Sincere, But Just Plain Wrong

Posted: September 7, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 2 Comments

Rowan 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 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 1 Comment

I 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 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , | Leave a comment

Much 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 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

On 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 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , | Leave a comment

The 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.

Business As Usual

Posted: June 8, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

It is with some disappointment, but little surprise, that I note that it appears this Congress is going to do no better than the last several in seriously addressing our nation’s needs.  The elements of a “do nothing Congress” remain in place.  Sadly, this seems particularly true in the Senate with 5 Senators running for president (currently one Democrat and four Republicans) portending that there probably will be more grandstanding and less legislating in the months to come.

Three examples (there are other similar cases) outline my pessimism.  They are the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Highway Trust Fund (part of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Authorization Bill, known as “THUD”) and the Authorization for the use Of Military Force (AUMF or “Anti-ISIS Bill”).

At this point let me do a quick refresher on spending bills 101 in the U.S. Congress.  Authorization Bills set policy and funding limits for an agency or program.  They do not allow for the actual expenditure of money.  An Appropriations Bill is needed to actually spend money and sometimes, although a program is authorized, it does not receive the money — or at least all of the money — they thought they were going to have.  Authorizations have no real Constitutional basis but are the result of the way Congress has handled such issues since roughly the Civil War.  Appropriations are necessary under the Constitution in order for the federal government to spend money.   Authorizations usually cover two years (except for the Department of Defense which is done every year) while appropriations for all agencies and programs are done annually.

Throw on top of all of this that the Congress, and the federal government, are still operating under the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 — commonly known as “sequestration” or the draconian spending limits Congress set for itself to force a compromise, and then did not implement one, thus leaving those draconian cuts in place.

So what, you may ask?  First let’s take a look at the 2016 NDAA, and unfortunately, we must dig into the weeds a bit more.  In order to bypass the sequestration spending limits the Republican Congress proposes to put $38 billion into the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account.  The OCO is used to pay for war fighting and counter-terrorism operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Instead, the proposed bill directs the Defense Department to use the money (or at least a substantial portion of it) to pay for core costs that should be paid for under the regular budget accounts.  This is a direct attempt to over-ride sequestration for the Defense Department.  Why do this?  Because under the law, to increase Defense spending, cuts must be made in other areas of an already tight budget and the Republican leadership is not willing to do that.  Democrats are threatening to block the NDAA and the president is threatening to veto it for two reasons.  One, they think the hard choices should be made.  Two, and more importantly to them, they think there are domestic programs that need increases as well.  Part of the “deal” with the BCA was that all parties would suffer in order to force a compromise.  It didn’t happen and now, the Democrats argue, Republicans are trying to implement different rules for Defense than those that were originally agreed upon.  No one is sure what will happen in the coming days and weeks. Democrats do not want to look “anti-defense” and yet they cannot allow this budgetary legerdemain to stand as it will set a precedent that probably is not good for the long-term fiscal or policy interests of the U.S. And remember, this is just the authorization bill, they have yet to fully grapple with the appropriations bill that will actually spend money.

Similarly the Highway Trust Fund — used to build and maintain the nation’s federal highways, bridges and the like — is due to go bankrupt.  No agreement could be reached on how to fund it so for the thirty-third time (33!) in the past six years, a continuing resolution keeps it in operation until 31 July of this year.  The Highway Trust Fund was established with the Federal Highway Act of 1956 and resulted in the interstate highway system that became the backbone of commerce in our country. It gets its money from the federal fuel tax, which has not been raised in 22 years even though expenditures are outpacing income and our infrastructure crumbles. There is little agreement on how to continue to fund the program.  Many proposals made, none enacted.  There is little expectation that anything substantive will happen in July.

Besides being political footballs, these two bills represent many others that impact our economy and the ability to get things done.  Acquiring weapons, raising armies and navies and training the men and women to man them takes long-range planning, long-range contracts and long-range funding.  Building roads and bridges likewise takes long-range planning and funding.  When civilian contractors cannot expect to be reliably paid, they are reluctant to take on new work.  This hampers us all.  Most politicians agree that our defense is important (perhaps the most important thing that a national government does) and that our infrastructure needs significant upgrading and maintenance.  These programs also produce jobs, jobs, jobs, of which every politician of every stripe argues we need more. Just get on with it.

Not tied to spending is the dithering over the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) that President Obama sent to Congress in February to authorize our current military action against ISIS and other terrorist organizations.  It is now ten months since we began air operations against them.  Experts predict the AUMF will never come up for a vote. The most important role of Congress is to authorize the use of force by our military under the president as Commander-in-Chief and they won’t even take it up in committee, much less bring it to the floor for a vote.  I fail to understand why.  If the president’s proposal is lacking in some way — and several argue that it is — then fix it!  Pass your own legislation to authorize military force against ISIS and other terrorists.  Many (all?) of the fifteen or so (I lose track) Republicans running for president are critical of our current policies.  Four of them are Senators.  Bring up some legislation to get things moving.  To be fair, there is resistance on both sides of the aisle. Some Democrats complain that the proposal is too expansive and can get us involved in another Middle East war.  Some Republicans complain that the proposal is too restrictive and may preclude other courses of action should new developments occur. Okay — but I don’t see how doing nothing at all is productive. What it does do is allow the president to continue his current course of action — a good thing if one supports his policy.  Not so good if you don’t.  But the bottom line is the same either way — the Congress is abdicating its most important responsibility and has no immediate plan to do anything about it.

All I see is poor leadership.  All the way around.  Unfortunately, it is business as usual.

 

A Day To Remember

Posted: May 25, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: | 2 Comments

As we are inundated this weekend with advertisements for bed sales, car sales and myriad other Memorial Day sales and bargains, many Americans will also stop and remember those in uniform that have gone before us.  They, and their families, gave the ultimate sacrifice across our history in order to make our nation what it is today and to secure our freedoms.

This year is the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II.  We celebrated Victory in Europe Day (VE Day) earlier this month and we will celebrated Victory in Japan Day (VJ Day) on 2 September. There used to be a federal holiday celebrating Victory Day, but now only Rhode Island commemorates the holiday and it is mainly observed in passing with a small note in the news.

Today’s Washington Post has a wonderful piece on an American cemetery in Margraten, Netherlands.  The Dutch have never forgotten the sacrifices made by the 8300 Americans laid to rest there.  For generations, the Dutch, and a few Belgians, have adopted a headstone and cared for each and every one of those grave sites.  Indeed, there is a waiting list for people who would like to “adopt” a gravestone to care for it.  They take their responsibility seriously and often the care of a given headstone and burial plot is passed down through the years within the same family.  Yesterday, 6000 people gathered to observe Memorial Day at the cemetery.  An American holiday.  In Holland.  They have not forgotten.

As I write this in the comfort and safety of home, other Americans are on the front lines risking, and sadly losing, their lives so that we remain safe.

As we enjoy a day off from work, or a picnic or a boat ride, please take a moment to remember.  So many have given so much for all of us.  Thank you.

No Second Chances

Posted: May 14, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , | 2 Comments

The use of capital punishment, or the death penalty as many commonly refer to it, has been in the news over the last few weeks.  Much of the discussion revolves around the punishment phase of the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, better known as the Boston Marathon Bomber.  The guilty verdict delivered last month leaves the jurors with a choice between life in prison without parole or the death penalty.  Several families of the victims have argued that he should get life without parole rather than the death penalty. The judgement may be announced any day.

While the Tsarnaev trial has captured the majority of the headlines concerning the death penalty, another court case could have a larger impact on capital punishment in the United States.  On 29 April this year, the Supreme Court heard arguments on Glossip v Gross which has to do with whether certain drugs, specifically in this case the use of midazolam as part of a drug “cocktail” in lethal injections, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment contrary to the Eighth Amendment of our Constitution. While I am not an attorney, stick with me for a minute while I try to explain why this is an important case.

In previous cases, the Supreme Court allowed the use of a drug cocktail in administering capital punishment via lethal injection.  However, a few years ago many drug companies began to refuse to sell the drugs for use in capital punishment in the United States.  As the supplies dwindled, states began to use other combinations of drugs which resulted in botched executions in Ohio, Arizona and Oklahoma where the prisoners died agonizing deaths, sometimes taking up to two hours to die.  It is a botched execution in Oklahoma that led to the Supreme Court case.  The previous, and Supreme Court approved, cocktail used in lethal injections included a barbiturate that sedated the prisoner while two other drugs paralyzed  them and caused the heart to stop.  The current cocktail apparently is ineffective in sedating the prisoner and thus the pain induced by the other drugs is acutely felt.   Court watchers believe that the nine justices are split on the issue and that Justice Kennedy will be the swing vote in what is likely to be a 5-4 decision.

To me, there is a much bigger question, and that is whether or not the United States (for federal cases) or the individual states should carry the death penalty on their statutes.  18 states and the District of Columbia have no death penalty.  Two of those, New Mexico and Connecticut, have abolished the death penalty but did not make it retroactive to those already on death row.  Michigan was the first state to do away with it in 1846.  (There are two types of non-death penalty policies. Abolitionist is as it says — no death penalty for any crime.  Retentionist is keeping the death penalty for certain crimes, but as a matter of policy it is not used, but the policy could be changed in the future.)  The United States is one of the few nations — especially in the western world — that still carries out capital punishment.  For example, Article 2 of the European Union charter prohibits it.

There was a period in the United States where capital punishment was ruled unconstitutional. In the Supreme Court ruling in Furman v Georgia (1972) the death penalty was considered cruel and unusual because as it was then applied, the use of the death penalty was not consistent and was “wantonly and freakishly” applied.  The states quickly rewrote their laws regarding capital punishment and in Gregg v Georgia (1976) the new laws were deemed constitutional because they used objective criteria with limited discretion in their application and they were all automatically subject to appellate review. Additionally, the laws allowed for taking into account the record and character of the accused. Subsequent rulings have disallowed the death penalty in cases involving individuals with an intellectual disability or that are under 18 years of age at the time of the crime.

So, what impact will Glossip v Gross have?  Hard to say, of course, until a decision one way or another is handed down. From their comments, Justices Alito and Scalia believe that abolitionists are waging a “guerrilla war” against the use of the death penalty by making the drugs unavailable. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan from their comments seem to believe that the death penalty itself, not just the method used, is unconstitutional.  In June we should hear the result and whether the court rules on the use of the death penalty in general, or rules only in a narrow sense about the constitutionality of the current lethal injection protocol.

In anticipation of a Supreme Court ruling that the new methods of lethal injection are cruel and unusual, several state legislatures have begun altering their methods of execution.  In all 34 states that still have a death penalty (and the feds), lethal injection is the preferred method — indeed in some states it is the only method allowed by law.  That is changing. Some examples include Oklahoma and Wyoming where nitrogen gas will be used, Tennessee will use the electric chair, and Utah will use a firing squad.  Other states are considering laws where the drugs used for lethal injections will be a “state secret” that will not be revealed to the public (thus, I suppose, hoping that if people don’t know about it they won’t protest).

What is troubling to me is that these debates center only on what method of execution should be used rather than whether we should still be executing prisoners.  If the debate is only about the method of execution, then they should all bring back the guillotine.  Fast, painless, and permanent. Indeed, the term capital punishment comes from the Latin “capitalis” or “regarding the head” by which the ancient Romans meant beheading.  The French introduced the guillotine to be more “humane.” What is there left to debate?

One thing is for sure, capital punishment is irreversible.  Once you are dead, you are going to stay dead. This is particularly troubling to me when we increasingly see people being released from prison, and many from death row, that are found to be innocent of the accused crime.  The instances of this happening have increased dramatically with improvements in forensic science and especially with the use of DNA evidence.  Too many cases rely on the testimony of a witness that later recants their testimony, reveals that they were induced to testify or made it up to protect someone else. Others have been released because the methods used in a crime lab (such as the recent revelations about the FBI) were not as thorough or scientific as once believed.  Thirty years in prison is a long time for a crime not committed.  To be sent to eternity is a really long time for a crime not committed.  “Sorry” or “oops” is not acceptable.

That is not to say that we coddle criminals.  I avow that life in prison without parole is the right sentence for heinous crimes. That person will never walk the streets again.  Indeed, the families of several of Tsarnaev’s victims have asked for him to be sentenced to life without parole rather than killed.

There are other cogent arguments against the death penalty, in addition to the chance of making a deadly mistake.  In the Tsarnaev case for instance, there is no doubt he perpetrated the crime.  He admits it.  That does not necessarily make the use of capital punishment the right one for him.  In other situations, however, the legal argument for irrefutable evidence is, as we know, flawed as shown in so many recent cases.

There is also a moral argument — specifically that our government should not be in the business of executing its citizens.  It isn’t who we are as a nation.  Arguably, it is the grossest of violations of the human rights of citizens when a government kills its people.

There is no deterrent value in having a death penalty.  No reputable study shows any correlation between having a death penalty and the frequency of capital crimes.  Indeed, in recent years the anecdotal evidence is that as the use of capital punishment declined, so has the number of murders.

There are religious arguments against the death penalty.  Capital punishment is contrary to the teachings of many faiths around the world.  This is especially true if capital punishment is used as vengeance or retribution.

There are no reasonable financial arguments for capital punishment as opposed to life without parole. As explained by the Death Penalty Information Center (www.deathpenaltyinfo.org), many states and independent groups have done studies comparing the cost of the two, and in every case the costs associated with capital punishment exceed those for life in prison.  Using Maryland as an example (which has now abolished the death penalty), the study looked at cases from 1978 to 1992 and found that the cost for the legal process for imposing capital punishment was $3 million to $1.1 million for life without parole.

To be fair, it is easier for me to say what should or should not happen in capital cases because I have been fortunate enough to never have a family member or friend fall victim to such a crime. Everything is easier in the abstract.  However, I also note that increasing numbers of victims’ families — not just in the Tsarnaev case — are asking for life without parole rather than the death penalty.

To me, there is no argument.  We should do away with capital punishment.  In truth I do not think that will happen in the current case before the Supreme Court.  Perhaps it will at least spur more people to think more about whether we should continue to impose capital punishment and less about whether one way or another is “better” or “cruel and unusual.”  If we as a society get it wrong, there is no second chance to get it right.

 

It Will Be A Long Hot Summer

Posted: March 30, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 2 Comments

Reports 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 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

I 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.

 

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →