It Will Be A Long Hot Summer
Posted: March 30, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Iran, Iraq, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Syria, Terrorism 2 CommentsReports from the Middle East increase my trepidation on a daily basis. Events do not bode well for the future and I am not sure what, if anything, the United States should do.
A tour around the horizon of the Middle East reveals that all hell is breaking loose. In Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu, in the run up to his re-election, repudiated decades of Israeli-Palestinian policy by stating that there will never be a Palestinian state on his watch. Since the election, he has tried to walk it back a bit, but the damage is done and most pundits, analysts, and policy makers take him at his original word. What this portends for any kind of settlement, only time can tell. At best, it has delayed it. At worst, it has scuttled all hope for a settlement and caused the United States, European allies, and others to re-evaluate their unequivocal support of Israel. For the Israelis themselves it means continued occupation of Palestinian territories and a fundamental change to their nation. Either they are no longer a democracy (occupied Palestinians cannot vote) or they will no longer be a mainly Jewish state (if they annex the occupied territories the number of Palestinians and Arabs will out number the number of Jewish citizens).
In Iraq, a loose coalition of Iraqi regular military forces and Shiite militia under the direction of an Iranian Revolutionary Guards Force general (!) taking on ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria — Sunnis) forces in Tikrit as a preliminary operational move to retake the key city of Mosul. After preliminary success, the approximately 30,000 Iraqi fighters suffered high casualties, became bogged down and have been stymied for weeks now by the approximately 500 ISIS fighters in Tikrit. Most experts believe this is because neither the regular forces nor the militias have any experience in urban fighting and with dealing with the resulting tactics of sniper fire, booby traps, Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and the like. The (now) most experienced forces in urban fighting? ISIS and the United States military.
The situation was further complicated when the regular Iraqi army forces called in U.S. air strikes to help their offensive. This caused the Shiite and Iranian forces to stop fighting and, indeed, several of their leaders threatened to shoot down U.S. aircraft if they flew overhead. It should be noted that several of those groups previously fought against the U.S. during the Iraq war.
Meanwhile, the U.S. (along with the other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) is nearing the deadline for a deal with Iran to curtail its possible nuclear weapons program. It is unclear that a deal can be reached or that it will be satisfactory to all involved.
With this in mind, as Iranian surrogates threaten to totally over run Yemen, the Arab states under the leadership of Saudi Arabia are fighting the insurgent Houthi. The Arab leadership and the ousted government of Yemen are Sunnis. The Iranians and Houthi are Shiite. One reason thought to be behind the Arab action is the belief that the U.S. is becoming too close to the Iranians in the interest of making the nuclear deal. By the way, before the Houthi success — just months ago — Yemen was a model for success in the war on terror and especially the war against Al’ Qaeda. Currently the most active, successful and dangerous branch of Al’ Qaeda is the one in Yemen — known as AQAP or Al’ Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and they are Sunni. Both the Arab coalition and the Houthis would like to eliminate AQAP, but they are too busy fighting each other.
An Arab coalition, led by Egypt, also occasionally conducts air strikes in Libya, just in case you have forgotten that this is another nation that has disintegrated into warring factions, including one that claims to be a part of ISIS.
As has gone on for years, Iranian Shiite surrogates in Syria, Libya, and Lebanon are fighting other Sunni factions (including ISIS which seems to be opening branch offices in other countries). If you really want to get the low-down, Boko Haram in Nigeria now claims to be affiliated with ISIS. Most analysts believe that although troubling, it is mostly a propaganda move by Boko Haram to get on the terrorist band wagon of perceived success.
You can’t tell the players without a scorecard.
In brief, long-standing tension and conflict between two factions of Islam broke out into outright warfare. It is very hard to determine who are the bad guys and who are the less bad guys. Without a comprehensive Middle East strategy, it will be difficult for the United States (and its allies) to deal with all of the various factions and to support the best interests of our country in the region. One might ask what those interests may be. Besides our stated national policy begun under President George W. Bush to bring democracy to the region, we also have an obligation to allies. More to the strategic interests of the U.S., one can summarize our interests in one word — “oil.” Whether or not the U.S. is, or becomes, self-sufficient in fossil fuels, oil is a fungible commodity and integral to the economies of the developed world. Conflict resulting in the closing of the Strait of Hormuz (access to the Persian Gulf — or as U.S. military planners prefer, the Arabian Gulf) and of the Bab al Mandeb (the strait controlling access to the Red Sea and thus the Suez Canal) would drive oil prices very high, seriously inhibiting any recovery from the last recession and conceivably driving us back into a deep recession.
On top of this is the realization from our national experience that failed states lead to the ability of terrorist organizations to act without restraint in developing plots against other nations around the world including the United States.
This developing geo-strategic situation (the technical term is “mess”) creates the question of what should the U.S. do about it? Although in a previous career I was considered a Middle East expert, I have to say “I don’t know.” This is a tough one. In some respects, this escalating situation is fundamentally a conflict between Sunni Islam and Shiite Islam and the resulting governmental control and continued well-being of certain elites on both sides of the equation. To me, our getting into the middle of it would be akin to the Chinese getting involved in the Thirty Years War. As the current order in the Middle East changes, and in many cases collapses, it mirrors in some ways the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire in the 1600s and the resulting war between Protestants and Catholics for the future of Europe. The difference today of course is that the world is interconnected in a way that could not even be conceived of in the 17th century, especially economically. Also different is the ability to project power over long distances and to injure and kill civilians a long way from the battlefield. Yet, the U.S. is not going to settle a war between two factions of Islam, just as in the 17th century the Chinese would never have been able to resolve a conflict between Christians.
We must also balance our desire to reign in Iran with the realities on the ground. Which is the more important result — stopping Iranian adventurism or stopping their nuclear program? The correct answer of course is “c — all of the above” but that is far easier said than done. Is ISIS our primary threat? It appears to me that ISIS is a terrible, evil entity, but that as an organization it will not have a lasting ability to establish their “caliphate.” They will eventually self-destruct if constant pressure is applied. At the same time, air strikes alone will not defeat them and the notion that Iraqi forces in conjunction with Kurdish militia and Shiite militia can drive them out of Iraq is now in question. Air strikes may serve to contain further expansion, but to date it shows no real ability to defeat them.
And that’s in Iraq. The real stronghold for ISIS is Syria. We face yet another dilemma in dealing with that situation. To battle ISIS is to help the brutal dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad. The avowed policy of the U.S. is that Bashar must go — leave power and allow a new government to form based on a negotiated settlement among the warring factions. Isn’t going to happen. Not to mention that ISIS will not negotiate any such settlement and neither will Bashar. Middle Eastern dictators know one thing in their gut and it has been re-emphasized throughout their history — govern ruthlessly or you and your family are dead. Our policy to train militant factions opposing Bashar’s government is too little too late and is called into question by the actions in Iraq where trained forces and strong militias are having a difficult time dislodging ISIS fighters. I’m not sure how similar groups will do against ISIS in Syria or against Syrian regular forces, especially since the latter have an effective air-to-ground combat ability.
To me, the last resort, and the worst option, is expanded U.S. military involvement in the region. We have fought three wars there in the last twenty-five years and another now is not in our best interests. We need to prioritize our efforts on the economic and diplomatic fronts while still holding a big stick (the military) in reserve should something go really wrong.
In my mind, our priorities should be (with some possible smudging of the order as events unfold):
- Continue pressure on Iran to get a meaningful deal on stopping their nuclear weapons program. If the deal is not sufficiently transparent, with verifiable steps, then continue and tighten sanctions until Iranian leaders realize that they cannot ease their way out of world scrutiny of their actions.
- Continue to support Iraq in its fight against ISIS. Work to isolate and pressure ISIS through continued coalition air strikes, but no combat troops beyond advisers and intelligence support.
- Pressure Israel to begin serious negotiations to settle the Palestinian issue, including through the United Nations where in the past, the U.S. vetoed every resolution thought to be against Israeli national interests. The free ride is over until meaningful steps are taken. That does not mean that we abandon our long time ally, indeed we continue with our military aid (in the billions annually) and other support. It just means that now there needs to be some reciprocal movement in the direction of a meaningful settlement of a fundamental reason for unrest in the region.
- Continue to support Saudi Arabia and its Arab coalition in the fight in Yemen through coordination and intelligence support. The U.S. should continue to conduct drone and other strikes against terrorist operatives in the country, but should not engage in overt military action.
- Continue to develop alternative sources of energy in the U.S. and develop a comprehensive, forward-looking energy policy taking into account fossil fuels as well as wind, solar and other non-fossil fuel sources of energy. It may be impossible, but such a policy should be devoid of the usual influences from lobby groups invested in their own profit motives.
This is a start and of course does not include the other areas of concern including Egypt, where one dictator replaced another; Libya which is a lawless basket case of a country; Somalia (roughly on the other side of the Bab al Mandeb) where the terrorist group Al-Shabaab is still a disruptive force in the region; Lebanon where the terrorist group Hezbollah basically controls the country and Afghanistan where a fragile government is still fighting elements of the Taliban and is not yet stabilized.
I fear that it will be a long hot summer as each of these situations is likely to get worse before they get better.
More Trouble on the Horizon
Posted: March 4, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Iran, Israel, Partisan 1 CommentI waited twenty-four hours to comment on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint meeting of Congress concerning negotiations with Iran over nuclear weapons to see if my initial incredulous reaction changed with contemplation. It has not. I think that at best it was a text-book case of political theater and at worst a deliberate attempt to undermine United States foreign policy and to embarrass our president.
For the moment, let’s defer a discussion of whether or not there should be a deal with Iran over nuclear weapons — we’ll get to that in a moment — and instead focus on the spectacle we witnessed yesterday. I had the opportunity to watch the entire proceedings live, and hope that you did as well. If not, you will find the complete transcript of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech here.
So here is what transpired. The Speaker of the House invited the head of state of another country to address a joint meeting of Congress, without consulting with the opposition party, the president or the State Department, or even informing them of the invitation until after it was accepted. The head of state of one our closest friends accepted the invitation without informing our Ambassador or State Department that he intended to come to the United States. The Ambassador to the United States from that country, born in the United States and who worked on the 1990s Republican Congress’s Contract with America was integral to arranging the visit with the Speaker. That head of state is in a very tight political fight of his own and is up for re-election in two weeks. In past campaigns, he has used video and audio of his prior speeches in Congress as campaign ads. In his own country, a judge ruled that his speech yesterday could only be broadcast on a five-minute delay so that political references could be blocked because his own government and judiciary thought his motives to be political. And finally, in that speech, he was condescending and nearly insulting to our Congress and especially to our president.
There are very few, if any, other heads of state that could plausibly fill this scenario other than Israel. While technically not a speech to a joint session of Congress (it was a meeting) it had all the trappings of a presidential address to a joint session of Congress, complete with the spouse in the gallery and guests referred to and acknowledged by the speaker as part of the speech. In every respect, it was designed, intentionally or not, but I think intentionally, to help Benjamin Netanyahu get re-elected as Prime Minister of Israel by allowing him to look tough by taking on the President of the United States in the chamber of our own Congress.
I note that the negotiations that are underway with Iran are not bilateral U.S.-Iranian negotiations. They are multi-lateral negotiations involving the “P-5 + 1” (or the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China — plus Germany). It is curious that Prime Minister Netanyahu did not go to the U.K. to address a joint session of the Parliament or otherwise visit with or discuss with, or otherwise engage any of the other nations negotiating with Iran. He only engaged the U.S. in a political spectacle designed to enhance his stature in Israel and to embarrass the president, and he did it at the invitation of the Speaker of the House sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Whatever our special relationship with Israel — a relationship I support — in the end, the foreign policy of the United States must support the goals of the United States. I guarantee, and history supports, that Israel will do whatever it sees in its best interests without regard to what the United States may or may not want. Most times the interests of both nations coincide. However, when they do not, the best interests of the United States should take priority over those of any other nation.
I should also note that since 1992, Benjamin Netanyahu has been warning that Iran is only three to five years, or less depending on which assertion of his one wants to quote, away from building nuclear weapons. He’s reiterated this claim time and again including in his book Fighting Terrorism published in 1995 and in previous addresses to Congress. He may eventually be correct, but he has no special insight that is not apparent to the national leaders of many countries.
As to whether or not the negotiations underway with Iran are a good deal or, as Prime Minister Netanyahu claimed, a bad deal, we do not yet know. There is currently no deal. His speech broke no new ground and did not bring forward any points that are not well know by anyone that has even a modicum of interest in the subject. Iran is a bad actor. Nothing new there — they have been the primary source of terrorist activity in the Middle East since the early 80’s.
President Obama already stated, well before Prime Minister Netanyahu, that a bad deal was worse than no deal. President Obama also said in an interview last week that he puts the chances of a deal with Iran at less than 50%. They are not going to take just any old demand that Iran throws out. With this in mind, Prime Minister Netanyahu was merely grandstanding and added nothing to furthering the mutual U.S.-Israeli goal of stopping Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. (Conveniently forgotten is that Israel is commonly known to possess somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 nuclear weapons of its own.)
There may be no deal. The P-5 + 1 have put a deadline of 24 March for Iran to agree to a substantive settlement or they will walk away (another Netanyahu applause line that is already stated policy prior to his speech). No one is naive about the Iranians, and it should come as no surprise that they are going to try to get their own best deal. That is the nature of any nation’s national security policy. This much is fact so far. The interim deal from two years ago allowed for inspectors to visit Iranian facilities for the first time. The Iranians are not currently building any nuclear weapons. If the talks breakdown or scuttled, there is nothing to stop Iran from eventually building a nuclear weapon.
Most troubling to me were the implications near the end of his remarks. While advocating for, in essence, “no deal” with Iran, a move that may in fact lead Iran to build the weapons, he stated that Israel would be willing to act. Or in his words:
We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves. This is why — this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand. But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.
Especially in the context of his speech and the way that he delivered these remarks in person, this sounds like a veiled threat that Israel will take military action to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. While this is troubling in and of its self — and by all expert testimony will only be a bump in the road for Iran’s ability to build the weapons, and will in fact spur them to increased efforts to do so — it also implies that they would expect the U.S. to join them in that military effort. In essence, a foreign leader is trying to commit the U.S. to another Middle East war.
I am troubled. Troubled by the precedent set by this political spectacle. Troubled by the meddling of a foreign leader of a close and friendly nation to undermine — not influence, undermine — our foreign policy. Troubled by the blatant attempts to scuttle negotiations that are in a delicate phase. Troubled by the terms of the deal which must reign in Iran and remove their ability to build nuclear weapons. Troubled by the consequences of a failure to negotiate a settlement.
These are troubling times around the world in many, many ways. There are no easy answers, although in the rhetoric surrounding complicated issues too many are willing to give one-line sound bite solutions.
While I agree with the caution regarding Iran that Prime Minister Netanyahu outlined in his speech, and while I have no illusions that any agreement with Iran is not fraught with possible problems and that they must be held to account, I am also so very disappointed that our foreign policy is no longer bi-partisan and is used as a political weapon in the face of grave danger to our nation and to our friends and allies.
Here We Go Again
Posted: February 25, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Divisiveness, John Boehner, Tea Party Leave a commentIn case you haven’t been following it, Congress is about to shut-down part of the government again. In this case, it is the Department of Homeland Security (home to the Coast Guard, TSA, Secret Service, FEMA, Border Service, and many other national security organizations) in a dispute over President Obama’s Executive Order last year concerning immigration.
As is the case with most of the recent self-created crisis cliff hangers, this one was known to be coming for months. I hesitated for days to write about it because I thought that surely this was a tempest in a tea pot (or a tempest in a tea party, as one may prefer) and that it would be resolved. Indeed it may yet be resolved today or tomorrow, but as it stands now, as of midnight Friday, all funding for DHS will cease.
The Senate Majority Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) proposed what seems to me to be a reasonable compromise. We will see if the Senate Democrats can say “yes” to getting “yes” but I think that they will after milking the situation for a day or two. Since the issue is one of whether or not the president over-stepped his Constitutional authority, a Federal judge in Texas provided the “exit sign” to the stalemate, as Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) calls it, when he put a stay on the execution of the president’s order. Since this is purported to be a Constitutional issue, it should rightly be resolved in the courts and that process is underway. Let it play out as it should, and it seems that the Senate, or at least the majority of Republicans and Democrats, will let that path be the one to resolution — once they get past the pyrotechnics of politics and both sides making specious statements to the press.
(By the way, as a footnote — the judge in Texas did not rule the Executive Order unconstitutional as some have claimed. I am not a legal scholar, but it appears from what I can discern that all he did was give Texas and 25 other states legal standing to pursue the case in court. Since they have, he declared, legal standing the judge stayed the execution of the order until the case is resolved. The Justice Department is appealing the stay order. Apparently the judge provided legal standing to Texas based on an obscure interpretation of the cost basis for providing driver’s licenses, of all things.)
An unusual interpretation at best as I understand it, but the point remains that it is best resolved in the courts rather than through the withholding of funds for the DHS.
So what’s the problem? Pursue the Senate compromise and be done with it. The compromise is to separate the issue into two bills — one attempting to stop the president’s Executive Order and one to provide funding to DHS. Bada bing bodda boom. Done. Both sides get what they want and our government continues to function. While there are still some on both sides of the aisle unhappy with that arrangement, there appears to be sufficient bi-partisan support to get it done and move on.
Ah, but as always, there is a catch. A pretty big catch. That, as recently always seems to be the case, is in the House of Representatives — the People’s House. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) claims that the House already passed their bill and have no further obligation to take action. The House bill ties funding the DHS to over-ruling of the Executive Order. The Republican House members want that bill to go to the President so that he has to veto the bill and thus he can be blamed for blocking funding to the important DHS. A political move that plays with our national security. There seems to be sufficient bi-partisan support in the House for the compromise that the Senate is proposing, but as we have seen time and again in the last few years, there is a strong tea party contingent that refuses to compromise and thus the bill can only pass with bi-partisan support. As in the past, Speaker Boehner is more than reluctant to anger that base by going ahead with a compromise. We’ve seen this script before and it’s tiresome.
Some in the Congress are arguing that shutting down the DHS will not really compromise the security of the United States because 85% of the employees are considered essential and will continue to work anyway. And although they will be working without pay, they’ll get it eventually — whenever eventually may be. Of course, those workers can pay their mortgages, car payments, grocery bills, etc. “eventually” can’t they?
More to the point it ignores the function of the 15% that will be furloughed and the role that they play to make sure those in the field are able to do their jobs. It also ignores that the DHS provides grants to states, cities, counties and other local governments to support some of their first responder capabilities. Those stop on Friday night which means that some jurisdictions will have to furlough local workers because they cannot pay them. None of this of course takes into account the long-term implications of continued games whereby government workers see themselves as pawns in political point-making. It impacts morale and more importantly, causes good workers to leave the public sector for more promising employment in the private sector. It is also just plain wrong.
The ability of Congress to govern is broken, caught up in attempts to embarrass one party or another. We have all had enough. I suppose this latest self-inflicted wound will resolve itself at the last minute, probably by providing temporary funding for four to six weeks while they work out another “compromise.” That will really turn into, again, kicking the can down the road so that we do this all over again in a few weeks. Here we go again. I just do not get it.
A Growing Dilemma
Posted: February 6, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Russia, Sanctions, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin 1 CommentIn case you lost track, events in Ukraine are increasingly leading towards a chance of significant conflict. Today, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President Francois Hollande of France traveled to Moscow to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin concerning the escalating fighting in Ukraine.
Roughly a year ago, Chancellor Merkel stated that she would no longer deal with President Putin until he became serious about working for a solution to the problem in Ukraine. Nothing has changed regarding Putin’s stance on events there. He continues to claim that there is no Russian involvement there and that, indeed, NATO troops are the bulk of the fighters for the “illegal” Ukrainian government. Yet Merkel felt it necessary, along with the other most influential leader in continental Europe, to go to Moscow. This demonstrates their concern that the situation in Ukraine is becoming increasingly dangerous. Influencing their decision to meet with Putin is a growing sentiment in the United States Congress and with senior advisers to President Obama that the United States should provide the Ukrainian army with increased aid, including heavy weapons. At present, the U.S. supplies only non-lethal aid and diplomatic support to the Ukrainians.
Last September, the Ukrainians and pro-Russia separatists agreed to a ceasefire that held, with some exceptions, until early this year. Since the new year began, the separatists have launched several offensives to expand their territory to the west and south. Fierce fighting in cities and towns left scores of civilians dead, in addition to casualties among those fighting. The situation continues to escalate. Secretary of State John Kerry was in Ukraine this week to renew U.S. pledges of support to the Ukrainian government and to call for renewed sanctions if Russia does not bring the fighting to a halt. Indeed, last week, the European Union voted to consider increased sanctions against Russia.
You will recall that I wrote about this subject last September (“Where Do We Go From Here?”) and stated that over time, the events in Ukraine potentially provide a bigger threat to our long-term strategic goals than does ISIS. I also pointed out that European leaders should review their history as NATO was formed for this exact reason — to protect Europe from Soviet (Russian) invasion. Ukraine of course is not a member of NATO, but the threat is the same and nothing that Putin and the Russians have done since last fall provides any shred of evidence that the Russians intend to stay out of Ukraine. In fact, it is very much the opposite, and in my mind, the situation is even more dangerous. Yet the United States, and indeed all of Europe, walk a tenuous high wire trying to balance our strategic interests elsewhere in the world, while working to inhibit Russian adventurism.
According to most experts, the sanctions have had a real impact on the Russian economy. The exchange rate for the Russian ruble plummeted over the course of 2014 and the Russian economy is suffering. Even Putin admits that the economy is in bad shape but places the blame squarely on the West and claims that western nations are trying to destroy Russia. Exacerbating their economic woes is the plunging price of oil, which until the bottom dropped out of the market, allowed Russian economic policies to continue through oil revenue. No longer.
Given the extent and effectiveness of Russian propaganda within their own population, Putin has been able to build an “us against them” mentality. Historically, what is the track record of nations run by dictators and near dictators when they face economic troubles or domestic unrest? They drum up a problem outside the country’s borders, rally the population around (in this case) the Motherland, and blame all internal problems on external forces. Putin and his cronies are experts at this. The tightening of sanctions only validates his story.
At the same time, when Ukrainian and Western European leaders call on the Russians to withdraw from eastern Ukraine, the Russians claim that there are no Russian troops, equipment or aid to the so-called rebels fighting for their “freedom.” It is difficult to imagine how the West will get Putin to withdraw his forces from Ukraine when he steadfastly argues that none are there.
Other complicating factors to unified western action include:
- the close economic ties of several European nations to Russia
- the requirement for unanimous consent among the European Union’s twenty-eight nations to take action on further sanctions or anything else
- the same requirement for the twenty-eight nations in NATO (not all the same ones as in the EU)
- the need to have Russia at the table to bring Iran to heel
- the many cooperative endeavors between Russia and the U.S. not the least of which is the manning and resupply of the International Space Station
- the many other areas of strategic interest around the world where Russia must either be included, or pacified to keep them from meddling.
In short, given the degree of the response from the West, the large number of areas where western nations want Russian cooperation, and the positive impact on Russian domestic politics of continued adventures in Ukraine, with little to no adverse effects, Putin has no incentive to cease his meddling.
So, what can be done? As I wrote last September, as a minimum the West should:
- Provide the Ukrainian military with the supplies, including heavy weapons, that they require to combat the immediate threat posed by trained Russian “volunteers.” These Russians operate weapons beyond the capability of Ukrainian “farmers” and “factory workers” rebelling against the central Ukrainian government.
- Provide training to Ukrainian military leaders at the tactical and operational levels to instill a long-term ability to combat Russian military adventures.
- Increase the numbers and types of rotational deployments of United States military forces to the Baltic states and eastern Europe. These deployments underline the importance the United States puts on the tenants of the NATO treaty and the independence of nations. Although such deployments are underway, it is at small levels with minimal impact on public or diplomatic perceptions.
- Increase meaningful sanctions on the Russian economy. This will necessarily impose hardships on some sectors of the European economy, but the costs of dealing with Putin will only increase over time.
To be sure, there are dangers in this approach, or any approach that Putin feels threatens Russia. Some caution that arming the Ukrainian military and escalating the conflict only plays into Putin’s hands, providing an opening for invading Ukraine and leading to a much wider conflict, with more casualties, and one that the West does not have the will to stop. Indeed, Russia holds the strategic and tactical advantage in geography, troop levels, and will to win. It is unclear that the EU or NATO will be willing to engage Russia militarily should Putin decide to expand his adventure in Ukraine and annex large parts of the country as he did in Crimea. Putin declared last fall that he could “march into Kiev” at any time — he had only to give the order. Some argue that the West could give him the incentive do so if the situation escalates through increased military support or harsher sanctions.
In my view, Putin is playing the long game and will continue his adventurism until he is stopped. The sooner the West demonstrates its resolve and the sooner that he feels actual consequences to his actions, the sooner he will look for a diplomatic solution. In the end, only diplomatic solutions will provide a long-lasting resolution to this crisis. However, it is clear that increased military resistance is the only thing that is going to make Putin decide to end his shenanigans. And it is the only thing that will keep him from playing similar games to restore other portions of the former Soviet Union. In addition to Crimea, one need only look at Georgia, Chechnya, and Moldova to see that Putin will not hesitate to use his Armed Forces in the interest of “protecting” Russians. A quick survey of the map and a review of nations formerly part of the Soviet Union, or in its sphere of domination, will determine that there are large ethnic Russian populations in many other areas that Putin could decide to “protect.”
Putin will only stop meddling when he determines that the costs outweigh the benefits. To date, he is a long way from that conclusion. It is time for the West to demonstrate true resolve.
Why Would He Do This?
Posted: January 22, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Iran, John Boehner, Proliferation, Sanctions 1 CommentYesterday Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address the Congress in February, which he accepted. While on the surface this may seem relatively innocuous, it would not be the first time that he addressed Congress, in reality this invitation is an “in your face” move by Speaker Boehner and a direct challenge to President Obama. While technically not required, as the Speaker pointed out he can invite anyone he pleases to speak to Congress, it is highly unusual as the Speaker gave no advanced notice to the Obama Administration. Diplomatically, historically and in keeping with protocol, not to mention good manners, the Speaker should have coordinated the invitation with the administration. It is customary that a head of state invite, or at least tacitly agree to, another head of state coming to the United States on official business. And oh yeah. According to the Constitution, the Executive Branch is responsible for foreign affairs. This does not, of course, mean that the Congress does not have a role to play in oversight of foreign affairs. Indeed they do have a role and an important one at that. The Senate is tasked with the duty to “advise and consent” to Ambassadorial appointments, treaties and other functions related to foreign affairs. The House does not have that role, but they do control the money and that is the primary way that they influence such matters.
Equally rude was the revelation that Prime Minister Netanyahu did not inform the Obama Administration about the invitation either. It could be because the Israelis did not want to get in the middle of an American political dispute. It could be because the Prime Minister is himself in the middle of a contentious re-election campaign and an appearance before the U.S. Congress can only help him in his bid. It could be because the Israelis, and Prime Minister Netanyahu in particular, could care less about any American policies, they are only interested in protecting their own interests.
Why is this a big deal? Besides the theatrics and political gamesmanship, behind Speaker Boehner’s move is the ongoing negotiation with Iran about its nuclear weapons ambitions. Many Republicans, and some Democrats, (and certainly Prime Minister Netanyahu) believe that President Obama is about to make a “bad” deal with the Iranians that will give them the ability to produce nuclear weapons on short notice. Those that oppose any deal, or at least the deal currently under negotiation, with the Iranians want to impose more and more severe sanctions now on the Iranians and keep them on until they, in essence, capitulate and remove any nuclear capability whatsoever. The current negotiations would allow the Iranians to keep peaceful nuclear reactors for generating electricity and for research, but with significant restrictions and under a severe inspection regime. There are currently sanctions in place with Iran which, coupled with the dramatic drop in the price of oil, have a significant impact on their economy and brought some in their government around to the possibility of agreeing to the constraints on their nuclear program.
To be sure, there are Iranian hard-liners in influential positions in their government that oppose any deal. The current negotiations are not a sure thing. President Obama clearly states that there is “probably less than a 50-50 chance” of the negotiations succeeding. He is willing to put more sanctions in place if the negotiations fail, but strongly opposes any further efforts now as he argues that the chance of success will fall from 50-50 to zero. It will also have an impact on negotiations with other nations as the move would be perceived as the United States (and other nations, more on that shortly) reneging on their good faith negotiations.
These are not unilateral negotiations. Negotiating partners (sometimes referred to as the P5+1) include the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China working to get Iranian concessions on their nuclear program. In a press conference during his visit to the United States last week, British Prime Minister David Cameron said that he told U.S. senators that “it is the opinion of the U.K. that further sanctions at this point won’t actually help to bring the talks to a successful conclusion.” In today’s Washington Post the foreign ministers of France, Britain, Germany and the European Union wrote an opinion piece directed at the United States Congress delineating the progress made to date in gaining International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to Iranian reactors and other progress in providing oversight, and subsequent limitations, on the Iranian ability to produce a nuclear weapon. They ask that diplomacy be continued to allow further progress and specifically make the point that:
“new sanctions at this moment might also fracture the international coalition that has made sanctions so effective so far. Rather than strengthening our negotiating position, new sanctions legislation at this point would set us back.”
Given such overwhelming international support and concern, it baffles me why members of Congress would actively work to undermine our negotiating position. Several have advocated military action to prevent Iran from developing its nuclear capabilities, a view shared not coincidentally by Prime Minister Netanyahu. President Obama did not take military action off the table, stating only that it should, rightly in my opinion, be the “last resort” when no other option remains. We are not there and probably will not be there for some time.
I do not mean to impugn the good intentions or character of members of the House and Senate that truly believe that Iran poses an imminent threat to the United States and its allies. However, I do not believe that all of those that advocate increased sanctions on Iran do so out of that belief. I think that Speaker Boehner’s move to invite Prime Minister Netanyahu, who will undoubtedly advocate for increased sanctions, if not military action, against Iran is motivated by domestic politics to embarrass the president and to imply that the president is not concerned about the well-being of Israel.
Speaker Boehner is playing with fire. Perhaps he is trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy by pushing harsh sanctions on Iran, causing them to withdraw from the negotiations, and thus providing the opportunity to spout an “I told you so” about the president being naive, weak, a poor leader or all of the above. The usual talking points.
Again, the best analysis is that there is a 50-50 chance that the negotiations will succeed. The best analysis, including from our closest allies, is that harsher sanctions will doom the process and sink that chance of success to zero. The process has only a few more months to play itself out. Why must the Congress act now? Harsher sanctions may indeed be in order if the Iranians withdraw, or dissemble, or otherwise bargain in bad faith. But we are not there yet. This is a serious issue and there are serious arguments that can, and are, made on each side of it. In the end, our national security is only our business and no one else’s, we need to do what is right for our own national interests. Got it. Let the debate begin. But this spiteful move is not what one would expect from the Speaker of the House.
So why would he do this? To use a domestic political ploy to embarrass a sitting president of another party by playing with serious international problems. Speaker Boehner, you’ve made your point. You won’t be ignored. Now let’s get serious.
Just Get On With It Already
Posted: January 15, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Environment, Keystone XL Pipeline, Politics Leave a commentAs many of you know, the first real order of business for the new Congress last week was to address the building of the Keystone XL pipeline. This is the project that will bring Canadian shale oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico down the middle of the United States. The project is 1200 miles of pipeline from the Canadian border to Nebraska where it will meet up with existing pipelines.
As I’ve written before, to me this is a tempest in a tea pot (and I do not mean Teapot Dome). Let’s just get on with it and build the thing. Too much time, energy, money and political capital have been spent on an issue that has not really been addressed on the merits, or lack thereof, of the issue, but rather on the symbolism attached to it by both those that support the project and those that oppose it.
Last week the House voted 266-153 on a measure that pushes the project forward. The Senate is preparing to debate their version of the bill and it is likely to be a long and contentious session because in addition to the emotion surrounding the issue, there is a long list of proposed amendments to the bill ranging from the science behind climate change to the requirement to use United States produced steel in the construction of the pipes used.
President Obama has already threatened to veto any bill requiring its construction. Primarily, the stated reason is that it violates the Constitutional powers awarded to the Executive Branch of our government. The argument is that the State Department makes the final recommendation to the president because it involves foreign nations and treaty obligations. Perhaps. Primarily, in my view, the president threatened a veto of an as yet unpassed bill in order mollify his supporters that have decided this pipeline is an affront to our national goals regarding the environment.
To this writer, the emotion surrounding the issue has taken over any modicum of common sense. Those that support the pipeline claim that it will rejuvenate the economy, create tens of thousands of new jobs, and support a renewed infrastructure. Those that oppose it argue that it will be environmentally destructive and create Green House Gas (GHG) emissions of biblical proportions (well, maybe a slight exaggeration on my part). As usual, the truth is somewhere else.
Both supporters and opponents point to the same impact study conducted by the State Department. The report, known as the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Project analyzes the “environment” in the largest sense — that is both the natural environment and the economic environment and the impacts the project probably will and will not have on the United States. (You can find the Executive Summary that contains the most pertinent facts here.) Not surprisingly, supporters and opponents have cherry picked the facts that best support their argument.
In looking at some of the numbers bandied about, keep in mind that the Canadian shale oil deposits are already being used and that oil from them is already being transported to sites around North America. Not building the pipeline will not keep the Canadians from developing those sites. There is also a fly in the ointment as I write this and that is the fact that the price of oil plummeted over the last few months. Good news for those of us at the gas pumps, but it may have an impact on the development of the oil shale deposits as estimates project that oil needs to be in the $65-$75 range in order to make a profit. However, such projects are not started and stopped in short order. Currently experts do not believe that oil will stay at such low prices forever, and they are planning two to three years out when the price of oil is likely to be profitable again for these, and other similar deposits.
One of the most disputed facts thrown about is the number of jobs created with this project. Proponents argue that the State Department study says that 42,100 jobs will be created. Opponents say that the study says that it will only be about 50 jobs. They are both right. The study says that while building the pipeline, 42,100 “direct, indirect and induced” jobs are created of which 3900 would be as a result of actual construction and last for about a year (or, the report says, half that number for two years, depending on how fast it gets built). The 3900 would be “direct” jobs. The “indirect” are things such as the folks that manufacture the pipes for the line, or trucks to move dirt and the like. The “induced” are things like restaurants, movie theaters and other businesses where people with money in their pockets from working on the line will spend their hard-earned cash. Note that they do not say that these will all be “new” jobs as is often argued. The report actually says that there will be about 50 new jobs when construction finishes (45 permanent workers and 15 contractors). But for argument’s sake let’s use the 42,100 figure. That equates to an increase of 0.02% to the annual economic activity of the country. For one year. Not exactly the savior of the economy it is made out to be. For further comparison, there have been approximately 250,000 new jobs created each month for seven of the last nine months. The Keystone pipeline is, at best, a drop in the bucket.
Likewise those predicting an environmental disaster use the State Department report to their advantage. But they also leave out some key data. Remember, the oil is going to go to market. Regardless of U.S. environmental wishes, the Canadians are going to move that oil. Currently, much of it goes by trucks and rail cars. This is the “no action alternative” referred to in the report. In other words, if the pipeline is not built. According to the report, Green House Gas (GHG) emissions will increase by 28-42% if the pipeline is not built. Likewise, it seems that moving the oil by pipe is safer to the community than having trucks and rail cars that are subject to accidents move it. The report also addresses the possibility of oil spills via a leak in the pipeline, and while agreeing that it could have significant local effects, the overall chance of it is very small and the overall environmental impact would be small. There is a lot of experience gained in building the tens of thousands of miles of current pipelines and the technology today is significantly enhanced.
To be clear, I think that our country must move to develop non-fossil fuel alternatives as quickly as possible. I am not for pollution and I believe that we have significant work to do to clean up our environment, to which fossil fuels are a major contributor of pollution. The reality, unfortunately, is that we are not there yet. Perhaps some day, but not yet. Building this pipeline will have little to no impact on cleaning up the environment as it will exist over the near future. Likewise, building or not building this pipeline will have little impact on jobs in the economy.
Thus my point. To me, this is indicative of the way the House and Senate operate today. Little real progress occurs while litmus tests of purity on emotional issues take priority and pose as substantive measures supporting the “American people.” The reality is that the arguments for and against the Keystone pipeline have little to do with the good of the country and a whole lot more to do with the well-being and financial gains of the members of political parties that take one side or the other and exploit it for their gain.
President Obama can move past this by announcing tomorrow that he has accepted the State Department’s report and approved the building of the pipeline. No legislation necessary. Maybe then we can move on to the issues confronting our country that have true bipartisan support such as tax reform and rebuilding our roads, bridges and other infrastructure that is the real lifeline of our economy.
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Posted: December 11, 2014 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Politics, Select Committee on Intelligence, Terrorism 1 CommentTwo recent Congressional committee reports made the news in the last few days. The first was from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chaired by Representative Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) on the events in Benghazi on 11 September 2012, and the second is the report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence chaired by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program. These reports show how well the system can work, as well as how sometimes the system fails itself and our nation.
The House report on Benghazi was the seventh such investigation into the events of that night when terrorists attacked the American Consulate in Benghazi Libya and four of our citizens died, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya. This investigation and the resulting report is meant to be the final and definitive report on the events surrounding that tragic loss of life. It will not be. Influential Republicans in the House and the Senate do not like the results of the investigative report, chaired by a Republican and that garnered bipartisan support from the committee members, and therefore are going to open yet another committee investigation. This is because it uncovered no evidence of a conspiracy or cover-up or any other devious behavior by the Obama Administration. They are sure that it happened, even if there is not a bit of evidence to support their claim. I am also sure that their desire for yet another investigation has nothing to do with the fact that Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State during that time and is likely to run for president in 2016. They are merely trying to satisfy “the American people.”
Even a cursory reading of the Executive Summary of the report shows that the Select Committee exhaustively reviewed documents and diplomatic cables, conducted hearings and interviews and thoroughly reviewed the mountains of evidence surrounding the incident. Their conclusion was that “appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night” and that contrary to rumors perpetuated for political purposes “the Committee found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support.” They also concluded that “there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks.” Further, despite continued claims by those not involved, they found that “there was no evidence that any officer was intimidated, wrongfully forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement or otherwise kept from speaking to Congress or polygraphed because of their presence in Benghazi.”
That is not to say that there were no problems. The Committee findings include the fact that “after the attacks the early intelligence assessments and the Administration’s initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate.” They state that the initial reports were confusing and conflicting (also known as the fog of war) and inaccurate information was disseminated prematurely. The assessments changed after further investigation and the receipt of more information, about ten days after the event. They also discuss the infamous talking points process that provided Ambassador Susan Rice information when she appeared on Sunday talk shows. They call the process “flawed” but did not conclude that it was a deliberate attempt to cover anything up or to mislead the public. It should also be noted that the Administration corrected the record as additional evidence came to light. (As a side note, I continue to be baffled by the unprecedented and unremitting attention paid to these talking points by some political opponents of the president, rather than on the facts of what happened. Talking points? Really? That’s what is important?)
There is more to the report, obviously, but these are the key findings and directly rebut the persistent rumors that continue to exist about cover-ups and abandoning our citizens. Yet, the report, crafted by a Republican majority committee and joined by Democrats does not satisfy conspiracy theorists, or those that blatantly use mis-truths for their own political purposes. So, we will now, for the eighth time, have yet another committee investigate at a cost in time and money that could best be used to govern the country.
Perhaps more newsworthy was the Senate report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation techniques following the attacks on 11 September, 2001 — “enhanced interrogation” techniques or “torture” depending on one’s view. This, again, was an exhaustive study which took many years of investigation and work to compile. It has less bipartisan support than the House report, but it does have the support of some Republican Senators (notably John McCain (R-Arizona) who knows torture) and the opposition of some Democrats.
I am sure that debate over this issue will continue into the foreseeable future, and I am not sure that there is only one “right” answer. There is a lot of criticism over the timing of the release of the report, with some asserting that it will lead to terrorist attacks on our men and women around the world. I am not sure what would be a “good” time to release the report. To my knowledge, terrorists and those that work to undermine our nation go to work everyday and already, in their minds, have sufficient motivation to attack us regardless of any report from Congress. Let me also short-circuit any claims that anyone in our country wants to coddle the terrorists or has any sympathy for them. People I know hope they rot in hell, they are evil beings, so this issue has nothing to do with going easy on terrorists.
I have tremendous sympathy and respect for most of the key decision makers following the attacks. They were under tremendous pressure to make sure that no further attacks were imminent or planned and they were focused on the need to safeguard our country. I get that. I also think that the discussion over how much or what kind of intelligence was gained, or not gained, is misguided. Few of us outside of positions of authority that require very high intelligence clearances knows exactly what was obtained or from what source or from what method. (Although I will point out that members of the Select Intelligence Committee do meet that high bar, as obviously do CIA personnel.) However, there are many experts that contend torture is counter-productive in the long run and generally leads to poor intelligence. There are better and more productive ways to gain valuable intelligence from detainees and prisoners that do not include torture.
To me there is only one bottom line argument. The United States is different from other countries in the world, and thank God for that. Most countries would not do such an introspective study of such a serious, contentious, and classified operation. We do, and we try to learn from it.
More importantly, we are different because we act differently. We don’t do torture. I know all of the moral and ethical hypotheticals (if you knew you could shoot one person, even if illegally, and save thousands in the process would you do it? Etc. Etc.) I am talking about state sponsored, systematic, wide-spread, ongoing operations the scope and nature of which apparently was hidden for a long time from key elements of our government (seemingly including the president, Secretary of State and Congress). We do not do it and we should not do it. Otherwise, we are no different from the forces we aim to defeat.
I am no Pollyanna. I know what goes on in the world and I have a good idea that bad things happen to bad people in our name as a nation. This is different. I am glad that it is in the public spotlight and hope that our nation can have an intelligent discussion about what we stand for as a country and where we should draw the line on official activities.
Just two examples of the good, bad, and ugly of life today.
Immigration
Posted: November 24, 2014 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Immigration, John Boehner, Politics Leave a comment“We’re all very different people. We’re not Watusi. We’re not Spartans. We’re Americans with a capital “A”. You know what that means? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world.” Bill Murray as “John Winger” in the movie Stripes.
President Obama’s speech last Thursday outlining an Executive Order regarding immigration raised a national hue and cry about the merits of his actions. Some applauded it, some opposed it on Constitutional grounds and some opposed because, because, well I’m not quite sure why they opposed it, but they sure are vociferous about it.
I am not a Constitutional lawyer and so I will leave it to the experts (of which I’ve heard very few certified experts weigh in — and they seem to be split) as to the Constitutionality of his actions. It seems from what I read that there is merit to his claim that it is within his power, as well as precedents by previous Republican and Democrat presidents, but I’ll keep an open mind about it as it plays out. I’m more interested in trying to take the emotion out of it and trying to discern the facts surrounding the issue.
The Pew Research Center did significant research into the immigration issue and continues to do so. Interestingly, they find that 75% of Americans surveyed believe that our immigration laws need “to be completely rebuilt” or have “major changes.” Only 21% said that the laws are fine or need only “minor changes.” So it would seem that many United States citizens are looking for the laws to change. There is less agreement on what those changes should be, but still nearly 73% of those surveyed believe that there should be a way for undocumented immigrants to stay in the country legally. There is far less agreement on the means to allow them to stay, ranging from permanent residency only to the belief that there should be a path to citizenship, even if it isn’t an easy one.
They also reveal that there is a misperception on current enforcement of the border. In recent years, over 400,000 undocumented immigrants were deported. Significantly higher than for most of the last twenty years. Conversely, the number of illegal immigrants in the United States also increased over those twenty years — although it is down over the last six years. In other words, there are lots of ways to look at the numbers, but one cannot argue that there is no, or lax, enforcement at the borders. To be realistic about it, there will never be (or almost certainly a nearly non-existent chance) a time where no one crosses the border illegally. We should also note, that not all of those undocumented immigrants are crossing the border illegally. There is a significant portion that came to the United States legally, but never left. Many of those are in college or in jobs that contribute to the American economy. Indeed, according to the Pew Research Center, Americans are nearly evenly split on whether the presence of undocumented immigrants helps or hinders our economy. According to their survey, 49% believe their presence “strengthens” the economy and 41% believe that they are a “burden.”
Canards that undocumented immigrants are a pathway to terrorism, and even the spread of Ebola, are merely the hysterical statements of those desperate to get elected, or to find themselves in the news. There is no evidence of either taking place.
I am sympathetic to the argument that our country should not condone illegal activity and, some argue, short change those immigrants that play by the rules and wait years to legally enter the country as workers or permanent residents. I also argue that it is unrealistic to believe that we are going to round-up and deport 11 million people and send them to, to, where exactly is it that we are going to send them? And how? To say “back where they came from” is hardly realistic. And realism is what we need. Deportation, as has been accurately reported, will also tear families apart, as some family members are legal residents and some are American citizens. How do we deal with that reality? Talk about an impact on our economy and the militarization of our nation — try rounding up 11 million people from across every state in the Union and transporting them outside of our borders. Not to mention the impact on the stability of the rest of the world.
This is a knotty problem. There are no easy solutions. I keep coming back to the idea that our country is a nation of immigrants. I daresay many of us would not be upstanding, law-abiding citizens in our nation today if one of our ancestors had not immigrated from somewhere else. And recall that for much of our nation’s history, all you had to do was show up and find your own way. So what do we do today?
As you know, the Senate already addressed the issue. In June, 2013, nearly 16 months ago, by a vote of 68 to 32 a bipartisan bill passed. (Let us just note that in the current political climate, the Senate usually cannot muster 68 votes in favor of sending flowers on Mother’s Day.) The bill is not perfect, and reflecting its bipartisan flavor has something for everyone to dislike or like. It’s key provisions involve a pathway to citizenship that takes about twelve years and involves some very specific actions to make up for their previously illegal status. It also addresses increased border security, an expansion of high skill visas, a guest worker program and employment verification. All of the things that those serious about reforming our immigration laws, from both sides of the aisle, want to see.
This is where I am critical of the opponents to any reform. Speaker of the House John Boehner asked the president to “wait” and he will bring up the issue of immigration in the next Congress. I am not sure why the president would think that Speaker Boehner would follow through on that statement (when specifically asked, Speaker Boehner would not promise to bring up the issue). The House had nearly 16 months to act on a bill passed by the Senate and that the president said he would sign. And nothing happened. Nothing. Not a hearing in committee. Not a vote on the floor. Not an alternative bill that addresses the issue and that could then go to negotiations. Nothing. There is no reason to believe that anything would be different in the coming Congress. And by most Republican and Democratic polls, it would pass. But since politics and not what is good for the nation seems to dominate everything in the House of Representatives these days, Speaker Boehner will not bring it up because he knows he would need Democrat’s votes to pass it and he will only bring up bills that will pass with only Republican’s votes. I am not saying this hasn’t happened in the past or that Republicans are the only one’s to do this, but I am saying that in the past, both Republicans and Democrats brought important, but divisive within their own parties, bills to the floor that passed and the leadership did it because they thought it important to the country.
Those running around yelling “amnesty” should take another look at the Executive Order and at the Senate bill. There is no amnesty as defined by the dictionary. (“A pardon extended by the government to a group or class of persons, usually for a political offense; the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted.“) Amnesty means that there will never be any action taken against the perpetrators of the forgiven offense. This is not what the president did, and it is not what the Senate bill does. However, for those that just like to shout slogans, I suppose it gives them something to shout about.
I am with the president in this respect. If certain members of the House and Senate do not like what he has done, then pass a bill. They can undo what he has done. However, I do not think that no action is the way to go. In all the hand wringing and ‘toing and froing” I have yet to hear a serious proposal from the loyal opposition as to how they would deal with the issue. To coin a phrase, I suppose those opposed to any action on immigration advocate “don’t ask, don’t tell”. By doing nothing, they are endorsing the status quo. If only they would say so. However, I guess they can get more political mileage out of complaining rather than doing something.
Others more knowledgeable than I will decide the Constitutionality of the president’s actions. But I remind everyone that it will become a moot point if the House finally acts.
And We Let These People Vote…
Posted: November 13, 2014 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Historical Perspective, Politics, Voter Turnout 2 Comments… but they don’t do it. As you may have seen, it was widely reported that voter turnout for the election last week was the lowest since 1942, when the population may have been preoccupied by other matters. As tabulated by the United States Election Project , only 36.4% of the population eligible to do so voted. Within individual states there was a wide-ranging result. Indiana had the worst voter turnout at 28% and Maine had the best at 59.3%. While non-presidential election years are historically lower than when the presidency is up for election, such a low turnout is shameful.
There is much speculation as to why Americans do not vote and I cannot pretend to know why there is such low turnout. Some speculate that the low turnout this year was the result of a voter “protest” — not voting so as to show displeasure with the candidates. If this is the case, then I am not sure what impact those citizens thought that they were going to have. Somebody is going to get elected whether or not everyone votes. Non-voting only allows the respective base voters to dictate the results. Anyone that did not vote (and allowing for the fact that there are some people who were truly unable to vote for circumstance beyond their control) has no right to complain about the course our country takes with its incoming crop of elected officials. Not voting to protest the candidates is about as silly of a logic train as I can imagine in a democracy. As the saying goes, elections have consequences, and not voting increases the likelihood that as a society, we are not going to like those consequences.
I also truly hope that in the next two years (until the next election) I do not hear any politician of any stripe saying “what the American people want” based on the outcome of this election cycle. How can anyone possibly know what all of America wants (no one ever calls me to ask), especially when only about one-third of our fellow citizens participated. The primary purpose of an election in this country is to allow the American people to indicate what they want. I cannot believe that nearly two-thirds of the country simply does not care.
Some western nations — most famously Australia — have mandatory voting. I do not advocate that as I am not sure that it would work in our society and I can think of some serious “cons” to the “pro” of getting everyone involved. At least it would eliminate the need for the millions of dollars spent this year to get out the vote, money that could best be spent on other things, although I suppose it does help the economy, or at least the advertising industry and political consultants. The biggest argument against it in my mind (besides our national aversion to mandatory anything having to do with government) is that it would lead to people voting for officials or ballot measures of which little to nothing is known by the voter. Although that happens enough as it is.
The irony of this low voter turnout was brought home to me on Tuesday with the celebration of Veteran’s Day. Universally, people from all walks of life thanked our service men and women for their devotion to our country. Many in their tributes mentioned the right to vote and how precious that right is to us. A better tribute to our veterans than celebrity public service announcements would be for people to actually go out and vote. The defense of that right comes at a high cost. A visit to Arlington National Cemetery, especially Section 60 where many veterans of our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are buried, is a stark reminder. I have occasion to visit the National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland from time to time. One only has to spend about five minutes in any part of the hospital to see the tragic results of sending our young men and women to war. The results impact not only the lives of these young veterans, but also their families and friends. All are easy to spot and none ask for our sympathy or for anything else. I am amazed at their positive spirit and determination.
I often think of the young people I see there when I hear our elected leaders arguing for military involvement in this spot or another. It becomes real when you visit Section 60 or the military hospital in Bethesda. It would be good for all of our leaders to think beyond the political abstract and think in terms of real people being asked to sacrifice their future and their lives. These young folks will answer the call to go in harm’s way, but to them such decisions are not abstractions or theories or political gamesmanship. It is real.
And yet, we can only muster 36.4% of our eligible voters that manage to make it the polls.
Tom
Into The Fray 
Recent Comments