A Real Mess
Posted: October 11, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Bashar Al-Assad, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Russia, Syria, Vladimir Putin 1 CommentRussian military involvement in Syria creates increased uncertainty in an already very uncertain region of the world. Analysts are divided as to whether Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to send military forces to Syria is a show of strength or a show of weakness and desperation. Either way, their involvement dramatically changes the situation. Allegedly, the Russians joined the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, but also known as ISIL and DAESH depending on who is speaking — they are all the same organization). In reality they are attacking all anti-Bashar Al-Assad (the ruling dictator in Syria) forces, including those trained and supported by the United States and our allies in the region.
As is usually the case with President Putin in particular and other dictators more generally, he told the world exactly what he was going to do. In a revealing “60 Minutes” interview on 27 September before the Russians acted in Syria he said,
“We support the legitimate government of Syria. And it’s my deep belief that any actions to the contrary in order to destroy the legitimate government will create a situation which you can witness now in the other countries of the region or in other regions, for instance in Libya where all the state institutions are disintegrated. We see a similar situation in Iraq. And there is no other solution to the Syrian crisis than strengthening the effective government structures and rendering them help in fighting terrorism.”
In other words, any group fighting the current regime is working to destroy the current dictatorship and therefore they are all terrorists. To him there is no difference between ISIS and the other groups trying to depose the current dictator. Or as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in a later interview, “You know, if it walks like a duck, it looks like a duck, it’s a duck” in response to a question about defending the current Syrian regime against all-comers — to the Russians they are all terrorists.
As part of their ongoing air operations in Syria, on Wednesday last week the Russians fired approximately twenty-six cruise missiles from ships in the Caspian Sea into Syrian territory. There was no tactical or operational reason to use cruise missiles in the way they were used in this instance. Like much of what Russia is doing in the region, the real purpose of the launch was to appear to be a world power on the same level as the United States. “If the US can do it, so can we” — a demonstration of technical ability — seemed to be the only reason for it. (Incidentally, intelligence reports indicate that four to six of them crashed in Iran. Mishaps are not unheard of in using cruise missiles as they are not foolproof, but it clearly was not the “flawless” attack initially claimed by Russian propaganda.)
As a footnote it is interesting to see the Russians using the same social media and press releases of ships firing missiles, video of bombs hitting targets, etc. that the United States has employed for many years. I’m not sure if that is a matter of such measures being the best way to disseminate information or if it is a case of plagiarism as the sincerest form of flattery. Regardless, the Russians are trying to demonstrate that they are every bit as capable as the United States. A questionable claim when one digs through the superficial aspects of what they are doing and we really look at their capabilities and sustainability. But for now, all they have to do is look like they know what they are doing.
Where does all of this leave us? Certain facts on the ground remain unchanged. Bashar Al-Assad is still only hanging on to a small amount of territory under his absolute control, his forces are still indiscriminately using “barrel bombs” to kill Syrian civilians, refugees are still flowing out of the country, and ISIS still controls large areas of Syria and parts of Iraq.
Likewise, the only Russian base outside of their country is in Syria. The Russians have long had a naval base on the Syrian coast at Tartus having established it in the 1970s. That base is politically and strategically important to the Russians as it provides a resupply and refueling port for the Russian fleet without having to return to Russian territory. That base was increasingly threatened by the Syrian civil war. Additionally, Syria is the only Russian ally in the Middle East and their client was in serious trouble. This is why many analysts say that the current Russian involvement is a sign of weakness rather than strength. They have propped up Bashar’s regime for years and his father’s before him. That regime was about to collapse, possibly taking their only base with it and losing their only ally. In other words, their strategy wasn’t working and the only remaining option was to get involved on the ground. And they are deeply involved — including ground troops. Those troops are currently providing security to the air and naval bases used by the Russians, but the Russian leadership has not ruled out a combat mission for follow-on ground forces.
Meanwhile, Russia claims that it is fighting ISIS and is only doing what the United States and other nations are doing in Iraq and Syria. The difference is that the Russians lump ISIS in with every other anti-regime force at work. So far, little to none of their military effort is focused on ISIS. If one were generous, one could say that they are fighting terrorism. A realist knows that they are trying to use our own policies and words against us to prop up a brutal dictator.
The situation is further complicated by several Russian aircraft allegedly straying into Turkish air space (“allegedly” because the Russians claim it was accidental but others, including the Turks, doubt it. Turkey is a NATO ally — and of course NATO was originally formed to protect its members from an attack by the Soviet Union — Russia). Unconfirmed reports circulated yesterday that Turkey shot down a Russian aircraft — a report that is probably exaggerated or misinformation — but that highlights the potential for significant expansion of the conflict.
The United States policy concerning Syria has been in disarray since August/September of 2013. You may recall that I had a series of pieces that I posted then arguing for enforcement of President Obama’s “redline” concerning Syrian use of chemical weapons. The United Kingdom’s Parliament tied the Prime Minister’s hands precluding British involvement which then gave the United States Congress pause. No vote was held, but a resolution to authorize the use of American force against the Bashar regime would most likely have failed. President Obama subsequently took no action. I warned at the time that the lack of a forceful response would create larger problems later down the line. That time is now.
In my view, President Putin put Russian forces into combat in Syria for several reasons.
- The Syrian regime was collapsing and Putin could not afford to have his only ally in the Middle East go under.
- The Russians need the base at Tartus for strategic reasons and for prestige reasons. It too was threatened should the regime collapse.
- Russia wants a seat at the table and the ability to broker a deal if and when a political solution is reached to end the civil war in Syria.
- The Russian economy is doing very poorly. The sanctions imposed after Russian adventures in Ukraine are having an impact, especially when coupled with the current low price of oil. When all else fails, dictators time after time become militarily adventurous outside their borders to distract the domestic population from their problems.
- Putin says the biggest disaster in world history was the demise of the Soviet Union. He has always had visions of restoring the empire and what he views as Russia’s rightful place in the world. Showing an ability to project military power away from the homeland “just like the United States” gives him prestige at home and perhaps, in some foreign capitals.
All of these indicators show an attempt to cover up fundamental Russian weakness. We can only see what develops over time, but it is unlikely that Russia can sustain their military operations over the long-term.
Meanwhile in the near-term Russian involvement seriously complicates the situation. The United States is now “re-evaluating” its options, while continuing to provide air support in operations against ISIS. The Russians claim that there are only two options — support ISIS, or support those fighting ISIS (Bashar Al-Assad). This is of course a false equivalency but it is a simple statement for a complex situation. Beyond operations against ISIS, it is hard to know what the United States should do. There are many, many factions now operating in Syria making it difficult to know which are the “good” guys and which are the “bad” guys. Clearly the president, and I think with the support of the American people and many in Congress, does not want the United States involved in another land war in the Middle East. Although the full military might of the United States could defeat ISIS on the ground, it would take a massive commitment in lives and treasure and in the end we would again be occupiers in a land where we are not welcome. Not a good long-term proposition for us as a nation.
Increasingly I think that an interim solution to ease the refugee crisis, show our resolve to our allies and to put Russia on notice that we will not tolerate their interference would be to create “safe zones” in Syria and Iraq along the border with Turkey. This is nearly within our current military level of effort, especially if it is coupled with our allies supplying the troops for security (such as from Turkey), the financing and moral support (Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states) while the United States supplies the expertise (advisers), intelligence, and air support. Such a course creates the possibility of further expansion of the conflict and our involvement in it. However, the status quo is unacceptable and is not resolving the problem. Without question Syria and other areas of the Middle East are a real mess, but we can no longer hope that the situation will resolve itself.
Yet Another “Senseless” Shooting At A School
Posted: October 2, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Gun violence, United States 2 Comments“‘No Way to Prevent This’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens” — The Onion
“We spent over a trillion dollars, and passed countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so. And yet we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths. How can that be?” — President Obama
Deaths from Terrorism vs. Gun Homicides:
2001 — 2,689 vs.11,348 2002 — 25 vs.11,829 2003 — 35 vs.11,920 2004 — 74 vs.11,624
2005 — 56 vs.12,352 2006 — 28 vs.12,791 2007 — 19 vs.12,632 2008 — 33 vs.12,179
2009 — 9 vs.11, 493 2010 — 15 vs.11,078 2011 — 17 vs.11,101
(Source: Vox.com using available State and Justice Department figures. Does not include suicides by guns.)
Perceptions Shape Reality
Posted: September 29, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Partisan, Politics, Presidential primaries Leave a commentSo, did you hear this one? Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Pope Francis walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and — well I don’t really have a joke with a punch line here, although it would be fun to come up with something along those lines.
However, they all do have something in common, along with Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and in a way, John Boehner, soon to be the former Speaker of the House. I pledged to myself that I would not comment on the current state of affairs regarding the run up to the 2016 presidential election until sometime next year. It’s the silly season when marginal candidates make outrageous claims and promises and the field has yet to be winnowed to those serious candidates that have an actual chance to lead our nation. (For example, four years ago at about this time it was all about “nine, nine, nine.” How did that turn out?)
None-the-less there is a definite trend in the air. Together Trump, Fiorina, and Carson get over 50% combined in the current polls for the Republican nominee. Sanders, who when he started his campaign did not himself expect to get much traction, is giving Hillary Clinton a serious run in the early going. What does this tell us? I am not sure — but to state the obvious, I think it reflects a serious message to the other, qualified, candidates that the electorate is unhappy with the way things are going. I am not sure that it is truly a desire to “hire an outsider.” It is more a message to the current crop of politicians on both sides of the aisle that if they cannot, or will not do their jobs, then the electorate will look for someone who can.
To me, this is reinforced by the reaction to Pope Francis during his recent visit. Whatever one thinks of his religious views or whether or not he is too “political” (as I noted in an earlier post, I don’t think he is political but rather pastoral), one must agree that the outpouring of positive response to him as a man, by Catholics and non-Catholics, believers and non-believers alike, shows that a vast number of people are looking for someone who cares about them as individuals and for someone who brings a message of caring and hope. Hope for them in their daily lives and hope that our future can be better. Even Speaker Boehner has reflected this (look up his comments about the “jackass” in his party and the “false prophets” in his party), now that he is not bound by party duty and can speak his mind.
This paints a picture for me that the candidate that can provide a vision for the future that is positive, yet specific — enough with the vague platitudes! — has the best chance of capturing his/her party’s nomination and indeed, of capturing the presidency.
What I worry about is that we are reaping what we have sown over the last 6 years plus. In other words, politicians have been complaining about how bad, ineffective and dysfunctional government is these days. They have been complaining to such a degree that maybe people are beginning to believe it. The same politicians that barrage us with negatives about our government and our place in the world (which face it folks, if we are so bad off why are none of the complainers moving to another country) are not doing so well in the polls. They may have done such a good job painting a picture of disaster that they are now in the throes of having to recognize that maybe the electorate considers them as part of the problem. They have painted such negative perceptions of government that they are now living in the reality of being part of the problem. As Shakespeare said in Hamlet, they will be “hoist with his own petard.”
At the same time I do not understand why it would be a badge of honor — a selling point for gaining votes — to proclaim that as a candidate that they are complete outsiders with no government experience what-so-ever. I would guess that Trump and Fiorina as CEOs would not hire a new CEO for a major corporation that has absolutely no experience in business at all. And be proud of it. While I get the “outsider” appeal, I also believe in the American people. It is one thing to attend a rally, answer a poll question over a year before the election, and display other expressions of dissatisfaction with the status quo, and quite another to actually vote for one of the “outsiders.” I have no idea who will be the Republican or Democrat nominee for president, but I have a pretty good idea who it will not be.
There is a ray of hope. The politicians also should think about this. A recent survey done by the Democrat Party (don’t dismiss it out of hand — it was not just a survey of Democrats but rather a cross-section of voters) and obtained by the Washington Post indicates that most voters are not in favor of a smaller government. They are in search of a more effective federal government. Fifty-six percent of the respondents said that they were “very” or “somewhat” confident in the government to do the right thing. The top five answers to the question “what is wrong with the federal government” reflect that the electorate is most concerned that it is “corrupt” (23%), “inefficient” (18%), “out of touch” (17%), “wasteful” (14%), and “too big” (9%). To me this means that most people don’t worry about the size of government, they worry that it does not reflect the nation as a whole, and only is responsive to big donors and lobbyists.
Perhaps the cliché that the “squeaky wheel gets the grease” applies here. The factions that are currently making the most noise on the campaign trail are getting the most attention. But, I do not think that most voters are single issue voters. In the general election the voters take the full measure of the person running for office — their personality, knowledge, leadership and position on a full range of issues. The candidates that recognize this and put forward honest answers and specific plans as to how they will make the federal government more responsive will have the best chance to win. And to help our country.
The Real Meaning of Politics
Posted: September 25, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Divisiveness, John Boehner, Politics, Pope Francis 1 CommentYesterday Pope Francis addressed a joint session of Congress. In my view his speech, and indeed his entire visit thus far, was extraordinary. Not just in seeing a Pope addressing Congress, although that alone was indeed extraordinary. And not just in seeing the overwhelming positive reaction he elicits from celebrities and regular citizens, rich and poor, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. It was in his message.
(As a footnote, we should note that he was not the first head of a religion to address a joint session of Congress. Queen Elizabeth II was the first when she addressed Congress in May 1991 as she is the titular head of the Church of England. Similarly, Pope Francis is also the titular head of state of the Vatican, which adds diplomatic overtones to the visit and resultant ceremonies. But I digress.)
Some people may focus on his remarks at the welcoming ceremony at the White House and his remarks to Congress as being too “political.” I disagree. His public comments are not political, they are pastoral and totally in keeping with the long-held traditions of the Catholic church, and dare I say it, the Bible. I had the opportunity to watch his entire speech live (you may find a transcript here) and thought it engaging, knowledgeable, and entirely within his “lane” as the current punditry likes to use the term. Likewise, he was animated in his delivery, which means to me that not only did he believe in what he was saying, but that despite speaking in a language that is not his own, he understood the subtleties of what he was saying.
Even though this is his first ever visit to the United States, as a life long citizen of the Americas, he understands the United States and the traditions of the Western Hemisphere. It was a well thought out speech that understood the historical touchstones of this nation. Rather than focusing on the individual policies and hot button issues of his speech, I took away that his over all message was one of reconciliation and an admonition that politics, to accomplish anything, means that there must be compromise for the common good. Additionally, he gently reminded the members of Congress before him that they were not there for their own good, but rather for the good of the nation. Or as he said right at the beginning of his remarks:
“Your own responsibility as members of Congress is to enable this country, by your legislative activity, to grow as a nation. You are the face of its people, their representatives. You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of all politics. A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care for the people. To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you.”
His remarks are particularly cogent given events today. As I write, the Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced that he would step down as Speaker, and resign his seat in the House, at the end of October. We have yet to hear from him personally (I am sure we will before the day is over), but those who heard the announcement in a closed-door Republican caucus meeting said that it was because of the divisiveness of his own party — in particular the roughly 30 or so Tea Party Republicans that have no desire to compromise on anything. They are interested in their agenda rather than the essence of politics — as even the Pope understood — which is to compromise and, as Pope Francis said in his speech “(b)uilding a nation calls us to recognize that we must constantly relate to others, rejecting a mindset of hostility in order to adopt one of reciprocal subsidiarity, in a constant effort to do our best.”
“To do our best.” What a concept. I am disappointed that the tremendous atmosphere of good will and positive outlooks evident in the Pope’s visit yesterday — and it was clear that many of the Representatives and Senators in the chamber during the speech were moved by it — has evaporated in less than 24 hours.
I, among others, have been critical of Speaker Boehner and his leadership style. However, his stepping down is likely to make things in our Congress even more chaotic and divisive. The Tea Party element of the Congress will probably celebrate his departure and see it as some kind of victory for their viewpoint. They are aiming for another shutdown of the government, an outcome that the serious leaders in the House and Senate, Republican and Democrat, are seeking to avoid. We shall see if they are succesful as things unfold.
None-the-less, such developments are the antithesis of the Pope’s message. Already seemingly lost is his plea to the Congress, and through them to all of us as citizens, that we remember our history and our purpose as a nation. As he put it:
“I have sought to present some of the richness of your cultural heritage, of the spirit of the American people. It is my desire that this spirit continue to develop and grow, so that as many young people as possible can inherit and dwell in a land which has inspired so many people to dream.”
Pope Francis knows the real essence of politics. I hope that in some way, our representatives, the candidates now vying for our votes for president, and each of us as citizens remembers that we are all here together and can only achieve our greatness by working for common goals.
“My visit takes place at a time when men and women of good will are marking the anniversaries of several great Americans. The complexities of history and the reality of human weakness notwithstanding, these men and women, for all their many differences and limitations, were able by hard work and self-sacrifice – some at the cost of their lives – to build a better future. They shaped fundamental values which will endure forever in the spirit of the American people. A people with this spirit can live through many crises, tensions and conflicts, while always finding the resources to move forward, and to do so with dignity. These men and women offer us a way of seeing and interpreting reality. In honoring their memory, we are inspired, even amid conflicts, and in the here and now of each day, to draw upon our deepest cultural reserves.”
Amen.
Sincere, But Just Plain Wrong
Posted: September 7, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Divisiveness, Politics, Same-sex marriage, United States Constitution 2 CommentsRowan County (Kentucky) Clerk Kim Davis remains in jail over her contempt of court citation for refusing to issue marriage licenses in her county. She refuses because she does not want to issue them for same-sex marriages. Doing so, she believes, would violate her Christian convictions. However one views the issue of same-sex marriage, we should respect Ms. Davis and her willingness to go to jail for what she believes. Likewise, regardless of how we view same-sex marriages, we should be very concerned about the way her case is being used by politicians shouting about separation of church and state and stating that she is being denied her rights and that she is being persecuted for her religious beliefs. Shame on them. She is absolutely not being persecuted for her religious beliefs and it shows that those politicians (I’m looking at you Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz and others) are either using her for blatant political reasons, or are shamefully unaware of the Constitution they say they support, and indeed would be obligated to follow should they win the election.
If Ms. Davis has true religious beliefs that prohibit her from fulfilling her duties (and I have no doubt that she is sincere), then as an elected official sworn to uphold the law, she should resign. End of discussion. She has exhausted her ability within the law to keep from issuing the licenses that it is her duty to do. Protest all she likes. Work to change the law. Carry out her privileges as a citizen, but do so as a private citizen, not a sworn official of the county. Tellingly, the United States Supreme Court chose not to hear her appeal. They did so without comment, which means that none of the nine Justices thought that she had any legal ground to stand on — including those Justices that voted against allowing same-sex marriages under the Constitution. Game over.
The deputies to the County Clerk began issuing licenses last week after Ms. Davis went to jail for contempt of court for refusing to follow the law and the instructions of the judge. It is undetermined how long she will stay in jail, but she could be out today if she would either agree to carry out the duties she swore to uphold, or resign. If one takes her logic to its end, then we would ultimately be a nation without laws. She claims that she answers to a higher power and therefore does not have to follow the law of the land as it is superseded by her religious convictions. It takes very little imagination to think what would happen should everyone of every conceivable religion take the same position. Our country would fall into chaos.
As a reminder, the First Amendment was written to keep the state (in this case Ms. Davis, I’m sorry to inform you that the state is you) from imposing a particular religion or religious belief on any citizen. It was a reaction to the British crown imposing the Church of England on its citizens in the original thirteen colonies. By the early 1700’s in those colonies, for example, there was no recognized Catholic parish or church. They did not re-appear until 1789 (the ratification of the Constitution). Here is what the amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
No one is keeping her from exercising her religious beliefs. They are only keeping her from imposing her religion on others. This is a huge difference. Those that argue that freedom of religion is being inhibited by our government should visit China, Iran, North Korea or a dozen other countries to find out what it really means to lose one’s ability to practice their religion.
Statements such as this one from Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) — posted on his campaign website — show that Ms. Davis’ situation is being deliberately distorted, or else Senator Cruz really did not learn much from his Ivy League law school and time as clerk to Chief Justice Rehnquist on the Supreme Court.
Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.
I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to choose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion.
Using words like “tyranny” and arresting a “Christian woman” for her faith may be red meat to his ardent supporters, but they do little to promote either the rule of law or religious freedom (oh by the way Senator, there may be other devout followers of one God who are not Christian). What is he saying? That we should do away with the Supreme Court? That no one has to follow their decisions if one doesn’t agree with them? What is he really saying? And he will “support and defend the Constitution” by telling people to ignore it? If he, and others, have a strong view that laws need to be changed, then use the system to change them.
Mike Huckabee — the former governor of Arkansas and running for president — said yesterday that one only has to follow the court’s orders if “it’s right.” Who decides if it is right? Mr. Huckabee? Kim Davis? Me? While I understand his concerns and those of others about defending the right to freedom of religion in our country, I have to say that as an individual, I do not feel threatened in the practice of my religion. We truly need watch dogs that continually challenge the government on issues fundamental to our freedoms and our way of life. But touting anarchy and setting themselves up as the sole judge of what is right and wrong — as Mr. Huckabee, Senator Cruz, and others do — seems to me to be a greater threat to my freedoms than anything the Supreme Court has done.
Ms. Davis may be sincere, but she is just plain wrong. She should resign and then she may protest and work to change the law in any legal way that she can. I, for one, will work against the demagogues that set themselves up as arbiters of what is right and wrong for the rest of us based on their personal beliefs — or based on what their political ambitions tell them will “sell”. That to me is a far greater danger.
Searching For A Better Life
Posted: September 1, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Historical Perspective, Human Rights, Nature of Mankind, Syria, Vietnamese Refugees 1 CommentI recently returned from a vacation tour through Europe. We were fortunate enough to travel from Budapest, Hungary to Amsterdam, Netherlands and had a great time. It was interesting on many levels — history, culture, fellow travelers, all of it. As always when traveling overseas, of course, it also reminded me of how lucky I am to live in the United States. For all of our troubles and differences of opinions, at least in my lifetime, we have been incredibly fortunate.
This was brought home in one way by the opportunity to visit cities and towns throughout central Europe that were occupied by the Soviets, Nazis, or both. As I am always reminded, it is one thing to learn history from a book, and quite another to talk to people who lived through the experiences. To these people, it is still a living history. In the former communist states of Hungary and Slovakia, the rebuilding from World War II is nearly complete. Construction was delayed for decades because of the Soviet occupation and the reluctance or lack of caring (or both) to put any thought or effort into rebuilding locally important buildings. While the Soviets (and local regimes) obviously built structures during the period leading up to 1989, they did so without regard to historic local norms, desires or long-standing culture. And, not to put too fine of a point on it, but what they did build is down right ugly.
In Austria and Germany the scars of World War II remain. Perhaps not so much with respect to rebuilding cities, but with their history. Indeed, we were told that the now famous museum in Nuremberg retelling the story of Hitler’s rise and rule — used to educate German youth of the horrors of that period — was not built until 2002. According to our guide, it could not have been built any earlier because no one wanted to confront that chapter of German history. Only the younger generation could face the facts. Many of the medieval cities along the Main and Rhine Rivers had to be rebuilt as they were mostly 90% or more destroyed by Allied bombing. For the locals this was just a fact — not something raised in acrimony — although they often pointed out that there was no tactical or operational reason for the bombing. There was only the strategic goal of breaking the will of the people through sheer helplessness. We have not experienced anything like that since the 1860’s.
Likewise, it was with helplessness that many in these countries watched the flow of thousands upon thousands of people from the Middle East into Europe. We have seen the reports on the news here in the U.S., but again, in Europe they are living the reality of the situation. It is a tragedy seemingly without a solution. Hundreds, if not thousands, have died making the attempt to get to safety, primarily by sea to Greece where they then try to move on to wealthier nations. The European Union is grappling with how to deal with the situation. Provide humanitarian assistance and it probably entices more people to make the dangerous run. Do nothing to help them and thousands of people suffer and die.
From a distance, the most interesting discussion involved what to call these people. Perhaps that discussion is relevant to our own political debates in the run-up to the 2016 elections. The question was whether they were “migrants,” “refugees” “asylum seekers” or “immigrants.” The question is more than one of semantics as under international law and under the standards of humanitarian treatment, how they are categorized makes a difference in how nations should, and will, deal with them. To those making the dangerous trek however, it may matter little. It is a problem that is only going to continue to grow as the civil war in Syria continues, and ISIS and other groups operate in the Middle East. Without solving that root problem, the mass migration, the largest since World War II according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) will continue.
In 1980’s I had two experiences with people fleeing what must have been intolerable conditions. I still think about them to this day. They were on a smaller scale than those going on today in Europe, but in some ways are even more unbelievable. Today’s refugees leaving the Middle East for Europe take boats across the Mediterranean Sea headed for Europe. It is very dangerous and they are horribly mistreated by smugglers profiting from the endeavor. But they have a destination in mind and a relatively short trip. In the early 80’s refugees were leaving Viet Nam in small boats heading out to sea. No destination, per se — they were just hoping that a passing freighter (or their greatest hope, a U.S. Navy ship) would spot them and pick them up. Some made it, some did not. There is no real way of knowing because those that didn’t make it were lost at sea without a trace. Those that got picked up ended up all over the Pacific because most ships would continue to their destinations before off-loading those they had picked up. On two different USN ships I was part of the ship’s company that picked up some of these refugees. We were not on any mission to do so, it was purely luck or providence that we spotted them adrift at sea as we proceeded through the area. Of the several occasions, it was nearly always the same. We would spot a rickety non-sea worthy vessel of about 50 feet adrift with upwards of 75 or 80 people on board. Usually those on board consisted of a couple of extended families (babies to grand parents) from the same geographic area. They were out of fuel and food and nearly out of water. They had nothing but the clothes on their back as in each case pirates intercepted the boats before we did and took everything of value from the people — including pulling teeth with silver or gold fillings. There were rarely young women on board as the pirates took them too.
Unbelievable. To this day I ask myself how bad things would have to be to put my entire extended family in a non-sea worthy boat and push out to sea with no destination and only a vague hope that a friendly ship would stop and help us. And the odds were that no one would see us. I cannot imagine risking the lives of my entire family in such a way. I still think about it.
(As a footnote, I later served on ships where some of the new crew members reporting aboard were babies or small children on those boats rescued at sea in the early 80’s by U.S. Navy ships. Only in America.)
In the late 1980’s my ship was operating in the Caribbean Sea on a mission unrelated to the migration then taking place from Haiti. The U.S. Coast Guard was actively involved in rescuing those migrants, also in flimsy boats, from the sea. They would take the refugees to the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where they would be processed by Immigration and State Department personnel and then generally returned to Haiti. Pure chaos. Again what came through was the overwhelming desperation of the people. While we were not directly involved in that operation, we were certainly able to observe at close hand how difficult it was to effect the rescues on a mass scale and then to humanely treat the people once they reached shore while still trying to maintain some degree of orderliness and safety. It is an extremely difficult task.
I can only imagine what is going on at sea and ashore in Europe as the numbers of people flowing into Europe dwarf anything that I participated in or observed. A very tough situation.
We are so lucky in so many ways. As partisan divides emerge, I trust that all of us will realize how lucky we are compared to so many in this world — past and present.
The Iranian Conundrum
Posted: July 19, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Iran, Iran Nuclear Deal, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Leave a commentMuch has been written, and will continue to be written, about the recently concluded agreement with Iran on behalf of the P5+1 (U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China plus Germany) (also participating was the High Representative of the European Union) concerning curtailment of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Most of the talk is whether or not it is a “good deal” or a “bad deal.” I do not think that such a simplistic approach does anyone any good and certainly does not lead to an understanding of the complexities of this pact — and it is indeed complex. (You may read the entire original text here.) Most of the agreement, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPCOA), consists of annexes of a highly technical nature. I am not a nuclear physicist so I cannot authoritatively comment on its intricacies, but many, many, many (emphasis on purpose) nuclear physicists and other arms control experts call it the most comprehensive arms control agreement ever. There is very little — no agreement is perfect — technical wiggle room.
According to the signatories, the deal increases Iran’s “break out” time (how long until they could produce a nuclear bomb) from about three months to at least one year. It also significantly reduces their stockpiles of enriched uranium (needed to make a bomb), cuts Iran’s centrifuges by two-thirds (needed to make more enriched uranium), precludes the production of plutonium (for really big bombs) and opens up existing facilities for international inspection.
The agreement also puts the restrictions and inspections in place for ten to twenty-five years and allows for re-imposing sanctions at any time for any violation. Note that the inspections in some forms are in place for twenty-five years and in other cases, since Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, forever. Please note that Israel has nuclear weapons and is not a signatory nation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, along with India, Pakistan and North Korea.
To me, as I understand them, the technical details of the JPCOA are sound. I have heard very little criticism of the actual technical aspects of the agreement. They were after all, primarily negotiated by the world’s foremost experts, including our own Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, a world recognized expert and MIT professor.
The real question to ask is this — is the JPCOA good policy? That is a more difficult question to answer. I happen to think that it is, but it needs to be taken in context. Before explaining that context, I must express my disappointment that many of our leaders in Congress had a knee jerk reaction to the agreement before they even knew the details of what was in it. Coincident with the announcement of an agreement, criticism rained down on the president. Typical of that reaction was Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) who said within minutes of the conclusion of the negotiations, “Given everything I’ve seen so far, this is a bad deal. It paves the way for a nuclear Iran.” By his own admission he had not reviewed the details of the agreement. His reaction was mild compared to some others, and all paled in comparison to those of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (R-Israel) who said, “From the initial reports we can already conclude that this agreement is a historic mistake.” He made that statement before the text was released and later he admitted that he had not yet read it.
Some in Congress oppose the JPCOA only because Israel opposes it. As I’ve written before, Israel is a close ally and friend of the United States. We need to protect and support Israel. However, the United States should put its interests first, and not undermine them only because Israel is opposed. I guarantee that Israel would, and has, put its interests above those of the United States and taken actions that were in their best interests, but opposed to those of the United States. Do not oppose the JPCOA “just because” Prime Minister Netanyahu says it is a bad deal.
It is entirely conceivable that policy makers in the United States and elsewhere legitimately do not think that the JPCOA is good policy. But I sure wish they would at least read it and understand it before going public with blanket statements that it is historically bad. Many of the critics of the negotiations said that “a bad deal is worse than no deal.” What they really meant to say was that “any deal is worse than no deal.” I disagree.
The hard part is to put the JPCOA in the total context of Middle East policy. The focus for the P5+1 was eliminating the ability of Iran to produce a nuclear weapon this year. At worst, they delayed it for ten to twenty years. At best, they delayed it forever. Iran’s focus was lifting the sanctions. They got that assuming that they comply with the JPCOA. They were not negotiating the end to terrorism, national ambitions, the recognition of Israel by Iran or the host of other criticisms aimed at the negotiations because those things were not achieved. They were not on the table and arguably we would not have any agreement if they were.
Likewise no P5+1 participant is “trusting” the Iranians. There are very strict inspection regimes with very dire consequences for Iran should they be found in violation. We need to be realistic about what can and cannot be achieved at the negotiating table. And the U.S. Congress needs to recognize that these were not bi-lateral negotiations. If the rest of the world wants to lift sanctions against Iran (and both Russia and China cannot wait to enter the Iranian market), we will have little leverage to stop it.
That said, many of you have heard me say for many years that Iran is one of the baddest actors in the world. Prior to ISIS, the vast majority of terrorist acts in the Middle East and elsewhere can be directly or indirectly traced to Iran. Currently, they are working hard to establish themselves as a regional power in the Middle East with thoughts of domination in that part of the world. We need to stop them and we need to keep up the pressure on other nations to stop them. We must. That, however, is a different issue than stopping their nuclear weapons program.
The JPCAO only makes sense in the context of a comprehensive step-by-step plan in the Middle East to box in Iran and turn it back towards being a productive member of the world society. The JPCOA is, in my mind, only the first of many steps. There was no magic wand that could solve all of the problems with and about Iran in one fell swoop. Just not going to happen. However, as a first step, it is important. As we have seen with China, Russia and other previous foes of the west, slow and steady is the answer. Constant pressure needs to be applied and we must be relentless in our pursuit of national policy. However, just as we have seen with China and Russia, we will make progress on some fronts and we will have conflict on others. The United States needs to take the long view and put in place policies that bolster our friends and allies, oppose Iranian adventurism and exploitation, and enhance our national security. The JPCOA helps to do that by taking the threat of nuclear weapons out of the calculus.
When one takes a step back, it is entirely possible that the world may not know the ramifications of the JPCOA for many years. That is a tough gamble to take. However, from all that I have read, it is a gamble worth taking because it is not irreversible and it has large dividends when it succeeds.
Iran is and will remain a conundrum. We will only make head way in the area by engaging them.
Moving On
Posted: July 12, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Civil War, Confederate Flags, Divisiveness, Historical Perspective, Slavery Leave a commentOn Friday, the Confederate battle flag was lowered for the final time on the statehouse grounds of South Carolina. Huzzah! I am glad that the majority of South Carolinians rallied to get the state legislature, spurred by Governor Nikki Haley (R), to pass legislation that caused its relocation to a place where it belongs — in a museum.
Unfortunately, those that want to see the flag fly at the statehouse accused South Carolina politicians of bowing to “political correctness” in removing the flag. They claim that it is not a symbol of treason or slavery but rather a celebration of their heritage. Many brave and valiant Confederate soldiers died under that banner and, many claim, that is what they celebrate when it is flown. I merely point out that many brave and valiant people have died protecting their homes fighting for causes that were evil. World War II comes to mind. I do not see the citizens of France flying the Vichy flag as part of their heritage, for example.
The Civil War is part of the history of the United States. (Note that it is the United States.) As such museums, books and other chroniclers of our history should depict the various elements of that war. However, a secessionist flag should not fly on government buildings. Ours is a “government for the people, of the people and by the people”. Not just for some people. All the people. I have written on this blog in the past about my lack of understanding as to why people still demand to fly the Confederate flag. I hear what they say, but I don’t buy it if our nation is truly united. Divided perhaps by politics, but not by our values as a nation. I really did not get the continued demand by various state governments to fly it. Perhaps that argument is finally behind us. I also do not get why individuals continue to fly it, but that is their choice and it is a freedom of speech issue. They can do so if they desire, but I hope that they truly understand its meaning.
Symbols are symbols for a reason. They stand for something, otherwise none of us would care about them. The symbol of the United States is our national flag. There is no “southern” flag and there is no “northern” flag. There is only one flag — the symbol of our collective nation.
Perhaps some believe that the Confederate flag now stands only for states’ rights. I do not really buy that argument either. I thought that since we have individual state flags, that those would be the symbols of one’s home state and the government located there.
Others argue that white supremacists and organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan usurped the Confederate flag and that it really was not a symbol of racism or slavery. For the sake of discussion, I will say that it may have been “usurped” by white supremacists, but why does one think that they chose that symbol? I would remind us all that the Confederate flags did not reappear on capital buildings and other state buildings in the South until the 60’s. The nineteen sixties in response to changes in Civil Rights laws targeted at ending the Jim Crow era.
Those that argue that the Civil War was over states rights or the preservation of their economy or “way of life” are correct, in so far as they point out that the states rights issue, the economic issues, and the “way of life” issues were all based on slavery. Whether individual Confederate or Union soldiers approved or disapproved or owned or did not own slaves is not relevant. Slavery was the proximate cause of the war. The Missouri Compromise and the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850 are the precursors to the war. The southern states wanted slavery to continue and to spread as new states entered the Union. The northern states wanted to contain slavery to the South. Indeed, one could almost argue that the Civil War was about states’ rights — northern states rights. Specifically, their right not to return fugitive slaves to the slave owners. The South Carolina Declaration of the Causes of Seceding States says it clearly.
But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia.
“Fugitives” of course are slaves.
Or this passage from the Texas version of the Declaration.
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
There are other passages and numerous speeches from the time that make it clear that the southern states did secede from the Union over slavery. To be fair, the people of that day were products of their times and circumstances. I hesitate to put the values and knowledge of today up against those of the past when they did not have the same advantages to learn and understand all that we do today. None-the-less, one cannot say that slavery was not the prime issue of the war.
I think my biggest problem with the Confederate flag as a symbol is that we should not re-fight, re-litigate, or rehash something settled 150 years ago. We are united. We are one nation. I do not think that most people who fly the Confederate flag wish that the south had succeeded in breaking apart and forming their own nation. I cannot imagine what our nation, indeed our world would be like had they succeeded. That is my biggest stumbling block as to why people continue to “fight” the Civil War. What do they think would be better had they won?
Some may think that I “hate” the south or do not understand it. Not so. I’ve lived in Texas, South Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Maryland — all south of the Mason-Dixon line — for a total of over 30 years as both a child and an adult. I enjoy the south. I also enjoy other parts of the United States. To me it is not a matter of liking or disliking a particular region of our great nation. It is a matter of why some people continue to hang on to one of the most traumatic events in our history in some romantic belief that life was “better” then. I guarantee that folks in other parts of the country hang on to their heritage. Coloradans as mountain people are very independent. New Englanders are a different breed with different customs, traditions and even language. Each of our national regions have their own history, heritage, and pride, but they do not insist on flying any flag other than the United States flag or insist secession is something to celebrate.
I am proud of the great citizens of South Carolina. They are moving on with grace and humility. Others are getting the picture. As Americans — north, south, east and west — let’s all move on.
They Are All The Same
Posted: July 8, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Gun violence, Terrorism Leave a commentThe passing of time has given us little to no more perspective, and certainly no less sorrow, on the murder of nine American citizens at the Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina on the 17th of June this year. A tragedy in no uncertain terms.
Much has been written, and I am certain will be again in the future as he goes to trial, about the motives of the young man who committed this despicable act. To me it is relatively simple — he is a terrorist in the same vein as those joining ISIS, killing tourists in Tunisia, or the London bombings conducted ten years ago yesterday (the UK’s “7/7” which they equate to our 9/11). The perpetrators of these evil acts and more are all of the same type. Almost universally they tend to be young males, alienated from society, aggrieved in their minds in some way by a societal group and able to find others of like mind on the internet.
It is this last element that may be different in society today than in years past but it does not adequately explain their actions. As we all know, one can find almost anything on the internet. There is no filter, there is no verification of facts, there is no stopping the vilification of one group or another and it is the perfect vehicle for inducing someone overlooked by society who feels a need to make a name for themselves. It can be by conducting a single attack on their own, or it can be a recruitment tool to get young men to leave their homes and join a vicious organization that gives them vindication for their dirty deeds. The internet makes it all easier, but it does not of itself explain their actions.
For some reason when such an act occurs in the United States we rarely use the word “terrorist.” I don’t know why. These are certainly terrorist acts done in the name of some cause just as they are overseas. Instead we seem to use words like “unstable” or “anti-social” or “lone wolf” or other words that tend to make it seem as though terrorism by United States citizens does not take place. The implication is that attacks against Americans are only terrorist attacks if conducted overseas or are done on American soil by foreigners. The bombers of a church in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963 that killed four young girls were terrorists. Timothy McVeigh blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 and was a terrorist. The six people killed in the Wisconsin Sikh Temple in 2012 were killed by a terrorist. Unfortunately, I could go on and on. We rightly worry about foreign terrorists carrying out attacks on our cities. Let’s also understand that such attacks occur all too often by Americans.
I will not use pop psychology to analyze the elements of our society that cause these people to terrorize their fellow citizens. I will argue that the first step is to call them what they are and not to rationalize their behavior even as we call it a tragedy. Whether from the Middle East or the U.S. Midwest, they are the same. They are terrorists.
Footnote: I am sure that you, like me, are astounded at the generosity, humility, faith and belief in God demonstrated by the families and friends of those killed in the attack in Charleston. I am humbled by their peace filled reaction. Whatever our individual faith or beliefs, we could all take a lesson from them.
Tom
Into The Fray 
Recent Comments