Saturday, January 07, 2006

Myth And the CIA

[ --- ]

There are a lot of things believed about the Central Intelligence Agency, which are not rooted in fact. For instance, most people believe that the CIA is the oldest, largest, and most influential intelligence agency in American government, but none of those beliefs are accurate. Also, most Americans can quickly point to a supposed blunder by the CIA, but few are aware of Agency successes. This is actually quite by design. The Agency takes a perverse pride in holding a reputation for bumbling along without a clue; they have learned that such an image can actually cause their enemies to take them too lightly and drop their guard.

This is not to say that the CIA has not made mistakes, even commited crimes outside the scope of their authority, and they have people in their ranks who cannot resist misusing their position to build little empires, to the point of trying to manipulate national politics every so often. It is important to understand the CIA’s role in intelligence, not only as it has been since 1947, but as the new order of National Security designs it.

During World War 2, President Roosevelt often felt that he could not rely on the available intelligence to give him a clear and complete view about what was going on in the world, much less act on it where he would like. Army and Navy Intelligence (AI, ONI) often felt the ire of a frustrated FDR. William Donovan played on this discontent to build support for his own group, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which differed from other intelligence groups not only in terms of size and nature of information, but in Donovan’s belief that intelligence was like eggs; best used while fresh. As a result, OSS teams regularly pursued sabotage and direct application of the information they learned, and while this was not always effective in practice, it was refreshing enough that the OSS gained key support from the FDR Administration, although it made enemies in other parts of the government.

Fascinating as an overview of the Agency’s history might be, for here it is more important to understand that 9/11 radically changed the role and scope of the CIA. For a variety of reasons, the CIA does not generally conduct domestic intelligence operations or surveillance, except in special circumstances. In the world of anti-terrorism operations, this means that the CIA can only serve a limited role, however important its work. Yet review of the conditions and key elements of the 9/11 attacks also reveals the critical need for agents in place - HUMINT - which is the home ground of the Central Intelligence Agency. Also, as the new Director begins to clean house of the political malcontents, the need for a truly balanced focus in the Agency is becoming increasingly evident. As annoying as we may find people like Plame/Wilson, the fact that the New York Time’s recent breach of security most likely began with an Agency source, demonstrates that an overhaul of the Agency is badly overdue. This, of course, was another reason for the CIA’s relative demotion behind the new National Director of Intelligence. I leave the details of that redressing, to the men who have begun its work.

It would not be fitting to dismantle the CIA; the functions the Agency performs remain vital, and many agents perform admirably the responsibilities trusted to them. It is a difficult job at best, to do work that is designed to be ignored, where the hallmark of professional success is for people to think you too dull and stupid to possibly be an effective intelligence agent. Ironic, that liberals celebrate the likes of Plame and Wilson, who have pretended humility while negotiating book deals and magazine covers, all the while missing far greater work done by people whose self-control extends to their ego. Our nation may never know the names of most whose work changes history so directly, but we owe them an environment which does not attack them, either for rumors pursued by the paranoid, or for political intrigues held by empire-builders.

Friday, January 06, 2006

Oh Yes We Will


I have been writing about the fact that we are in a major international conflict, a world war in fact, well worthy of the name. This has prompted discussion and no small debate on the matter, with three significant themes worth examining at closer focus:

* The question about whether wars before the 18th Century could legitmately also be called “World” wars

* Mark Steyn’s dire and sadly compelling essay on the growing demographic threat to Europe from insurgent minorities

* The American will to fight, at the political and civilian level

First, the easiest one. I began my count of “World” wars with the pan-European conflict of the 18th Century, because that was the first major war to take place in both hemispheres, and to feature events of note both North and South of the Equator. Previous campaigns, even when they involved conquering the known world of the day, are hardly in the same scope and impact of the genuine article. For instance, the greatest exploits of Alexander the Great or Caesar made no ripple at all in the courts of Asian kings. The present conflict, however, holds significance not only for the nations and people directly involved, but will determine the course of events for at least a generation to come.

As to demographics, I admit it is an unwise thing to take a position opposite Mr. Steyn, but in this case I think it is necessary. Demographics can be quite useful in determining trends, but it is important to understand that there is a limit to how far any statistic may be employed in predicting the future. It’s worth noting, for example, that during the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a real fear of overpopulation in Europe and most urban areas, based on the demographics of the past generation there. The present condition demonstrates not only that the overpopulation fear was faulty in its assumptions, but also that the present condition can only be sustained if certain key factors continue as they are. Those factors, however, depended on a Europe much different in temperment than the one which I believe may just be waking up. France, for example, is far less keen to remain open-armed to young men who are prone to violence and crime; a backlash is coming, and while the immediate future will be chaotic, lancing the boil now would prove healthy in the long run. England has been less than brilliant in its own immigration policies (there’s a true pandemic, actually), but the spirit of England has not quite died to the point of giving in to thuggery, at least from non-Brits. It will be a tough job, cleaning house in Europe, but the history of Europe shows that when it is needed, men always can be found to set things right. Especially when the alternative is to let another Hitler or Lenin come to pass in their own country.

Now as to America. We are a strange lot, we Yanks. We bicker and fight amongst ourselves on any number of things, but there is a point that a dictator would do well to know and watch; beyond that point we are relentless and unstoppable. I could, and I am tempted, to go into detail as to why it is that America cannot actually be defeated in the manner discussed here, but instead I would just remind our readers of simple history. The U.S. made the mistake of allowing Slavery to be legal in the new nation for almost a century after we freed ourselves from Britain, and the cost to change that condition was bloody indeed, and the war controversial. Yet we fought it, and prevailed, and became stronger in the end for doing so. Protests against the First and Second World Wars were real and strong at times, yet we went in and did the job. Vietnam was an abomination, for many reasons, but we cannot make the mistake of letting that one case represent the whole, or forget that the national spirit is built on better things. Yes, the liberals learned how to lie on the grand stage with the media behind them in Vietnam, but that’s why alternative media has found such strong support, as in talk radio and (of course) blogging. Remember how the Democrats made such a noise in early 2004, that the election was a referendum on the War in Iraq? Well, they were actually right about that, and the election proved that while liberals could rally some to their side, the clear majority chose to support the President. Even after the press tried its best to attck Bush, even after significant questions about Kerry’s own service were suppressed while long-disproven slander against Bush was promoted, even after Democrats denied the facts of actual historical records and tried to cast doubt on the war still being waged, the people trusted the President. Now, of course, the Democrats pretend they never said or did anything out of line - how do we question their patriotism - and hope that their next ambush will yield better results.

By no means will it be easy or short, and we all know very well that after it’s over, the guys who laughed at the men making the tough calls, and who pretended to ‘support the troops', even as they appeared on television shows declaring (where the troops and the terrorists would be sure to hear) that ‘we cannot win’, and doubting the reports of the men on the ground - they will assure us that they were hard at work doing their part for America - how dare we challenge their patriotism.

Real men are hard to find at times, oh yes. But God has always granted us enough to win. So we will. By God, oh yes we will win. Because it’s not about proving a superior culture, or winning on some kind of scoreboard, but because it’s about what kind of world our kids and grandkids will grow up in. And in a Global Society, it’s important that freedom and liberty be established, especially in places where it hasn’t had much of a chance up to now. Oh yes we will, just watch.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

World War Six – Another Reason George W. Bush Matters

[ *** ]

Back in February 2005 I wrote about the fact that we are in a World War, and not World War 3 but number Six. As events unfold in the middle of this protracted conflict, there is already evidence of the nature and participation in the next campaign. But it is necessary to lay groundwork, to first discuss how we got here.

WORLD WAR ONE – 18th Century, Europe. A series of conflicts for the domination of Europe, primarily between the kingdoms of France and England, but included participation by Spain, Russia, the Netherlands, and proxy conflicts in North America.

WORLD WAR TWO – Early-to-mid 19th Century, North America and Europe. A series of conflicts to wipe out oceanic and open seas piracy. A factor in tensions leading to the U.S. Civil War, as well as trade agreements involving all major seafaring nations.

WORLD WAR THREE – 1914-1925, Europe and Southeast Asia. A significant sustained conflict between England and France on one side, and Germany and Austria on the other, with a number of intermittent allies, most notably the United States. Key events included first widespread battlefield use of WMD, economic warfare in combination with military action, and postwar territory conquest (Japan).

WORLD WAR FOUR – 1935-1947, Europe, Asia, North Africa, coastal North America, various Pacific islands. Nazis, Soviets, Empire of Japan.

WORLD WAR FIVE – 1947-1991, Planet Earth. USA versus the Evil Empire (USSR).

WORLD WAR SIX – 1973-present. USA versus Jihadism.

What each of these wars has in common, include the fact that each lasted longer than people seem to realize, left permanent effects which are still showing up today, and involved every major power of their time. And that’s important to understand the direction of where we are headed.

When WW6 began in 1973, the movement in Jihadism was basically to free the Arab world from domination by the secular powers in Washington and Moscow. This was the political impetus for OPEC, after all, and it should be understood that OPEC paid for terrorist operations to the end of reducing outsider influence in the Middle East. While public comments were restrained, American and Soviet officials were able to track the flow of money and key individuals, and on occasion actually cooperated to prevent the success of certain initiatives. Perhaps the best example of this is the 1981 Osirak raid in Iraq, where Israeli jets attacked a reactor producing weapons-grade plutonium for Saddam’s Nuclear program. While it cannot be proven, rumors have long suggested that U.S. Satellite imagery and Soviet HUMINT provided key data for the Israelis. Yassir Arafat also threw a wrench into the Jihadists’ plans, when he took the OPEC council hostage in 1974, demanding and getting a large ransom of undisclosed amount – the rogue move established the PLO as an independent actor in terrorism, and curtailed OPEC’s interest in funding terrorism. This meant, in practice, that individuals took up the practice, including Saddam Hussein, who saw the applied use of terror as a tool to gain power.

1979 was a watershed year for the Jihadists. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the revolution in Iran, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and Saddam’s seizure of power in Iraq combined to radically alter the landscape in the Middle East. Jihadists saw a combination of threat and opportunity. Literally dozens of new terrorist organizations dedicated to Jihad sprang into existence.

Fast forward to 1991. To Jihadist eyes, the American intervention in Kuwait was abhorrent, as much for the display of U.S. power as for the notion of infidel boots in Saudi Arabia, never mind that we had been invited. A relatively minor pace of kidnappings, bombings and assassination against Americans became a focus of renewed interest, especially the desire to hurt Americans at home. It took time to plan and develop, but inexorably led to the 9/11 attacks.

So here we are. The significance of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was not only the destabilization of Al Qaeda’s network and a forceful response to an unprovoked attack, but Bush’s plain demand to choose a side played a card the Jihadists failed to consider; the Lying Mahdi.

Somewhere back in the 10th Century, a Muslim Imam of some repute vanished, with a legend born that he would one day return to establish a Caliphate of great power. The difference between Islam and the West, is that where we have outgrown fairy tales, the legend of the Mahdi is a strong and permanent theme in Islamic culture. And every so often, some nutcase pops up, declares himself the Mahdi and starts an insurrection. It happened several times under the British, and in Algeria under the French at least once. With the current madman in Iran torquing up hate speeches by the day, it would hardly be surprising to hear him claim the title himself. But that is also a weakness in the Islamic culture. That is, they know about the Mahdi legend, but also remember how many false Mahdis there have been, and that those false Mahdis always made things worse for Muslims; empires before the United States were not at all shy in putting down rebellions with as much force as they could bring to bear. Bush’s strong response has not only showed the lie to the Jihadists’ claim that the U.S. is only a paper lion, but hinted at the “false Mahdi” gambit to many in the Middle East. It’s not hard to look at Iraq, and wonder if a stable Iraq wouldn’t be much preferable to the strict and despotic regime in Iran. When businessmen in Saudi Arabia and students in Iran demonstrate for reform, the Jihadists are in trouble.

But the war is far from over, and observers have pointed to a likely future battlefield: Europe. The violence in France was unsettling, not least because the French government was clearly out of its depth in controlling it. One cannot help but wonder if, in 20 or 30 years, a patient but ruthless Muslim revolutionary might not be able to make France or Germany like another Iran or Syria. The impact on the world, in military, political, social, and economic terms, could be devastating.

It is here that the United States finds the potential of some unlikely allies. The governments of China and India have generally taken a wait-and-see attitude in response to U.S. actions, for the obvious reason that neither is keen to see the U.S. dominate the world overtly. Yet neither India nor China has any stomach for the kind of methodology employed by the Jihadists; if China cannot tolerate the practice of peaceful Falun Gong classes in public, one can scarcely imagine how they would like Muslim uprisings along their northern border. And India has enough on its hands watching Pakistan; imagine that threat multiplied by a Muslim power in Europe. So, while both nations prefer a pragmatic policy and will be likely to play both sides against the middle wherever they can, when the crisis point comes to bear, it is in both nations’ interest to work against the Jihadists, rather than with them. And this is again where the mind of George W. Bush comes to play.

Attacking the terrorists in the countries of their own base was the best way to work against another major attack on our own soil. Destroying their network was the best way to prove the lie to their bragging. Establishing democracies in place of the tyrannies in Afghanistan and Iraq was the best way to show hope in spite of fear. And Bush knows how to read a map, well enough to give India and China the out he knows they will need eventually, even if they themselves do not yet realize that fact.

That’s why we will win.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

The Immutable Laws of Business

[ ... ]

Yesterday, I noted the difference in one comparable experience between United Parcel Service (UPS), a private delivery service, and the United States Postal Service (USPS), the government mail delivery service. An interesting debate followed concerning the value and need for certain government functions. Certainly a key difference between Republicans and Democrats, is the question of just how much of our lives and power we should hand over to government. And that brings me to the place of business in the American mind and heart.

I don’t want to sound like I am trivializing the matter, but in many ways the American Revolution was a Businessman’s War. The beginning of troubles came not so much from King George III as from Parliament, whose heavy regulations and protectionist tariffs angered the American colonists; basically all they wanted was a level field for marketing and delivering their goods. But the New World was richer than England could pay for, and Parliament compensated by discounting American goods and giving preferences to British companies, in punitive practices which damaged colonists’ finances and outraged the colonial Congress. Rather than compromise to reach an amicable agreement, Parliament instead added to the tax burden, and began to send troops to occupy suspected trouble spots. In an obvious case of the self-fulfilling prophecy, people forced to house and feed troops send to punish their towns were indeed angry, to the point of rebellion, and by the time anyone in Parliament began to reconsider their actions, violence had begun and spread.

The connection between Business and Politics is long-standing, and has often been contentious. While there have been clashes, and some corrections took too long to happen, America has thrived in large part because the American Dream is real, and it allows someone to succeed on the strength of their own work. Nobody owes you a fortune, but anybody can make one. You have to know the Immutable Laws of Business, though, the ones that don’t change no matter where you are or what you are doing.

1. To succeed in Business, you have to either make or do something people need, something people want, or provide something which makes people’s lives better. There is no right to succeed; if you want to survive, you have to be about the customer.

2. Bad consequences are far more permanent than good consequences. So you’d better be able to address complaints and correct mistakes.

3. Nothing made by man is a necessity. Even if you make a great product, someone will try to make it cheaper, better, or more convenient.

4. Honesty matters. You will screw up sometimes, and things will go wrong. What happens next depends on whether you’re up to be accountable.

5. A business is only as good as its people. Especially the ones the customer sees everyday.

6. Listen to the customer.

7. No one owes you anything.

By the way, that USPS package is apparently still sitting in a Washington State airport, and no one at the USPS has any intention of looking for it anytime soon. That tells a lesson all its own.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

The Value of Private Business


I mentioned a while back that I am studying for the GMAT. This is because I hope to get into school again to pursue my M.B.A. I have very few illusions about the difficulty of that task, and so I have been collecting all sorts of aids to help me study and prepare.

To that end, I have been making good use of Ebay, and bidding on study aids and practice tests. And in that course, I have noticed an interesting side-by-side comparison.

I ordered one set of books from a supplier who is using the U.S. Postal Service, and another from a supplier who uses UPS. Both offer tracking numbers and a website to measure the progress of the packages. Both were sent out December 27th.

The UPS tracking showed a series of locations, and the package was delivered to me Saturday, December 31. Four days, not bad.

The USPS tracking shows the package went to an airport on the 27th. And it has sat there ever since. I called the toll-free number to ask what was going on, and basically, they did nothing but read the information off the website to me verbally, even though I had told them I checked there first. They had no idea why the package had not moved, and said they could not consider it “lost” or “delayed” until at least fourteen business days had passed. They gave me a number to the city the package was sent from, but that number, besides being a toll call, only offered four recorded options, not one of them being to speak to a real person.

Moral of the story – as we already knew, never trust the government to do a job, if you have a private business alternative. Thanks UPS, nuts to you USPS.

Monday, January 02, 2006

Spy Quiz 2 Answers


Here are the correct answers to yesterday’s quiz.

1. The first U.S. Intelligence service was authorized by Congress in

[A] 1947
[B] 1917
[C] 1861
[D] 1775 - The Continental Congress created the “Secret Commitee of Correspondence” in November 1775. The Committee was responsible for procuring arms and supplies, for recruiting secret agents and smuggling, propaganda and “gratuities” for foreign officials whose support was though to be worth the price. The “Secret Committee” became known as the “Committee on Foreign Affairs” in 1777, and also was given authority as the “Committee on Commerce” the same year, and so a committee given authority by Congress to lie and steal, was the direct forerunner of both the State and Commerce Departments!

2. The “MAGIC” intercepts made before and during World War Two were legal because

[A] Congress passed a bill approving them
[B] All of the intercepts were made in foreign countries
[C] As Commander in Chief of the military, FDR already held all the authority he needed. - With all the discussion about Article II powers, this should have been easy. Phone calls, letters, telegraph and radio transmissions were intercepted at various times and by various agencies as early as Hoover’s Palmer raids against Communists in 1920, and Yardley’s “Black Chamber” intercepts of 1919-21. By the time Roosevelt was President, a variety of tools and agencies were in place to collect and analyze information, and the “MAGIC” intercepts simply made use of the most advanced resources and talent. Sadly, poor cooperation between agencies prevented the analysis of Japan’s intention from getting to the Army and Navy commanders at Pearl Harbor, or history might have been very different.
[D] Actually, the intercepts were illegal, but no one pursued the matter.

3. One of the first federal employees to be fired for leaking government secrets was

[A] Tom Paine, pamphleteer and author of “Common Sense” - Yes indeed, it seems that Mr. Paine, a clerk to one of the members of Congress, disliked the notion of a government lying to the public, so on one occasion when Congress planted a false resolution, Paine revealed otherwise in his newsletter. Congress was not amused, and Paine lost his job with Congress.
[B] Sir Henry Clinton, of New York, who handled supplies for the troops - not the guy. Clinton was a man who handled supplies for the troops, but it was for the Redcoats he worked, in New York City.
[C] Dr. Benjamin Church, member of Congress and personal friend of George Washington - Church was a traitor who spied on Congress. He was caught and Washington wanted very much to see him hanged, but at the time there was no death penalty for the offense. In the actual event, Church was allowed to leave for England in 1777 as part of a prisoner exchange, but his ship wrecked and sank, drowing Church and everyone else aboard.
[D] Major Benjamin Tallmadge, who was linked to the death of Nathan Hale - Tallmadge was a personal friend of Hale, the link was that Tallmadge argued, successfully, for the execution of Major Andre, a British spy caught in similar circumstances as Hale.

4. Which well-known security business was founded by a man personally hired by the Union Army’s Commander during the Civil War?
[A] Brink’s
[B] Pinkerton - Alan Pinkerton was hired by General McLellan during the Civil War, and was renowned for the accuracy and detail of his reports
[C] Wells Fargo
[D] Lummis

5. During the Revolutionary War, George Washington’s opinion of spying was

[A] He detested such dishonesty, and strongly punished any officer so engaged
[B] He considered it a necessary evil, to be kept at arm’s length and avoid any direct connection
[C] He found it a useful tool, and allowed some of his officers to employ spies
[D] He was an enthusiastic spymaster, spending his own money and advocating the creation of networks - Washington spent his own money to run several spy rings, most famously the “Samuel Culper” ring, and unnamed ring which clued him in to British vulnerabilities in place and time at Trenton, making possible his famous “Crossing of the Delaware”.

6. Unrealistic expectations from Intelligence is nothing new. Of which war did the head of U.S. Intelligence remark, “They expect you to be able to say that a war will start next Tuesday at 5:32 PM“?

[A] The invasion of Grenada
[B] The Vietnam War
[C] The Korean War - General Walter Bedell “Beetle” Smith uttered that famous remark when press reporters hounded him for days about the most likely place and time for the commencement of hostilities between U.S. and North Korean forces.
[D] The entry of the United States into World War II

Sunday, January 01, 2006

Spy Quiz 2

[ shh ]

With all the talk about NSA "wiretaps" and spying on Americans, I think it would be good to test the readers' knowledge about spies.

( Answers to come tomorrow )

1. The first U.S. Intelligence service was authorized by Congress in

[A] 1947

[B] 1917

[C] 1861

[D] 1775

2. The "MAGIC" intercepts made before and during World War Two were legal because

[A] Congress passed a bill approving them

[B] All of the intercepts were made in foreign countries

[C] As Commander in Chief of the military, FDR already held all the authority he needed.

[D] Actually, the intercepts were illegal, but no one pursued the matter

3. One of the first federal employees to be fired for leaking government secrets was

[A] Tom Paine, pamphleteer and author of "Common Sense"

[B] Sir Henry Clinton, of New York, who handled supplies for the troops

[C] Dr. Benjamin Church, member of Congress and personal friend of George Washington

[D] Major Benjamin Tallmadge, who was linked to the death of Nathan Hale

4. Which well-known security business was founded by a man personally hired by the Union Army's Commander during the Civil War?

[A] Brink's

[B] Pinkerton

[C] Wells Fargo

[D] Lummis

5. During the Revolutionary War, George Washington's opinion of spying was

[A] He detested such dishonesty, and strongly punished any officer so engaged

[B] He considered it a necessary evil, to be kept at arm's length and avoid any direct connection

[C] He found it a useful tool, and allowed some of his officers to employ spies

[D] He was an enthusiastic spymaster, spending his own money and advocating the creation of networks

6. Unrealistic expectations from Intelligence is nothing new. Of which war did the head of U.S. Intelligence remark, "They expect you to be able to say that a war will start next Tuesday at 5:32 PM"?

[A] The invasion of Grenada

[B] The Vietnam War

[C] The Korean War

[D] The entry of the United States into World War II

PFL Week Seventeen

[ last regular season week ]

Week Seventeen Scoreboard

Teddy Roosevelt (16-0) 28, Washington (15-1) 19
George W. Bush (16-0) 34, Taft (10-6) 9
Reagan (16-0) 58, Hayes (8-8) 0
Eisenhower (15-1) 31, Madison (8-8) 12
Grant (14-2) 50, Andrew Johnson (0-16) 6
Lincoln (11-5) 15, Jefferson (13-3) 12 (OT)
FDR (14-2) 31, Wilson (7-9) 6
Monroe (13-3) 35, JQ Adams (8-8) 9
Truman (13-3) 22, JFK (11-5) 20
Polk (12-4) 31, Jackson (6-10) 3
John Adams (10-6) 44, Cleveland (9-7) 3
McKinley (10-6) 38, LBJ (3-13) 6
Arthur (8-8) 18, Ford (6-10) 12
GHW Bush (8-8) 24, Hoover (2-14) 0
Nixon (8-8) 35, Coolidge (3-13) 18
B Harrison (7-9) 25, Carter (4-12) 3
Taylor (7-9) 12, Garfield (3-13) 9
Van Buren (7-9) 43, Clinton (0-16) 21
Tyler (5-11) 26, Fillmore (2-14) 18
Harding (3-13) 19, Buchanan (0-16) 9
Pierce (3-13) 18, W Harrison (2-14) 9

Division A
[05] Washington (15-1) Division Champion, 3rd Seed
[08] Monroe (13-3) Wild Card berth, 5th Seed
[11] Polk (12-4) Wild Card berth, 6th Seed

Division B
[04] Eisenhower (15-1) Division Champion, 2nd Seed
[10] Jefferson (13-3) Wild Card berth, 5th Seed

Division C
[01] T Roosevelt (16-0) Division Champion, Homefield Advantage Clinched
[06] Grant (14-2) Wild Card berth, 4th Seed

Division D
[02] George W Bush (15-0) Division Champion, Homefield Advantage Clinched
[09] Truman (12-3) Wild Card berth, 4th Seed
[15] McKinley (10-6) (missed playoffs)

Division E
[03] Reagan (16-0) Division Champion, 2nd Seed
[13] Lincoln (11-5) (missed playoffs)
[14] J Adams (10-6) (missed playoffs)

Division F
[07] FDR (14-2) Division Champion, 3rd Seed
[12] JFK (11-5) Wild Card berth, 6th Seed
[16] Taft (10-6) (missed playoffs)