Ready, Aim, Fire! When Assad is dead and Syria is free.

#Syria #Assad #Damascus #FreeSyria #Kerry #Congress #Obama 

   There are two basic theories of international relations, idealism and realism. Idealism is a belief that international law and international resolutions can solve the problems we face and that international governing bodies, mainly the United Nations can effectively address the perils of the world and mitigate international conflict. 

  Realism argues that states, like individual actors are self interested and recognizes that the international governing bodies are not substantially strong enough to address security issues because self interest persists in the voting behavior on the UN security council meaning that UN actions are often inadequate at enforcing international norms and at times, security or humanitarian crisis are at odds with the national interests of UN countries. 

  With realism as our model of understanding international behavior an interesting observation is the reality that nuclear armed nations have never gone to war with each other.  Its among the closest things to a scientific law in international relations.    Jervis Theory argues that nuclear armed nations will not fight each other as long their leadership is rational and they populations held accountable.  During the cold war this was the topic, and all sorts of strike, counter-strike capabilities and how they would alter the calculus of the other came into play.  

   Post 9/11, experts in Jervis Theory recognized that non-state actors with nuclear weapons, especially if wielded by rogue leaders that irrational, or terrorist group leaders lacking civilian populations they concerned with exist, then jervis theory falls apart.  And so the threat analysis shifted away from Russia and wars with nuclear armed countries to the nexus of rogue leaders, weapons of mass destruction and terrorist groups.  That is why we went after Saddam who was a rogue leader with weapons of mass destruction and Al-Qaeda, a group we saw as willing to use such weapons if they could procure them.  While the weapons of mass destruction were not as far along as intel estimates suggested and the described locations on certain occasions were wrong, Saddam had wmds and while his involvement with Al-Qaeda was limited, the threat assessment was not wrong.  While the post invasion nation building efforts were loaded with mistakes, the initial decision to go to war was not.  The attacks prompted Gaddafi in Libya to give up his nuclear weapons to the United States and for Iran to halt its uranium enrichment programs.  

   The most likely reality is that the regime in Syria, lead by Bashar Al-Assad has used chemical weapons against rebels fighting in Damascus.  Even if it were Al-Qaeda aligned rebels using chemical weapons they procured from Iraq or Syria, the threat assessment persists and the need to eliminate the wmds is of higher priority than defeating either the terrorist groups or the rogue leader.  If Barack Obama were to have avoided backing up his insistence that using chemical weapons would cross a thin read line, his threats to Iran about their nuclear program would also cease to be credible.  There is no clear positive outcome in Syria, especially in light of recent events in Egypt and so the idea of aggressively facilitating rebel victory or leading on some false hope that an acceptable democracy will emerge in Syria is incorrect and irresponsible.  The chemical weapons need to be destroyed and cruise missiles outside of retaliatory reach from Syria is the safest way to accomplish that end.  

  With Israel's defenses prepared and close coordination with Turkey and Jordan, destroyers in position America is ready to let its Tomahawk missiles do the talking.  The targets are everything related to the chemical weapons programs of Syria and the battalions or regiments known to have a direct impact in their handling along with the command and control.  The goal of the attack is to show that the usage of Chemical weapons will not go unpunished.  While the ends are limited, it backs the credibility of America and its leadership that actions contrary to our presidents word will have severe consequences.  It is important that coordination is made with regional counter-terrorism units to launch preventative against Hezbollah and other  groups that pose retaliatory risks within the United States.  

  Military command should consider what other weaponry in our arsenal can be used to effectively reduce the war fighting capability of Assad and eliminate his arsenal of chemical weapons and their delivery systems.  America will also need to stay in close correspondence with international allies, particularly in the region and be ready to provide assistance to defend against the irrational behavior of Assad's regime.  Congress should consider legislation backing the operation and possibly a formal declaration of war.

   The risks of striking at the Syrian regime are less risky than the statement that inaction would make.  While there is always a risk of escalation, discipline to limit the strikes to the limited end of wiping out chemical weapons and avoiding getting too heavily involved in the fighting on the ground is the prudent and wisest move, with targeting of Assad either by cruise missile, predator drone or even special forces the next choices of escalation are full on invasion and the clearing of Damascus, and installation of the free syrian government as peace agreements with the military and technocrats of Baathist regime are made and the Sunni rebels turn on the Al-Qaeda linked remnants of the opposition.   For now, however, I would advise playing it safe and lobbing cruise missiles to punish from a safe distance and hold the credibility of your word.  

On Democracy in the Middle East

On Democracy in the Middle East

   If there is something praiseworthy to be said about George Bush, it was his authentic belief in liberty, freedom and democracy.  His foreign policy was consistent in that he allowed for elections, even when the results were less than ideal for the interests of the United States of America and our allies.  This was showcased in Iraq, as millions risked their lives to vote, showing their blue stamped thumbs to the world, both a symbolic and very real sign, that the autocracy of Saddam had come to an end.  In Afghanistan, even as it was clear the 9/11 attacks were largely planned by Al-Qaeda, under the protection of the Taliban, as required according to their tribal code, despite reservations about the actions of Osama Bin Laden's organization.  In the Gaza strip, we saw Hamas win elections, despite the obvious threat they posed to Israel and the armed conflict their election would later bring.  Barack Obama, at odds with some on the far left, continued this policy.  With the Arab spring, we saw the old autocrats of North Africa fall, first in Tunisia, then in Egypt and then in Libya.  With free elections, we saw Islamists win elections in Tunisia, in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood and in Libya, a secular regime the intelligence community hoped would shine as a light to the region so that in future elections they would vote the Islamists out of power.  Unfortunately, the peaceful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were over shadowed by the violence that would fill the streets of Libya and Syria.  The hope, the optimism, the finesse in Barack Obama's foreign policy was to guide the more moderate elements of Islamism into the political process, that with democracy and economic opportunity the extremism and terrorism would subside.  

    In the summer of 2013 it seemed the world was closer to meaningful peace than it had been in years.  Syria was still in turmoil, but with Rohani elected as president of Iran, progress on the terms of a two state solution between Israel and Palestine, successful defenses of democracy in Mali and the Ivory Coast it appeared that Democracy was continuing to expand.  In the delicate regions of the Middle East and Africa, Egypt has always been the bridge, of immense historical significance and continued pertinence to all things relating to that region of the world.  The irony of it is that it was that it was the military that tired of Autocracy and defended the people from violent crackdowns, and the liberals who have long championed democracy that lost patience with the popularly elected Muslim brotherhood, and while the official line is that "its yet to be determined if it was a coup," it was coup enough that a chorus of senators and congressmen from both the republican and democratic parties have called to halt aid to the Egyptian regime.  A decision that the lessons of Mali- where a military coup prompted by the failure of the democratically elected regime to fight Al-Qaeda aligned Islamist extremists in the north of the country caused a halt to US aid, allowing for the expansion of Al-Qaeda into the cities and even a push on Timbuktu that eventually forced a French lead UN intervention that successfully pushed Al-Qaeda back into the deserts in defeat- may serve as the governing historical precedent. 

     So America, must try to clarify its position, standing by its belief in democracy, avoiding the antiquated islamophobic positions that Arabs are not capable of democracy, while addressing the nastier extremism that has surfaced as Morsi was placed in jail and the direction of the Muslim Brotherhood has fallen in the hands of more radical and violent prone hands.   The peaceful revolution and democratic elections have turned to grotesque violence and the new regime in Egypt must decide whether they can save face with a power sharing agreement acceptable to Morsi, or unleash the old wolves of Mubarak and the old heavy handed tactics of oppression that bring sympathy to the Brotherhood, delegitimize the ruling party and in so many ways exasperate the problem not only in Egypt but throughout the entirety of the region.  The cautious warning I reluctantly give the interim leadership is this, if you seek the path of oppression you better not leave an ember of the Muslim Brotherhood to light a new fire, and the tactics necessary to do such will certainly result in the condemnation of the West, the severing of any financial support for the Egyptian military from the United States and continued civil strife an unease as the volatility of the situation subsides.  This isn't to say Egypt won't receive other support in areas of the economy, technical direction and financial support from other regional partners like Saudi Arabia, but the billions in aid that have propped up the military and the helicopters already paid for are unlikely to ever arrive as domestic law in America forbids aid to nations in circumstances of coups until democratic elections are held once again and unfortunately, its unclear the Muslim brotherhood wouldn't win again and certainly would hold substantial seats in parliament. 

    The inability of the Islamists to show that they can lead in a democracy is the other lesson, the failures of the Muslim Brotherhood were clear, and it was their unwillingness to compromise, their refusal to embrace protections for minorities and civil rights that sealed their own fate.  The truth is, as FDR and Churchill worked with Stalin to defeat Hitler, that at times, the expedience of aligning with those who have common foes or as the cliche would say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, is the course of action survival necessitates.  But if such is so, then what message does the Egyptian coup say to the cesspool of varying militant Islamist groups around the Middle East, Africa and even in Europe and USA that have been kept at bay by the promise of democratic involvement?  If the idea was decapitate the core, suppress the periphery while guiding the more moderate elements into a legitimate political process what message has the actions of Egypt's military sent?  How can America make the case to the Arab street that if they are patient, work within the political process in peace, work hard to improve their economic viability, that they can achieve an acceptable end?  Its going to be increasingly difficult to keep the various groups apart, and while the core of Al-Qaeda has been decapitated, its related groups have expanded, the Arab street has coiled into an internal and divisive war, and the tough handed leadership of the Saudi, Bahrain, Qatari, Jordan, UAE and Oman seem to be the answer as merit and competence has replaced both kleptocracy and populist folly, democracy takes new shapes beyond one man, one vote.  

    The reality is, that while all deserve democracy, all nations are capable of achieving it, it requires certain preconditions to succeed.  It requires adequate rates of literacy, independent courts, significant protections for minority and civil rights, ample meritocracy and funding for the liberal institutions expected to come with democracy; including education and university systems, judicial systems, medical systems and a security apparatus that include military and public safety officers.  The shift then, needs to move away from just holding elections, to really working to develop these things in the Arab and African worlds so that when they hold elections, they have a constitutional framework, a plurality of parties and the democratic pre-requisites necessary to allow for the young democracies to take off and serve the ever unrealistic expectations of the people.     

     

Why does the US-Russian Relation Matter?

Why does the US-Russian Relation Matter?

    The fact that Paul J. Saunders can question the importance of US-Russian relations shows such immense ignorance of history that its as if he completely blocked out the twenty first century.  With so much to do about the Middle East and the War on Terror, post 9/11 and the rapid rise of China, its true that Russia is no longer the primary focal point of US foreign policy or the center piece of our national interest; however, Russia's military capabilities, the cunning of its KGB leadership and immense natural resources make it a player in the global game that you cannot ignore.  China has no history of territorial expansion, the Middle East has been to busy fighting and destroying itself to present a serious challenge to the US and so Russia, with its constant meddling, ever present game playing, espionage, seduction and muscle persists to be power- that as much as our psychology wishes to brush into the dust ban of history- we cannot, because its nuclear arsenal, rugged weaponry and clandestine apparatus is the competitor that our national worth needs, setting bar, but setting bar that we easily overcome and surpass.   

     The issue, the quagmire, is in trust.  Both sides have been gaming each other for so long, with realism as the defining lens of our international relations, predicting Russia/American actions so accurately that it has nearly become a matter of scientific law that the ever present jockeying for advantage, positioning for leverage and negotiating for self-interest has stalemated the relationship.  Jervis theory and mutually assured destruction, is all that keep us at peace.  Its tragic, because if America and Russia could overcome their past, move beyond their differences and collaborate in the spirit of genuine partnership, they could resolve so many of the international problems jeopardizing our globe.  If Russia and America could work together in dealing with Syria, Iran and North Korea, the world could enjoy meaningful and acceptable peace allowing for security and prosperity never before experienced.  

      And so, what would it take to build that trust, and how can that trust ever be when the foreign services of the two nations are filled with generations of individuals whose cold war world view has imbued their understanding of the relationship?  Time, may be the only cure, as gradual progress, diplomatic gestures and collaborative efforts remain guarded with caution and the lessons of history.  Direct war is unlikely, but will the proxy battles ever stop?  Will Russia ever truly democratize and will American realities ever match up with their democratic ideals? That is the challenge the countries face, as foils to each other we must shift the competition away from the military and back into the treatment of our citizens, the rights we afford them, the opportunities provided them and the standard of living they enjoy.   

     We've certainly progressed from the Soviet Era when nuclear annihilation seemed eminent, but where is the relationship going to go without increased economic integration?  We've moved from the nuclear age to the cyber age and it may be in cyber space where the relationship evolves.  Unfortunately, Russia has been home to prodigious hackers and become global leaders in internet fraud branding Russia as the by-product of a mafioso state in bed with the old Soviet intelligence apparatus, where speaking out draws politically motivated charges and foreign investors see the risks associated with investment as too high, despite the undoubtedly immense opportunities for growth.  So perhaps the area of hope, at least for the Governments of Russia and the United States of America, is in areas of Security surrounding the internet.  If America and the United States can collaborate and address the issues of internet security together, preventing the radicalization and monitoring the communication between our common foes, proving that the genuine threats and plots can be thwarted without totally destroying privacy, then there is hope, promise and a realistic expectation can be set that our Governments and our People can live together in peace.  We can find compliance to the New Start treaty, prevent the nuclear armament of Iran, defeat Al-Qaeda and progress together into the cyber-age with better communication on issues of law enforcement and terror threats, pinpointing troublesome issues and responding appropriately.