Strange and Unlikely

May 14th, 1978 -- forty years ago, today -- the Colonel raised his right hand in a solemn oath and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps.

It was a significant, if unlikely, milestone in a strange journey.

Everything about the Colonel's life to that point (and beyond) was strange and unlikely.  He is an eighth generation Mississippian, but lived in the state barely eighteen months out of his first eighteen years.  Following his career Air Force NCO father around the world, he touched bases in Orlando, Birmingham, Orlando again, then briefly in his parents' hometown -- Columbus, Mississippi, and then Morocco (that's in Africa, for the geographically challenged), Little Rock, Columbus again (while Dad went to fight the communists in Vietnam), Alexandria, Louisiana, and then the now-extinct Panama Canal Zone.

The Colonel's father retired from the Air Force the same summer (of 1974) the Colonel graduated from high school, and his family moved back to Columbus to start a different life.

Well, it might have been different for Mom and Dad -- they've been in Columbus ever since -- but for the Colonel and his brother it was more of the same for the better part of the next three decades.  Little Brother took the obvious path for a member of our family -- went to school at Mississippi State and then spent a twenty year career in the family business; retiring as a Major in the United States Air Force.

But, the Colonel has always been a rebel.

At the conclusion of a "rather lackluster" (actual quote from more than one interviewer) high school career, but armed with "surprisingly strong" (another actual quote) college entrance test scores, the Colonel applied for appointment at any and all U.S. military academies.  

A few weeks before the end of school, the Colonel received letters from all of the above thanking him for his interest in national security and declining his offer to be the anchor man in the Class of 1978.  It was a bit of a let-down; but, no real surprise -- "rather lackluster" high school record and all.

The Colonel had also applied for the relatively easier to obtain ROTC scholarships from the Air Force, Army, and Navy.  "Relatively easier" actually turned out to be "not-so easy" in the Colonel's case.  He received letters from the Air Force and Navy thanking him for his interest in national security and declining his offer to spend their money on a fool's errand.

The Army, on the other hand, saw the slightest glimmer of potential in the Colonel to become commissioned cannon fodder to replace the commissioned cannon fodder lost in the recent imbroglio in Southeast Asia as commissioned cannon fodder in the Fulda Gap (the likely Red Army invasion route into Western Europe if and when the Cold War went hot).  The Army first told the Colonel he was an "alternate" for a four-year ROTC scholarship.  Then, as hundreds above him on the list declined the honor of becoming commissioned cannon fodder in the Fulda Gap, the Army informed the Colonel that he was the recipient of a full-ride at the university of his choice (provided said university had Army ROTC and low enough entrance standards).

The Colonel was days away from signing an acceptance letter to become the next generation of commissioned cannon fodder in the Fulda Gap, when he received a call from the commanding officer of the Marine Barracks whose responsibility it was to provide security for the Navy facilities in and around the Panama Canal Zone.  This Marine officer had been tasked with contacting the Colonel and telling him that he had been accepted for a Marine Corps Option, Naval ROTC Scholarship.  It was obviously a task for which he was not overly thrilled.

"Good Morning, Mr. Gregory.  My name is Lieutenant Colonel Hardjaw McJarhead (not his real name).  Congratulations.  You are the recipient of a Naval ROTC (Marine Corps option) Scholarship."

"Excuse me, sir, I didn't apply for the Marine scholarship."

"What?!?  Why the h... errr... why not?"

"I dunno. Guess I didn't think Marines went to college."

After a long pause, "Well, young man, I have a letter with the signature of the Commandant of the Marine Corps on it saying that you can go free of charge to any school of your choice -- provided that school has an NROTC program and low enough entrance standards.  Do you want to be a Marine or not?"   

"Don't think I do.  The Army has offered me a scholarship and I think I'm gonna take it."

"The Army?!?"  McJarhead's (not his real name) disdainful tone of voice carried the clear implication that ARMY was not the only four letter word with which his vocabulary was armed. "Why would you want to be commissioned cannon fodder in the Fulda Gap when you can be a Marine?!?" 

The word "Marine" rolled off McJarhead's (not his real name) tongue as if he were reciting poetry -- that is, if Marines recited poetry... which they don't.  Limericks maybe.  Okay, maybe a line or two from Shakespeare's "Henry V" or Tennyson's "Charge of the Light Brigade," ... Look, Marines ain't real poetic... just sayin'.  But the way a Marine says the word "Marine" can best be described as a tonal mixture of pride and reverence..., with a side order of arrogance.

McJarhead's (not his real name) pronunciation of the word still rings in the Colonel's ears -- or maybe that's the caffeine-enhanced tinnitus.  Anyway, the Colonel, for the first -- certainly not the last -- time in the next four decades of his strange and unlikely journey, heard "Marine" spoken in a way that made his chest tighten and his pulse quicken.

As the Colonel pondered whether he wanted to be a Marine, McJarhead (not his real name) broke the silence with a barely concealed sneer, "Well, you probably ain't got what it takes to be a Marine..."


Four years later, following a "rather lackluster college career" (actual quote from an interviewer), the Colonel heard the following:

"To all who shall see these presents, greeting:

Know Ye that, reposing special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor, fidelity and abilities of Thomas Edward Gregory, I do appoint him a Second Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps to rank as such from the 14th day of May,1978. This Officer will therefore carefully and diligently discharge the duties of the office to which appointed by doing and performing all manner of things thereunto belonging.

And I do strictly charge and require those Officers and other personnel of lesser rank to render such obedience as is due an officer of this grade and position. And this Officer is to observe and follow such orders and directives, from time to time, as may be given by me, or the future President of the United States of America, or other Superior Officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America.

This commission is to continue in force during the pleasure of the President of the United States of America for the time being, under the provisions of those Public Laws relating to Officers of the Armed Forces of the United States of America and the component thereof in which this appointment is made.

Done at the City of Washington, this 14th day of May in the year of our Lord Nineteen hundred and seventy-eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and second.

By the President"

Last Saturday evening, the Colonel had the great personal honor to serve as the Guest of Honor for the University of Mississippi NROTC Commissioning Ceremony at which seven graduating midshipmen had pinned to their shoulders the rank insignia of ensigns and second lieutenants.  The ceremony was long enough -- though appropriately so -- that the Colonel had opportunity to review the strange and unlikely forty years since his own commissioning ceremony.  

He thought back to the winding road that took him from Ole Miss on a journey that literally criss-crossed the globe.  He remembered the comrades in arms whose kinship transcends family ties.  He recounted the deployments, separations, scars, and tears.  

The Colonel felt again the tightening in his chest and the quickening of his pulse as he stood to the strains of the Marines' Hymn.  

And when he could scarcely stand another shot of pride and reminiscence, the Colonel looked down to the front row and locked eyes with the most unlikely of all of his blessings and caught her smile.

The comely and kind-hearted Miss Brenda was where she has always been since the Colonel was fifteen years old -- there..., quietly beaming her confidence and love.

Dust to Dust; Room to Room

The Colonel's bride, the comely and kind-hearted Miss Brenda, is getting a new bathroom.

More accurately, the old master bathroom is getting a makeover.  A tub that was never used and a dinky-dimensioned shower stall have been removed.  In their place, a much larger shower area (far too big to be called a stall), complete with his and her shower heads and a built in bench, has been taking shape for the past several weeks. 

The old floor tile in the master bath (can you still call it that if there is no bath tub?) has been removed -- amid clouds of dust the likes of which have not been seen since Steinbeck.  

The Colonel doesn't know which is worse -- dealing with the dust or following the comely and kind-hearted Miss Brenda around countless showrooms trying to find just the right tile design for the new floor.  

Both make the Colonel's eyes water. 

Frankly, the Colonel doesn't care what the tile looks like.  In fact, when he heads for the shower all the Colonel cares about is satisfactory water pressure and a dry towel.  As long as he doesn't have to trudge from a tent to a outdoor field expedient "shower" consisting of a suspended holey-bottom bucket filled by a lance corporal who searched high and low to find the coldest water in camp..., well, you get the picture.

Or maybe you don't.  Maybe you are one of the unlucky ones who have never been so grimey for so long so far removed from civilization that a bucket full of cold water dumped over your head by a lance corporal bent on revenge for the speed and duration of the latest forced march (aka: hike, for you unlucky ones) is the nearest thing to nirvana a grimey grunt can imagine.

Anyway, the Colonel's house has been a dusty hell-hole for the past month and he's about had enough of it.  So, imagine the Colonel's chagrin to hear the comely and kind-hearted Miss Brenda announce that the current renovation heretofore confined to the master bathroom is but the first of many renovative phases.

"Stop your whining, knucklehead," the comely and kind-hearted Miss Brenda responded to the Colonel's dust-detesting grumblings.  "You better get used to the mess -- now that we have the contractor's attention, I'm not letting him go until we get all the other things fixed in this house."

"What other things?"

"Well, the master bedroom is going to look pretty shabby compared to the new bathroom, so I'm thinking a new paint job and new carpet is in order."

"Is that all?  Whew!  The Colonel was worried you were talking about doing a lot more than just that."   

"Wasn't through, knucklehead.  And quit referring to yourself in the third person.  That makes my head hurt."

"Can the Colonel get you an aspirin?"

"No!  Just listen!  I want new carpet in the living room and new quartz countertops in the kitchen..."

"Okay, but..."

"Shut your piehole, knucklehead!  I wasn't finished with my list."


When the comely and kind-hearted Miss Brenda makes a list, it ain't ever a short one.  There's no wasted effort with the Colonel's bride.  She can combine a thousand and one errands in a trip to town and prioritize them on a fuel-consumption optimized list that would bring a tear to a stingy logisticians glass eye.  

The Colonel knows what you're thinking.  You think he is exaggerating.  "...a thousand and one errands? Seriously, Colonel?"

Yes.  A thousand and one.  Not gonna make the Colonel out a liar over one stinking errand.  


"...and, I want a fancy new front door..."

The Colonel is resigned to renovation purgatory for the foreseeable future.  

Wait until the comely and kind-hearted Miss Brenda sees the Colonel's list...             

      

True Faith and Allegiance

Over the next several weeks, as their matriculation aboard college campuses nationwide concludes with graduation, a select few young men and women will receive commissions as officers in the  armed forces of the United States.  The Colonel pens this open letter to them:

In the Colonel's not-so humble opinion, you brand new ensigns and second lieutenants, on the cusp of careers in the officer corps of the greatest republic in the solar system, are the luckiest people on your respective campuses. Your civilian classmates will have jobs – maybe. You will have a sacred mission.

You, ladies and gentlemen, will, as you are commissioned, take an oath of office. You will most likely have several more opportunities to reaffirm that oath as you are advanced in rank.  Do not take that oath flippantly.  It means everything.

As commissioned officers, your oath of office has two unique features.  One, it never expires – you will carry your sworn obligation to your graves.  And, two, you swear allegiance to only one entity – not your service chief, not your service secretary, not the Secretary of Defense... not even the President. As a commissioned officer, you swear allegiance only to the Constitution of the United States. When you take the oath as a member of the officer corps of the armed forces of the United States, your overriding responsibility is the support and defense of the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. That’s not the Colonel’s opinion, that’s what the oath actually says. 

The oath itself is found in the Constitution.

May the Colonel be so bold as to posit that swearing allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and solemnly swearing that you will support and defend it, is the single most important promise you will ever make.  It is a promise that carries with it (by virtue of the phrase "true faith and allegiance") your pledge of personal honor to place no other consideration above it -- upon pain of death.  

If you can't, in good conscience, make that promise  -- DON'T!  

The Constitution of the United States embodies the ideals on which our nation was founded.  Every cherished principle of our Republic, every law and statute, flows through and from the Constitution.  Its language, though arcane to our ears, contains the genius of our forefathers whose considerations were not only of their present condition, but also, and perhaps more importantly, your future.    

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the disciplinary code by which you will exercise your authority as an officer, is not just some arbitrary set of rules -- its application is governed by the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.  To understand the application of the UCMJ, you must know and understand the Constitution. Consider, with great solemnity, when you hold a subordinate accountable for his actions under the UCMJ, that you are held accountable by the Constitution to which you have sworn your true faith and allegiance. 

As an officer, you will, eventually, have the great honor of presiding over the promotion of a subordinate.  You will administer the oath of office to that subordinate as he or she assumes an office of greater responsibility inherent with increased rank.  And, when you get a chance to administer the oath of office, don’t be the one reading it from a notecard.  Commit the oath of office, both officer and enlisted, to memory.  Administer the oath from memory, with emphasis.

So, this old Colonel gives you new officers some post-graduate homework – perhaps the most important homework you will ever have.  Learn the Constitution.  Don’t just read the Constitution. Study it.  Understand it.  Learn it inside out. It is the most critical stone in your professional foundation, because you are not just military leaders, you are our nation’s leaders.

The Syrian Tar Baby

The latest installment in the U.S. Forever War series is the current escalation of involvement in the civil war that has wracked Syria over the last decade.

Although he prefers quick wars executed with overwhelming force, the Colonel is not necessarily opposed to extended military operations abroad, if there is a clear mission to be accomplished that can be logically, and Constitutionally, connected to our vital national interests as expressed in a national grand strategy.

The Colonel, who pays rather close attention to such things, has not heard much discussion or debate on any vital U.S. interests served in punching through the ropes at the fighters in the ring in Syria.  He's heartened to hear at least a modicum of debate over the Constitutionality of such actions.  But, the Colonel is yet to hear anyone, in or outside of the administration, clearly connect targets to vital national interests.  

To be sure, the region in which the present political state of Syria now sits is currently more geopolitically important than many other regions around the globe.  Historically, the region, owing to its location astride trade routes and buffer zones between rival empires has had more than its fair share of great power interest.  Some of the more titanic military clashes in antiquity occurred along the Levantine Corridor -- the Western end of the Fertile Crescent opposite Mesopotamia.  Since Pharaoh Necho II of Egypt and Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon clashed over control of the region in 609 B.C., the Levant has been the battleground for numerous competing empires -- Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Abbasid, Ottoman, and British to name a few of the more persistent.  During the Cold War between the Russian and U.S. empires (and their allies) a series of proxy wars were fought in the region (nominally the Arab - Israeli conflict).  

Today, the region is beset by a mishmash of competing religious (inter and intra), cultural, racial, tribal, and clan forces of such a complex and confusing nature that even the most dedicated observer has difficulty keeping them all straight.  Add to the mix the designs of a resurgent Russia and an expansionist Iran butting heads with a distracted America (all armed to the teeth and infused with new-found nationalist pride) and you have the makings of a jolly good shoving/shooting match whose escalation to all-out war might just be studied in centuries hence by Chinese military professionals honing their skills in service to Sino world hegemony. 

All the more reason for current U.S. policy makers and advisers to take a deep breath and critically analyze the situation in Syria vis-a-vis U.S. vital interests and national grand strategy.

The proximate cause for the coming strike on Assad's toys is his use of chemical weapons in his fight against rebels seeking his overthrow.  Mind you, the chemical weapon use "red line" across which Assad has stepped comes on top of a half million dead by "conventional" means and millions more displaced.  Two American administrations have called for eventual Assad regime change, but the Colonel sees nothing in the promised coalition (Britain, France, and perhaps Saudi joining the U.S.) air campaign that will bring about that eventuality -- Russia and Iran won't allow it.  

If you are looking for the Clausewitzian Center of Gravity, the attack of which will provide the solution to this whole mess, look no further than Putin and the Mad Mullahs in Teheran.  Until their influence in Syria, and the larger region, is significantly reduced (if not eliminated), there is zero chance for an end state acceptable to the U.S. and its allies.  While the current Iranian regime can be dealt with by application of a high/low mix of military hard power and economic soft power, putting Putin back in a smaller box must be far more carefully managed -- he possesses the second largest nuclear arsenal in the solar system (outside of the sun itself), after all, and his conventional forces are nothing to be trifled with.  

Extreme economic pressure on Putin and his oligarch patrons is the key -- the center of gravity -- that can be used to pry Russia out of Syria.  Putin's hold on the reins of power in Russia is dependent in large part on his popularity and a cult of personality.  A more robust containment strategy employing extreme economic pressure with our NATO allies can break his stranglehold on power, and perhaps return Russia to a more productive role in world affairs.

The Colonel expects the military professionals (the strategic intelligence and deep thoughtfulness of several of whom the Colonel knows first hand) and national security advisers providing courses of action to the President, have tried to nail down Trump's desired end state in Syria and tie proposed actions to a larger strategy in service of American vital interest.  The Colonel does not envy their task.  The Colonel suspects that it has been a frustrating exercise for both the President and his advisers, made all the more taut by Trump's twitter boasts.

President Trump's publicly expressed desire for extrication from the Syrian Tar Baby will not be accomplished by a feel-good fusilade of GPS-guided kinetics -- particularly if only fired in response to a crossed "red line" and not in connection with a far larger set of strategic goals. 

And, make no mistake, the rising peer competitor in the East is paying very close attention to our handling of Russia and Iran vis-a-vis Syria (and with regard to other meddling in places like Ukraine and Yemen, respectively).  The Colonel firmly believes, without a hint of hesitation in his military mind, that the vital national interest of these re-United States is best served by maintenance of an unchallenged position as the globe's guarantor of individual freedom and fair-market capitalism.  Yes, that means U.S. global hegemony.  Would you rather another superpower assume that mantle?  Russia?  China?  The Bureaucratic Socialist Republic of Europe?

Now, if you will excuse the Colonel, he has some plowing to do.                  

Thinking Big on Korea

President Trump is reportedly preparing for two historic meetings this spring.

One, with Special Counsel Mueller, could set the tone for the remainder of President Trump's time in office and determine Mr. Trump's political future.

The other, with North Korea's dictator, could completely reshape the geopolitical landscape in Northeast Asia for decades to come.

To survive the first, President Trump and his advisers must think small.  To cement his place in history as one of our nation's greatest Presidents, he must think big on Korea. 

If and when he meets with Mr. Mueller, President Trump must pay close attention to the smallest details of his answers to questions and resist the urge to ramble or embellish -- admittedly not his strong suit.  But, if President Trump can successfully escape the nuanced jaws of the perjury trap many see being laid for him, he has the opportunity to put the last year and a half of investigatory distractions behind and make a big (the Colonel can't resist it -- HUUUGE) deal on the Korean Peninsula.

To really change the geopolitical landscape in Northeast Asia, however, President Trump and his advisers must not just "think out of the box" -- they must think BIG.

The "box" in which U.S. policy towards North Korea has been contained for nearly three decades now has been containing the specter of a nuclear armed and capable regime.  For the first four decades of the Korean dilemma previous to that the calculus was fairly straightforward -- the U.S., South Korea, and their allies merely had to maintain a conventional force deterrent on the peninsula to ensure South Korea's political and economic freedom.

To be sure, the political arc in South Korea did not always bend in perfect alignment with the American conception of "Jeffersonian Democracy;" but, the population south of the DMZ enjoyed vastly more political, social, and economic freedom than their brothers in the north and by the fourth decade following the Korean War, the difference in the economic vitality between the two Koreas was stark.  The Republic of Korea (South Korea) was booming; the Democratic People's Republic -- neither democratic, of the people,  nor a republic --  of Korea (North Korea) was starving.  As has been demonstrated time and again (see: East Germany, the USSR, Cuba, et. al.), free-market capitalism will rapidly out-distance socialist command economies with ease, and nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than the dramatic difference between the plights of the divided Korea peoples.  

The Colonel fears that Mr. Trump and company are preparing to enter into the same fairly limited objective negotiations with the current Kim regime that was attempted by American administrations with the two previous Kim regimes.  The stated goal -- at least the the one the Colonel can best decipher -- is the "denuclearization of the Korean peninsula."  That sounds like a lofty goal, but can the Colonel be frank?  That is a bandaid on a gangrenous mortal wound.

Think big, people!

Thinking big in Korea requires understanding a bit of the history that got the Korean people to this point.  As the markets of Northeast Asia (specifically China, Korea, and Japan) opened to European trade through the 19th Century, Japan, in particular, transformed itself more rapidly than the rest of the region, and, by the turn of the century, began to exert itself colonially.  Japan outright occupied Korea from 1910 until Japan's defeat in 1945.  As with the rest of Eurasia, post-war "administration" of Korea was divided between the USSR and the Western Powers.  A line delineating Russian and U.S. control in Korea was hastily and "temporarily" drawn on the map along the 38th parallel.  And, as happened with West and East Germany, the Russians had no intention of allowing reunification of the Korean peninsula -- at least not under control of the West.  Relatively free elections were held in the south -- the Russians installed a dictator in the north.

Five years after the close of WWII -- June 25th, 1950, to be exact -- the North Korean army, armed and organized by the Soviet Union, swept south in a bid to re-unite the peninsula under communist dictator Kim Il Sung.  Three years of bitter fighting later an armistice was signed between the U.S. and South Korea on one side and China (who had joined the fight with major land forces) and North Korea on the other.  No peace treaty -- just an agreement to maintain a demilitarized zone roughly along the original 38th parallel dividing line.  Since 1953, a tense cease fire has existed.  No peace; instead, a constant build-up and modernization of forces on both sides to the point that the combined military might facing north and south constitutes the world's most densely packed potential for destruction and loss of life.  War today on the Korean peninsula, even if it remained "conventional," would result in more military and civilian casualties, in the shortest period of time, in the history of human civilization.  No hyperbole -- just fact. 

So, "denuclearization" of the peninsula, alone, does not solve the underlying problem, nor prevent potentially the greatest catastrophe since the end of World War Two. 

What, then, is the answer?

One possible key to dissipating the explosive gases fogging all reason in the region is find agreement on a deal that would cement a peace treaty and normalize relations between all concerned.  Each side would need assurances, in word and deed, that the existential threat posed by the other was radically minimized, if not gone altogether.

Here's what each side needs:

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, aka North Korea) is ruled by a third generation, hereditary, personality cult dictatorship which maintains its grip on power with one of the largest militaries in the world -- justified (whether we see it as valid or not) by the threat of invasion leading to regime change by the world's most powerful nation.  Kim Yong Un has one overarching concern -- to remain in power.  To do so, he must maintain the belief among his 25 million subjects that he (and a huge military force) are all that stands between them and complete annihilation.  There once -- four or five decades ago -- might have been the dream of accomplishing Granddaddy Kim's goal of Korean re-unification under the north's form of government.  But, that possibility has long since passed with the south's achievement of military parity with the north, and the enormous economic disparity between north and south.

What Kim Yong Un wants is an assurance that his regime will survive for the foreseeable future.  He also needs to demonstrate to the world technological accomplishments (currently nuclear power/weapons and ballistic missiles) to maintain the fiction of his omnipotence and omniscience in the minds of his people.  A peace treaty that guarantees no attempt at regime change by his enemies, allows for peaceful technology development with which to impress his people, and lifting of economic sanctions to further boost the economic well-being of his people and their consideration of their leader, might be enough to achieve the goal of denuclearization. 

For China's part, the conventional wisdom is that the PRC isn't keen to see the buffer between them and the democratic west gone with reunification of the Korean peninsula under a true representative republican government.  The Colonel thinks this argument has outlived reality. The Chinese communist party is no longer a shaky regime, threatened by competing powers in the region.  The PRC has matured into a regional hegemon on the cusp of world super-powerdom.  Although the PRC has historically enjoyed seeing the U.S. stuck in the Korean tar baby, they would probably love more to see U.S. forces removed from Korea and would probably support a peace treaty that accomplishes that end.        

All hereditary dictatorial regimes eventually collapse.  The trick is to manage the inevitable collapse of the DPRK so that it does not destabilize the region.  Were the DPRK to collapse today, the great economic disparity between the two Koreas would make the process of reunification extremely difficult and detrimental to all of the Korean people.  The reunification of Germany in the last century is instructive.  The economic disparity between East and West Germany was significant and it took a reunified Germany a decade to regain its former economic footing as a Europe-leading economy.  The current disparity between North and South Korea is an order of magnitude larger.  Bringing the North up to rough parity with the South will take generations.  There is little interest in the south for such a sacrifice.   

So, immediate reunification is, for all practical purposes, off the table.  Normalization of trade relations between North Korea and the rest of the world (Vietnam being a good, if not nearly an exact, analog) made possible by a peace treaty with verifiable disarmament conditions would go a long way towards opening up the DPRK to enlightening ideas.  Given the brainwashed condition of the North Korean people, it will take a generation or more of slow progress toward a more open society, but trade and communication almost always empowers people to eventually choose freedom over slavery.

For the United States' part, a peace treaty codifying verifiable denuclearization and strategic systems disarmament is the holy grail on the Korean peninsula.  Further, the U.S. needs assurances that North Korean nuclear and ballistic missile technology will cease to contribute to proliferation of such technology to regimes such as Iran.  Surely, the nation with the greatest economy on the planet can find sufficient inducements to convince the Kim regime to take this offer.

We must make the DPRK and their Chinese patrons an offer they can't refuse.  Appeal to Kim's venality if we must.  We have nothing to lose by going big on Korea -- and everything to gain.                              

         

Shifting the Homeland Defense Paradigm

The Colonel, who can't stand the man, is generally in agreement with President Trump's plan to use the U.S. military to secure our southern border.

In fact, the Colonel has opined for decades that this course of action is not just a good idea, but an imperative.  There is no more important mission for the Department of Defense than defending the Homeland.  

The Colonel fears, however, that the plans provided POTUS by SECDEF for use of military force on the border will be more of the same minimal, half-hearted, support-role-only effort that has characterized previous border deployments.

A paradigm shift in thinking is required.

Senior military commanders and civilian defense officials have historically (at least over the last century) balked at using regular military forces for border control.  There seems to be three major reasons for this reticence: fear of political fallout over militarization of the border, misinterpretation of the restrictions of posse comitatus, and worry over adverse impact on training and deployment tempo.

The Colonel, in order to get to the issue for which he believes the greatest shift in thinking is required, will summarily address the first two reasons.  

Militarization of the border.  Seriously?  Let's, for the sake of argument, posit that a half million persons cross our southern border illegally each year (the Colonel believes that number is low) and that 99% of those persons will otherwise be productive and law-abiding (the Colonel believes that number is high).  That leaves 5 thousand (1% of 500,000) persons with nefarious intent -- violent gang activity, drug smuggling, human trafficking, armed robbery, etc... (not to mention terrorism) -- a clear and present danger to the security of the citizens of the United States -- invading our territory annually.  We've been fighting similar-sized insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan for 15 years now.  Surely, a similar-sized military operation on our southern border is warranted.  

Restrictions of Posse Comitatus.  In 1878, a Democrat Party (primarily from southern states) controlled United States Congress passed, and President Rutherford B. Hayes signed into law, an amendment to the 1879 Army Appropriations Act that, in response to the excesses of post-Civil War Reconstruction, codified limitations on the future use of federal forces for domestic law enforcement.  In the late 1950s, U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 67, § 1385 established that: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." This law prevents state and local authorities from using federal forces to enforce state and local laws.  HOWEVER, the Constitution gives the President unfettered authority to use federal military forces in whatever capacity he deems necessary to protect the rights and safety of American citizens -- checked, of course, by Congressional oversight and funding.  A simple presidential emergency declaration would set aside any posse comitatus restrictions (see the use of the 101st Airborne Division in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1956 and Oxford, Mississippi in 1962).  Frankly, from a purely Constitutional standpoint, the Colonel would prefer an act of congress authorizing military operations on the border.  But, given the fact that Congress has generally shirked this requirement since 1945, the Colonel will take what he can get.  

So, concerns over militarization of the border and the restrictions of posse comitatus are specious, particularly given the serious nature -- a clear and present danger -- of the threat to the security of the citizens of the United States by thousands of nefarious actors invading across our southern border annually.  The Colonel does not advocate use of federal military forces to apprehend illegal immigrants already within the interior of the United States -- that is clearly in the purview of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and should remain so.  He does, however, advocate for the establishment of a narrow security zone along the more rural and more inaccessible sections of the southern border in which the full range of "low-intensity" U.S. military capabilities -- honed to near-perfection over the last 15 years of counter-insurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- would be authorized to intercept persons in the act of illegally entering (invading) the territory of the United States.

Oh, and lest he be accused of prejudice toward the populations south of the border, the Colonel would advocate for northern border defensive deployments should a threat from that direction warrant.    

This, then, brings us to the red herring so often trotted out by senior military and civilian defense officials to oppose use of regular military forces in border defense roles -- such action will be detrimental to training and operational tempo.  The question begged is this: "What is the mission of the United States military, if not primarily to defend the territory of the United States?"

And, any military commander worth his or her rank and salt should know how to maximize training opportunities and even create required training opportunities in the midst of what on the surface seems to be inopportune or inconducive situations or environments. 

One of the Colonel's more influential mentors taught him the following early in his career:  "Training is everything, and everything is training."  With this philosophy, even the most mundane, "administrative" (non-combat) garrison chore can be used to train for some critical component of a unit's combat mission.

Using this philosophy as an infantry battalion operations officer, the Colonel and his staff section put every possible administrative instruction to subordinate units in the same operational order format that would be used for combat.  Believe it or not, the Marine Corps, arguably the most forward-leaning, combat-focused service, used "bulletins" whose format differed considerably from combat operational orders to provide instruction on 90% of a unit's activities.  Not only that, but there was an onerous administrative inspection regime built around ensuring that non-combat orders and bulletins conformed to a strict format.  This meant that an operations section spent only 10% of its time training on the writing of combat orders, and subordinate units saw combat operations order formats only 10% of the time.  Putting almost all administrative instructions and orders in combat operational order format increased training opportunity by ten-fold for all concerned.

When a military professional internalizes the philosophy of "everything is training" it changes the way he or she conducts everything his or her unit does 24/7.

Instead of mustering a "ten-man working party" from a 40-man rifle platoon to accomplish a logistics section material handling requirement (which results in the ten most junior Marines from across the platoon's three squads being taken away from their normal teammates and placed under the control of a Marine from the logistics section), a leader viewing "everything as training" responds to the working party requirement by giving a rifle squad (nominally 10+ Marines) a mission -- in combat order format -- to which it responds in team integrity, with its leadership intact to ensure accomplishment of the mission all the while learning valuable lessons in leading men in inglorious tasks. 

This "everything is training" philosophy writ large can accomplish a large proportion of a combat unit's training for mission essential tasks even when participating in events which on the surface are very dissimilar to that unit's actual combat missions.

Leadership imagination and enthusiasm is the key.

When the Colonel took command of an infantry battalion in Hawaii in 1997, he was "advised" that training areas on the island were so restrictive in size and availability that battalion-sized field exercises were all but impossible.  Also, the prevailing attitude was that battalion-level exercises interfered with smaller unit training.  The Colonel was lucky to have a tremendously talented battalion operations officer who quickly bought into the "everything is training" philosophy and built a "battalion in the defense" exercise that took place completely within the confines of the battalion's barracks area.  The battalion's complete mobile combat operations center was set up in the central physical training field and the subordinate rifle companies were given sectors in a 360 degree defense.  Each company in turn designated platoon, squad, and fire team sectors for which each drew defensive fire plan sketches.  Each company submitted complete map overlays of their sectors' defenses to the battalion operation center.  At the completion of a few hours training, squad, platoon and company leaders cycled through the battalion operations center and saw how their individual plans fit into the entire battalion's defensive plan, and how the battalion operations center would coordinate their calls for battalion-level and higher artillery and close air support based on their plans.  One day; highly productive training at all levels from four-man fireteam to 800-man infantry battalion; all without leaving the "administrative" confines of the battalion barracks area.  

Likewise, battalion training hikes -- the Marine Corps term is "forced marches" -- in the confines of the urban area of Marine Corps Base, Kaneohe Bay, were used not only as hours and hours of heavy-load carrying physical conditioning, but also as opportunities to exercise command and control.  The battalion's scout sniper and target acquisition platoon moved ahead of the battalion column, conducting route reconnaissance and establishing overwatch positions (reporting back via radio).  At each rest break, the battalion operations center supervised a company commander face to face handover and "passage of lines" as the next company in trail took over at the head of the battalion column.  Down the chain of command, subordinate units practiced (at least in theory) the immediate actions for close security during halts in the march. 

When a combat organization keeps its combat mission in mind, even the most non-combat activities can provide valuable combat-related training.   

So, deploying Marine Air-Ground Task Forces or Army Brigade Combat Teams to the Southwestern border area of the United States (where many of them are already stationed) need not be detrimental to training.  Command and control, and logistical support, of forces spread over a wide area is one of the most difficult and critical tasks of a combat organization -- border security provides great training opportunity for both.  Live-fire ranges aboard the many military bases in the Southwest can be used to maintain proficiency for heavy weapons not required for the border security mission.  

Will the border security mission increase an already strenuous operational tempo?  It will if we don't reexamine and prioritize our world-wide defensive commitments in light of the threat literally at our gates.

Don't tell the Colonel it can't be done.  Not only can it be done.  It must be done.                   

Choices

The Colonel worries another American Civil War is brewing. 

More seems to divide Americans today than unites us.  Our passions rule us -- driven by our selfishness and pride.  Constitutional protections of the rights of individuals be damned if they conflict with our feelings or convenience.

Pick your positional poison -- there's two diametrically opposed sides to the argument fueled less by critical analysis and rational thought and more by uncompromising self-interest and political power accumulation.

Each side easily points out the glaring inconsistencies and  inherent hypocrisies in the other's argument, all the while masking their own with mockery, misdirection, and more volume.

It's enough to make this old centurion cry "a pox on both your houses," and hide away on the social frontier to ride out the coming storm.   

Except... not choosing a side rarely works out.  One side or the other will eventually find you out and demand your loyalty or make you suffer their wrath.  History is replete with examples the Colonel could, but won't, parade across your screen.  If you haven't had the time to educate yourself on a bit of history to this point, it's doubtful the Colonel's efforts to do so will bear any fruit at this late date.

Suffice it to say -- you are going to have to pick a side. 

Pick carefully.  The winners will write the next chapters of our civilization's history; the losers will be written off and out.  

So, how to pick?  How to know which side is right?

Newsflash:  Neither side is right.

There is no such thing as the "right side of history."  There is only the "might" side of human history. 

Whichever side you choose will require, if you truly commit to that side's cause, that you compromise your principles, your faith, or your core values in one way or another.

Only God gets to adhere to absolutes.  Humans are inherently predisposed to shades of gray.  It's what makes us human.  We each carry our own identifying imperfections, else we would be robotic angels incapable of exercising the gift of self-determination and self-expression that makes each one of us distinguishable from the rest. 

So, you have a choice before you.  The same sort of choice that faced Americans in 1775.  You actually have three choices, just as they did.  And, remember, only the winners get to write history and proclaim which side was "right."

Like the American in 1775, you can stay loyal to an overbearing government, accepting more security in exchange for less liberty.

Or, like the American in 1775, you can choose to demand the freedom of limited self-government with far less guarantee of security from external threats. 

Or, you can choose what nearly a third of Americans did in 1775 -- attempt to ride the fence, hiding out on the frontier.

The Colonel's great (x 7) grandfather, Thomas Bry Gregory, attempted just that as the American revolution began.  He was content to sit out the fight started by those crazy Bostonions -- his home on the Southern frontier (Western North Carolina) was almost completely out of the reach of any government.  So much so that he probably didn't consider himself to be of any nationality whatsoever.  The strategy worked well for the first few years of the war, but wars have a habit of disregarding the best laid plans.

Perhaps the greatest British strategic mistake of the war was Cornwallis' campaign in the Southern colonies.  Failing to destroy Washington's army in the Northern colonies in the first few years of the war, British strategists began to see New England as a lost cause (at least in the short term) and turned their attention to shoring up the Loyalist cause in the far more valuable agricultural south.  The outbreak of revolution in New England had sparked a civil war in the south -- with British authority in the coastal enclaves replaced by revolutionary governments, bitter internecine score-settling raged across the southern interior.  Cornwallis was sent to pacify the southern colonies -- his actions (more accurately the actions of firebrand subordinates Tarleton and Ferguson) had the opposite effect.

Cornwallis captured Charleston, South Carolina in May of 1780 and pushed inland with a strategy of raising loyalist militias and restoring them to authority.   At Charlotte, Cornwallis dispatched Major Patrick Ferguson to raise loyalist militia in upstate South Carolina and thereby protect the western flank of the British main force in the South.  

Enter the Overmountain Men.

West of the Appalachians, American frontiersmen had settled lands almost completely separated from any governmental control -- British or revolutionary.  They proudly referred to themselves as the Overmountain Men.  In fact, they had established their own form of government -- a compact called the Watauga Association.   When the Revolution started, the Overmountain Men of the Watauga Association sided with the revolutionaries, formed militia companies, and began to raid loyalist settlements.  

After one particularly destructive raid, Major Ferguson and his loyalist battalion closely pursued but couldn't catch the Overmountain Men before they retreated safely back across the mountains.  Ferguson sent the following message to the Overmountain Men:  "Lay down your arms and swear allegiance to the Crown, or I will lay waste to your country with fire and sword."  

This didn't sit well with the Overmountain Men.

Not only did the Overmountain Men take up Ferguson's challenge, but they called on all of the patriots in the region to join with them in facing Ferguson.  

Enter Thomas Bry Gregory. 

The Colonel's great (x 7) grandfather had evidently had enough.  The civil war in the south had actually been much more damaging than the war in New England.  Whole towns and settlements had been been destroyed in the bitter back and forth between revolutionaries and loyalists.  Gregory threw in his lot with the revolutionaries.  His son, Harden Harley Gregory (the Colonel's great (x 6) grandfather), also joined the cause.

As word of the size of the force gathering to confront Ferguson reached his ears, he led his battalion back toward the safety of the region held by Cornwallis' main body.  They didn't make it.

The Colonel's great (x 6 and 7) grandfathers and 900 of their closest revolutionary comrades caught up to Ferguson and his 1100 loyalist militia at a piece of high ground called Kings Mountain.  Ferguson and his men had bivouacked on the crest and had no idea that they were surrounded until the shooting and hollering started.  Ferguson (the only non-American in the battle) was killed and his entire force killed or taken prisoner after a brutal hour of close-quarter battle.

The battle of Kings Mountain was a (if not the) turning point in the American Revolution.  The revolutionary militia success convinced Washington to send General Nathanael Greene and a wing of the Continental Army south to bolster the revolutionary cause and harry Cornwallis.  Cornwallis chased Greene and his subordinates across the Carolinas until, exhausted, he and his force fell back on Yorktown for reinforcement and replenishment.

The rest is history... if you care to study it.  

The Colonel expects, when the time for choosing comes, that he will side with the revolutionaries -- those choosing less security in exchange for more freedom -- like his great granddads.

The Colonel is a Rebel, afterall.   

   

Ultimate Responsibility

Captain Ed "Rebel" Gregory attempting to reach escape velocity
during flight deck PT, somewhere in the Atlantic -- March 1988 .

Thirty years ago this month, the Colonel (then a captain) was at sea, aboard an aging vertical assault ship -- LPH 2, USS Iwo Jima -- and in command of a reinforced rifle company assigned the mission of conducting heliborne assaults and raids for a "special operations capable" (SOC) Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU).

It was the best job he ever had.   

The Marines and sailors of Company C (Reinforced), 1st Battalion, 8th Marines (designated Battalion Landing Team 1/8) were 210 of the best young men the Colonel has ever known.  He has written of them before, and will likely write about them again many times before he stops breathing.  The youngest among them will turn 50 in a couple of years.  Most of them finished up their 4-year enlistment by the end of that decade, went home, and lived peaceful lives.  Several of them reenlisted and made the Corps a career.  A few fought in the liberation of Kuwait in 1991.     

In the history of armed conflict, 1988 was an unremarkable year.  At least as far as the Colonel's accounting goes.  The Iran-Iraq War was ending.  Tensions with Iran were bubbling in the Persian Gulf.  Tensions with Noriega were bubbling in Panama.  But, all in all, it was a quiet year.

Going into 1988, however, the Colonel was convinced that the year would be anything but quiet.  And, at every opportunity he had to speak with his assembled charges, the Colonel always concluded with a variation on the same refrain: "Men, get ready.  There's not a doubt in my military mind that we're gonna see some trigger time before this deployment is over."  

That belief -- that combat was inevitable -- was what drove every preparation for that deployment, from administration to assault tactics.  The Colonel could wax Pattonesque at this point and pen drivel about destiny, but it wasn't a sense of destiny that drove him.

It was an overwhelming sense of responsibility. 

That sense of responsibility is at the core of every military leader's psyche.  Some have it in more or less degrees than others.  The Colonel claims no superiority here.  He was lucky to have mentors who, despite the Colonel's many shortcomings, devoted themselves to developing his nascent leadership skills into something approaching mission-capable adequacy.  But, the point remains that without a guiding sense of responsibility, no leader, military or otherwise, can hope to achieve his or her organization's mission.  

A military leader's ultimate responsibility is to prepare those under his or her charge for the worst possible outcome -- deadly violent, no-holds-barred, combat.  To do less shirks a sacred duty.

As the scope of responsibility broadens with ascension up the ladder of military command, the ultimate responsibility remains ever the same.  To allow any other consideration to detract from that responsibility is, by definition, negligence.  

In 1988, the Colonel, as is often the case, was wrong.  The best rifle company in the Marine Corps saw no combat that year.

But, they were ready...            

Drawing Near

In a sermon on hindrances to prayer, Charles Spurgeon -- the great English preacher of the 19th Century -- declared,

"To many persons this discourse will have but little reference because they do not pray. I fear, also, there are some others whose prayers are so worthless that if they were hindered it would be of no very material consequence… Merely to bow the knee in formality, to go through a form of devotion in a careless or half-hearted manner is rather to mock God than to worship Him. It would be a terrible theme for contemplation to consider how much of vain repetition and heartless praying the Lord is wearied with from day to day."

Spurgeon's words, spoken at a different time to a church in a different land, are nonetheless, timeless; and, the Colonel fears, all too descriptive of the prayer life of the modern church in America. 

The Colonel wonders, do you suffer from the same spiritual malaise that afflicts him?  Is your prayer life -- the most critical component of a Christian's walk of faith -- earthbound; with feeble, rote prayers seeming to never reach beyond the ceiling?  

To be sure, the omnipresent and omnipotent God who is the Colonel's personal savior hears every word on every man's lips and discerns every thought on every man's mind.  

God hears our prayers.

If there is any break in the communication between the Colonel and his most holy and perfect God, it is entirely the fault of the Colonel.

The Colonel is no Greek scholar, but the Greek dictionary at the back of his study Bible says the English phrase "to pray" is translated from the original Greek word proseuchomai, which is very closely related to the word proserchomai. 

Proserchomai means "to come to; approach; draw near to; to agree to."

The Colonel rather likes to think that the close relation of those two Greek words is no linguistic accident.  

Indeed, is not the act of praying, really an attempt to approach or draw near to God? 

When Jesus modeled for His disciples the components of prayer --what we call "The Lord's Prayer" -- He was teaching them as well the reverent, dependent, and penitent condition required of any supplicant attempting to draw near to God. 

It cuts the Colonel to the core of his flinty heart that he all too often attempts to draw near to God with an irreverent, proudly independent, and unrepentant heart.  

Any wonder then that the Colonel feels his prayers go, by and large, unanswered?  

How dare the Colonel, black-hearted sinner that he is, flippantly attempt to enter into God's presence?!?

"But, wait," you ask. "Doesn't Jesus' sacrifice on the cross cover the Colonel's sin?  Didn't Jesus pay the Colonel's wages of sin."

Indeed, Jesus is the Colonel's substitute.  The Colonel's sin not only separates him from a most holy and perfect God, but requires a sentence of death at his final judgment.  But, when the Colonel, as all men will, stands before God to be sentenced to the eternal separation from God that the Colonel's many sins deserve, Jesus will step in between God and this black-hearted sinner and tell the most holy and perfect One, "This one accepted Me as his savior. I died for him."  

So, the Colonel's sinful nature, for which he was convicted of the need for repentance leading to salvation, is forgiven at his final judgment.  

But, the Colonel continues to sin.  And so, there is a continual need to confess, and repent of, those sins and to accept God's forgiveness. 

To the Colonel, that is the beauty of a personal relationship with God.  It is not a one-time, check-in-the-box, salvation event.  It is an on-going relationship, the health of which can only be maintained by continual confession and repentance.  Continual guilt over sin is not the goal, however.  Accepting God's forgiveness of sin replaces guilt with personal peace.

Cutting to the chase, unconfessed sin (an unforgiving spirit prominent among those of the Colonel's many) prevents him from drawing closer to God, because God cannot accept sin in His presence.  It follows then, that the more sin the Colonel admits, confesses, repents of, and receives/accepts forgiveness for, the nearer God allows him to draw to His presence.

In his epistle to the churches of Asia Minor, John wrote,

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."  1 John 1: 8 -- 9  

Faithful and just.  Forgiveness of our sins is a promise from a faithful and just God, whose one desire of us -- the reason why He created us in the first place -- is a close, personal relationship.      

Temptation and Deliverance

When Jesus taught His disciples how to pray, He concluded a model prayer with "...and lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." (Matt 6: 13)

There has probably never been a more misunderstood verse of scripture.

How could a perfect, most holy, supreme God lead anyone into sin?  And, yet, we let that verse trip fervently off our tongues as if our lives depended on it, almost begging God to stop tempting us.

News flash: God isn't in the tempting business.

Succumbing to temptation separates us from God.  That isn't God's will for us.  God created us for communion with Him -- not as equals, but as free-willed sons and daughters of a supreme king.   

God created us with a free will so that our devotion to him would not be forced; so that when we followed His will, it would be out of love and not fear.  

But, because we are not perfect and we have free will, our decision-making is fraught with imperfection.  Our imperfections are not personality quirks at which God shakes his head mirthfully, "Oh, those kids..." or "...boys will be boys."  

Our imperfection -- our sin -- is abhorrent to God. 

The Colonel believes that God created him with all his many imperfections so that he would have no doubt in his military mind that there was a great, impassable gulf between his imperfect sinfulness and God's perfect holiness.  The Colonel believes that's why God, when He created man, put the ability of reasoning right from wrong in man's mind; and why at Sinai, God codified right from wrong with His Commandments.  God gave us the ability to reason right from wrong and the free will to act on that reasoning, so that as we failed to perfectly follow His will, we would realize that there would never be anything we could do in our own strength to merit entering into the physical presence of a perfect God.

Enter Jesus.

A perfect man, sacrificed to atone for our imperfections; whose blood both literally and figuratively covered our sins in God's eyes.  

So, why would Jesus tell us to pray that God would "lead us not into temptation."  That just doesn't make sense.   God doesn't tempt us.

Well, he's said it before and it bears repeating here -- the Colonel ain't smart and you can't make him.  So, the best the Colonel can figure with his pea-sized thought muscle is that Jesus was reminding us that temptation is everywhere in the world and that we can't resist evil without God's deliverance.  

It all comes back to God's supremacy.  And, it's all right there -- tightly summed up in what we call "the Lord's Prayer." 

God created, and orders every atom in, the universe.  That awesome God desires a personal relationship with each and every one of the billions of us who have ever lived or will ever live.  God desires that we seek His righteousness, and His will in our lives, as a condition for His provision of our every material and spiritual need.  Because we all fail to perfectly seek His righteousness and His will in our lives, we all require His forgiveness.  God expects us to extend His forgiveness to others -- not in our own strength, but by His power.  

Finally, God expects us to resist evil -- not in our own strength, but by His power.

Thence comes deliverance.   

Foundation of Forgiveness

The Colonel doesn't do the whole "forgive and forget" thing well.

When you mistreat, mislead, or disrespect him and his, the Colonel's first inclination is to retaliate.  Said retaliation usually isn't in like kind -- the Colonel most often just shuts the offender out of his life.

If the Colonel was a religion -- his detractors would be excommunicated.  

No effort wasted on revenge -- the Colonel ain't got time for that.

Unless you mess, physically, with his family -- then it's game on.  No brag; just fact.

The Colonel ain't the least bit proud of any of the above.  It doesn't jive in any way, shape, or form with his professed followership of the teachings of Jesus.  He recognizes that his unforgiveness is, in fact, an affront to God. 

The Colonel remains in constant state of seeking forgiveness.  Here's what he's learning:

When Jesus taught His disciples how to pray, and for what to pray, He built his model prayer on the foundation of God's supremacy as the Creator of the Universe and our only salvation.  God's kingdom is supreme.  God's will is supreme.  God's law is inviolable -- disobedience is not without consequence.   God is the exclusive provider of our every material and spiritual need.

The concept of forgiveness is the logical edifice built on the foundation of God's supremacy, sovereignty, and provision.  Jesus taught His disciples, and us by extension, to pray for God's forgiveness.  But, how can a most holy and perfect God -- unable to even accept sin in His presence -- forgive our sin?

The simple answer -- the Colonel is a simple man, after all -- is that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross made Him our substitute.  Jesus -- the universe's ultimate expression of love -- stands between us and the wrath of God.  

"But," you ask, "how can God love us and yet have wrath toward us?"

The simplest answer is: God loves our souls and hates our sin. 

Matthew Henry, the great early 18th Century author of Bible commentary, had this to say regarding our debts to God and His forgiveness of them:

"Our sins are our debts; there is a debt of duty, which, as creatures, we owe to our Creator; we do not pray to be discharged from that, but upon the non-payment of that there arises a debt of punishment; in default of obedience to the will of God, we become obnoxious to the wrath of God; and for not observing the precept of the law, we stand obliged to the penalty."

In other words, as Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, "All have fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), and the consequence of falling short (commiting sin) is death (see Romans 6: 23). 

Matthew Henry's use of the word "obnoxious" in his commentary is instructive and useful to our discussion.  In Henry's day -- the early 1700's -- the term "obnoxious" carried the connotation of censure or judgement.  Today, we use the word most often in reference to olfactory unpleasantness or social immaturity -- a far less impactful use than Henry intended.  To be obnoxious to God, in Henry's meaning, was to be in complete contradiction to God's will and deserving complete, unpardonable condemnation.

Our sin is in direct opposition to the will of God.  The Colonel once asked a respected Christian mentor for some scripture references on finding God's will.  He answered with "Read Exodus 20."  

The Colonel has since used prayerful consideration of God's Ten Commandments as the basis for seeking His will.  If one is truly seeking God's will -- asking for divine guidance in decision-making -- His original commandments regarding the life-conduct of His people is the first place to start.  Examining your choices through the lens of His commandments almost always makes the right choice -- the one that will please God -- clear.

Now, don't start getting the idea that the Colonel always consults God in his decision-making, or even that when he does, he makes the right choice.  Too often the Colonel makes the mistake of presenting God with his Choice A and Choice B and asking God to approve one or the other.  That ain't how seeking God's will works.

There, then, is the divine reason for Jesus telling His disciples that when they pray they should begin by recognizing God's supremacy and sovereignty.  Seeking His will in our lives, and His forgiveness for not following His will as we live, flows as naturally from God's supremacy and sovereignty as water from a greater height.

Forgiveness from God comes only when we recognize His supremacy and sovereignty, recognize that everything we need both materially and spiritually comes from Him, and seek only His will.  God is, indeed, love.  He showed His great love for us when, as Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, "...while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."   

That's the bottom line of forgiveness.  God sent His son, who had been with Him from before the beginning of time (See John 1: 1 - 3), as the sacrificial substitute to atone for our sins -- to pay the price of death our sins demand from a perfect God.  You can't express forgiveness any better than that.

Jesus didn't end the forgiveness section of His model prayer there, however.  He took one more, final, step -- the step that sums up His ministry.  Jesus told His disciples to pray for the supernatural strength to forgive others.

For the longest time the Colonel misread the forgiveness section of Jesus' model prayer as asking God to forgive us in the same manner we forgive others.  Frankly, if that were the case, there would be no forgiveness.  Unfortunately, the imprecision of the English translations of Greek, Latin, and Aramaic, can cause us to focus on the word "as" in the line "...forgive us, as we forgive others."   It doesn't take any more than an Ole Miss grad to see that the original language we translate "as" wasn't meant as a qualifier, or a condition of God's forgiveness.  It's more of a conjunction -- a phrase connector.  Praying "as we forgive others" is not asking for equal measure.  It is in, if nothing else, remembrance of Jesus' focus on others.

Others...

Can't get to forgiveness without that focus.