Sea Changes

Let me see…we were about to launch an attack on Syria, but now we’re talking to the Russians about their plan to secure and destroy Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons. And now the new president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, has ended the denial of the Holocaust and wants to negotiate over that country’s plans to become a nuclear power. What’s going on here? What triggered this? It’s not spring. But could it be an equinoctial thing?

Probably nothing so semi-metaphysical. I think it’s more about enlightened self-interest. The Russians have substantial military and economic interest in what happens in Syria. Putin & Co. would probably like to see the Assad regime stay in power for as long as possible. In Iran, maybe reality is setting in. CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, who interviewed Rouhani, says he wouldn’t be making nice unless he had authorization to do so from the religious leaders of his country, and why would they provide it? Could it be that economic sanctions are actually hurting, and the old men who run that country realize that the general population, which is much younger and less hateful of America, might be upset with them if they don’t change their attitudes? Is it a case of  “the devil knowing his time is short”?

Some Americans may have trouble trusting either the Russians or the Iranians, after our past history with their respective governments. But there are few more solid foundations for trust than an opposing party doing something that’s good, simply because circumstances are leaving no other choice.

So the next question is, if our worst enemies are finally doing something we want them to do because they have to do it, can the same principles work with forcing Congress to work through differences on Obamacare and the debt ceiling?

I think locking members of Congress in the Capitol and locking all the bathrooms there until they get this done would work just fine. There are few more powerful incentives than having to go because you have to go.

Hearing the Dinner Bell

For the better part of two years, the Obama administration has told us that all options are on the table to deal with the crisis in Syria. The table is set, and dinner is about to be served.

On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry’s words of warning were clear: there was no question that chemical weapons had been used on civilians – a moral obscenity, and the clear crossing of the so called red line had occurred.  It wasn’t all that long ago that another Secretary of State, Colin Powell, displayed graphic evidence, or so we were given to believe, of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Ah, but this is different, right? Syria really does have chemical weapons. And apparently, the regime no longer has compunctions about using them. But as for moral outrage about this, do you think it might be possible that at least one of the 100-thousand-plus civilians who died by what we might call conventional means may have suffered equally horrible or even more agonizing deaths than the current nerve gas victims? The red line was drawn in a strange place.

What we have been learning the hard way about the Middle East is that dictatorships have served as artificial lids on boiling pots. Military action on our part won’t turn down the heat in Syria.

Is the red line really about U.S. credibility? In the case of Syria, we lost it two years ago. So is firing off a few missiles really going to send the message to Iran and/or Russia that we’re not to be trifled with? They’ve been trifling with us a long time. What is different about this moment?

To my mind, there is only one justification for military action: obtaining control of the chemical weapons or destroying them so that the Assad regime can’t use them on civilians anymore and so that they don’t fall into the wrong hands. Unless military force attains those goals, it’s a waste of time and resources. Our attention might better be paid to the plight of the hundreds of thousands of Syrians displaced by this conflict, many living in desperate situations in countries that can’t handle them.

If we really have to sit down to dinner, it might be a good time for someone to say grace – and pray hard before we pick up the knife and fork.

I Don't Care Where He Is

Edward Snowden, the former contractor who is credited with pulling the veil off of PRISM, the massive federal surveillance program, is in Moscow at this writing, reportedly asking Ecuador for asylum.

Hero or traitor, he picks some strange places to escape U.S. charges: Hong Kong (China) and now Moscow. He reportedly considered Cuba and Venezuela. Perhaps since Julian Assange was able to hide in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, Snowden figured he’d find some refuge in that South American country.

Those who think he’s a traitor would no doubt prefer to see him in the confined spaces of an American prison, but his other choices aren’t so great. If I were choosing places to live, Hong Kong, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela and Ecuador would probably not be high on the list. He can never again set foot in the United States or a country that’s too friendly with us if he wants to avoid capture. Those who want to see him paying a price for his misdeed might take some comfort from the fact that he will always have to be looking over his shoulder. As for Julian Assange, BTW, I don’t see the Ecuadorean embassy listed among London’s five-star hotels. Plus, he can’t use any free tickets to those West End shows.

It may be easy for others to conclude that Snowden is a hero, but heroes don’t always get an immediate ticker-tape parade.  We’ve only recently gotten close to the concept of honoring our own service members who fought in unpopular wars. Heroism usually requires a price of some kind, which Mr. Snowden is already paying.

Personally, I would prefer we spend as little time and money as possible on this fellow. And perhaps we’ll be a little more careful before we hire government contractors in the future.

One piece of advice, though, Ed: If I were you, I’d be careful to avoid open spaces. With this administration’s penchant for using drones, well, a round of golf might be a really bad idea right now.

A Missed Opportunity in Syria

In opening the “stats” for this blog today and looking at the “all-time” list covering four years, I was surprised to find that No. 3 of the most-read posts – and the only one listed for 2012 – concerned Syria, It was “Send a Message to Assad,” posted in March, and to spare you reading it, the blog suggested that if the West took out just one Syrian tank or one piece of heavy artillery, perhaps with a drone strike, the Syrian president would get the message that the free world disapproved of what he was doing -- that we didn’t want to go to war with him, only that he should stop using a mechanized army to slaughter civilians.


But the talking heads were already on the air, listing all the reasons why the U.S., or any group outside of the U.N. framework, shouldn’t get involved militarily in Syria. We provided the Syrian rebels with communications equipment, etc., but were reluctant to supply them with heavy weapons, because they might fall into the wrong hands, meaning Al Qaida.

Well, that was 20,000 lives ago, and this week we hear that the Syrian forces are now using old Russian cluster bombs against the population. Cluster bombs are typically dropped from the air and open up to release “bomblets” that spread out and are effective at killing large numbers of people on the ground. They are banned by international agreement, which the U.S. has not signed. (One of the reasons given, I read today, is that modern cluster bomblets are smarter and can be individually programmed to hit the right targets. Great...!) I wonder what the regime will use next, when it's really cornered.

The general in charge of the Free Syrian Army was on “60 Minutes” Sunday and said that when the Assad regime is removed, the Syrians who come to power will never forgive the West for standing by while people were being slaughtered. As for Al Qaida, well, he said, they’d accept help from anyone willing to give it to them. So whose hands do we think Syria is going to fall into, exactly, thanks to our having done virtually nothing?

Former Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski said on NPR that we’d be nuts to get involved militarily in this situation, that the region was like a huge pool of gasoline, into which we’d be tossing a match. Well, the pool is still there, and unless something changes, there’s going to be a bigger fire, whether or not it’s our match that sets it off.

It's way too late for us to get involved now. But history, I guess, is going to have to tell us whether we were wise to stay out of Syria, or whether we blew a significant opportunity. As for President Assad, it’s ironic that someone trained as an ophthalmologist could be so blind.

Back in the USSR

Today, one of my Facebook friends, who has not pulled the plug on me – yet – reminded me that I should count my blessings and not the number of FB friends. Another, hearing the news about the sentencing of three members of the Russian female band Pussy Riot for “hooliganism,” reminded me that with all the fussing that’s going on in this country righr now, at least it isn’t Russia. There’s one for the blessings list!

This band staged an anti-Putin protest in a Russian Orthodox cathedral. Inappropriate, perhaps – but getting locked up for two years? By those standards, we’d have to build a huge new prison here for the folks at Fox News and another for those at MSNBC. Poor CNN, their problem is these days that they can’t get arrested – but that’s another story.

This Pussy Riot thing will be one to watch. The Putin regime has a repressive track record, most recently supporting the regime in Syria and blocking action there by the rest of the world -- but this time, in a social media age, entertainment celebs – young women – are being messed with, band members who have the support of Paul McCartney and Madonna. Keep an eye on this one, folks – this story will definitely have legs. Those who have lived for decades under repression of various types tend to be a little passive, but will this incident wake up the Russian people?

The only saving grace here is that Mr. Putin tends to care what people think of him. He has expressed support recently for leniency toward these young women. What do you want to bet that he steps in and commutes their sentence (I assume he can do that), so the rest of the world will think he’s a nice guy after all?

Time to Intervene in Syria?

There is a long list of reasons why Western powers have resisted military intervention in Syria during the current uprising. Here are a few, in no particular order:

1. The situation is too complex.
2. Russia and China voted against the Security Council resolution.
3. The opposition to the Assad regime is splintered.
4. Assisting the opposition would lead to civil war, and perhaps regionwide war.
5. An attack which leads to the ouster of Assad will open the door to Al Qaeda.
6. Americans are weary of war; besides, the U.S. can’t afford another one.
7. Involvement would spark a new round of terrorism against the West.
8. Iran, Syria’s ally, might close the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation, causing an oil crisis.
9. Further instability in the region would threaten Israel.
10. It’s none of the West’s business; it's an Arab issue.

Against all these – and perhaps others which haven’t been mentioned here -- there’s only one argument for intervention: STOPPING THE MURDER OF CIVILIANS.

Which of these reasons is the most compelling?