Syria & Team America

Syria (Photo credit: ewixx)

As I write this, the United States and our allies are contemplating military action against Syria. While the Syrian government has been busy killing its people for quite some time, it is now claimed that it has crossed the red line by using chemical weapons. Thus, there is apparently a need for a military response.

The United Kingdom, which has often been the Tonto to America’s Lone Ranger, has expressed reluctance to leap into battle. Even the American congress, which rushed to authorize our attack on Iraq, has expressed opposition to Obama taking executive military action. As others have said, memories of the “slam dunk” that led up to the Iraq war are playing a significant role in these responses. Interestingly, the leadership United Kingdom seems mainly concerned with how quickly the attacks will begin as opposed to being concerned about attacking Syria. In the United States congress’s main worry seems to be that the President will rush ahead on his own and deny them what they see as their right to get us into war.

Despite the fact that the people of the United States and the United Kingdom seem opposed to attacking Syria, it seems likely that there will be an attack soon. One obvious reason is that Obama played the red line game (which, on the face of it, said to Syria that they could keep killing as long as they did not use weapons of mass destruction). If he fails to make good on his red line talk, the United States will lose credibility. From a moral standpoint, it could be claimed that the United States and the West have already lost some moral credibility by their ineffectual condemnation of the slaughter in Syria.

Assuming that we will be attacking Syria, there is the obvious question of what we should be endeavoring to accomplish and what plan we have for what will follow the attack. Iraq and Afghanistan stand as examples of what happens when we go to war without properly considering the matter and setting clear, attainable and worthwhile objectives.

One approach is a limited, punitive strike. That is, to attack Syrian targets in order to punish the government for its alleged use of chemical weapons. In this case, the obvious questions are whether or not the Syria government actually used chemical weapons and whether or not such a punishment strike would achieve its goal(s). The goal might be simple punishment: they use chemical weapons, then we blow some things up to pay them back for their misdeed. Or the goal might be deterrence via punishment: they use chemical weapons, we blow some things up. And we will keep doing it until they stop.

Morally, the Syrian government has certainly earned punishment and it would be a good thing to deter them from engaging in more killing—or to even deter them from killing with chemical weapons. However, there is the question of whether or not our attacks will be just punishment or adequate deterrence.  If the goal is deterrence, then there is the question of how long we will engage in deterrence attack and what sort of escalation we should engage in should the initial attack fail to deter.

Another approach is to strike in support of the opposition. That is, to attack Syrian targets with the primary goal of improving the opposition’s relative position. This could, of course, also be a punishment attack as well. In this case, the questions would be whether or not such intervention would be effective and whether or not the results would be desirable for the United States.

One obvious concern about the conflict in Syria is that it is not an oppressive government against plucky, freedom-loving rebels. If that was the case, then the matter would be rather easier.  Rather, it is a battle between an oppressive government and a bewildering array of opposition groups (including an Al Qaeda franchise). There are also outside forces involved, such as Iran, Russia and China.

Because of the fragmentary and problematic nature of the opposition, it is important to consider the consequences of attacking in support of the opposition (or, more accurately, the oppositions). While the Syrian government is a morally bad government and an enemy of America, it has imposed order on the state and is, obviously enough, not the worst option. If, for example, the Syrian government were to topple and the area fell into almost complete chaos, that would be worse than the current situation. Even worse for the United States and most other people would be a takeover of the state by radical forces and extremists.

It is also rather important to take into account the possible and likely reactions of the other powers that are involved in the conflict. Iran, China and Russia have a significant stake in the matter and they might actually react to an American attack. Russia, for example, is sending warships to the area. While Russia or Iran most likely would not engage American forces in the region to defend Syria, this is not an impossibility. For example, the conflict could escalate from an accident.

Unfortunately, I do not have a great deal of confidence in any of the leaders involved in this matter. After all, there are rather different skill sets involved in being a politician who wins office and being able to make effective policy and military decisions. That is, playing the political game is rather different than war. That said, I do hope that wise decisions are made. But, no matter what, many more people are going to be killed—it is mainly a question of how many and with what weapons.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Iran’s Fashion Police

Apparently ties are also banned.

It is often the little things that reveal the big things. Iran is currently cranking out laws that are intended (supposedly) to fight Western and un-Islamic influences. These laws, at first glance, seem like little things. In fact, these laws seem like parodies of law. However, they are quite serious and reveal some significant truths about Iran.

The current laws include rules against men wearing necklaces and women wearing scarves that are too loose, overcoats that are too tight, and pants that are too short. These rules are, of course, reminiscent of the dress codes of some strict schools and, as such, the laws treat the citizens of Iran as if they were bad children.

There is even a law planned to ban dog ownership dogs apparently present a dire cultural threat to Iran. As the Iranian leadership seems to see it, Iranians want dogs not because humans like dogs and have partnered with dogs almost since humans have been around. Rather, they want dogs so they can imitate Westerners. While this might be true in some cases, I am reasonably confident in my claim that dog ownership is not an exclusively Western thing and that it dates back long before the rise of the West. I am also fairly confident in claiming that people often own dogs simply because they like them. Then again, maybe I am saying this merely because I am part of the Western Dog Conspiracy to spread western canine (preferably husky) dominance throughout the world.

Oddly enough, there are no laws aimed at ridding Iran of Western inventions such as the automobile, the airplane, computers, vaccines, phones, television, machine guns, or nuclear weapons. This seems to be a serious oversight. After all, if Western necklaces are a grave threat to Iran, one can only imagine the dangers posed by all that Western technology.

As far as the big things behind these little things, these laws give the regime an excuse to send over 70,000 “moral police” into action. This enables the regime to launch a campaign of intimidation under the guise of defending the citizens from Western influences. This strongly suggests that the rulers of Iran are rather worried that their hold is weakening and that they believe they need to crack down on the people, so as to prolong their time in power.

History shows that the boot can keep some people in line all the time. It can keep all of the people in line some of the time. But it cannot keep all the people in line all the time. At some point, the people grow weary of that boot pushing their faces into the ground and they rise up against their “leaders.” It is, I suspect, merely a matter of time before Iran has another revolution. It will probably be bloody and awful-tyrants do not yield their thrones lightly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“It’s not only about clamping down on clothing, but they are spreading panic and fear by sending out this much of police into the streets under the name of this plan, to control the society. It’s unbelievable to see a regime that is not only concerned about its own survival, but it goes into your personal life and interferes in that,” one resident told the paper.

 

 

The Post Bin Laden World

Image by Paul Keller via Flickr

Now that Bin Laden is dead it is natural to wonder what impact this will have on the world.

The pundits have, of course, speculated on what effect this will have on Obama’s chances in 2012. Obviously, this will have some positive influence on his chances. Equally obviously, the election is still a long way off and much can happen between now and then. At the very least, memory of this event will fade away (although it will be brought up again in 2012) and its influence on the American psyche will diminish with each passing day. As such, the obvious conclusion is that this will help Obama a bit, but will not be a major factor in 2012.

It is, of course, interesting to do a bit of counter-factual history. While killing Bin Laden won’t be a huge plus for Obama, if the mission had failed, then it could very well have been a major loss for him. While a failed mission would not have been as bad as the failure of Carter’s mission to rescue the hostages in Iran, it would certainly have made America look bad and would have given Bin Laden a nice piece of propaganda. Obama probably could have recovered from such a disaster, but it would have been a significant problem.

Another point of concern is what impact this death will have on terror. On the face of it, the impact would seem to be fairly minimal. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were not particularly active or impressive in recent years. After all Al Qaeda’s most famous attack in recent years (at least in America) was the underwear bomber. While Bin Laden no doubt served to inspire others, his influence and the influence of Al Qaeda seemed to have already been waning. As such, while killing Bin Laden was clearly important, the impact seems to be primarily symbolic rather than one that will radically change the world.

To engage in some more counter-factual history, if Bin Laden had been killed shortly after 9/11, then that would have most likely had a major impact. It could even be argued that his timely death might have resulted in the United States not going to Afghanistan or Iraq.

Returning to the actual world, his death might serve to remove some of the justification for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. After all one of the reasons given for our presence in Afghanistan was to fight Al Qaeda and find Bin Laden. Since Bin Laden is dead, there is no reason to keep looking for him. Since the remains of Al Qaeda seem to be in Pakistan, there seems to be little compelling reason to stay in Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda. Of course, we seem to be stuck in Afghanistan which is a fate that history should have warned us against. After all, we actually used Afghanistan to grind the Soviets and hence we should have known better.

A third impact is that his death has enabled people to jump  on the Bin Laden funeral wagon and make a buck. Some of this is honest buck making: people are already pushing books and movie deals are in the works. Cyber criminal have also been busy exploiting his death by trying to sucker people into exposing themselves to malware by promises of photos of the dead Bin Laden.

Freedom & the Middle East

Image via Wikipedia

While the Middle East is a land of seemingly endless turmoil, it seems that a democratic sandstorm might be striking the region with a vengeance. This potential for democracy exists, sadly enough, largely despite and not because of the United States. In general, we have backed autocrats, kings and despots in the hope that out cash would buy us allies in our war on whatever. For the most part, these allies tend to enrich themselves and their fellows while ensuring that their countries are most certainly not democracies.

Looking back on our own revolution, it should have come as no surprise that people in the Middle East would grow weary of living under the rule of despots and would rise up against them. While Egypt is the main focus of the media, Iran is also a place of potential revolution. The leadership in Iran is doing its best to keep its people focused against the United States and Mubarek. The official line is that Iran supports the people of Egypt against Mubarek and they are urging the installation of an Islamic government comparable to that in Iran. Obviously enough, Iran is hoping that the situation in Egypt will end up in their favor-either gaining Egypt as an ally or, at the very least, seeing the United States and Israel lose Egypt as an ally.

I suspect that the Iranian leadership is also a bit worried. After all, revolution can be a contagious sort of thing and seeing the people of Egypt revolting against a despot might serve to inspire Iranians to rise up once more against their own despots.

This upheaval could prove to be a good for the people of the region as well as the United States. In terms of the people, the result could be the creation of democratic states. Or, at the least, states that are not as repressive and autocratic in character. This change could, over the course of several years, create more stability in the region and lower the threat of terror by addressing some of the motivating and enabling factors.

However, it is well worth considering the lesson of Iran. That revolution resulted in the creation of an oppressive regime that has been consistently hostile to the United States.  While the Brotherhood in Egypt seems to be relatively moderate, there is the real possibility that radical elements might take the reins of the upheaval. There is also the reasonable concern that those who come to power will resent the fact that America has been a major force in keeping Mubarek in power and not regard the United States as a friend. The possibility of a protracted struggle that plunges Egypt into chaos is also well worth worrying about.

Ideally, the outcome will be resolved by peaceful elections and result in the dawn of a new era for the people of Egypt. However, the history of the Middle East suggests otherwise.

Friend of Autocrats

Image via Wikipedia

During our own revolution, we persuaded the French to support our efforts. They agreed, not from a love of democracy but from a love of themselves: they were well aware that backing us would weaken their major rival, the British. Now that we are a super power, we take a similar sort of approach: we back those who we think will support what we perceive as our interests (or at least the interests of those who hold wealth and power). Matters of principle are brought up against our enemies as rhetoric, but generally seem to fail to move us.

This “pragmatic” approach has led us to back rather repressive autocratic rulers. During the Cold War we would support almost anyone who would oppose the Soviets and we were tolerate of truly horrible violations of human rights and what we regard as our core political values. However, we often seemed to be woefully ignorant of what our approach would spawn. The most notable example is, of course, the fall of our ally the Shah and the creation of one of our most devoted foes. Our actions also served to create considerable anti-American sentiment in the world and helped to forge many of the problems that we now face. But at least we beat the Communists. Well, not China or Cuba. But at least the Soviets.

In the case of Egypt we pursued the classic approach: backing an autocratic ruler who was willing to play ball with us while being willfully ignorant of what was really going on within the country. As such, we were apparently surprised at what happened in Egypt (though it will, as always, seem obvious in hindsight).

With memories of Iran dancing in our heads, we are not entirely sure what to do. Will we lose yet another autocrat to a revolution of their own people and face another Iran? Will democracy triumph? Will chaos rule the land? Time, as always, will tell.

I would like to say that we have learned valuable lessons about backing autocrats against their own people, but that is obviously not the case.

Unrest in the Middle East

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Obviously, this post’s title is almost eternally accurate. However, the focus today will be on the more recent unrest, namely that in Egypt.

Many people in Egypt appear to have had quite enough of the government and are actively engaged in protesting the regime. In response, the government has attempted to suppress the protests, cut off communication, and silence the media. This is, of course, to be expected from this sort of government.

While Obama praised the folks in Tunisia, the administration is taking a different approach to Egypt. This is hardly surprising-though the government has been fairly repressive and is hardly a bastion of freedom, it has been fairly consistent in being on what we see as the right side of American interests in the region.

The situation in Egypt does present the usual interesting dilemma for Americans. On one hand, we profess a set of values that include freedom, self-government, democracy, and justice. These values and our own historical revolution would seem to give us good reasons to support those who are pushing for freedom against a repressive state. On the other hand, we seem to always be in a war against an opposing ideology and this leads us to support almost any government that promises that it will be on our side against the communists/terrorists or whoever the enemy is at the moment in question. That these governments are often repressive, undemocratic and lacking in freedom never seems to be a major point of concern-at least for those in power.

While it is tempting to see this policy as being pragmatic and realistic (“yeah, we talk democracy, but that is for us…we need these states to repress their people so that they don’t go over to the commies/terrorists/whoever”), it is well worth considering the price that must be paid for this.

The largest price is, of course, paid by the people who live under the repressive regimes. They get to live without freedom (or at least far less freedom) so that the United States can have a “reliable” ally in the region or so that American interests can be advanced.

We also pay a price. The first part of the price is that we become hypocrites: we speak of freedom while tolerating and supporting tyrannies and repressive states. This, of course, seems to be quite contrary to our professed commitment to democracy, freedom, liberty and all that. Given how we throw these words about, we should be the ones supporting revolutions against repressive states, rather than trying so often to keep them propped up against their own people.

Second, we pay a rather ironic price: our efforts to prop up repressive states as allies against the enemy of the day sometimes ends up leading to that state falling to that enemy (Vietnam) or another enemy (Iran). People tend to remember who backed the government that jailed their relatives and murdered their friends.

Of course, it can be argued that the people in the Middle East are not yet ready for democracy and must be kept under the watchful eye of authoritarian states. It could also be argued that the threat posed by radical Islam means that we have to support states that will keep repressing the radicals. Of course, this strategy might (as noted above) turn out to have a result that is opposite of the one we desire.

DADT Repealed

Image via Wikipedia

The infamous Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy was recently repealed.

As has often been argued, the policy was rather  questionable. After all, it seemed to say that it was okay for homosexuals to serve provided that they did so secretly. This seems to imply that what mattered was not someone’s sexual orientation but what other people happened to know about that orientation.  Of course, the “don’t ask” policy seems to have often been ignored and when confronted, military personal were supposed to tell. As such, it seemed like a rather weird sort of policy that needed to be fixed.

While some folks worked hard trying to repeal it, others worked hard to try to stall and prevent the repeal. Most famously, John McCain fought an impressively dogged defense against it (in many cases, fighting against his previous self): each time one of his conditions (such as endorsement by the Joint Chiefs) was met, he would insist on another (such as a survey). Even when all his conditions were met, he still opposed the change. However, his opposition failed and it was repealed.

As I see it, this is a good thing. The top officers and most personal seem to be fine with the situation. Also, nations that have allowed homosexuals to serve do not seem to have run into any problems specific to this factor. In fact, lifting such restrictions seems to be beneficial. See, for example, the Palm Center report on this matter. Naturally, the report can be challenged. However, doing so would seem to require presenting cases in which allowing homosexuals to serve openly was a significant causal factor in creating problems to military effectiveness. Naturally, these cases would have to be properly compared to comparable cases involving heterosexuals to determine if the cause was specific to homosexuality or due to another factor. However, the most reasonable argument against the repeal (that it would impair military effectiveness) seems to have been soundly defeated. As such, the repeal seems reasonable.

Also,  if someone wishes to serve his/her country and can make such a contribution, then it would seem both wrong and wasteful to deny him/her that chance on the basis of sexual orientation. We do not, it would seem, have the luxury of prejudice, what with Iraq, Afghanistan, the endless war on terror, and with possible future conflicts with Iran and North Korea.

Naturally, if the future shows that repealing DaDT has damaged our military due to some factors that did not affect any other military, then a change should be strongly  considered. After all, the military cannot (as many would argue) afford the luxury of equality at the expense of its core mission.

Breaking Iran

Senator Lindsey Graham recently spoke about neutering the Iranian military. He predicted that such an operation would result in unconventional attacks against the United States (mostly terrorist operations). However, he seems to prefer that sort of retaliation to allowing Iran to complete its nuclear program.

Iran is in many ways an enemy of our own creation. While the British laid much of the groundwork with their imperial approach in the middle east, we backed the Shah and his police state. This, among other things, helped bring about the Iran of today: an Islamic state that professes hostility against America and a desire to exterminate Israel. Oh, they also want the bomb.

Of course, what was done cannot be undone, so we must look to the future to solve the problems we have with Iran. We have been trying isolating Iran and using embargoes. This seems to have had little meaningful effect and the people hurt most by the embargo seem to be the middle class (the folks most likely to make Iran more moderate). Our main foes, the Revolutionary Guard, seem to be doing quite well-they are, by many accounts, running the black market and pulling in considerable amounts of money.

One option is to “neuter” Iran as Graham has suggested. While our military is bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, we should have the capability to defeat Iran’s conventional naval, air and land forces. In any case, I’m sure Israel would be happy to get involved.

Of course, the obvious question is “what then?” This question was clearly not asked when we invaded Iraq and the consequences of that are quite evident. We cannot, I suspect, afford to try to occupy Iran. Smashing their military would no doubt cost us in terms of our relations with certain other countries.

Also worth considering is that with a demolished conventional military, Iran might consider relying on non-conventional means of defense or offense. Ironically, a “neutered” Iran might pose even more danger if the leadership felt the need to retaliate by providing terrorists with nuclear material. Of course, a “neutered” Iran might be sufficiently cowed and elect not to antagonize the United States.

Another option is to continue on the current path. This has served to keep things fairly stable-albeit with various incidents. This will allow things to go on as they are. While this does not seem like an optimal solution, it does seem to be a viable option.

A third option is to change the existing policy in ways that do not involve neutering. For example, the United States could push to change the sanctions so that the middle class is able to thrive better. It might, in fact, be in our best interest for that middle class to grow.

In any case, the future will ( as always) be what it will be.

Nuclear Policy

Image via Wikipedia

While some folks have expressed fear, anger and dismay towards the new nuclear policy (or at least their straw man versions), I am not worried.

While the policy does mark what appears to be a significant change, it actually appears to have little practical impact on how we would actually wage war.

The policy is that we will not use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear countries. Unless, of course, they are in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (that means, for example, we can still nuke Iran) or they use biological weapons against us. This is, of course, the approach taken by the United States in the post WWII world. After all, we did not use nuclear weapons in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq. Even more importantly, all the major potential threats to the United States (Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran) are still legitimate targets for nuclear weapons. The countries that are excluded by this policy are hardly major threats to the United States.

Obviously, this policy does not actually change the nuclear weapons so that they can only be used in such situations. Should the United States face a truly dire situation that could only be resolved by nuclear weapons being employed  in a way that violates this policy, then the weapons would certainly be used. While Obama is cast as a weakling socialist, he would not allow the United States to be destroyed just so he could stick with this policy.

Of course, it might be argued that this is a meaningful political change. After all, it seems to have outraged many folks on the right. While much of their alleged outrage is probably mere political posturing, they certainly do seem to think that it is worth attacking. While this does not prove that this is really a meaningful policy change, it does suggest that this might be the case.

Also, it does seem to reflect a change in language and creates the appearance that we are further leashing our nuclear beast. And, as is often said, appearance is (seen as) reality in politics.

As I see it, the change is primarily rhetorical. This is, I think, a smart move. Obama can use the policy to improve how America is seen by the world and score political points without actually reducing America’s security. However, he does run the risk that the Republicans will also use this to score political points, even if they have to attack a straw man version of the policy.

Palin, Obama and Iran

Image via Wikipedia

Sarah Palin recently spoke about Iran, Obama and terrorism on Fox News. While we are currently involved in two wars, Palin seems to think that a third war (against Iran) would be something we should do. She said:

“Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decide to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel–which I would like him to do. That changes the dynamics of what we can assume will happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, Obama would not be elected.”

While support for Israel does make sense (Israel is a consistent American ally in the region), attacking Iran does not seem to be a very good idea.

Three reasons this would be a bad idea are Iraq, Afghanistan and the economy. In other words,  we are already bogged down in two wars and our economy is in bad shape. Starting up a third war might well be beyond our means. Two factors that tend to break empires are overextending the military and overtaxing the economy. As such, we should give considerable more thought about the matter before sending tanks into Iran.

Of course, it could be argued that the consequences of not attacking Iran will be far worse than then consequences of attacking. People have argued that Iran is close to getting nuclear weapons and hence we must attack them.

Of course, we have never operated on the principle that we will invade countries to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons and it is not clear why Iran should be the exception. Also, if we a adopt the principle if attacking countries who might get nuclear weapons, then it would make sense to also go after those that already have these weapons. However, this does not seem to be a very good idea since it would probably start a nuclear war.

It might be argued that the time to strike is before a country has nuclear weapons. After all, if someone is reaching for a gun, the time to hit him is before he gets to it. It also makes sense to fight people who do not have guns rather than those who do. Likewise with nuclear weapons in place of guns.

This analogy does work well when you know the person reaching for a gun intends to shoot you. If a person is reaching for a gun because so many other people have guns and having one is a status symbol as well as means of deterrence, then attacking seems far less reasonable. After all, attacking will certainly start a war and allowing the person to get his gun unmolested might not lead to a fight. So far this approach has worked-after all, we are currently living with a world on which many folks are toting nuclear weapons. If we can live with them, the argument goes, we can live with a nuclear armed Iran.

However, some folks claim that the leaders of Iran are religious fanatics and that they will start a nuclear war as soon as they can get the weapons.

If this were true, then this would be a matter of great concern. Going back to the gun analogy, if you saw a madman lunging for a gun while screaming about slaughtering all the heretics/infidels/non-believers in the name of Jesus/Allah/Santa Claus, then shooting him before he can grab that gun would probably be a good idea.

This leads to a critical factual issue: are the people who call the shots in Iran crazy religious fanatics who intend to start a nuclear war as soon as they get weapons?

The answer seems to be “no.” While the leaders in Iran talk the religious talk and act in theocratic ways, they seem to be very similar to all leaders: concerned about power, corrupt, and very much interested in the things of this world. As such, it seems unlikely that Iran would switch from being a fairly pragmatic political player to being an apocalyptic madhouse simply because it gets the bomb.

I could, of course, be wrong about this. Maybe they are dreaming of burning the world in nuclear fire for the glory of God. Maybe Obama

Also, there are other reasons to be concerned about a nuclear armed Iran, such as their willingness to provide weapons to terrorists. But this possibility must be weighed against the cost of attacking Iran and maintaining a sustained campaign to prevent them from acquiring such weapons. Ironically, launching such an attack could make the United States even less safe by providing even more motivation for terrorism and creating even more fear in the Middle East that America has no qualms about attacking Muslim countries.