As the American media drones on about the primary defeat of a Virginia congressman, the lights may be going out around the Middle East.
A wound that started erupting in Syria has now brought infection to neighboring Iraq. The Islamic State of the Levant and Iraq (ISIS) has expanded its reach into many of Iraq's western provinces and the second city of Mosul. Its forces now have started moving towards the central government in Baghdad.
Some see this as a historical correction. From the Roman Empire through the Ottoman period to the League of Nations mandates, boundaries in the Middle East reflected the priorities of other states. Turkey and Israel alone relate to ethnic and historical boundaries.
ISIS militants, however, have imposed the most severe forms of Islamic law with the most violent measures. Hundreds have been brutally killed, including many beheadings. Hundreds of thousands have fled rule by terror.
At stake is the government of Iraq. The Iraq War left the nation in a fragile infancy as a democracy. Millions defied terrorists to dip their fingers in purple ink and vote. American forces remained available as part of a status of forces agreement that would allow the US military to help defend the democratic government when necessary.
Unfortunately, Obama has neglected the victory that American troops (agree or disagree) fought to achieve. He failed to reach a status of forces agreement with Iraq and painted it as his own success.
Well over a century ago, British controlled Egypt governed the Sudan. Egypt employed General Charles George Gordon to help defend their position in Sudan.
Britain had offended Sudanese Muslims, not with imperialistic greed, but their demand that the slave trade end. A charismatic leader, Muhammad Ahmad, emerged to give a religious cloak to discontent over the end of the slave trade, among other things.
Ahmad took on the name "Mahdi" which is something like a messiah. The Mahdi does not restore earthly or heavenly kingdoms, but sweeps through the land killing anything in his path.
The Mahdi annihilated those who would not join. He slaughtered almost all of the city of Khartoum, not just General Gordon and his Egyptian soldiers. Eventually he died at the hands of a British force under Lord Kitchener, sent too late to save Gordon and Egyptian allied troops.
The Mahdi of the 1880s and ISIS of today do not bring historical corrections. They bring only death and suffering. They do not debate the morality of saving other nations from dictators. They torture and destroy.
What has happened while Obama plays golf games and promotes Democratic candidates to high school students is the worst case scenario. A terrifying warlord has gained influence and momentum and could upset the entire political structure of the Middle East. We can turn on all the coal mines and oil and gas taps possible and do very comfortably without the resources of that part of the world. But millions could die and an entire region could lapse into anarchy, a dangerous proposition in the nuclear age.
One could not imagine a worse scenario in which to have a presidential disaster.
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Friday, August 30, 2013
Obama Is Another Politician Who Is "No Jack Kennedy"
In the 1988 vice presidential debates, Democratic nominee Lloyd Bentsen shoved a rhetorical shiv deep into George H. W. Bush's running mate Dan Quayle. Quayle somehow compared himself to John F. Kennedy and Bentsen responded with one of the great defining "gotchas" in debate history. "You, sir, are no Jack Kennedy."
Bentsen wanted to take a dig at Quayle, sure. But his greater intent lay in showing that Dan Quayle was not a serious enough individual to be so close to presidential power. Bentsen may have been right or wrong about that assumption, and curiously enough, he actually was not a friend of Kennedy's. But he did speak to the hearts of many who do worry about the White House not being in serious hands.
A little over 50 years ago, Kennedy confronted Cuba and the Soviet Union over missiles placed there by the Communist nations. Doing nothing meant accepting a mortal threat to the southeastern United States. Too much response could lead to regional or even global war. Kennedy knew about the missiles for some time before the public. In October 1962, it became international news. The president took 13 days to craft his response.
During the entire time, Kennedy met with a specially convened executive committee, nicknamed "ExCom." This committee included representatives from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Committee, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and others. Kennedy observed as they debated every possible option. From watching these debates, Kennedy was able to intelligently rule out some options, such as air strikes and invasions, while putting together the best peaceable alternatives. He preserved American integrity while achieving the national goal. Whatever other faults he had, John F. Kennedy knew how to use and listen to advisers during a world crisis.
Yesterday, Obama's top team on Syria met with congressional representatives to discuss US options. Meanwhile, Obama met with Magic Johnson.
That alone should be an impeachable offense. This man does not take his job seriously. He has no sense of priorities.
Bentsen wanted to take a dig at Quayle, sure. But his greater intent lay in showing that Dan Quayle was not a serious enough individual to be so close to presidential power. Bentsen may have been right or wrong about that assumption, and curiously enough, he actually was not a friend of Kennedy's. But he did speak to the hearts of many who do worry about the White House not being in serious hands.
A little over 50 years ago, Kennedy confronted Cuba and the Soviet Union over missiles placed there by the Communist nations. Doing nothing meant accepting a mortal threat to the southeastern United States. Too much response could lead to regional or even global war. Kennedy knew about the missiles for some time before the public. In October 1962, it became international news. The president took 13 days to craft his response.
During the entire time, Kennedy met with a specially convened executive committee, nicknamed "ExCom." This committee included representatives from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Committee, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and others. Kennedy observed as they debated every possible option. From watching these debates, Kennedy was able to intelligently rule out some options, such as air strikes and invasions, while putting together the best peaceable alternatives. He preserved American integrity while achieving the national goal. Whatever other faults he had, John F. Kennedy knew how to use and listen to advisers during a world crisis.
Yesterday, Obama's top team on Syria met with congressional representatives to discuss US options. Meanwhile, Obama met with Magic Johnson.
That alone should be an impeachable offense. This man does not take his job seriously. He has no sense of priorities.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Unleashing the Dogs of War . . . Or At Least A Limited Strike
The worst kept secret on the planet right now is that the United States, and perhaps other allies as well, will launch some sort of attack on Syria in the near future.
Last summer, Obama declared that one of his "red lines" was the use of weapons of mass destruction. Last week, someone in the Assad "administration" apparently used them to kill, among others, many hundreds of civilians.
US intelligence sources cite a strange intercepted phone call within the Syrian government camp as proof. A Syrian defense official demanded an explanation for why chemical weapons were launched. If one was forthcoming, the rationale has not yet been released.
This raises questions about the Syrian government. Was the attack the work of a rogue officer? Was it a direct order from the highest levels of government? Is the Syrian government even a cohesive unit anymore?
In any event, Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron seem to agree that a response must occur.
Cameron plans to consult with Parliament. At this time, however, Obama seems to have no plans to request authorization from Congress. Although some congressional Republicans have offered muted support, Senator Rand Paul (Ky.) claimed that Syrian events had "no clear national security connection" to the United States. Paul did not rule out action, but asked that Obama consult with Congress meaningfully before acting.
In this case, rushing to action within a few days does not seem absolutely necessary. The repulsiveness of the attack is not likely to wear out. Indeed the United Nations investigators will undoubtedly either uncover more evidence and details that maintain world disgust, or Syrian officials will block them entirely. The UN has requested four days, which does not seem unreasonable. President George W. Bush gave them much longer before launching war against Iraq.
Syria presents US policy makers considerable trouble. The rebel targets of government chemical weapons have shown themselves no less murderous than Assad's thugs. Islamicist rebels have slaughtered Roman Catholic clergy among many other innocents during their own reign of terror.
President Bush had some "good guys" to work with when he overturned Saddam Hussein's thugocracy. Syria seems to have few or no credible leaders who could make a peaceful republic work.
This limits Obama's options. Any Iraq style invasion would require a much more powerful force prepared to stay in place for much longer. Nation building would by necessity look more like colonization.
Any boots on the ground would likely end badly for the United States. In the mid 1980s, President Reagan deployed Marines to serve as part of a peacekeeping unit to try and bring stability to Lebanon. Terrorists killed over 200. After a few good-bye blasts from the USS New Jersey, American forces skedaddled.
The various Lebanese factions had no desire to play nice just because American and European soldiers showed up. They continued killing each other and blowing up heaps of rubble until they exhausted their will to fight. Lebanon has remained relatively peaceable ever since.
So ground based combat forces will not work.
That leaves air strikes and/or covert operations. The CIA does need to infiltrate Syria. To make reasonable decisions, American leaders need to have knowledge of what is going on and who makes it happen. It needs to monitor individuals and groups as they refine terror techniques. Covert teams can also find locations of important sites in case stronger military action is required.
Air strikes would have to be very precise and specific. Former Representative and anti-war crusader Dennis Kucinich noted that air strikes by American planes would make them Al Qaeda's air force. Indiscriminate targeting of Syrian government military forces would help clear the road for an even worse regime. Conversely, firing a couple of Tomahawk missiles in the general direction of Assad makes American power look downright petty and even silly.
Take the time to identify chemical weapons facilities. Only target them. Use weapons capable of doing the job, like daisy cutters. Cruise missiles may not deliver enough punch. This will achieve a limited goal and curb WMD attacks in the future without overly involving the US or using military action as a public relations stunt.
Obama must also prepare to stand by Israel. Attacks on Syria may provoke a response against Israel. Specific tactical actions may be necessary against any force deployed to strike Israel. On the other hand, it is difficult to see how effectively Syria could strike Israel while struggling in its own civil war.
Obama must make wise decisions here, stick by them, and articulate explanations. He must have the specific goal of curbing WMD usage while rebuilding respect for American power. If he covers his bases with Congress and the United Nations, this could help reconstruct respect for US foreign policy that has fallen greatly since Bush left office.
Many unmarked cliffs and chasms loom in the road ahead. Obama will have to tread carefully as he acts.
Last summer, Obama declared that one of his "red lines" was the use of weapons of mass destruction. Last week, someone in the Assad "administration" apparently used them to kill, among others, many hundreds of civilians.
US intelligence sources cite a strange intercepted phone call within the Syrian government camp as proof. A Syrian defense official demanded an explanation for why chemical weapons were launched. If one was forthcoming, the rationale has not yet been released.
This raises questions about the Syrian government. Was the attack the work of a rogue officer? Was it a direct order from the highest levels of government? Is the Syrian government even a cohesive unit anymore?
In any event, Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron seem to agree that a response must occur.
Cameron plans to consult with Parliament. At this time, however, Obama seems to have no plans to request authorization from Congress. Although some congressional Republicans have offered muted support, Senator Rand Paul (Ky.) claimed that Syrian events had "no clear national security connection" to the United States. Paul did not rule out action, but asked that Obama consult with Congress meaningfully before acting.
In this case, rushing to action within a few days does not seem absolutely necessary. The repulsiveness of the attack is not likely to wear out. Indeed the United Nations investigators will undoubtedly either uncover more evidence and details that maintain world disgust, or Syrian officials will block them entirely. The UN has requested four days, which does not seem unreasonable. President George W. Bush gave them much longer before launching war against Iraq.
Syria presents US policy makers considerable trouble. The rebel targets of government chemical weapons have shown themselves no less murderous than Assad's thugs. Islamicist rebels have slaughtered Roman Catholic clergy among many other innocents during their own reign of terror.
President Bush had some "good guys" to work with when he overturned Saddam Hussein's thugocracy. Syria seems to have few or no credible leaders who could make a peaceful republic work.
This limits Obama's options. Any Iraq style invasion would require a much more powerful force prepared to stay in place for much longer. Nation building would by necessity look more like colonization.
Any boots on the ground would likely end badly for the United States. In the mid 1980s, President Reagan deployed Marines to serve as part of a peacekeeping unit to try and bring stability to Lebanon. Terrorists killed over 200. After a few good-bye blasts from the USS New Jersey, American forces skedaddled.
The various Lebanese factions had no desire to play nice just because American and European soldiers showed up. They continued killing each other and blowing up heaps of rubble until they exhausted their will to fight. Lebanon has remained relatively peaceable ever since.
So ground based combat forces will not work.
That leaves air strikes and/or covert operations. The CIA does need to infiltrate Syria. To make reasonable decisions, American leaders need to have knowledge of what is going on and who makes it happen. It needs to monitor individuals and groups as they refine terror techniques. Covert teams can also find locations of important sites in case stronger military action is required.
Air strikes would have to be very precise and specific. Former Representative and anti-war crusader Dennis Kucinich noted that air strikes by American planes would make them Al Qaeda's air force. Indiscriminate targeting of Syrian government military forces would help clear the road for an even worse regime. Conversely, firing a couple of Tomahawk missiles in the general direction of Assad makes American power look downright petty and even silly.
Take the time to identify chemical weapons facilities. Only target them. Use weapons capable of doing the job, like daisy cutters. Cruise missiles may not deliver enough punch. This will achieve a limited goal and curb WMD attacks in the future without overly involving the US or using military action as a public relations stunt.
Obama must also prepare to stand by Israel. Attacks on Syria may provoke a response against Israel. Specific tactical actions may be necessary against any force deployed to strike Israel. On the other hand, it is difficult to see how effectively Syria could strike Israel while struggling in its own civil war.
Obama must make wise decisions here, stick by them, and articulate explanations. He must have the specific goal of curbing WMD usage while rebuilding respect for American power. If he covers his bases with Congress and the United Nations, this could help reconstruct respect for US foreign policy that has fallen greatly since Bush left office.
Many unmarked cliffs and chasms loom in the road ahead. Obama will have to tread carefully as he acts.
Monday, July 1, 2013
The Dangers of Meddling in Syria
Last month, experts testified to a House committee that inaction in Syria emboldened Iran. Not long after that, Senator John McCain predicted that "the entire Middle East is up for grabs, and our enemies are fully committed to winning." He urged Obama to lead.
The New York Times cited an estimate from the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that over 100,000 have died so far in the four year conflict. As in many such wars, civilians and their property take the brunt of the violence. Both sides seek to terrify the population into supporting its cause. Resources must be destroyed to deny their use to the enemy.
Such is the nature of "civil war." Even in the American Civil War, Union generals used artificial famine as a weapon in Georgia and the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.
Because of the misery inflicted by this war, many have urged Obama to get directly involved. Some cite humanitarian issues. Others point to Russia's support of the Assad regime, a government which has historically acted out against American and Israeli interests.
Just because there is a "bad guy" does not mean that he is opposed by a "good guy." President Assad is an authoritarian tyrant and supporter of terrorism. But would he be replaced by anything better? Rebel murder of a Syrian Roman Catholic priest tells the Western world otherwise. He was decapitated with an ordinary kitchen knife as fanatics shriekingly chanted "God is great!"
Do we really want that to run a Middle Eastern nation state?
Syria occupies a keystone position in the Eastern Mediterranean. North is Turkey, grumbling against a somewhat Islamacist government. Nearby lies Egypt, seemingly ripe for a military coup. Bordering Syria is Lebanon, who suffered a horrific civil war of its own in the 1980s. Spillover from the war could be destructive. A jihadist regime replacing Assad could be even worse.
The correct U. S. response should be a pox on both your houses. Do not get sucked into a race with the Russians over arming sides. Leadership should take the part of cooperative quarantining of the war within the bounds of Syria.
Yes this is a particularly horrible war. But there is nothing that the United States can directly do that will not make it worse on Syrians and threaten the degenerating stability of the region.
The New York Times cited an estimate from the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that over 100,000 have died so far in the four year conflict. As in many such wars, civilians and their property take the brunt of the violence. Both sides seek to terrify the population into supporting its cause. Resources must be destroyed to deny their use to the enemy.
Such is the nature of "civil war." Even in the American Civil War, Union generals used artificial famine as a weapon in Georgia and the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.
Because of the misery inflicted by this war, many have urged Obama to get directly involved. Some cite humanitarian issues. Others point to Russia's support of the Assad regime, a government which has historically acted out against American and Israeli interests.
Just because there is a "bad guy" does not mean that he is opposed by a "good guy." President Assad is an authoritarian tyrant and supporter of terrorism. But would he be replaced by anything better? Rebel murder of a Syrian Roman Catholic priest tells the Western world otherwise. He was decapitated with an ordinary kitchen knife as fanatics shriekingly chanted "God is great!"
Do we really want that to run a Middle Eastern nation state?
Syria occupies a keystone position in the Eastern Mediterranean. North is Turkey, grumbling against a somewhat Islamacist government. Nearby lies Egypt, seemingly ripe for a military coup. Bordering Syria is Lebanon, who suffered a horrific civil war of its own in the 1980s. Spillover from the war could be destructive. A jihadist regime replacing Assad could be even worse.
The correct U. S. response should be a pox on both your houses. Do not get sucked into a race with the Russians over arming sides. Leadership should take the part of cooperative quarantining of the war within the bounds of Syria.
Yes this is a particularly horrible war. But there is nothing that the United States can directly do that will not make it worse on Syrians and threaten the degenerating stability of the region.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)