greater good of their community and/or nation and in return ask for fair compensation in retirement. No other professionals are asked to spend long periods of time away from their families on a routine basis, endure living in sub-standard conditions, and face the very real possibility of being maimed or killed as a result of doing their duty. While other professions may have some elements described previously, they have one thing many in the security and safety professions do not – a choice to opt out. This is especially true for members of the military who cannot opt out of combat deployments if they are given lawful orders.
The nation needs to decide how it wants its security provided by accepting one of three poisons. First, continue to pay for an All-Volunteer Military, Law Enforcement, and Public Safety Corps of professionals. Secondly, adopt a draft system that calls for the nation’s sons and daughters to provide for the common defense. Finally, attempt to contract out your security to private enterprises that will put profit ahead of national interests. At a time when less than 1% of the nation has served in a time of war and another 1-2% provides for the common defense at home, the least the rest of the population can do is accept the cost associated with the freedom they are being provided – at a price the free market cannot offer them. Whichever option they choose from the three listed above, they better make sure they pick their poison carefully since nothing is free.
The true nature of the national security and public safety professionals can be summed up by the images of 9/11. There were the few (law enforcement, fire fighters, and emergency personnel) who ran towards the burning buildings to save others while everyone else ran the opposite direction. There is no market price you can put on the expectation of bravery and self sacrifice for others comparable in the private sector or any other part of the public sector. Since 9/11 the few accepted the hardships of service and risked life and limb while the majority of the nation received tax cuts and were encouraged to shop.
How Do We Defeat Al Qaeda’s Brand?
October 25th, 2013
By Chad Pillai.
+1.png)
It has been 13 years since Al-Qaeda attacked the United States. Since that awful day, we have been engaged in our nation’s longest war attempting to defeat and dismantle Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Our Nation went to war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein and created a rallying cry for die-hard Jihadist to go to Mesopotamia and fight the Americans. Our focus on Iraq left a void in our efforts in Afghanistan which allowed the Taliban to reconstitute their insurgency. Elsewhere in the world, Al Qaeda metastasized like a cancer in Yemen and Africa. Our strategy and efforts to defeat Al Qaeda globally have primarily been kinetic (overt conventional operations, covert drone attacks, and clandestine operations), and despite this, Al Qaeda’s brand remains as dangerous as ever, evident by France’s operations in Mali to defeat Al Qaeda elements. Recently, several former US officials are admitting that our kinetic drone program maybe creating more terrorists than it is deterring. Is it time to reassess our strategy towards Al Qaeda? Do we need to defeat the group or should we focus on defeating the ideology that Al Qaeda stands for?
Analyzing the history of the Cold War serves as a good starting point for this discussion. To a casual observer, the Cold War may appear to be as a solely as a conflict between the West and the Communist nations that faced off for 50 plus years with large military conventional and nuclear forces. Military historians and strategists will focus on the various strategic and operational doctrines employed by both camps, defense budgetary expansions, and the various proxy wars, where both sides were either indirectly or directly engaged in. However, to help explain the eventual outcome of the Soviet Union’s collapse, the truth is far more complicated that go beyond military strategies.
While the United States and its allies were postured for the potentiality of conflict with the Soviet Union, the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation required alternative thinking with some solutions being developed by government, but many more were developed by the private sector or citizens. President Truman developed our containment strategy to prevent the expansion of communism rather than directly attack the ideology that drove it. Later, President Eisenhower understood, while developing his national security strategy, the futility in attempting to match the Soviet Union’s conventional capabilities, and that our competitive advantage was our free society and economy. As a result, our military was designed and organized to continue containment, and if necessary, a global response; however, it was the balance of using our free enterprise system and unleashing our people’s creative imagination that laid the foundation for the eventual outcome.
The Soviet Union’s Sputnik challenge provided the U.S. Government the motivation needed to compete with them on the scientific and technical front which eventually culminated with the moon landings. The symbolism of the moon landings aside, the benefit were the various spin-off technologies that propelled the private sector forward in the realm of telecommunications, computers, and etc which would reshape the ideological battle. As the people of the West became wealthier and as technologies allowed them communicate globally, to include across the iron curtain, the stark differences between East and West began to crystallize. Television programming, especially programs like MTV began to awaken the realization of many on the other side of the Iron Curtain the growing inequalities they lived under and the shallowness of the myths their governments were propagating.
As Communist nations began to crack down on their people who began to demand more freedoms (think ahead to China), attempted to censor messages coming from the West (Again China and Iran), the weapon of human rights violations began to further erode the ideological foundation of the Communist States. President Carter’s emphasis on Human Rights and President Regan’s Evil Empire speech were serious threats to the Communist World and caused cracks in the façade the communist nations portrayed of solidarity. In the end, our military power was enabler to contain Communist while our other elements of power: Diplomatic, Information, and Economic were the ones that defeated Communism. While China today remains Communist, the liberalization of its economy was as a response to the growing informational and economic threat presented by western nations in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
As a result of our success in the Cold War, what are the lessons of the Cold War that can be applied to the Global War on Terrorism? How can we reshape our current strategy of containing violent Jihadist while utilizing our strengths as a people to defeat Al Qaeda’s brand? Since Al Qaeda has spread like a cancer, and western nations are under enormous stress to repair their economies, our ability to engage Al Qaeda on the scale of Afghanistan these past 13 years has become increasingly a non-option. While the Arab Spring held potential, the lack of coordination to seize the opportunity has created unintended consequences leading to more radical Islamic groups gaining power, rather than create the space needed to support those aspiring for more moderate democratic and economic freedoms and opportunities to emerge. While acknowledging our blunder in regards to the Arab Spring, are current trends reversible to achieve a more favorable outcome?
Many acknowledge that the War on Terror is the long war, but western nations do not have the military means nor will to fight it indefinitely. New thinking is required to engage the Islamic world that incentivizes democratic expansion (on their terms) and economic opportunities that lead to the eventual societal shifts needed to bury Al-Qaeda’s brand to the dust pin of history. This is my attempt to start that conversation.
Challenge the free market and watch it rise to the occasion
October 22nd, 2013By Chad M. Pillai.
Since the 2008 Financial Collapse, subsequent period of slow economic recovery, and political gridlock, a laundry list of policy proposals have been offered by both the Republicans and Democrats to jump start the economy. The ranges of proposals have re-ignited the intellectual debate between Keynesian and Hayek’s economic theories.
Democrats call for Keynesian-style government spending on roads and bridges to create demand while Republicans, following Hayek, argue for reduced government spending, reduced regulations, and cutting taxes to allow the free market to work. The fact of the matter is that both proposals fail to address the structural weakness in our economy created by over-consumption and less manufacturing production while only attempting evolutionary rather than revolutionary change in the economy.
So, how can the Administration and Congress put America back to work? Simply, by applying Keynesian and Hayek’s principles in a complementary manner and by taking a lesson from both Eisenhower and Kennedy – the Government challenges the free market to accomplish a difficult task that requires innovation.
What kind of challenge can the Government place that will make private enterprise compete and create the incentives for innovation, and by extension the possibility for spin offs for future growth? The Administration can commit the Nation to a Energy Security plan that both produces more domestic energy and increases energy efficiency that will address two critical factors: dependence on foreign energy sources and manufacturing competition from China.
The idea is simple and it rests with the purchasing power that exists in the largest federal entity – the Pentagon – and I don’t mean expensive weapons systems. The Pentagon in its “Energy for the Warfighter” strategy stresses energy security as a way to reduce its consumption both in the tactical environment and on installations.
The Pentagon is the nation’s single largest consumer of energy, and currently is planning to invest $7 billion in alternative energy, which provides the market weight to dramatically influence and challenge the free market. To alter the market and meet its goal, the Pentagon needs to be more aggressive by putting a price marker on its demand ($14-21 billion by reprioritizing within the DoD budget) and demanding the private sector meet that demand within two years with the intent of generating long term cost savings.
Just as President Eisenhower pushed Inter-State Highway System to create strategic mobility, and President Kennedy challenged the Nation to land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth, the President and Secretary of Defense can challenge the private sector to help the Pentagon reduce its energy consumption in the magnitude of 50%. The goal should be to make all tactical and non-tactical vehicles energy efficient and make all military installations energy neutral or net-energy producers.
There are four critical factors to consider making this goal a success and igniting the economy:
First, request the private sector to fill a large order (demand) such as installing solar panels on every military building and family home.
Second, put a specific timeline that makes it hard for the current private sector to meet with its current production capability of domestic manufacturing and installation of the required products in less than two years.
Third, incentivize future contract upgrades by requesting that the private sector meet a goal that exceeds their current technological capacity such as requesting all new non-tactical vehicles exceed current mileage capabilities by 20%, thereby enticing greater research and development.
And finally, offer bonuses for companies that meet demands to standard that are under-budget and faster than the contract specifies. This means that the government doesn’t need to offer tax credits or subsidies. It doesn’t distort the free market – it challenges it to perform. The Government doesn’t pick winners; the free market does by whichever private enterprise(s) meets the standard(s).
At the same time, private enterprises are able to utilize their innovations for commercial purposes and create economies of scale for production (lowering the cost of solar panels) that make their products attractive and affordable to American consumers.
The idea is simple; ignite the economy by having the free market compete to solve a complex challenge. It has to be a complex challenge because as JFK said, “We do these things and the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard!” This will allow the private sector to innovate and more importantly, create JOBS!