Loose Cannon

 

(Editor's note:  Ranger Bob is back with another take on our modern political world.  This time he explains the origins of the term "loose cannon," knowledge he gained through years of work with our National Park Service, and applies that very dangerous reality from years past to the current President of the United States.  Thanks for joining us again and sharing your valuable insights, Ranger Bob! ~ Pa Rock)

Loose Cannon

by Bob Randall

The cannons of the USS Constitution were loaded from the muzzle.  When the guns were to be fired, they were run out through ports so that the muzzle protruded outside of the ship's hull.  The guns were so heavy at nearly 6,500 pounds that the crews used block and tackle rigs to run them forward.  It was not good to stand behind a cannon because, once fired, the recoil of the blast violently pushed the cannon and its carriage back inside the ship.  Then it could be reloaded.  There was also a block and tackle at the breech end to run it back inside if needed.  The gun carriages that supported the tubes were on wheels that didn't swivel.  Under normal circumstances, they only went forward and backward.  They could be slid sideways a little for aiming purposes, if needed.  It was controlled chaos.  If, for whatever reason, the cannon was free from its tethers, it became a loose cannon.  On a pitching deck, it was very chaotic and difficult to impossible to control.  Unchecked, it could destroy anything in its way.   

If ever there was a loose cannon, it's Donald Trump.  He seems to be on a pitching deck of his own making.   MAGA likes that because they either want to see something new built in place of the destruction, they want to clear away the debris for a permanently blank canvas, or they just like jabbing people they don't like in the eye.  They aren't clear on the specifics.  They are useful idiots.  Donald himself is clearing the way for seaside resorts.  He wants access to energy and precious mineral reserves to be exploited by his brand or his friends who will be beholden to him.   Since NATO is not showing proper deference, its dissolution is necessary, probably along with the UN which will be replaced entirely by the Board of Peace and the Shield of America.   He needs to make money because there is never enough, just as he needs to continue his reign which is scheduled to expire in about three years.

The illegal war that's going on which he started isn't really a problem because he will simply declare victory at some point and expect adulation from everyone.  If you don't give him that, you will be the villain in his next Truth post.   If you are in journalism, he will either have a rich patron buy out your parent company or have the head of the FCC threaten your license to broadcast.

But the war is a problem beyond that.  We have not won, and depending on your perspective, we are not winning.  It is not our kind of war where one side surrenders.  The Iranian regime survives.  Many of the people who could rise up and rebel (presumably on our side) are dead.  Donald's timing was a little slow.  The regime is winning because it controls the flow of oil for much of the world, and that affects the price we pay.  That puts pressure on Donald's plans.   He has to survive the midterm elections, so the Iranian regime will just survive and be a thorn in his paw.  Wait.  It's not just a problem for Donald, it's a problem for all of us.

There are things about the war of which, in theory, I approve.   I would welcome regime change, hopefully replaced by a democracy or at least not a theocracy.  Iran is the primary bad boy of the Middle East (Israel is not the subject here,).   I would welcome capture of enriched uranium and destruction of Iran's ability to continue their nuclear program.  Most of their missiles have been spent and I would welcome the prevention of their replacement, drones included here.  I could go on.  There are good things that could come from this war, however, I don't have much encouragement that these things will happen.   Stopping now would be a disaster.  If we just mow the Iranian lawn, it will grow back with more weeds.  Russia and China are watching, and if we show a lack of political will or military might, they will be encouraged.  We will be exposed as a paper tiger.  We shouldn't  keep going, but we can't quit.  Thanks, Donald.  (Bob says sarcastically.)

Worse than any of the above is the precedent that the president can start a war without the approval of Congress.   Well, I guess that problem is within the limits of argument,   Supporters say that he used the War Powers Act to protect us against imminent attack.  That is untrue,  but how blatant does a lie have to be before everyone agrees that it is a lie.   He notified some members of Congress after it started, so that is barely within the procedure, I guess.  So, he has 90 days to play war without congressional approval.  If he wants to continue, will he have the political juice to get approval?   Well, I don't know.  In my opinion, the bigger problem is the precedent that allows the president to start any war, anywhere, anytime.  Where's Congress?  I think the other questions are minor compared to this:  Will America turn back to its traditional Democratic values or accelerate toward authoritarianism?