Bacevich begins his work with a statement of fact: “Today as never before in their history Americans are enthralled with military power. The global military supremacy that the United States presently enjoys — and is bent on perpetuating — has become central to our national identity.”

Although I believe that the author is quite correct in his assessment, I would take the position that militarism in America is in fact not altogether new, but merely now wearing a contemporary suit of clothes. In any case, modern or mature, the phenomenon presents a danger to the republic. What is this danger?

The wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan are telling. Bacevich points out that President George W. Bush stated unequivocally and implausibly that he would, “rid the world of evil.” We know that evil has been around for a long time and that achieving such an objective was not possible. In any case, a huge military would be necessary to attempt it. It may be worthwhile to point out that President Woodrow Wilson was cut from a similar, if less ambitious, bolt of cloth based in idealism. But in the attempt, Bush embraced militarism to strike out at perceived enemies in the wake of 9/11. However, Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on the twin towers and Pentagon.

Bacevich goes on to state that “…Americans in our own time have fallen prey to militarism, manifesting itself in a romanticized view of soldiers, a tendency to see military power as the truest measure of national greatness…” Soldiers who know that there is nothing romantic about war inevitably ask themselves why else are we still in Afghanistan after two decades of conflict and what have we accomplished?

His analysis suggests a possible answer: “The Republican and Democratic parties may not be identical, but they produce nearly identical results. Money buys access and influence, the rich and famous get served, and those lacking wealth and celebrity get screwed…” “…the system is fundamentally corrupt and functions in ways inconsistent with the spirit of genuine democracy. This anyone with eyes to see recognizes.” The Republican Bush was followed by the Democrat Obama, who embraced with only a bit less enthusiasm the killing of terrorists with the military cudgel.

It appears that the ideal of the citizen-soldier is all but dead, killed by the sacrifices it required of Middle America. But, the success of the all-volunteer Army is also problematic — further separating political decision-makers from any chance of being personally impacted by our nation’s conflicts. Because there is no active national draft, only a very tiny minority of the sons and daughters of the well-to-do currently serve in the military. Conversely, representation of the well-to-do among political elites is high.

This means that political elites seldom have any skin in America’s wars. They do, however, often own considerable stock in defense industries. For the most part, the children of those who hold either wealth or position are not killed or maimed in America’s wars any longer. Moreover, the political elites themselves have only rarely served in uniform. Those who know nothing of battle are the ones who tend to romanticize armed forces service the most.

Bacevich sums up beautifully in his afterword: “The “standing army” created in the wake of Vietnam has now become sacrosanct, cherished by the state as an instrument for projecting power and by the country at large as a convenient device for dodging responsibility.”

Neither Bacevich nor I are anti-military — quite the opposite. However, it is critically important to understand that American militarism possesses a significant downside for the country. Our sons and daughters should not become mere expendable cannon fodder for those who by virtue of wealth or position are guaranteed never to have to face the irredeemable loss and manifest horrors of war.

Robert Bruce Adolph is a former United Nations Chief Security Adviser and U.S. Army Special Forces lieutenant colonel. He recently published a startling book entitled “Surviving the United Nations: The Unexpected Challenge,” that is available on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble websites and now available in ebook format.

Editor’s note: This is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author. If you would like to respond, or have an editorial of your own you would like to submit, please contact Military Times managing editor Howard Altman, haltman@militarytimes.com.

Fulbright demonstrated unusual wisdom in these few well-chosen words, “What I do question is the ability of the United States or any other Western nation… (to) create stability where there is chaos … democracy where there is no history of it, and honest government where corruption is almost a way of life.” Of course, Fulbright was discussing Vietnam. But these words could easily apply to our long-term and seemingly never-ending foray into Afghanistan.

The senator would likely agree that our mistake in committing America to the long-term security of countries where the U.S. has no economic or security interests is predominantly based on the arrogance of power. Fulbright saw the situation in this light. “America is now at that historical point at which a great nation is in danger of losing its perspective on what exactly is within the realm of its power and what is beyond it.” America never could “fix” Afghanistan. We need to smarten-up.

Again, Fulbright speaks eloquently. “…power tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is peculiarly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God’s favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations. …In plain words, they (other Great powers) overextended their commitments and they came to grief.”

I suspect that America may be on this path — a path that is leading to dangerous over-extension. We could come to grief, too. The late Professor Sam Sarkesian of Loyola University called this phenomenon the American “messianic spirit.” Essentially, this is the belief that America is, and ought to be, the bright shining beacon for the rest of the world. There is no doubt that the rest of the world would prefer to pursue their own visions of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Of course, the attainment of these goals would be based upon their various beliefs and customs and not ours.

According to Fulbright, the key mistake is made in equating “power with virtue” and in confusing “major responsibilities with a universal mission.” Our Founding Fathers certainly felt no such call to police the rest of the world. In fact, President George Washington in his farewell address counselled against “foreign entanglements.”

Much of the rest of the world still views us as it did in Fulbright’s day: “… the great majority of the human race is demanding dignity and independence, not the honor of a supine role in an American empire.”

The senator’s prescription for this situation is a sound one. “If America has a service to perform in the world — and I believe she has — it is in large part the service of her own example.”

America need not and should not take on the mantle of protector or savior within the context of our Global War on Terror.

The arrogance of power may well be at the root of our continuing ill-advised commitment to countries where there exist no national strategic interests beyond the hunting down and killing of extremists. The issues surrounding this never-ending global conflict need a serious review and reconsideration.

Robert Bruce Adolph is a former United Nations Chief Security Adviser and U.S. Army Special Forces lieutenant colonel. He recently published a startling book entitled “Surviving the United Nations: The Unexpected Challenge,” that is available on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble websites and now available in ebook format.

Editor’s note: This is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author. If you would like to respond, or have an editorial of your own you would like to submit, please contact Military Times managing editor Howard Altman, haltman@militarytimes.com.

Tragically, that belief is now all but gone.

Since Congress has consistently abrogated its constitutional responsibility to declare war, successive presidents have made a mess of it. Ask yourself a question, an entire American generation has grown from childhood to adulthood while at war. What have we achieved? Is America safer for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the never-ending American Global War on Terror? The expenditure of thousands of Americans lives, and billions of U.S. dollars has accomplished what? The clear winner in Iraq is Iran. Despite recent peace talks, the clear winner in Afghanistan is the Taliban.

Although it is emotionally satisfying to kill those designated as terrorists, those many thousands of dead have seemingly gotten us no closer to victory. Is our strategy merely to keep killing? If so, we will be doing so for a very long time, indeed.

But, what is the problem? We have won nearly all the battles. However, it appears that we are either losing, or perhaps have already lost all the wars. Our sons and daughters are still dying on these foreign battlefields while we are told: “They are defending our freedom.” Although that rationale once held water with me, it does so no longer. The Taliban does not directly threaten our liberties. The Iraqi version of ISIS has morphed into what it once was; a movement that holds no land mass.

President George W. Bush initiated a war in Afghanistan in October of 2001 to remove the Taliban from power, so they could no longer give shelter to al-Qaida — the overlords of the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. He later chose to invade Iraq in March of 2003. Nobody seems to understand why. Iraq had nothing whatever to do with the tragic events of 9/11.

In any case, choosing to fight two long wars simultaneously was always a fool’s errand. The absurd notion that America could bestow sustainable democracy and liberal order on either country is reflective of both arrogance and naivete. History has more than proven this point.

President Barack Obama inherited these wars and managed to close-out, for the most part, the conflict in Iraq in order to focus our attentions on the conduct of a more humane war in Afghanistan, meaning with more restrictive rules of engagement (ROE). War cannot be fought by humanitarian means. Sadly, war’s ends define its means: Violence. We followed the rules (The Law of Land Warfare), our adversaries followed none. The Taliban is today resurgent.

President Donald Trump, like his predecessor, inherited these Bush-era conflicts. After more than three years, and beyond less restrictive ROE, I am unable to discern a national strategy that addresses Afghanistan. Recent ham-handed attempts at peace failed. The Taliban know that they are winning. Therefore, they have no reason to engage in sincere peace negotiations.

We continue to slog-on in the vain hope of perhaps finding “something” that will look like victory so we can declare ourselves winners. The problem is that so much American blood and treasure has been expended that few in responsible positions with the D.C. Beltway are willing to contemplate a complete withdrawal. They want something for all the “sunk costs.” If they have their way, and so far they have, this means that our military personnel will continue to be at risk for reasons that defy simple explanation.

The wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan were begun under the Bush administration without defining the end state desired for our nation’s military. So, our military soldiered-on while desired political ends (objectives) and means (methods) changed with the vision, or lack thereof, with each succeeding White House occupant. Previous presidents made the same error in Vietnam. Wars cannot be fought and won in this manner.

Robert Bruce Adolph is a former United Nations Chief Security Adviser and U.S. Army Special Forces lieutenant colonel. He recently published a startling book entitled “Surviving the United Nations: The Unexpected Challenge,” that is available on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble websites and now available in ebook format.

Editor’s note: This is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author. If you would like to respond, or have an editorial of your own you would like to submit, please contact Military Times managing editor Howard Altman, haltman@militarytimes.com.

What follows is a cautionary tale: I was the chief of security for the United Nations in Baghdad in the summer of 2003 in the wake of the U.S. invasion. It was an incredibly difficult time for myself and my staff. Security incidents were increasing almost daily. Attacks using improvised explosive devices (IED) were beginning to take a toll on U.S. forces. Our threat analysis concluded that the U.N. mission would come under attack, too: we simply had no way of knowing how, when or where. I repeatedly reported our concerns to U.N. bosses in both Baghdad and New York, while recommending a myriad of risk mitigation policies and procedures to reduce the threat. Most of my formal and informal recommendations were ignored. Although enormously frustrated, I remained loyal to our superiors. I stayed in my lane, even though our bosses seemed intent to drive us over a cliff. Essentially, I acted the role of good and loyal soldier, which was how I was trained by our nation’s military. The cost was too high.

My level of frustration grew so great in early August that I contemplated resigning in protest. Regrettably, I allowed two colleagues to talk me out of it. They first made the point that the U.N. has no history of senior officers resigning in protest. Then, they made the case that my quitting would likely have zero impact on the U.N.’s chosen course in Iraq, and that we were marginally better off with me in charge of security rather than someone new and untested. Was my decision to remain based in ego or self-interest? Did I rationalize the situation so that I could remain employed in a position of both status and some small prestige?

On Aug. 19, 2003, a suicide bomber driving a large flat-bed truck carrying upwards of 2,000 pounds of explosives struck the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad: killing 22 and wounding more than 150. Included among the wounded was my wife, who was then working for the World Food Program. For all the years following, I have regretted not giving in to the impulse to resign in protest. As always, hindsight is 20/20.

The former national security adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster wrote a superb book many years prior to achieving national notoriety. His work is entitled “Dereliction of Duty.” McMaster made a powerful case that multiple flag officers within the Pentagon knew that the Vietnam War could not be won, and yet continued to send our country’s citizens into the Southeast Asian quagmire to die. Were they, like me, being good loyal soldiers? And if so, at what cost? Or, was self-interest at work? Once handed a flag containing one star, would it not be a natural ambition to expand it to two or more?

More recently, it became abundantly clear that our nation’s most senior military officers have loyally saluted the flagpole on critically important issues involving Afghanistan. Despite public pronouncements to the contrary, we were not winning the war over a decade ago; and we are not winning the war today. At a minimum, many a well-known and storied general officer was complicit in lies of omission: the negative reports coming out of Kabul were “spun” upon arrival at the Pentagon to suit our nation’s political leadership in multiple administrations. I can remember not even one knowledgeable flag officer resigning in protest in order to tell this truth publicly in the attempt to save the lives of those American military members who would be subsequently killed or maimed by the Taliban. We should be better than this.

The American military enjoys a trust and confidence like no other institution in our nation. The armed forces’ most senior officers bear the lion’s share of shouldering that burden and should. The confidence those in uniform currently enjoy will erode over time if we fail to remember where our true loyalties should reside: to the American people and the U.S. Constitution to which we swear our allegiance. Especially in this age of runaway mendacity, loyalty should absolutely have limits. A hopefully salient quote from my own recently published book follows: “Doing the right thing invariably means doing the hard thing. This is the true meaning of the word honor…”

Robert Bruce Adolph is a former United Nations chief security adviser and U.S. Army Special Forces lieutenant colonel. He recently published a startling book entitled “Surviving the United Nations: The Unexpected Challenge,” that is available on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble websites.

Editor’s note: This is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author. If you would like to respond, or have an editorial of your own you would like to submit, please contact Military Times managing editor Howard Altman, haltman@militarytimes.com.

We bled in foreign fields to crush the evils of fascism, dictatorship and imperial ambition. Following WWII, we met a different kind of challenge providing the necessary economic assistance to a shattered Europe in the form of the Marshall Plan. We later assured Europe’s peace and security against the threat of communism by stationing thousands of U.S. service members along the borders of a then divided Germany. Our “containment policy” led eventually to the collapse of the Soviet Union due to the crushing weight of its own internal contradictions.

Meeting and overcoming these challenges cost us in both lives and treasure. Still, we never flinched. We have also always come together as a people to face-down the domestic natural challenges of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and much more.

Now it is a pandemic. Tragically, we are politically polarized as seldom before. Therefore, I am concerned as seldom before.

In my estimation, America is a remarkable country because of what we have always aspired to become as a nation. Those aspirations are well known to us and found in our country’s founding instruments: The U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence. In all my travels (to date 69 countries), I have never met anyone that fundamentally disagreed with the principles found therein. These two keystone national documents tend to define us: not based on any one ethnicity, creed or political party, but by what we hope to become as a nation of free people. Our ideals are in many cases wholly humanistic and therefore universal.

Essentially, we endeavor as individuals and a nation: attempting to be better than we are. However, perfection is known to none. We are frail. We are subject to fits of prejudice. We are often a disappointment to ourselves and others. However, there is nobility in the attempt. America may be unique for this reason: the continuing and seemingly never-ending historical struggle to live up to those aspirations — no matter how many times we fail. Tragically, our failures have been substantial: the original sin of slavery; the near genocide of the native population; too many wars fought for the wrong reasons, et al. I fear that if we cease the exertions of striving to become better than the sum of our parts, we may lose our central purpose and perish.

The Constitution begins with these three words: “We the people.” Those words tend to define us. We have common goals as a people. We share a common future. We will either rise or fall together. COVID-19 is the latest challenge to face us. The more we work in concert toward the common goal of defeating this menace, the more lives we will save.

COVID-19 doesn’t care if you vote toward the political left, right or center: everyone would do well to remember. Our current state of political polarization is destructive of the kind of harmony and unity of purpose required to attain successful outcomes in this conflict. The armed forces of our nation can serve as an example to be emulated. Our military is composed of citizens representing all political beliefs: working together as one to defeat the military threats to the country. We must guard against becoming a people who are small-minded and mean-spirited. Our Constitution demands better from us.

Charles Dickens begins his classic “A Tale of Two Cities” with the enigmatic phrase, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…” Hard times often require a determined focus on that which is best within us. Some may consider this pandemic the worst of times. Regrettably, it could be for many tens of thousands. In my view, though, it is also an opportunity to come together as a unified people. Pogo famously suggests a cautionary tale when the cartoon character observed, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Please, let it not be us.

Robert Bruce Adolph is a former United Nations Chief Security Adviser and U.S. Army Special Forces lieutenant colonel. He recently published a startling book entitled “Surviving the United Nations: The Unexpected Challenge,” that is available on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble websites.

Editor’s note: This is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author. If you would like to respond, or have an editorial of your own you would like to submit, please contact Military Times managing editor Howard Altman, haltman@militarytimes.com.

After all this time, everyone would much prefer to be outside. The weather today was beautiful. Blue skies and wispy clouds beckoned. Nobody within sight of my apartment window succumbed to the siren’s call though. Music is playing on jerry-rigged loudspeakers so our entire piazza can hear. By now it is a nightly ritual that the whole neighborhood appreciates. It is a recognition that even though we may all be isolated: we are never actually alone. This gives me hope.

Italian officials have just recorded the lowest death rate due to COVID-19 in over two weeks. Everyone is intensely aware that Italy has suffered more deaths than any other country in the world. Although, it may be important at this juncture to point out that the U.S .could easily exceed the total number soon.

There were 525 official fatalities reported on Sunday: the lowest since March 16. The total number of hospitalized fell for the first time to almost 29,000.

A worry: the number of new confirmed cases made a slight uptick to nearly 3,000.

Director Silvio Brusaferro of the Italian Health Service stated, “The curve has started its descent and the number of deaths has started to drop.” At the same time, the Italian Civil Protection Service Chief, Angelo Borelli warned, “…we should not let our guard down.”

Although most numbers seem headed in a positive direction, it is important to note that the actual figures are no doubt higher because some die at home and are therefore not yet recorded. Also, not everyone can be tested. So, nobody knows precisely how many were slain by the virus. Still, while current circumstances remain grim, these above reports suggest that self-isolation and social-distancing protocols may be working. At least that is what literally everyone is hoping. It is perhaps too early to break out a bottle of champagne, though.

I did the weekly shopping outfitted in both surgical mask and latex gloves this morning. Everyone else I observed at the local market was similarly decked-out, including store proprietors and their staffs. Everyone maintained a respectful distance, so as not to endanger others. The effort is very much appreciated. Behind the masks of those behind the counter I sensed more than I knew the welcoming smiles indicated by the slight wrinkling under their eyes. The voices remain remarkably cheerful. Those in the market appreciate the business. This is a local market, and I am the only foreigner. Once they realize that I am an English speaker, they tend to become even more attentive and helpful. I respond in what Italian I can manage as if to express my appreciation.

Only essential stores are supposed to be open.

However, I observed and subsequently entered an open tiny neighborhood liquor store on my way walking awkwardly back to our apartment while carrying multiple bags of groceries. It seems that the Italians consider alcoholic beverages “essential.” Is it any wonder why we like Italy so much? I immediately purchased two bottles of my favorite premium vodka. Nobody knows for sure how long the lockdown will last.

After all, the motto “Be prepared” was never intended to be the sole province of the Boy Scouts of America.

One of my former bosses, a past Chief of Staff of the US Army, General Pete Schoomaker, then a mere promotable brigadier commanding the Joint Special Operations Command, once told me, “Bob, hope is not a course of action.”

He was right then, and his wisdom remains unchallenged. In my recently published book, I took a more fulsome tack, “Hope is the only illusion worthy of embrace. Still, hope is not a replacement for intelligence, hard work, and perseverance.” I believe that this was probably the general’s point all along.

My wife and I continue to wait out the virus in our Rome apartment. Hope may well be the quintessential human characteristic. Of course, hope, like several human characteristics, may be more tolerable with a chilled martini in hand. Bouna fortuna

Robert Bruce Adolph is a former United Nations Chief Security Advisor and US Army Special Forces Lieutenant Colonel. He recently published a startling book entitled “Surviving the United Nations: The Unexpected Challenge,” that is available on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble websites.

Editor’s note: This is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author. If you would like to respond, or have an editorial of your own you would like to submit, please contact Military Times managing editor Howard Altman, haltman@militarytimes.com.

I was twice fired by the United Nations from senior supervisory positions: Both times for insisting that there are occasions when my first loyalty is to staff and mission ahead of allegiance to superiors.

The effect of these UN firings on me personally and professionally was shattering, as is no doubt true for Crozier. My sympathy and understanding goes out to both him and his family and this most difficult time. But just what did he do?

The skipper of the Roosevelt wrote an email. Per Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly, the justification for the firing was that Crozier exercised poor judgment in the way he “broadly” distributed that email. Also, “…he did not take care to ensure that it (the offending letter) could not be leaked, and that is part of his responsibility.”

One wonders what this email might have conveyed that was so egregious that it warranted a firing.

Crozier’s email is quoted as follows, “This will require a political solution but it is the right thing to do. “…We are not at war. Sailors do not need to die. If we do not act now, we are failing to properly take care of our most trusted asset – our sailors.”

A bit more follows from the Acting Secretary of the Navy: It appears that when the letter was leaked it, “… raised alarm bells unnecessarily.”

Crozier did not run his ship aground. He did not have sexual relations with a subordinate. He did not make a crucial error in seamanship. He did not share classified information with the enemy. He did not run his ship into another vessel.

No, he placed his loyalty to his crew and their lives ahead of allegiance to his superiors within the Pentagon. I cannot imagine a firing having a more chilling effect on commanders in all our military services. The crew of the Roosevelt is quite right to be enraged: As am I. It is the wrong message to send to our sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines around the globe.

Of course, the chain-of command must be respected. However, the chain-of-command is not a sacred cow never to be questioned. Superiors may occasionally require a none-too-gentle push to make the right decisions with dispatch when lives are on the line. Some senior officers on the Navy Staff and/or suit-wearing civilians of DoD may not always feel the same sense urgency to implement decisions as one might from the deck of a capital ship at sea. If a commander pushes too hard while attempting to do the right thing, his actions should be understood in that context, and subsequently be forgiven without prejudice. None of us is perfect in judgement, particularly when lives are at risk.

In peacetime, there can be no more important job for commanders at all levels than to husband the lives of their subordinates. These are America’s sons and daughters. They are precious beyond measure. Congress needs to become involved in Crozier’s case now. Loyalty must be permitted flow up and down the chain-of-command. Honest errors need to be forgiven. The military services can function properly in no other way. Moreover, and unless there is additional information that is not being currently shared with the public, the captain should be immediately restored to his command posting and later favorably considered for promotion to the rank of admiral. He demonstrated exemplary leadership qualities; appropriate care for his crewmates; while most ably exhibiting that he possesses a spine: Something our nation can ill-afford to lose.

Robert Bruce Adolph is a former United Nations Chief Security Advisor and US Army Special Forces Lieutenant Colonel. He recently published a startling book entitled “Surviving the United Nations: The Unexpected Challenge,” that is available on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble websites.

Editor’s note: This is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author. If you would like to respond, or have an editorial of your own you would like to submit, please contact Military Times managing editor Howard Altman, haltman@militarytimes.com.

Although initially slow-off-the-mark, Italy rightly came to treat the pandemic like a military conflict. The lockdown that was eventually applied was national. The prime minister mobilized police and military units —entering the fray with the understanding that they were fighting for the lives of their citizens. In other words, by eventually recognizing the danger and then taking country-wide action to meet that threat, the Italians are today on the path to defeating a merciless enemy. What about our country?

Early and consistent denials of any danger may have frozen the various involved U.S. government agencies into in-action in the critically important weeks leading up to the pandemic. Moreover, and because of the lost time, our citizens went blithely about their daily routines oblivious to the hazard presented by the coronavirus, even though the Centers for Disease Control and Central Intelligence Agency were fully aware of the threat and properly communicated their clearly valid concerns to superiors.

Let me be clear, the first principle of war is OBJECTIVE! First and foremost, a commander-in-chief must focus all the elements of national power to bring the war against this virus to a rapid and successful outcome: Hopefully achieving victory. Are we now defining victory as the loss of 100,000 to 250,000 fellow citizens before the battle has been fully joined? If so, I find myself left speechless. The objective should be to save all that we can.

I note that the secretary of defense was recently standing behind the president during a news conference in the White House. The only reason I can imagine him being there is because the Oval Office wishes to give the appearance that America is on a war-like footing. If we continue to liken the fight against the coronavirus to a war, let’s quickly examine a few from our history. President Johnson, a Democrat, attempted to fight a war in Vietnam by half measures in the vain attempt to keep his pet project “The Great Society” on the rails. He failed spectacularly, leading to his decision not to seek re-election. President Bush, a Republican, chose to engage in two wars simultaneously in Iraq and Afghanistan, and while seeking to maintain a sense of normalcy at home. Neither of these two more recent conflicts have enjoyed a successful outcome, and at enormous cost in terms of American lives lost and treasure expended. One wonders at our current dilemma.

It is nearly four weeks since I entered COVID-19 lockdown in Rome, Italy. Authorities here are now suggesting the possibility of a release-for-time-served on 12 April. That would be nice, but I have serious doubts. The high mortality rate, although decreasing a bit, is still elevated: Suggesting that self-isolation protocols will remain mandatory beyond mid-April.

Despite early missteps, the Italian Prime Minister has performed admirably in a very tough fight against an unyielding adversary. He mobilized the nation of 60,000,000 behind his leadership by taking bold necessary action to “flatten the curve.” It takes time: The virus won’t be rushed. Polling suggests that the Italian people have responded positively from all walks of life and political persuasions. I have seen it. The government-mandated protocols of self-isolation and social-distancing are slowly but surely working.

As of Friday morning, there were more than 115,000 cases of COVID-19 in Italy, with nearly 14,000 deaths, according to the World Health Organization.

At this writing there are nearly a quarter million reported cases of COVID-19 in the US, with nearly 5,000 deaths, according to WHO. The actual number is very likely higher. Only testing can provide accurate figures. Unfortunately, testing on the scale required is not yet possible. We need a nationally coordinated and unified response to this unprecedented threat. Despite the well-known negative impacts on the US economy, which are not insubstantial, the coronavirus should not be fought by half-measures: To continue to do so will have deadly consequences.

Robert Bruce Adolph is a former United Nations Chief Security Advisor and US Army Special Forces Lieutenant Colonel. He recently published a startling book entitled “Surviving the United Nations: The Unexpected Challenge,” that is available on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble websites.

Editor’s note: This is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author. If you would like to respond, or have an editorial of your own you would like to submit, please contact Military Times managing editor Howard Altman, haltman@militarytimes.com.

I received considerable feedback from readers because of my previous Military Times commentaries on this topic. Some felt that the common flu and COVID-19 had very much in common. As such, they sensed that the lockdowns in Italy and across the globe, and particularly in the US, were a massive over-reaction: Strangling the world-wide economy.

They essentially took the position that the lockdowns were far worse than the disease. Are we over-reacting?

It is generally accepted now that Italy’s immediate past and present may soon become America’s future. In some regions of the US the Italian protocols have already been implemented.

More than 217,000 Americans have tested positive for the virus in the last month and more than 4,700 U.S. citizens have died from the illness.

In my previous pieces, I primarily addressed advice to people and families in lock down. I feel that it is now necessary to look at the quantitative end of things to try and make some greater sense of it, and to see if I can discern what all the numbers might mean.

Let’s briefly discuss the mortality rate. I have been reviewing multiple credible sources and the result is always the same: Confusing. The mortality rate in Italy thus far remains upwards of 11 percent. The UK reports roughly 5 percent. Germany and the US hover around 1 percent. Spain comes in at about 10 percent. Understand that these numbers can literally change daily. However, no matter how I juggle the figures, the danger of death associated with COVID-19 is far more serious that the common flu. Although the symptoms of flu and COVID-19 are roughly similar, they should not be conflated. Some of the confusion may stem from the obvious fact that mortality rate seems to fluctuate considerably between countries and even regions within countries. There is clearly much we do not yet comprehend about this virus.

This bug is deceptive too. I call it the Trojan Horse aspect. The virus travels inside the bodies of many but often without serious symptoms. People go through their normal daily routines never knowing that they are infected and subsequently infect others. The virus can live for hours or days on multiple surfaces: Increasing its reach while expanding its numbers. Because of the long incubation period, the virus unfolds as a slow-moving disaster: Like the frog placed in a pot of cold water over a flame that slowly heats the liquid until the unknowing amphibian is parboiled.

What is critically important to know about the infection rate is that the we don’t know the rate without testing. The numbers of infections often being reported by competent medical authority are largely those that have diagnosed symptoms. Bottom line: We don’t know how many people have been infected — nobody knows.

I call this the uncertainty factor. Because we do not know how many may be infected, and because America was grossly unprepared to institute testing protocols, the result is rising uncertainty. Political polarization, tragically, also fuels this uncertainty and tends to breed fear and its sibling panic.

To demonstrate the special danger to aged Americans currently residing in assisted living circumstances, please note that 37 seniors died in the Life Care Center in Kirkland, Washington State. That is a frightening number if your parents or grandparents live in a similar facility. Italy’s physicians warn against COVID-19 patients being sent to such homes claiming that they are “like viral bombs.” That of course begs a burdensome question, where do you send them?

Moreover, what of those who are infected aboard our US Naval vessels at sea? Based on recent COVID-19 experiences aboard pleasure cruise ships, crew members are uniquely vulnerable. In addition, medical facilities aboard ship are cramped: A perfect breeding ground for this virus. There are hard decisions ahead.

The Ebola virus is the mirror opposite of Corona. Ebola kills quickly and is accompanied with near immediate and horrifying symptoms. But because it kills quickly, the spread is often attenuated. The World Health Organization recorded 2,234 total deaths of 3,453 infected in March of 2019 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We should all be very glad that Corona and Ebola are merely distant cousins.

Are we collectively overreacting to the threat posed by COVID-19? I don’t know but I am inclined to put my faith in the CDC and science. At least from my perspective, all the numbers are not yet in. Better analyses will no doubt become available in the aftermath of the pandemic. Plus, our perception of current events will always be made better via a glance into the rearview mirror. Strangely, though, and unbidden, I hear my mother’s voice echoing in the remote recesses of my mind, “better safe than sorry, Bobby.”

Robert Bruce Adolph is a former United Nations Chief Security Advisor and US Army Special Forces Lieutenant Colonel. He recently published a startling book entitled “Surviving the United Nations: The Unexpected Challenge,” that is available on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble websites.

Editor’s note: This is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author. If you would like to respond, or have an editorial of your own you would like to submit, please contact Military Times managing editor Howard Altman, haltman@militarytimes.com.

My wife and I, already three weeks into self-isolation, remain in Rome under government-mandated pandemic protocols. The result:

1. All non-essential stores and businesses are closed.

2. People have been ordered by their political leadership to remain at home.

3. Citizens on the street without government-approved justification face heavy fines.

4. Grocery stores and pharmacies remain open but only during prescribed hours, while maintaining social-distancing protocols.

5. Few are willing to venture outside without mask and gloves.

6. Everyone is on edge, wondering if things will get worse before they get better. They also wonder just how bad, bad can get. All indicators suggest a long period of self-isolation ahead.

Full disclosure: I am not a physician. I am, though, a former United Nations Chief Security Advisor, who had a hand in writing UN plans for dealing successfully with pandemics. In that capacity, I advised both staff members and their families on commonsense safety protocols.

With that understood, allow me to provide a few personal survival tips. Remember, accept health-related recommendations only from competent medical authority. There is a great deal of bad information on the Internet. Be cautious what you read, and then more cautious what you decide to implement.

Fortunately, the metrics of the virus are straightforward: a medical degree is not required. One infected but symptomless person, thinking s/he is well, can easily infect 10; those 10 may infect 100; the 100 could eventually infect 1,000 and so on. Most carriers do not know that they are infectious and spreading the epidemic as they go about their normal daily activities. This is precisely how an outbreak in China became a world-wide pandemic.

Although it may seem overly simplistic it bears multiple repetitions, if you are never exposed to the virus, you cannot contract it. Therefore, every competent medical authority echoes the same mantra — STAY AT HOME! This is especially true for senior citizens suffering from underlying medical conditions impacting their immune systems: Those most vulnerable. If you do nothing else except stay in your dwelling, you have already reduced your likelihood of infection by a very significant degree. Of course, you can improve on those percentages.

Unless you have already stockpiled considerable quantities of surgical masks and gloves; hand sanitizer; canned and frozen fruits, vegetables, and meat; non-perishable dry foodstuffs like rice, lentils and beans; drinking water (if your tap water is not potable); and, of course, toilet paper; you may have to brave the out-of-doors to do a shopping or two or more while in lock-down.

If home delivery of groceries and/or essential medicines is a possibility, use it. You may rightly assume that the fewer the forays into your region of the jungle the better. Since the virus can remain active even when left on surfaces like metals or wood, touch nothing that you don’t have to. When at the grocery store keep at least a yard’s distance between you and others, whenever possible.

Use your credit card, which can be easily disinfected after every use, instead of cash. And, of course, be wearing mask and gloves before you step outside. You should avoid touching your face because the virus enters the body via the most convenient portals: your mouth, nose, and perhaps even your eyes.

Once you are safely ensconced in self-isolation at home, it is important to note that your time in personal quarantine may be measured in several weeks. Be patient. You need to be prepared both physically and mentally for a long social dry spell.

On the other hand, if you hate your in-laws, perhaps you are in for a welcome respite. You make the choice to decide if the glass is half-full or half-empty. If you choose to perceive it as half-full, your time in lock-down will be much improved. If not, I hope you enjoy suffering. Bottom line: Try and use the time to positive effect!

If you wish to remain sane (most of us do), stay on your routine as much as possible. If you are working from home, attempt to keep business hours. If your kids are at home with you, good luck with that. If you can fit it in, set aside 30 to 60 minutes per day for some sort of house/apartment exercise. Exercise of any sort is good for your immune system. If you and your significant other are unaccustomed and perhaps uncomfortable spending a great deal of time in such proximity, recognize it early, and schedule some “me time” every day. Even those madly in love on occasion need a break from one another.

I am extremely lucky. Since my retirement, I have become a writer and author. In other words, I can usually find something to scribble about. If you have an in-door hobby, this is the moment to develop it further. If you don’t have an indoor hobby, find one.

If you love to read, as I do, this is a terrific time to catch up on those books that you have been promising yourself to peruse: This is without question the time for it. If you are at home with young children, bonne chance.

Robert Bruce Adolph is a former United Nations Chief Security Advisor and US Army Special Forces Lieutenant Colonel. He recently published a startling book entitled “Surviving the United Nations: The Unexpected Challenge,” that is available on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble websites.

Editor’s note: This is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author. If you would like to respond, or have an editorial of your own you would like to submit, please contact Military Times managing editor Howard Altman, haltman@militarytimes.com.