The View from Right Field

Syria, Iraq and the Meaning of “Unilateral”

When, and if, President Obama attacks Syria with the active support of France and just about nobody else, let us hope that he and his Administration will finally stop talking about the war in Iraq being “unilateral”.  Not only did Britain, Australia and Poland contribute troops to the invasion of Iraq, but another thirty countries sent troops to Iraq afterwards.  Nine countries, in addition to the United States, sent 1,000 or more troops to the Multi-National Force - Iraq. (See here.)

I understand countries are encouraging President Obama to take action from behind the scenes, but in Iraq, in addition to those providing troops, there were countries, like Kuwait, openly providing logistical and support.

A Difference Between Syria in 2013 and Iraq in 2003: Congressional Approval

The New York Times reports that Administration aides are adamant there is no comparison between what President Obama might do in Syria today and what President George W. Bush did in Iraq ten years ago: 

“Mr. Obama’s rationale for a strike creates a parallel dilemma to the one that President George W. Bush confronted 10 years ago, when he decided to enter into a far broader war with nearly 150,000 American troops in Iraq without seeking an authorizing resolution in the United Nations. The Obama administration says that case differs sharply from its objectives in Syria.

In Iraq Mr. Bush was explicitly seeking regime change. In this case, White House officials argue, Mr. Obama is trying to enforce an international ban on chemical weapons and seeking to prevent their use in Syria, or against American allies.

‘We have been trying to get the U.N. Security Council to be more assertive on Syria even before this incident,’ said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. ‘The problem is that the Russians won’t vote for any accountability.’ …

Mr. Rhodes and other aides rejected comparisons between this case and that of Mr. Bush in 2003, and noted that Mr. Obama was still actively seeking allied participation. ‘There is no direct parallel with 2003, given that the United States at that time had to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction in a country where we were going to do a military intervention aimed at regime change,’ Mr. Rhodes said.”

There is one other difference between what President Obama might do in Syria over the next period of time and what President Bush did Iraq in 2003, a difference that neither Mr. Rhodes nor the Times’ reporters mentioned:  President Bush got prior Congressional approval, as did his father before him in 1991.

Why All the Leaks on Syria? The Cynical Theory.

I have no problem with the Administration talking about Syria – if the purpose is to convince the American people why we need to do something there.  What I do not understand is why there is so much in the media about how and what and when we would attack.  The Wall Street Journal had it yesterday.  So did ForeignPolicy.com.  And today’s Chicago Tribune print edition has it, too.  (See this link to the article on The Los Angeles Times website.)

The question is why.  Admiral (ret.) William Fallon, former head of the military’s Central Command, said:

"I have no earthly idea why they're talking so much.  It's not leaking out; it's coming out through a hose. It's just a complete head-scratcher."

According to ForeignPolicy.com:

“David Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general who commanded the no-fly zone over Iraq in the late 1990s, said that military action was most effective when a U.S. foe like Assad didn't have a clear sense of the timing and severity of a potential strike and couldn't take protective measures in advance like dispersing his troops or weapons so they'd be harder to find and destroy. The administration's public and private comments, he said, meant that Assad would have an easier time figuring out when and how to prepare for a U.S. assault. 

‘You don't want an adversary to know what's coming,’ Deptula said. ‘Now Assad does.’”

It’s almost as if the Administration feels it has to do something – because of the “red line” the President drew last summer.  On the other hand, they don’t want to get Russia or Iran too mad.  Therefore, by telegraphing what we are going to do in, and to, Syria, we give Assad time to react, which reduces the harm to him.  Which reduces how upset Russia and Iran get with us.  So we look like we are following through on our threat, but Russia and Iran don’t get too mad.

Is that too cynical?  It’s about the only thing I can come up with – other than incompetence.

Troops in Afghanistan After 2014? No More Golf, Mr. President, Until You Decide.

Obviously, President Obama has not made any decision about how many, if any, troops will be staying in Afghanistan after 2014.  As I mentioned here, the decision was late a month ago, but nothing seems to be happening, unless it’s being done secretly.  (That seems a little unlikely given all the leaks we are seeing re Syria.)

Among the possible reasons for the delay are: he can’t figure it out (which I understand; it’s not easy); he doesn’t care (I hope that’s not it); or he hasn’t had enough time to get to it.  Since there is nothing I can do about either of the first two, let me make a suggestion on the third, i.e., that he hasn’t had enough time to get to it:  No more golf until he decides.  That should motivate him!

Syria: Are We Really Going to Do Something – Someday?

According to today’s Wall Street Journal:

“The Obama administration hardened its stance against Syria and stepped up plans for possible military action, dismissing as too late the regime's offer to let United Nations officials inspect areas where the U.S. believes Damascus used chemical weapons last week.

The White House and Pentagon signaled the U.S. wasn't backing away from a possible showdown despite apparent efforts by the Syrian government to ease tensions by letting U.N. inspectors visit areas near the capital where hundreds were killed, allegedly by chemical weapons. …

In keeping with Mr. Obama's goal of avoiding deep U.S. involvement, the leading military options presented to the White House wouldn't require American warplanes to fly through Syria's heavily guarded airspace, officials briefed on the plans say.

Rather, the options call for pinpoint strikes with cruise missiles, most likely from warships that have been moved into the eastern Mediterranean, within striking distance of Damascus.”

Apparently, the model, if that is the right word, for what President Obama may do in Syria (if he determines his “red line” has been sufficiently crossed that he actually has to do something*), is President Clinton’s bombing of Serbia in 1999.  This would involve either cruise missiles (as mentioned above) or bombing from so high an altitude that Syrian air defenses can’t hit us (like Serbia in 1999)**.

But before he does that, he needs to determine two things.  First, what he wants to accomplish, and second, how he is going to get it done.  His answer to the first, i.e., what he wants to accomplish, will depend on how much he is willing to do.  It probably should not include getting rid of Bashir al-Assad unless President Obama is willing to commit to doing a lot more than I think he is interested in doing.  On the other hand, it has to be something that looks significant.  The goal should probably be related to Syria’s chemical weapons and/or its use of them, and it has to be more than just “bomb once and leave”.  It has to be significant enough so that the rest of the world won’t think: If that’s all that happens to us when we use chemical weapons or otherwise cross a red-line with the United States, it’s no big deal; we can handle that.

Then he has do it.  He has to accomplish it.  We already look weak enough.  A failure to accomplish our goal this time would make us look even weaker and that would be dangerous.

President Obama may wish he did not have to do something in Syria, but you don’t always get what you want.  When you are superpower, sometimes you have to act because the consequences of not acting are worse.  This is especially true when you draw red lines.  Superpowers can’t bluff.  If you draw a red line, you have to mean it.
----------
* And assuming he doesn’t decide, in the words of Emily Litella, “Never mind”.

** And which are somewhat inaccurate.

Definition of Diplomacy

While going through some files, I found this definition of “diplomacy.”  I thought it was worth posting, though I am not sure it is true of the current administration:

“Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘nice doggy’ until you can find a rock.”

As Egypt Burns and We Watch

On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal had a debate between two former Bush (George W.) administration appointees on what we should do in Egypt.  John Bolton said the U.S. should back the Egyptian army (subscription required).  Elliott Abrams said we should cut off military and economic aid, both because it is required by U.S. law* and because it is in accord with American values (subscription required).

So who is right?  I don’t know (though I suppose my heart is with Mr. Abrams).  But while I am not sure whether aid should be cut off or not, it is important to understand what is involved here.  If we do decide to cut off aid because, inter alia, the Foreign Assistance Act requires the suspension of foreign aid when a military coup ousts an elected government, we should be clear that we doing so because the Muslim Brotherhood government was “elected,” not because the Muslim Brotherhood government was democratic.

The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood government was elected does not mean Egypt was a democracy or that the Muslim Brotherhood was democratic.   The key to democracy is not electing a government.  Rather, it is being able to get rid of a bad government.  In an article in The Economist in 1988, Sir Karl Popper said it this way:

“In ‘The Open Society and its Enemies’ I suggested that an entirely new problem should be recognised as the fundamental problem of a rational political theory.  The new problem, as distinct from the old ‘Who should govern?’, can be formulated as follows: how is the state to be constituted so that bad rulers can be got rid of without bloodshed, without violence?

This, in contrast to the old question, is a thoroughly practical, almost technical problem.  And the modern democracies are all good examples of practical solutions to this problem, even though they were not consciously designed with this problem in mind.  For they all adopt what is the simplest solution to the new problem – that is, the principle that the government can be dismissed by a majority vote.”**

If the key to democracy is removing a government, as opposed to electing one, then, as I said, the election of the Muslim Brotherhood government in 2011 did not make Egypt a democracy.  In the United States, for example, the proof of our democracy was not the election of George Washington in 1789.  Rather, it was John Adams leaving office in 1801.  Election of a government is a step toward democracy.  Peaceful removal of a government is confirmation of democracy.

If this, i.e., the peaceful removal of a bad government, is the definition of democracy (or, alternatively, if this is what Egypt should want in its government), what is the best way to get there?  Would it be a continuation (or reinstallation) of the Muslim Brotherhood government?  Or is it more likely to come, eventually, from the Army coup?

Framing the question as a matter of being able to peacefully remove a government, as opposed to merely electing a government, may make the question of what to do harder to answer.  After all, if the Muslim Brotherhood was duly elected, then restoring the Muslim Brotherhood would establish a duly elected government.  But who is more likely to let themselves be peacefully removed?  Or, perhaps, a better way of asking it would be this:  Which of the two, the Muslim Brotherhood or the military, is more likely to turn into or eventually result in a government that would let itself be peacefully removed?  While one can’t know for sure, my guess is that it’s the military.  The attacks by the Muslim Brotherhood on Coptic Christians gave us no confidence that a Muslim Brotherhood government would ever let itself be removed peacefully.
---------
* Section 508 of the Foreign Assistance Act provides as follows (here and here):

“None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance to any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree.”

** Sir Karl Popper, “Popper on Democracy: The open society and its enemies revisited,” The Economist, April 23, 1988.

Darwin Barney: Not the Cubs’ Biggest Problem – By Far

In today’s Chicago Tribune, a reader asked Mark Gonzales, Cubs’ beat writer:

“How long are the Cubs going to go with Darwin Barney at second base?  He has hit terribly all year, and even his defense hasn’t been as good.  What other options are there?”

First, here is Mr. Gonzales’ response:

“As for Barney, it’s been an off-year at the plate, but I like the way he’s produced in some tough late-inning situations at St. Louis and in the second spot recently. I know that’s a small sample size, but he’s not the only one who has struggled.

Barney would be the first to tell you he’d like to erase those four errors, but he’s among the elite fielding second basemen in the National League. There is no alternative yet (although Arismendy Alcantara is an intriguing prospect), and I’d expect Barney to rebound in 2014.”

Second, here are my thoughts:  I understand that Darwin Barney is batting .215, but Anthony Rizzo is hitting .229 and Starlin Castro is at .238.  I am not sure I see the difference.  In any event, Barney has four more RBIs than Castro and just one less home run.

And that doesn’t include the fielding, where Barney has four errors and Castro has 16.  I realize shortstops have more errors than second basemen, but the difference between four and 16 is a lot.  Also, while Barney’s four errors may seem like a lot after he only had two all last year, that is an unfair comparison.  He tied a major league fielding record for consecutive games without an error by second basemen last year.  A more appropriate comparison is the nine errors that Brandon Phillips of the Reds has committed this year.

Would it be good if Darwin Barney was hitting a little better?  Absolutely, but his hitting is not the Cubs’ biggest problem – by far.

Chicago Cubs Pathetic Stats: Stolen Bases Edition

What does it say about the roster the Chicago Cubs have assembled that the team leader in stolen bases is – Alfonso Soriano, who is 37 years old and has been gone since July 26?

The Christian Massacre in Egypt

In January I predicted that, “[w]hen Bashar al-Assad is finally overthrown, the group that will suffer the most (other than, possibly, the Alawite sect) will be Syrian Christians.”  That is clearly happening to the Coptic Christians in Egypt today.  The Muslim Brotherhood is going after them.  Details are here and here.  I don’t need to repeat them.

I would repeat, however, Kirsten Powers’ call on the Obama administration to, in my words, get off its golf course and do something.