Miss him now?
http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2012/05/bush-remarks-at-portrait-unveiling.html
---
Yesterday's unemployment figures simply validate my own oft expressed doubts.
Several days ago I referred readers to Hayek among others and John Taylor now does as well. (See 1 below.)
Obama began his presidential crusade flanked by Grecian Pillars apologizing for America and pledging to be a "trans-formative president." His love affair with himself caused him to talk as if he was delivering sermons on the mount. The dolts in the liberal press and media ate it up and Chris Matthews even got tingles up his leg. After today's employment debacle, Obama seems to have fallen off his narcissistic perch because his thirst for Change caused him to believe he could to drink his own "Kool Aid."
Any politician who drinks his own bath water is eventually doomed. When Obama started talking today the market was at one level and by the end of his now thread worn, vapid themes and hustler 'music man' speech the market sank lower. The king is naked and except for the diehards he looks smaller and smaller.
Obama is president because of his charlatan spell binding charisma but his presidency will be remembered for his and his staff's incompetency!
Even Clinton challenged Obama's characterization of Vulture Romney by saying Romney had a sterling record. Since Obama cannot run onhis deficient record he will increase the decibels of negative campaigning and I suspect it will simply boomerang and sink his aspirations for a second term.
Even Clinton challenged Obama's characterization of Vulture Romney by saying Romney had a sterling record. Since Obama cannot run onhis deficient record he will increase the decibels of negative campaigning and I suspect it will simply boomerang and sink his aspirations for a second term.
I am half way through "The Amateur" and it is evident from the various interviews and observations of those who know him best, worked with him, Michelle and VJ (Valerie Jarrett), they have misinterpreted why he was elected. Their 'manic mission' is out of sync with productive America and American aspirations but accords with the far Left and dependent , hanger-on society they helped create. (See 2 below - a repeat.)
---
I had an interesting conversation with my son earlier today and he inquired did I believe Romney had too many handlers and why politicians no longer feel they can say what they think.
I replied that, in my opinion, Romney would be wise to tell the voters: "Don't just elect me but give me a Republican Congress I can work with in order to implement the programs you elected me to do." He should also tell voters: "Initially my policies may produce true Hope but eventually, in order to reverse our past profligacy, my policies will bring about some pain but that is the medicine we must take and the price we must pay to get the train back on track. If, after four years, you are not better off, if the nation is not better off, if I have not restored justifiable Hope in America's bright future and you feel we are not headed in a positive direction then vote me out but don't elect me and then give me only half a loaf."
I doubt Romney handlers would agree so they might continue to l advise caution etc.
One thing Romney should not trap himself into is stating exact figures he hopes to accomplish, i.e, a specific level of where unemployment will be, where inflation will be etc.. It should suffice for Romney to say, I intend to reverse trends but cannot control world events because we are impacted by the results of the management of fiscal matters of other nations with whom we are commercially engaged. American can no longer operate in a commercial vacuum as perhaps was the case in the early 20th century. We are linked in a global economy and what we do impacts others and comparably so with what they do. (See 3 below.)
As for why politicians cannot embrace the Trumanesque style of 'Plain Talk?' In my opinion most are afraid to treat voters as adults for fear truth will hurt their chances of election and/or re-election. They also are fearful the press and media will attack them for being 'unfair' and discriminating towards the underprivileged class as they consistently do vis a vis Ryan and others who offer considered and thoughtful programs and policies that are worthy of being debated rather than dismissively rejected.
So what do they do? Some go into a shell, others resort to destroying their opponents and spread fear. If you respect a person you appeal to their intellect in the hope it will also ignite their emotions.
So what do they do? Some go into a shell, others resort to destroying their opponents and spread fear. If you respect a person you appeal to their intellect in the hope it will also ignite their emotions.
Spreading fear and lying is the Obama approach and reflects, in my opinion, his lack of faith in his own ability, as well he should, because he is incompetent and in over his head. The same for many of his appointments - particularly is this true of AG Holder.
Another reason, as cited repeatedly in "The Amateur" is Obama is infatuated with his own 'brilliance.' Therefore, it is possible he might have contempt for the voter's own intellect.
Another reason, as cited repeatedly in "The Amateur" is Obama is infatuated with his own 'brilliance.' Therefore, it is possible he might have contempt for the voter's own intellect.
To paraphrase Samuel Johnston, Obama has many ideas the only problem is they are all wrong.
Will we return to a campaign of straight talk? Perhaps but probably not in depth because politics is a nasty business and anyone who engages is driven more by power than propriety.
That said, I attended a meeting yesterday at which my State Senator and Representative, Buddy Carter and Dr. Ben Watson, talked about what was accomplished in the recent legislative session. Both are up for an unopposed re-election for two reasons. They serve a district that is mostly conservative and have less black voters. More importantly, their goal is to serve and do right by the citizens they serve. They were up front and honest and it was a refreshing and enlightening opportunity.
This is why I continue to urge voters to elect Meg Heap so we can restore integrity and ability to the critical office of County District Attorney. We now have one of the most inept occupiers of that office who was voted in simply because he was black.
When black voters realize voting for incompetents, because they are ethnic, hurts them perhaps they will begin to be more objective. I am not suggesting that white candidates are always competent but black voters expect whites to vote for their candidates but seldom have the intellectual integrity to cross over. This is a trait that smacks of prejudice and immaturity. One day, hopefully, black voters will mature and become more independent in their thinking and voting habits. Until then they will remain slaves of their own inability to reason.
The office of the district attorney should not even be a political one but based on competency and integrity. Thus, Meg is overqualified.
---
As 'fore' the market. It is performing as I thought based on my outlook for an economy - strangled by ideologues with Obama leading as the cheer leader .
Uncertainty breeds restraint and fear and Obama's 'Change' nonsense has led to uncertainty and dashed 'Hope.'
That said, should Romney's prospects of victory take hold, as I believe they will, I would think it could bring a modicum of rational 'Hope' to the market and act as a stabilizing force so I would not get too negative though, I do expect the market to sink lower if only for psychological, fundamental and technical reasons.
---
Like Major Bowes said when he spun that needle " Around and around she goes and where she stops nobody knows.) (See 4 below.)
---
Are our Nukes being neglected? (See 5 below.)
---
Thinking from a long time friend, underwater Navy demolition expert, fellow memo reader and client: "YESTERDAY – “11:05 AM The big tech sell off that's occurred over the last few weeks has resulted in valuations for many large-cap names once more falling to historically low levels. Here are some trailing P/Es for large-cap names, none of which take into account net cash and investments: Intel (INTC): 10.6. Microsoft (MSFT): 10.3. Apple (AAPL): 13.7. Google (GOOG): 15. Cisco (CSCO): 9. IBM: 13.6. EMC: 14.7. Dell (DELL): 6. H-P (HPQ): 5.1. On the other hand, Facebook (FB) still has a trailing P/E of 64.5.”
I remember 1950 when plenty of good stocks sold at 5 – 6 times earnings and yielded 5% - 8%. The recovery from 1932 lasted until WWII, 8 – 10 years. Anything is possible.
Only a strong US economy can lead to a stronger world economy. We can’t do it with exports because the rest of the world hasn’t the power to buy. We must do it by creating a (new) system that encourages economic expansion, therefore employment and thus spending. All done domestically. More government (nonproductive) jobs and more welfare (nonproductive) will not produce a recovery. More government spending (debt) helps in the very short run, but will produce inflation of the currency and completely kill the economy in the long run. Want $ 1,000 per loaf bread?
Look for more government spending (QE3) between now and November which should help those now in power. When the outcome of the election is clear, then maybe we will have a stronger market.
“THE BUSINESS OF AMERICA IS BUSINESS.”
---
My response: "I am posting your comments in my next memo. and am in general agreement. PE's can/probably will decline much further as 'Hope' vanishes but the values remain and all it requires is patience, balls, money and a new president."
---
Syrian rebels capture high profile Hezballah members. (See 6 below.)
Mubarak sentenced to life imprisonment. Muslim Brotherhood spokesperson says it was a light sentence.(See 6a below.)
---
Kissinger speaks out regarding Syrian intervention. (See 7 below.)
Another view. (See 7a below.)
Both views raise legitimate questions and lead to a conclusion that intervention is not warranted. If that is the considered opinion that will drive our foreign policy then I would expect more war because it is unlikely China and Russia will accord with our policies of intervention, we will not act outside the blessing of the U.N, which Russia and China will thwart, and finally we can no longer afford to intervene.
Welcome to the 21st Century, more wars and tensions which will end in probably WW 4, as previously suggested by Norman Podhoretz (The Cold War being WW 3.)
---
---
Have a great weekend.
----
Kissinger speaks out regarding Syrian intervention. (See 7 below.)
Another view. (See 7a below.)
Both views raise legitimate questions and lead to a conclusion that intervention is not warranted. If that is the considered opinion that will drive our foreign policy then I would expect more war because it is unlikely China and Russia will accord with our policies of intervention, we will not act outside the blessing of the U.N, which Russia and China will thwart, and finally we can no longer afford to intervene.
Welcome to the 21st Century, more wars and tensions which will end in probably WW 4, as previously suggested by Norman Podhoretz (The Cold War being WW 3.)
---
---
Have a great weekend.
----
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) Rules for America's Road to Recovery
As Hayek taught us, predictable policies will help restore economic prosperity and preserve freedom.
By JOHN B. TAYLOR
America's economic future is increasingly uncertain. In my view, unpredictable economic policy—massive fiscal "stimulus" and ballooning debt, the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing with multiyear near-zero interest rates, and regulatory uncertainty due to ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank financial reforms—is the main cause of persistent high unemployment and our feeble recovery from the recession.
A reform strategy built on more predictable, rules-based fiscal, monetary and regulatory policies will help restore economic prosperity. That will be a daunting task, of course, but as they undertake the necessary changes, reformers should pay close attention to what the great economist and philosopher Friedrich A. Hayek wrote in the middle years of the last century.
Hayek argued that the case for rules-based policy goes beyond economics and should appeal to all those concerned about assaults on freedom. He wrote in his classic 1944 book, "The Road to Serfdom," that "nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles known as the Rule of Law."
Hayek added, "Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand—rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one's individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge."
Rules-based policies make the economy work better by providing a predictable policy framework within which consumers and businesses make decisions. But they also protect freedom, a concept Hayek developed in his 1960 book, "The Constitution of Liberty."
David Gothard
Hayek traces the relationship of the rule of law to freedom back to Aristotle, and then to Cicero, about whom he wrote, "No other author shows more clearly . . . that freedom is dependent upon certain attributes of the law, its generality and certainty, and the restrictions it places on the discretion of authority." Hayek also quotes from the Second Treatise of Civil Government by John Locke, the father of classical liberalism who had a profound influence on America's Founding Fathers: "The end [meaning the purpose] of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom . . . where there is no law, there is no freedom."
Hayek understood that a rules-based system has a dual purpose—freedom and prosperity. Thus the needed reforms in America today—and in any society overburdened by government intervention—are supported by two constituencies: those focused on freedom and those focused on prosperity.
But skeptics ask how a system of policy rules can work when politicians and government officials want to "do something" to help the economy or feel public pressure to do so. A rules-based system with less discretion sounds good in theory, they say, but rules mean you do nothing, and that is impossible in today's charged political climate and 24-hour news cycle.
Hayek had an answer to this. In "The Road to Serfdom" he wrote that it was wrong to say that the "characteristic attitude [of a rules-based system] is inaction of the state" and presented a counter example to this common view, saying that "the state controlling weights and measures (or preventing fraud or deception in any other way) is certainly acting."
Consider other examples. Rules for monetary policy do not mean that the central bank does not change the instruments of policy (interest rates or the money supply) in response to events, or provide loans in the case of a bank run. Rather they mean that they take such actions in a predictable manner.
But in the years immediately preceding the 2008 financial crisis, monetary policy deviated from the more predictable rules-based policy that worked in the 1980s and '90s—i.e., the Federal Reserve held rates too low for too long. Moreover, government regulators did not enforce existing rules on risk-taking at banks and other financial institutions, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Then came the discretionary stimulus packages and exploding debt, the regulatory unpredictability associated with ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, which includes hundreds of rules still waiting to be written, and the unprecedented quantitative easing through which the Federal Reserve bought 77% of new federal debt in 2011.
The U.S. tax code has become particularly unpredictable. The number of provisions expiring has skyrocketed to 133 in 2010-12 from 11 in 2000-02. And now the epitome of unpredictable policy is upon us in the form of a self-inflicted "fiscal cliff" where virtually the entire tax code will be up for grabs by the end of this year.
It is deviation from a rule or a strategy that creates uncertainty and hinders prosperity. Thus, regulators who decide not to act when financial institutions take on risk beyond the limits of the rules and regulations are not being faithful to the law and indeed to the rule of law.
What can citizens do to achieve a more rules-based system? Here Hayek issued a warning. In a chapter in "The Road to Serfdom" called "Why the Worst Get on Top," he argued that there is a bias against individuals in government who firmly believe in rules-based policy. People who have the ambition to get to the top frequently have a bias toward discretionary interventionism, whether motivated by the desire to capture regulatory agencies on behalf of clients, advance the interests of cronies or indeed simply to position themselves for further career advancement later on.
Those who benefit directly from interventions will work hard to make sure that officials who favor discretionary activism advance. Firms in the financial industry, for example, that benefit from a bailout mentality will favor officials who are comfortable with bailouts. Perhaps the answer is to find people who are "overcommitted" to rules-based policy. Then, after all the inevitable pressures and perverse incentives, they may emerge with a sensible balance.
Some will claim, of course, that crises force policy makers to deviate from predictable rules. One can argue that bailouts and other discretionary interventions were needed during the panic of the fall of 2008, and perhaps they prevented a more serious panic. But that is like saying that the person who set fire to your house should be exonerated because he helped put out the fire and saved a few rooms.
Mr. Taylor is professor of economics at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. His book, "First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America's Prosperity" (Norton 2012), was awarded the 2012 Hayek prize by the Manhattan Institute. This op-ed is adapted from his Hayek Prize Lecture delivered on May 31.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------2) THIS MAN IS RIGHT
StratCom Boss Says Nukes in ‘Bad Shape
By Michael Hoffman
The U.S. nuclear weapons complex is in “really bad shape” after the country’s failure to invest in industry and the national laboratories after the Cold War, the top U.S. nuclear commander said.
Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler, head of U.S. Strategic Command, said the U.S. has let the infrastructure that supports the country’s nuclear stockpile slip. He’s confident in the level of funding for the nuclear weapons complex for 2013, but the commitment beyond has left him worried.
“The part of the budget in fiscal year 13 that concerns me the most is the part associated with the nuclear weapons complex, the extended nuclear weapons complex,” Kehler told a crowd Wednesday at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington D.C.
Kehler took over Strategic Command, which oversees all U.S. nuclear weapons, in 2011 after leading Air Force Space Command for four years. He made it a priority to visit every national nuclear laboratory and the entire nuclear production complex in his first 90 days as commander.
“What I found was confirmation of what I’ve been reading. In some places the infrastructure is in really bad shape -- really bad shape,” Kehler said.
The White House had planned to defer construction on a new plutonium facility in Los Alamos, N.M. However, the House Armed Services Committee reversed that and added $320 billion to the budget to keep it on track.
Kehler said the U.S. has the appropriate amount of funding to meet the 2018 implementation deadline for the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty even though some critics say the White House has not lived up to commitments in their budget request.
The Air Force four-star commended Congress for funding nuclear delivery platforms such as the Air Force’s planned long range bomber and the follow on to the Ohio-class submarine. However, he’s more worried about the weapons than the delivery platforms.
The U.S. has long planned for a life extension plan for its B61 nuclear bombs. However, the cost for the program has grown to $4 billion. The White House recommended the military slow down the program and reduced funding for it to $369 million next year.
The House Armed Services Committee has since boosted the funding to $435 million in 2013 to keep the program on track. Kehler said similar investments must be made to maintain intellectual capital in the nuclear weapons complex.
“We do have aging weapons. We do have a series of weapons that are due for life extensions,” Kehler said. “That in and of itself will help the labs to retain and in fact recruit some new, bright, young, shiny kinds of engineers and scientists that they need.”
He acknowledged the political debate over the number of nuclear weapons the U.S. should maintain in its stockpile. No matter if the stockpile grows or shrinks to zero, the U.S. will have to depend on the labs and industry to reach those goals, Kehler said.
“You have to have this enterprise to take care of [nuclear weapons],” he said. “The ’13 budget contains appropriate investment in those activities. What I’m concerned about though is that beyond ‘13 we don’t have a plan that closes.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Syrian rebels abduct 5 top Hizballah officers, including Nasrallah’s nephew
HIzballah security chief Wafiq Safa married to Nasrallah's sister
The Lebanese Shiite Hizballah, after a 25-year record of kidnap and murder against Israelis, Americans and other Westerners, was dismayed to find the shoe on the other foot this week when Syrian rebels, including members of the Syrian Free Army, announced they were holding two separate groups of its members.
The first group of eleven was captured May 22 in a bus heading home through Aleppo from a pilgrimage to Iran. The second episode sent shock waves rolling as far as Tehran and the Al Qods Brigades command. Military and intelligence sources reveal still unidentified commandos, guided apparently by precise intelligence, this week commandeered a Hizballah vehicle driving through Syria and captured five top-ranking Hizballah officers. A sixth escaped. Upon reaching Beirut, he reported the officers were being held hostage by the SFA.
Despite the veil of secrecy clamped down on the episode, those kidnapped officers are Ali Safa, a senior officer of Hizballah’s intelligence service and nephew of Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. (His father Wafiq Safa, head of the organization’s internal security agency, is married to Nasrallah’s sister.)
The abducted party also included Hussein Hamid, Dep. Commander of Hizballah forces in South Lebanon; Ali Zerayb, member of the Hizballah Jihad Council – the equivalent of its general command; Hassan Arzouni, chief of intelligence in the Bint Jbeil district bordering on Israel; and Aras Shoeib, head of training in the Beqaa Valley of E. Lebanon.
The group was reportedly ambushed 15 kilometers west of Damascus after they left the Syrian military base of Al-Hame 4 kilometers from the Syrian capital. It is there that Hizballah maintains its heavy Scud D long-range missiles, as well as its Fajr, Zelzal and Fateh 110 rockets.
It is suspected at Hizballah headquarters in Beirut that the vehicle carrying the officers was tracked from the air and directions were beamed down to the abductors who waited in ambush. Hizballah’s masters in Tehran were dismayed to find the core leadership of their Lebanese surrogate had fallen into hostile hands amid the international crisis befalling their foremost ally, Syrian President Bashar Assad - and practically under his nose. 6a)/Egypt's Mubarak sentenced to life in prison
By REUTERS
Egypt's Mubarak hit by 'health crisis' after guilty verdict
r
CAIRO - Deposed Egyptian leader Hosni
"Mubarak was afflicted by a health crisis upon his arrival at Torah Prison and is being treated in the helicopter," the report said, quoting a medical source, referring to the helicopter that transferred him to the jail.
It was the first time a deposed Arab leader had faced an ordinary court in person since a wave of uprisings shook the Arab world last year, sweeping away four entrenched rulers.An Egyptian judge convicted Mubarak of complicity in the killings of protesters during the uprising that ended his 30-year rule.
The ruling came at a politically fraught time for Egypt, two weeks before a run-off in its first free presidential election that will pit the Muslim Brotherhood, which was banned under Mubarak, against the deposed autocrat's last prime minister.
Mubarak, propped up on a hospital stretcher and wearing dark sunglasses, heard the verdict with a stony expression. He had been wheeled into the cage used in Egyptian courtrooms, while the other defendants stood.
Demonstrators outside the court, many of whom had been demanding the death penalty for Mubarak, greeted the verdict with fireworks and cries of "Allahu akbar (God is great)".
Soha Saeed, the wife of one of about 850 people killed in the street revolt that toppled Mubarak on Feb. 11, 2011, shouted: "I'm so happy. I'm so happy."
Some people inside the court who had wanted a death sentence scuffled with guards, decrying the Mubarak-era judiciary. "The people want the judiciary cleansed!" they chanted.
Judge Ahmed Refaat opened the proceedings by calling the start of Mubarak's trial on Aug. 3 a "historic day". He hailed Egyptians for removing the only leader many of them had known.
"The people of Egypt woke on Tuesday, Jan. 25, to a new dawn, hoping that they would be
Total silence fell over the courtroom in the moments before Refaat announced his verdict. The crowd outside then erupted in joy. Anti-Mubarak demonstrators and a smaller crowd of his supporters threw stones at each other and at police.
The judge also sentenced Mubarak's former interior minister, Habib al-Adli, to life in prison. He sentenced Mubarak's two sons Alaa and Gamal to time already served after convicting them on some corruption charges and acquitting them on others.
Six security officials were acquitted. Many Egyptians are angry that the hated police force, blamed for many of the deaths in the uprising, and other pillars of Mubarak's rule have survived his downfall intact.
A helicopter had flown Mubarak to the court on the outskirts of Cairo from the military-run hospital where he has been held in custody.
Egyptian state television said the prosecutor-general had ordered that Mubarak be transferred to prison from hospital
Hundreds of police with riot shields and batons surrounded the police academy where the 10-month trial has been held.
"Enough talk, we want execution!" protesters chanted outside before the verdict.
Few Egyptians had expected Mubarak would go to the gallows, although protesters have often hung his effigy from lamp posts.
"I want nothing less than the death penalty for Mubarak. Anything less and we will not be silent and the revolution will break out again," Hanafi el-Sayed, whose 27-year-old son was killed early in the uprising, said just before the verdict. He had travelled from Alexandria for the trial.
In a June 16 and 17 run-off, Ahmed Shafiq, an ex-air force chief like Mubarak, will face the Brotherhood's Mohamed Mursi.
Shafiq has called his former boss a role model. His Islamist rival says that if he becomes president he will ensure enough evidence is produced to keep Mubarak behind bars for life.
"It is not possible to release Mubarak," Mursi told Reuters on Thursday. "I promise the martyrs (of the uprising) will retrieve their rights in full, God willing."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------7)Syrian intervention risks upsetting global order
By Henry Kissinger
Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977.
The Arab Spring is generally discussed in terms of the prospects for democracy. Equally significant is the increasing appeal — most recently in Syria — of outside intervention to bring about regime change, overturning prevalent notions of international order.
The modern concept of world order arose in 1648 from the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War. In that conflict, competing dynasties sent armies across political borders to impose their conflicting religious norms. This 17th-century version of regime change killed perhaps a third of the population of Central Europe
To prevent a repetition
of this carnage, the Treaty of Westphalia separated international from domestic politics. States, built on national and cultural units, were deemed sovereign within their borders; international politics was confined to their interaction across established boundaries. For the founders, the new concepts of national interest and balance of power amounted to a limitation, not an expansion, of the role of force; it substituted the preservation of equilibrium for the forced conversion of populations.
The Westphalian system was spread by European diplomacy around the world. Though strained by the two world wars and the advent of international communism, the sovereign nation-state survived, tenuously, as the basic unit of international order.
The Westphalian system never applied fully to the Middle East. Only three of the region’s Muslim states had a historical basis: Turkey, Egypt and Iran. The borders of the others reflected a division of the spoils of the defunct Ottoman Empire among the victors of World War I, with minimal regard for ethnic or sectarian divisions. These borders have since been subjected to repeated challenge, often military.
The diplomacy generated by the Arab Spring replaces Westphalian principles of equilibrium with a generalized doctrine of humanitarian intervention. In this context, civil conflicts are viewed internationally through prisms of democratic or sectarian concerns. Outside powers demand that the incumbent government negotiate with its opponents for the purpose of transferring power. But because, for both sides, the issue is generally survival, these appeals usually fall on deaf ears. Where the parties are of comparable strength, some degree of outside intervention, including military force, is then invoked to break the deadlock.
This form of humanitarian intervention distinguishes itself from traditional foreign policy by eschewing appeals to national interest or balance of power — rejected as lacking a moral dimension. It justifies itself not by overcoming a strategic threat but by removing conditions deemed a violation of universal principles of governance.
If adopted as a principle of foreign policy, this form of intervention raises broader questions for U.S. strategy. Does America consider itself obliged to support every popular uprising against any non-democratic government, including those heretofore considered important in sustaining the international system? Is, for example, Saudi Arabia an ally only until public demonstrations develop on its territory? Are we prepared to concede to other states the right to intervene elsewhere on behalf of coreligionists or ethnic kin?
At the same time, traditional strategic imperatives have not disappeared. Regime change, almost by definition, generates an imperative for nation-building. Failing that, the international order itself begins to disintegrate. Blank spaces denoting lawlessness may come to dominate the map, as has already occurred in Yemen, Somalia, northern Mali, Libya and northwestern Pakistan, and may yet happen in Syria. The collapse of the state may turn its territory into a base for terrorism or arms supply against neighbors who, in the absence of any central authority, will have no means to counteract them.
In Syria, calls for humanitarian and strategic intervention merge. At the heart of the Muslim world, Syria has, under Bashar al-Assad, assisted Iran’s strategy in the Levant and Mediterranean. It supported Hamas, which rejects the Israeli state, and Hezbollah, which undermines Lebanon’s cohesion. The United States has strategic reasons to favor the fall of Bashar al-Assad and to encourage international diplomacy to that end. On the other hand, not every strategic interest rises to a cause for war; were it otherwise, no room would be left for diplomacy.
As military force is considered, several underlying issues must be addressed: While the United States accelerates withdrawals from strategic interventions in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, how can a new military commitment in the same region be justified, particularly when facing comparable problems? Does the new approach — less explicitly strategic and military, and geared more toward diplomatic and moral issues — solve the dilemmas that plagued earlier efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan, which ended in withdrawal and a divided America? Or does it compound the difficulty by staking U.S. prestige and morale on domestic outcomes that America has even fewer means and less leverage to shape? Who replaces the ousted leadership, and what do we know about it? Will the outcome improve the human condition and the security situation? Or do we risk repeating the experience with the Taliban, armed by America to fight the Soviet invader but then turned into a security challenge to us?
The difference between strategic and humanitarian intervention becomes relevant. The world community defines humanitarian intervention by consensus, so difficult to achieve that it generally limits the effort. On the other hand, intervention that is unilateral or based on a coalition of the willing evokes the resistance of countries fearing the application of the policy to their territories (such as China and Russia). Hence it is more difficult to achieve domestic support for it. The doctrine of humanitarian intervention is in danger of being suspended between its maxims and the ability to implement them; unilateral intervention, by contrast, comes at the price of international and domestic support.
Military intervention, humanitarian or strategic, has two prerequisites: First, a consensus on governance after the overthrow of the status quo is critical. If the objective is confined to deposing a specific ruler, a new civil war could follow in the resulting vacuum, as armed groups contest the succession, and outside countries choose different sides. Second, the political objective must be explicit and achievable in a domestically sustainable time period. I doubt that the Syrian issue meets these tests. We cannot afford to be driven from expedient to expedient into undefined military involvement in a conflict taking on an increasingly sectarian character. In reacting to one human tragedy, we must be careful not to facilitate another. In the absence of a clearly articulated strategic concept, a world order that erodes borders and merges international and civil wars can never catch its breath. A sense of nuance is needed to give perspective to the proclamation of absolutes. This is a nonpartisan issue, and it should be treated in that manner in the national debate we are entering.
7a)The Realist Prism: U.S. Faces Strategic Gamble in Syria
In the aftermath of the massacre in Houla, Syria, pressure is mounting on the Obama administration to become more directly involved in efforts to remove the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The problem for U.S. President Barack Obama’s national security team is that there is no clear, safe course of action: Intervening or staying out of the conflict both carry their own sets of risks.
Let’s start with the “knowns” that would have to guide any American decision. The first is that Russia, backed by China, will not allow the United Nations Security Council to give its imprimatur to any military action, even if Russia has been more willing to chastise Damascus in the aftermath of Houla. U.S. commentators have focused on the mercenary reasons for Russia’s support of Assad, including lucrative contracts for Russian defense contractors and the use of port facilities at Tartus by the Russian Navy. Beyond that, however, Russia simply does not share the U.S. narrative of events in Syria. Moscow is less willing to accept the reports issued by the Local Coordination Committees in Syria or the London-based Syrian Human Rights Observatory about the culpability of the Assad regime for civilian deaths. And in contrast to Dmitry Medvedev, Vladimir Putin is far less likely to allow resolutions calling for more robust action to move forward in the Security Council. So if the Obama administration wants to act, it must be willing to do so without the legitimizing cover of the United Nations, either in response to an Arab League request for intervention or by assembling a “coalition of the willing” prepared to act without such a request. It must also calculate whether causing new tensions in what are now rockier U.S. relations with Russia and China is worth bypassing the Security Council to intervene in Syria. The second “known” is that any military intervention in Syria would largely be a U.S. show. The bulk of both the costs and the actual military sorties in Libya last year were undertaken by the United States, even if Washington wore NATO livery. Moreover, NATO members who did participate in Libya have, for the most part, not yet replenished the stocks of munitions they expended in the air campaign. Nor will the U.S. approach in Sudan and Somalia -- providing some financial aid and logistical support but having other countries provide the front-line forces -- work in Syria. So while the administration might hope that “someone else” will take on the bulk of the intervention, those hopes are not going to be realized. The Obama team will instead have to calculate how another Mediterranean-based U.S. military action will affect the situation both in the Persian Gulf and farther afield in Asia. But beyond these two givens, there are a series of questions to which no definitive answer can be provided right now, and each of them is a potentially risky gamble for Washington. The first is how U.S. policy toward Syria will affect the prospects for a peaceful settlement of the nuclear dispute with Iran, arguably Washington’s top foreign policy priority at the moment. Advocates for intervention argue that a demonstration of the U.S. willingness to use military force to back up its diplomatic efforts sends a clear signal to Tehran that the rhetoric about “all options being on the table” is real and that, if the negotiations set to resume in Moscow this month do not point the way to an eventual agreement, force is a realistic option. The counterargument is that military action taken against a regime that is a close Iranian partner will cause the Islamic Republic to circle the proverbial wagons, strengthening the arguments of those within the clerical regime who say that only a credible nuclear program is capable of deterring the United States. Would an air campaign over Damascus bring the Iranians to the table or cause them to accelerate their efforts to cross the nuclear finish line? There is no “right” answer that the administration can rely on in making its decision. The second has to do with projected costs. In touting up the balance sheet, U.S. military planners will focus on Syria’s military capabilities and raise concerns about the possible loss of American life and equipment. Moreover, in contrast to Libya’s more mercenary military structure, the Alawite core of the Syrian military is motivated to fight in order to stay in power. Pro-intervention voices in the administration will likely counter that similar estimates of Libya’s capabilities in 2011 or Yugoslavia’s military potential in 1999 did not pan out in actuality, with both air campaigns being carried out with almost no U.S. losses. But beyond the military dimension, planners must also answer the question about potential economic disruptions. Would another military action in the Middle East roil oil markets at a time when gas prices in the U.S. are coming down and the Obama administration is seeing modest gains in its polling numbers? Or would a strike on Syria be quick and decisive, with minimal impact on global oil prices? Again, no definitive answer can be given. The final considerations have to deal with Gen. David Petraeus’ famous remark: “Tell me how this ends.” How would an intervention in Syria end? The Libya operation began at a time of optimism about the likely progress of the Arab Spring, when it seemed that the forces in Egypt’s Tahrir Square that had toppled Hosni Mubarak appeared to be in the ascendancy. Now, Egypt’s presidential run-off is between a representative of the old Mubarak order and the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood, with the country’s liberal democrats out of the picture. In Iraq, the overthrow of a minority-Sunni dictatorship led first to severe ethno-sectarian strife, and now to the emergence of an increasingly illiberal majority-Shiite regime whose ties with the U.S. are strained at best. The “new Iraq” is not a pluralistic and secular democracy, nor has it recognized Israel or done any of the other things that advocates for regime change promised as outcomes back in 2002 and 2003. So would the Syrian opposition, if aided militarily by the United States, bring a more democratic government to power, one that would provide adequate protections for Syria’s minorities, and which would be more inclined to support the U.S. agenda for the region? Or are the crimes of the Assad regime now so great that its removal is justified no matter what may follow? Again, the United States has to make a judgment call. When one factors the uncertain impact of a Syrian intervention on U.S. domestic politics in an election year into the mix, the picture becomes even less clear. For the past year, Washington has clearly been reluctant to get involved in Syria, and Russian and Chinese obstinacy at the U.N. helped to take some of the pressure off the administration over whether or not to intervene. But we are reaching a point where the Obama team will have to make a choice, one that will be roundly criticized no matter what is decided and where there are no guarantees that the things which matter most to the U.S. will be secured. At best, Washington will have to take a strategic gamble in Syria. Nikolas K. Gvosdev is the former editor of the National Interest and a frequent foreign policy commentator in both the print and broadcast media. He is currently on the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College. The views expressed are his own and do not reflect those of the Navy or the U.S. government. His weekly WPR column, The Realist Prism, appears every Friday.
-------------------------------------------
|
Obama won 54% of the Catholic vote and 78% of the Jewish vote by tilting his chin towards the heavens, aglow with a media-affixed halo, and offering himself as a Replacement Deity.
The Obama-worshiping Jewish establishment insists on including New Israel Fund in the 
No comments:
Post a Comment