The View from Right Field

What You Get When You Have No Strategy

In an interview in The Wall Street Journal yesterday, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that, in the words of the Journal, “the real problem with U.S. policy [in the Middle East and with respect to ISIS] has been the absence of any clear strategy like the one that guided the U.S. in the Cold War.”  Mr. Gates continued:

“‘We all implicitly accepted [George] Kennan’s view that if we contained the Soviets long enough, their internal contradictions would finally lead to their collapse, even if nobody had any idea when.

‘If you accept the premise that we face a generation-long period of turbulence and violence in the Middle East, the lack of an overarching strategy for how you react to a region in flames is a problem.  Are there fires we should just let burn out?  Who are our friends?  Who should we support?’”

2016: Vote Like the World Depends On It. It Does.

While we await Hillary Clinton’s almost inevitable nomination (at least that is what I am told by a former Democratic operative I know; i.e., a former operative, not a former Democrat¹), the show is on the Republican side.  I watched the Republican debates Thursday night for the first time since back in August.  (As I tweeted Thursday night, the absence of Donald Trump made for a  good debate.)  In August, I watched because I was in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, and there wasn’t much else to do.  Thursday night I watched to learn something – about the candidates.  And since the debate was on Fox News, I thought I might.²  The Fox News people asked good questions in August, and I figured they would do so again last night. They did.

In February of last year, I said the Republicans had an embarrassment of riches when it came to presidential candidates.  It hasn’t quite turned out that way.  Of the eight good (or at least decent) candidates I mentioned back then, four are already out of the race.  And several of those who are still in the race make it an embarrassment, as opposed to an embarrassment of riches.

On October 16, 2015, I talked about the importance, for domestic policy, of electing a Republican president in November.  I did the same with respect to the First Amendment on November 29.  Now it’s foreign policy’s turn.  I have written, more than once (for example, here and here), about the problems caused by President Obama’s foreign policy.  It’s going to take the next president a long time to recover from the problems of the last seven years, if it can even be done in four (or eight) years.  For example, damaged credibility takes a long time to rebuild.  Even if a president is able to convince other countries that the red lines she or he draws actually mean something, how many countries may hope (or worry, depending on which side they are on) about that president’s successor.

Citizens United: Would You Trust the Opposition to Enforce Limits on the First Amendment Against You?

With the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary upon us, and the sixth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC last Thursday, we are once again hearing the outcry against the Citizens United decision.  Listening to its critics, one would think Citizens United was the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott, if not the worst ever. 

This is a heavy burden to put on a decision that merely said Congress could not prohibit corporations (i.e., groups of people organized in a corporate form, whether for-profit or not-for-profit¹ {as opposed groups of people not organized as a corporation}) from using general treasury funds² to engage in political speech in favor of or against a candidate within either 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.  The decision did not relate to issue ads (i.e., ads that do not call for the election or defeat of a particular candidate), spending by candidates, parties, individuals, and PACs, or anything else.  Still, Citizens United is blamed, usually by liberals/progressives, for most of the ills in politics today. 

But I do not want to get into that argument – or the argument as to whether the decision is correct under the First Amendment.  Rather, I want to just raise one question.  Assuming Citizens United was wrongly decided, and Congress and the states do have the right to prohibit groups of citizens from pooling their money in a corporate form and then using the money to advocate the election or defeat of specific, named candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election, who gets to enforce the law – and how?

Robert Gates on the Rise of the Islamic State

In December, I wrote a fairly lengthy post on Iraq and the Islamic State entitled “Did George W. Bush’s Invasion of Iraq Create the Islamic State?”  Following up on the question of “the why” of the Islamic State (or ISIS or ISIL), former Defense Secretary Robert Gates talked with Business Insider on the two main factors that enabled the rise of ISIS.  Here are some excerpts from the article:

“‘I think the primary reasons for the rise of ISIS are the Syrian civil war and the policies followed by the government in Baghdad,’ Gates told Business Insider on Monday. …

But the US still did perhaps play a role in the burgeoning conflict as well, Gates suggested.

‘You can argue all day long whether the absence of US forces had an impact on’ the rise of ISIS, Gates said, admitting that ‘the absence of senior leadership that was able to mitigate some of the sectarian conflicts in Iraq probably had some impact on the willingness of Maliki to follow these wrong policies.’ …

David Petraeus and Hillary Clinton. One Was Convicted and Faces Demotion. The Other Is Running for President.

A couple of exclusive stories yesterday combine to raise a very interesting question about Hillary Clinton’s email system.

An exclusive story at The Daily Beast reported that Defense Secretary Ash Carter is reviewing General David Petraeus’s misuse of classified information and is considering whether to retroactively demote General Petraeus, even though he officially retired almost four years ago.  According to The Daily Beast:

“Carter is said to be concerned that because he has recommended other generals be reduced in rank for actions not becoming an officer, he’ll be seen as inconsistent if he doesn’t do the same for Petraeus.  The decision is as much about timing and politics as it is Petraeus’s own transgressions. 

‘This is about Ash Carter, not David Petraeus,’ the defense official said.”

Fox News had the other exclusive.  They reported that, according to an unclassified letter from the Intelligence Community Inspector General, I. Charles McCullough III, a review of emails on Hillary Clinton’s personal email server identified several dozen additional classified emails. 

Ramping It Up in Afghanistan – Even Though President Obama Announced the End of Our Combat Mission There in 2014

Remember how, in December of 2014, President Obama announced the end of our combat mission in Afghanistan? It wasn’t true at the time, and it hasn’t been true since.  Now it’s even less true.  The Wall Street Journal reported today that the White House has authorized our forces in Afghanistan to attack ISIS (a/k/a Islamic State and ISIL) in Afghanistan. 

According to the Journal:

“The move came in response to a request in December by Defense Secretary Ash Carter for broader authority to expand the fight against Islamic State in the country as the group’s strength grows there, stretching the legal mandate of American forces to include offensive action.

Until now, such action by U.S. forces in the country technically has been limited to targeting al Qaeda and the Taliban – not Islamic State, whose operations primarily have been focused in Iraq and Syria.  Only in cases in which commanders believed U.S. forces in Afghanistan were in danger could they conduct operations against members of the militant group, who just months ago were seen as establishing a sleepy outpost with only loose affiliations to Islamic State.”

31st Annual Cubs Convention – January 15-17, 2016: Part Two

Following up on yesterday’s post about Joe Madden, here are some random comments on the Cubs Convention:

The Cubs screwed up during Opening Ceremonies Friday night.  There was a nice picture of Ernie Banks in the Convention program, but they didn’t mention Ernie Friday night.  This was the first Convention since Ernie passed away.  There should have been a moment of silence.  There wasn’t.  (When somebody mentioned this during the “Cubs Business Operations Update” session on Saturday, Crane Kenney, who has an unusual relationship with the truth, tried to claim that they did mention Ernie Friday night, saying Ernie was in the video.  Any mention of Ernie in the video was in passing at best.  Crane should have admitted it was mistake, but Crane has problems with things like that.)

At “Friday Night with Ryan Dempster,” Demp called out Anthony Rizzo for totally blowing his prediction last year that the Cubs would win the National League Central.  As Ryan noted, not only did the Cardinals win the division, the Pirates beat us out, too.  Hopefully, Rizzo will do better this year.

Iran Nuclear Agreement: An Update and an Apology

With the harshest sanctions on Iran having been lifted, and with the release of five Americans being held by Iran (admittedly in exchange for the United States granting clemency to seven Iranians and dismissing charges against fourteen others), President Obama said yesterday that the nuclear agreement with Iran is proof that a “smart, patient and disciplined” approach is better than war. 

That is obvious.  President George H.W. Bush proved that again and again.  Germany united and East Europe free – all without war – is proof of that.  As was President Reagan’s agreement with the Soviet Union to remove all intermediate range nuclear missile from Europe.

However, George H.W. Bush is also proof that sometimes, unfortunately, diplomacy doesn’t work.  When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, President Bush tried diplomacy.  But it didn’t work.  It took force to get Iraq out Kuwait.  (Most Democrats back then voted against the authorization to use force against Iraq {even though the United Nations Security Council had already approved it}.)  They said we should give sanctions a chance.  In that regard. regardless of what you think of George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, approved by a lot more Democrats than the number who voted for the use of force in 1991, Iraq’s decade-long failure to comply to UN resolutions after 1991, which was at least part of the reason for the 2003 invasion, showed that a year or two of sanctions was not going to do the job.)

31st Annual Cubs Convention – January 15-17, 2016: Joe Maddon

This is my ninth annual report on the annual Chicago Cubs fan convention.  I’m not going to report on the big sessions with the Ricketts family or Theo and Jed.  Those have been in all the newspapers and elsewhere.  Instead, I wanted to report on a session they had with Joe Maddon.  In a separate post tomorrow, I will mention some other, miscellaneous things.

The session we were at was called “Morning Joe.”  Ron Coomer hosted.  Ron led off with a few questions and then opened it to the fans.  While we¹ were all impressed by Joe Maddon as a manager, because of the results he got last year, listening to him talk about how he manages and why was even more impressive.

Maddon said that when he first started interviewing for manager jobs, he told the team he was interviewing with that his only rule was to run hard to first.  (Last year he phrased that as “respect 90 [feet]”).  If you did that, everything else followed.  For pitchers, since he was interviewing in AL and pitchers don’t bat over there, his rule for them was to get into their defense and work on it.  That really does get to the essence of the game.  If the position players and the pitchers each do this one thing, you won’t need to worry about anything else.  Because if they do this, they’ll do everything else right, too.  (As an aside, let me note that the best fielding Cubs pitcher is Travis Wood.  One simple example.  Next time you see him pitch, either at the park or on TV, watch him throw to first on a ground ball back to the pitcher.  He doesn’t underhand it or give it one of these little flips.  He takes the ball and throws it, properly, like an infielder.  A simple throw that won’t get messed up.  Just like Greg Maddux did – and he got eighteen Gold Gloves for fielding as a pitcher.)

Why Don’t We Feel Richer if the Economy Keeps Growing?

The economy is growing.  It is grower slower than many of us would like, perhaps, but it is still growing.  So why don’t people feel better off?  Many Democrats say it’s because of rising inequality.  All of the growth is going to the rich, they claim.  There is nothing left for the rest of us.

But I wonder if that is the whole story – or even most of it.  Let me suggest another possibility.  While the economy is growing, a lot of that growth is going for things other than higher wages.  It is, instead, going for things that use up the growth but don’t make us feel all that much better off, it at all.

The Wall Street Journal had an editorial Wednesday about the cost to companies of providing health insurance for the children (actually adults) of employees up to age 26.  The editorial quoted a study by researchers at Stanford and Harvard that estimated, for employees at large companies, the extension of health insurance to adult children under 26 resulted in effective wage reductions of approximately $1200 per year per employee.  This wasn’t a direct wage cut, obviously.  It was more of an increase that didn’t happen.  After all, if health insurance costs are up, there is less money to spend on increases in salaries.  In other words, because benefits cost more, wages go up less than they would otherwise go up, if they go up at all.  While getting your kid covered by your health insurance feels good, it doesn’t feel the same as a wage increase.  It’s functionally the same, but it doesn’t feel like it.