The Hillary Email Scandal: An Unenforceable Rule Serving an Undesirable Goal?

Photographer: Harald Dettenborn, CC license

Hillary Clinton used a personal email account and server for all official business while she was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. Although she seems not to have broken any laws outright, she has certainly made it more difficult to process Freedom of Information Act requests lodged with the State Department, for example, and the State Department must comply with such requests and must make official correspondence available. She therefore does seem to have violated the spirit of such rules. Transparency is a big buzzword these days and it is seen as a way to combat corruption, crime, laziness, and dishonesty, all laudable targets. But enforcing these rules is difficult, to say the least, and it is also not clear that transparency is always the best thing for diplomacy.

According to politifact, federal rules state that it would have been OK for Clinton to use her personal email account in an “emergency.” While noting that she had not actually broken any laws because the rules were tightened only after she left office, experts say that EXCLUSIVE use of a personal account is not allowed. Where do we draw the line? How much use is then permitted? How can we know that that occasional "emergency" correspondence was not where she broke laws and committed corruption?

More problematic than the arbitrary percentages of personal email account use is the question of enforcement: Presumably, Clinton could use her personal account for any personal correspondence. But it would be Clinton herself who would judge what’s personal--which is exactly what she has been accused of by opponents. Since the personal emails are not looked at, who is to say whether they are personal or not? In effect, then, there is absolutely no difference between Clinton claiming to use her personal account only for personal emails and Clinton claiming to have deleted only personal emails from her records before handing over what she claims is everything else (which is the current situation). Opponents argue there is no way to verify this, but this would be the case if she had used her personal account only for personal emails, too, which would apparently have been perfectly fine. The rule thus appears pretty unenforceable unless all government officials were prohibited from ever having any private email correspondence.

This rule was meant to serve a seemingly laudable goal: transparency in, in this case, diplomacy. There have long been demands to end "secret diplomacy" because of suspicion of just what goes on behind closed doors. More crimes are committed in the dark than in the light of day, after all. In addition, how can a democracy function well if its people do not know what their government is doing? How can the people make themselves heard? Transparency at all levels, including diplomacy, is supposed to fix this.

The problem is that making negotiations, rather than just their outcomes, public can make diplomacy nearly impossible--and without diplomacy and negotiation, cooperation becomes nearly impossible as well. Without cooperation, everyone is worse off: shared economic benefits don't materialize, wars become more likely, collective action on pollution and climate change can't occur, etc. The reason is simple: Both sides need to be free to offer unpopular things in exchange for what they want. Deals often fall through. The public might accept slaying a sacred cow in exchange for a big deal, but revealing that a leader was willing to do so and did not achieve the hoped-for outcome could cause cries of “traitor!” Secret negotiations thus allow the two sides (or even two negotiators) to speak openly with one another without constantly worrying about how their domestic audiences are reacting to what they are saying and how this might affect their re-election chances or other aspects of political capital. Though a deal was not reached in the end anyway, the Camp David negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Auhtority President Yassir Arafat are illustrative: They both offered things in secret that they could not have offered if opposition back home had constantly been up in arms (e.g. both of them moved towards sharing Jerusalem, which, in public, neither had dared to say they could do).

Clinton went against the spirit, at least, of transparency regulations, but those regulations are inherently arbitrary and it is also easy to see why she would wish to skirt them. The negotiations leading to a deal (though not the deal itself) should be permitted to remain secret and be protected from the scrutiny of all but a few insiders, at least for a time. Doing the opposite would not only be impractical (as it would require ALL correspondence to be publicly available, as I have shown), it would be undesirable in the case of diplomacy.

How shorter prison sentences may REDUCE violent crime (and save money and destroy fewer lives)

There are at least four reasons we punish criminals: retribution, rehabilitation, prevention, and deterrence. We punish criminals out of a sense that this is just, regardless of the other effects. This is an emotional idea, but it is still useful to ensure a peaceful society: A society that citizens viewed as grossly unjust, in which criminals did not pay for their crimes, would be unstable and likely violent, full of vigilantes. The benefits of rehabilitation are obvious. This makes it unfortunate that that particular aspect usually takes a back seat to the other three. Prevention simply involves keeping dangerous people off the streets so they cannot re-offend. It is 100% certain (for that individual, obviously), but also, if permanent, removes the chance of rehabilitation and is quite sad, really. Prison is also horrendously expensive: It costs around $30,000 per inmate per year!*

The final aspect is deterrence: the idea that those who might be contemplating a crime are more likely to decide against it if there's a decent chance they will be caught and face unacceptable punishment. The approach to this in America has been "more is better": if short prison stays deter some, longer ones must deter more, right? Right, but only partly. There are at least two problems. The first: the longer prison sentences become, the less differences between them matter and the more abstract they are. One year in prison is surely a lot worse than six months. But what happens when we're talking 15 years versus 25? Sure, 25 is a lot more awful to contemplate than 15, but 15 horrendous years facing possible physical and mental violence on a daily basis is almost to horrible for most of us to contemplate. Those undeterred by that are those tough enough to excel at prison life. If that doesn't deter them, do we really think those last 10 years would make the difference? Studies suggest they do not.

The second problem is related to the first: From the beginning, criminologists have argued that different severities of crimes must carry different severities of punishment. This is not just fair, it also serves an important purpose in deterring violent crimes in particular. To see why, imagine you are robbing a someone's home. They are not home, but you are armed with a gun (after all, they might have one, too, and you may need to protect yourself). I've surveyed a few websites about penalties, but it's complicated, so this is purely  illustrative. This would be armed burglary, I guess, which carries a sentence of something like 5 years for your first offence. If you've bee caught before, it could be longer. Let's say it's double. Now, the owner walks in with a gun. You cannot run, or he may shoot. You point the gun back at him, potentially adding another 10 years to your sentence. Your only options now are to surrender, and face at least 10 but possibly even 20 years in prison, or kill him and face 25, but only if you are caught. In the spur and fear of the moment, it is more likely your personal attitude towards killing will make a bigger difference than 5-10 years more in prison, the prospect of which is anyway offset by the fact that you may be able to get away scot free if you commit murder. It may be that the difference between theft, threatening violence, committing violence, and committing murder is not great enough and not optimal. Many European countries have much shorter prison sentences combined with lower rates of violent crime.

Sure, there are lots of reasons for this: greater social spending probably makes people less likely to commit crimes. The lack of guns in Europe is a big reason for reduced gun crime (and higher rates of knife crime in the UK, at least). This is not THE answer, just an illustration of the idea that lower prison sentences are not always "soft on crime." In fact, they may sometimes even reduce it. Plow some of those savings into greater rehabilitation and education efforts, and crime and re-offending could fall further, saving more money and making everyone better off again. Some Republican states are already trying such things and the results are promising. In that regard, at least, more really is better.

*As a tangent, I would argue that, since many criminals end up in crime due to low educational prospects and opportunities, it would be cheaper and perhaps more effective to send them to (community) college! At least then they would emerge from their time with better job prospects, not worse ones. They'd then be less likely to re-offed, saving money, and they'd earn more, paying the government more in taxes. Massive savings all around and a life saved from wasting away uselessly in prison.

"Compassion? Why bother? Poor People Are Poor Because They Deserve It." A Rebuttal of Neal Boortz's Speech

Right wing advocates are winning the argument on economic morality by using an appealing line of reasoning that seems right on the surface. It is not, and anyone who cares about justice in any form cannot let this stand.

I recently received an email with an alleged "commencement speech" by Texas lawyer Neal Boortz. Maybe you received it, too. It turns out that he never gave that speech at an actual commencement (link). The issue here is not where the speech was given or even the fact that Boortz thinks it was "more widely distributed... than any commencement speech that actually has been delivered at any college or university in the past 50 years" (something the readers of Steve Jobs's speech might find hard to believe). The point is that a lot of people have read and heard the speech (it seems he read it out on his popular radio show). The speech bashes liberals on several fronts for being "imbeciles." There are two main ideas behind his, any many right wing advocates', argument: that government spending beyond a few bare necessities is wasteful and the related idea that people who receive government benefits are undeserving and are little better than thieves.

Let's start with that wasteful spending. All of us who've dealt with governments (the US is certainly included and may even be worse than most) can be pretty sure it is not spending every dollar wisely. Farmers, who are currently doing well, receive massive subsidies. Corn ethanol, which is no solution for energy dependence, is not much better than gasoline for the environment, and the production of which helps drive up world food prices, received loads of government funding, too (though this was sensibly scrapped, I believe). These are just a couple examples, though I'd say the fact that they are both related to agriculture is no coincidence. Our legislature seems to be designed for inefficient and complicated outcomes due to the over-representation of states with small populations in the senate (giving it different priorities from those of the House), the filibuster, gerrymandering of the House, etc. etc. Maybe government spending would be more efficient if Congress were. But I digress.

Boortz talks about the US Government backing dictators with foreign aid, funding stupid research, and paying for artists whose work no one wants to buy. The first argument is a bald-faced lie (or at least a tactical misrepresentation), and I simply cannot believe he doesn't know this. Dictators have received more support in defense spending and favorable weapons deals than with "liberal" foreign aid, spending  for which accounts for around a paltry 1% of the federal budget (and thus only about 0.18% of the US's overall GDP, see link).

But what about all that frivolous research? As someone who has seen the process of applying for funding first-hand (albeit in the UK and not the US, but the UK, a more "social" place, is hardly going to be harsher than the US), I can tell you the idea that people are getting funding for all kinds of ridiculous things is laughable. There are review panels for this sort of thing, and any researcher applying for funding must show that the research is new, that the results will have a large benefit, and that the research provides good value for money (i.e. there isn't a simpler and cheaper way to reap similar benefits).

Government-funded research lead to such creations as the Internet, which has revolutionized the way the world stays in touch and does business, and the Human Genome Project, whose benefits to health and research cannot yet fully be known but which are already showing great promise. This sort of high-risk research that only occasionally brings extremely high rewards benefit lots of people. The economic benefits generally do not come back solely to those who engage in the research, making this sort of work unattractive to private companies. "Unattractive to private companies" does not, by any stretch of the imagination, equate to "not worth it," as just these two examples ought to show. Should we perform stringent tests on funding to determine who should get awards? Absolutely. Should we concentrate only on ones that will bring definite economic returns for the "investors"? Absolutely not.

Finally, those awful artists. I suspect Boortz is annoyed with the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). It funds "projects exhibiting artistic excellence." That means it's REALLY hard to get funding. And there isn't much funding to get: It's 2011 annual budget was just under $154.7 million. That may sound like a lot, but consider that the entire US federal budget for 2011 was $3,598,000 million (that's right: take the NEA's budget and multiply it by nearly 23,258!!!)! You might also consider the number of billionaires living in the US and note that the NEA's funding is likely to be less than 10% of any individual billionaire's net worth. Just to put things into perspective. For a final perspective: The US Government spent $227,000 million just paying interest on debts it had incurred previously. What's more likely to be bothering Boortz is the NEA's funding, from time-to-time, of art that conservatives don't like. (Wikipedia was my, admittedly somewhat unprofessional, source for all information in this paragraph.) If that's the issue, say so, rather than attacking "hippie artists" no one cares about.

So the government doesn't really waste as much as many seem to think (even if you consider measly spending on the arts and foreign aid a waste (the latter can be a helpful foreign policy tool as well)). But social security, medicaid, and medicare together make up about 43% of the federal budget, and I believe states pitch in some money for healthcare, too. Unemployment benefits come on top of that. That means something like 50% of spending is on so-called "entitlements." Boortz argues you're not entitled. "That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? He's there by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has made in his life."

This is where the real problem is. Is it annoying to watch people constantly screw up and then ask us to bail them out? Sure it is. But there are two problems with this line of reasoning, and I'm sure Boortz is aware of this but just does not wish to accept it: That homeless guy is not receiving government money, and our lives are more than the sum total of our choices. Boortz is a successful guy. He points out that "nobody really wants to accept the blame for his or her position in life." The thing is, the opposite seems to be true for credit. Boortz believes he is successful because he is just so damn awesome. If he had been born in the vacuum of space, he undoubtedly would be at least as successful as he is now. After all, no hand-out receiving freeloaders would have taken his hard-earned money to line their own pockets. It was just his good choices. Just as it is always bad choices that make people poor.

Is there personal responsibility? Absolutely, and philosophizing to the point where we question free will would cause society to collapse because the justice system could not function. People must take responsibility for their choices. But this only goes so far. What about the girl born into a poor family? What choice does she have? Can she choose to go the worst school in town? Can she choose to walk past drug dealers and gangs on her way home? Can she choose to do her homework by herself because her single father has to work long hours to pay rent and put food on the table? Is it any wonder that her teachers, who have long ago given up, partly out of fear of their own students, are not able to bring her to the next level? Maybe Boortz, who was born with an infinitely strong will and determination to succeed, which I guess had nothing to do with luck at all, would have thrived anyway. After all, some people do. That's the American Dream.

But how many actually do? The American Dream, it seems, is more of a reality in Scandinavia than in America. One very important factor correlated with economic success in later life in America (and Britain) is how much your parents earn. In Scandinavia and Canada (Germany's pretty good, too), this is much less important, meaning that more poor kids grow up to be wealthy and middle-class adults than in America. At the same time, more rich people move down the scale in Scandinavia than do in America. Are rich Scandinavians choosing to be poor more often than rich Americans? Obviously, the system makes a difference. The condition the American Dream requires is equality of opportunity (NOT equality of outcomes!). Everyone cannot and should not earn the same. It is also hard to see how everyone could be given the same opportunities in life. Surely it is rich parents' right to send their kids to private schools. The fact is, though, that opportunities in America are nowhere near equal. In fact, they're not even decent for the poorest 20%. (Source)

Boortz's attack on liberals' compassion for those undeserving of successful people's money is disingenuous. It is nice to be alleviated of the feeling of moral responsibility for those around us who are suffering. Unfortunately, though, we are all responsible for the government system we have helped to create, the same system that makes it extremely difficult for around 20% of the US population to get ahead in life. This doesn't mean the end of personal responsibility. On the contrary, we are ALL personally responsible for this sad state of affairs and the slow death of the American Dream. Do something about it. Do not let superficially plausible arguments convince you and your friends that people are rich because they deserve to be and poor for the same reason and that we should therefore cut off the poor leaches and leave them to their own devices. That's not just a lack of compassion, but the sort of lack of foresight that has brought down arrogant ruling classes throughout the centuries.

Reports of America's Political Collapse Are Probably Premature

There's a lot of gloom about America's political system lately. The concern, increasingly, is not so much that individual politicians or even political parties are leading the country down the wrong path (though those concerns certainly abound as well), but rather: there are increasing doubts as to whether the structure of America's political system can even continue to serve it well.

In a recent article in the International Herald Tribune, David Brooks commented: "Usually when I travel from Washington to Britain I move from less gloom to more gloom. But this time the mood is reversed. The British political system is basically functional while the American system is not." He talks about how, though the two main parties "are happy to rubbish each other," they actually agree on more than they disagree.

This is a type of consensus about how to move forward that we in America can only dream of, it seems. Indeed, I can barely hide my admiration and envy of the British and the "adult" decision its electorate has made to put two parties into office that have touted a message of radical reform, coupled with searing spending cuts and some tax increases to boot. The Conservatives came to power while actively expressing the viewpoint that this had to be done. The voters, seemingly, agreed.

All true. But there are two problems with this narrative. For one, voters were not entirely certain what they wanted and were obviously torn, as they failed to give any single party a majority in an electoral system, like America's, that is designed to do just that. The Conservatives don't have a full mandate, they must share power with the liberal democrats. Fine, you say, but the LibDems and the Tories (the nickname for the Conservatives) still came together to agree on the current reform package. This is true, but it may have just been time. Bond markets were already getting edgy about Britain's debt. A looming crisis can compel. The other side of this, too, is that the election may have been more a renunciation of the Labor party, which had ruled Britain for more than a decade, rather than a vote FOR the Tories or the LibDems. The electorate, therefore, seems much less coherently for the changes that are occurring in Westminster than the election results might have us believe.

The second problem is that none of this represents systematic problems, in the sense of a problem with the system's structure itself (as opposed to problems spread throughout a system, another definition of the word "systematic"). As Brooks mentions in his Op-Ed piece, "a generation of misrule between 1945 and 1979 left the U.K. with three large problems: a stifled industrial economy; an overcentralized welfare state; and an enervated people, some of whom are locked in cycles of poverty." Indeed, the 1970s were an extraordinarily tumultuous time in British politics, with Scottish and Irish voters plumping for local parties in 1974, causing a hung parliament (a parliament with no party in the majority). The first coalition that was formed broke down within months. Another election in the same year produced a majority, but defections later destroyed this. In-fighting caused further problems. At the same time, inflation was high, peaking at over 20%. The government tried to stop this by forcing wages to stop rising. This worked fairly well, it seems, but you can imagine the uproar from labor unions. Strikes led to important services being shut down repeatedly and to a huge loss in productivity. Perhaps the most embarrassing event occurred in 1976, when Britain required an IMF bailout! The gloom and sense of political decay must have been palpable!

This all ended with the thumping election victory of Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party in 1979. Her party introduced numerous reforms, broke the defiance of the unions (with electoral support), and got the country moving again. My point here is not to discuss the controversial aspects of her reign. Rather, the point is: I am sure Britons must have begun to doubt the ability of their political system to provide for a stable, well-managed country during the difficult 1970s. And yet, that very same system produced a political consensus that went on to last for 18 years and to fundamentally change the United Kingdom. The subsequent Labor Government, though it presided over financial deregulation and a boom that turned to bust, also made sweeping and positive changes based on solid electoral victories. The system produced good and bad governments, but the system itself was not fundamentally changed. This is important to remember as we look longingly across the Atlantic at those grown-up British, prudently taking self-administered medicine.

My point is: America has had rough and divided times before, too, and has survived (though the biggest division in history led to the Civil War, which is a rather dramatic version of "surviving"). The problem is not really the system, but that the electorate is honestly uncertain of the best path forward. In this environment, two competing ideologies are espoused by leaders, and Americans seem intent on trying them both simultaneously. In the end, there may be some sort of real crisis (like bond market jitters) that forces real change, but the electorate needs to get its act together first.

That said, there are a few systemic issues that serve to intensify problems, primarily by intensifying polarity. The main culprit here, to my mind, is Gerrymandering. This is drawing voting districts in such a way that seats become safe for one party or another. This is not a partisan issue; since both parties "benefit" from it, at least locally and in the short term, both do it frequently. California has been one of the worst examples, though I believe it has now enacted legislation to put this to an end.

Making seats safe for one party or other leads to polarization because the general election no longer matters. Instead, the primary matters. For example, if a district is so gerrymandered that only a democrat has a chance of winning, then the democratic primary becomes the de facto election. To win the primary, a candidate must pander to the party base. That means they can ignore republicans and independents. (This is, of course, all true for same republican seats, too.) What's more, the democratic voters themselves can ignore the others, too. Normally, voters might think "well, I don't agree with all this candidate says, but I think she has a better chance of beating the republican." If voters know the primary candidate will win the election, they can easily vote for the one closest to their beliefs (which are "extreme" by their very nature, as democrats and republicans are left and right of center, respectively, and their fired up bases on the extremes are the ones surest to vote in primaries). Less political polarization would go a long way to helping America find the consensus needed to move ahead and solve problems. The Senate cannot be gerrymandered, since senators are elected state-wide. This is why the senate has a reputation for being the "saner" of the two houses (another reason is the longer senate term, meaning senators don't have to constantly campaign and can actually get on with governing as they reason is best).

But even gerrymandering is not a problem to make or break America. It, too, can be fixed via the electoral process if voters want to fix it. What America needs most is informed and diligent voters to move the country onto the right path, or, at the very least, a coherent one. No system in the world can counter an electorate that is not doing its job except, of course, for a dictatorship. When voters have not paid attention in the past (or even the present: think Venezuela), this is also precisely what they have gotten. THAT would be a broken political system. America's, as yet, is not.

Who knows Ronald Reagan?

I am starting to become frustrated with the Right's persistent attempts to drag Ronald Reagan's policies back onto the main political stage. The McCain/Palin ticket resurrected the idea of Ronald Reagan to energize their base during an election year, and now the Republicans and Tea Party Movement continue to carry the torch, insisting that we need to return to the Reagan years. President Reagan had a lot of fascinating accomplishments during his Presidency. His foreign policy was a remarkable step forward. His economic policy, however, was much more controversial, and if we are just looking at some hard numbers, it baffles me why we are even bringing up the Reagan name if we are debating the Country's most crucial issue: fiscal deficits. I think we are at the point where no one really remembers what Ronald Reagan actually did during his presidency, which is the perfect storm for meaningless political rhetoric.

Most people remember Reagan's top-down approach to the economy with steep tax cuts, but he also oversaw one of the first real expansions of the deficit, which should cause us to shun his policies in light of today's issues. The Reagan legacy brought such phrases as "supply side economics" and "trickle down" to the national political conversation. This approach is centered on cutting taxes and government spending so individuals can reinvest in the economy. Similar to George H.W. Bush, Reagan was successful in cutting taxes dramatically, especially for the most wealthy Americans, but his true failure was the hard part: cutting spending. We often talk about the unprecedented growth in the national deficit from the Bush Jr. years, but rarely do Republican spinsters mention Reagan's inability to control federal spending. The deficit more than tripled under Reagan's watch, an unintended reality, but still a result of his leadership. Choosing a President that served more than TWENTY years ago may allow Republicans to augment reality, but it cannot escape a simple fact check. At the very least, they should shy away from a politician that made many of the same mistakes that led us to where we are today.

I would like to end with an entertaining video from last week:

Sure Pamela Geller is making a total idiot of herself, and, sadly enough, this interview sparked an embellished controversy about this non-issue, but there is a bigger point here. I think this exchange really drives home how difficult it is to put words in the mouth of a deceased President. It doesn't matter where you land on the political spectrum, if you thought Reagan was a great President or single handedly destroyed our economy, his policies from days ago are really no longer relevant. We shouldn't be asking what would Reagan do, or care about what he would think. We have today's problems, today's leaders, and today's America. We should start coming up with solutions that are tailored to the present instead of trying to turn back the hands of time... Or at the very least, if we are going to look back, can we at least pick a President who actually DID cut the deficit?!?

No Love for Ben

It was not too long ago that our economy seemed to be at the brink of collapse. Just about a year ago, last March, Bear Stearns was the first to fall. A few short months later, in September, another Wall Street financial titan, Leahman Brothers, crumbled under its own weight. We were at war and we had two Generals, Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson, and neither disappointed. The U.S. was lucky: with a academic who has an affinity for Depression-era economics (Bernake) and a brilliant Wall Street mind (Paulson), we had a fighting chance. But to my surprise, as soon as things start to calm down, our lawmakers are beginning to seem a bit unappreciative.

Right next to Michael Jackson's picture in the Wall Street Journal this morning was this article (abridged online) detailing Ben Bernanke's contentious hearing in front of Congress Yesterday. The purpose of the hearing was to examine the decisions made during our time of war, with particular attention to the BofA takeover of Merrill. These hearings are missing the big picture, not looking at the cause for instability, but instead trying to answer the thousands of what ifs.

Our economy, at its core, is based on a single concept...confidence. Everything revolves around trust. Trust the dollar I put into a bank today will be there tomorrow, trust that I have the ability to purchase things today because I will have a job tomorrow, trust that if I make a loan to the government they will honor it tomorrow. Even our use of dollars is an inherent trust that our government is supporting our currency as legal tender. Breaking this trust has more dire consequences than any Bernie Madoff, Enron, or a dot-com bubble. Without trust nothing works. As the pillars of the economy started to wobble, and doubt filled the minds of every person around the world, Ben stepped up and reestablished our trust.

It is popular opinion (if not fact) that the major error of fiscal policy during the Great Depression was to allow banks to fail. Possibly the only thing worse than the failure of a financial system is the nationalization of one. The ripple effect that follows the loss of confidence in an economy is an irreversible fear that can bring any country to its knees. One only needs a refresher on any monetary crisis (don't have to go too far into history, just look at Iceland) to see how this break down of trust can destroy an economy. Merrill, and many other banks, were going to fail; the foundation was cracking. Our generals used everything at their disposal to hold it all together. From where I sit today, it looks like the worst is behind us and we should thank Ben for his help.

Instead Democrats feel he was too secretive (must have forgotten to write up enough memos as he was saving the world), Republicans think he has too much power (maybe we should have waited for them to vote on it, that worked really well when the house rejected TARP... 777 drop?). At the end of the day the world was in panic mode, faith in the economy was at one of its lowest levels, and I do not think we made it through by accident.

Ben used his brilliance, and all the leverage he had. He may have used brute force to hold things together, but during a time of war there is a need for action. There were definitely some casualties, but the flag still stands and now the general deserves a medal, or at least a full night's sleep!